May 2, 1985

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

INVESTMENT CANADA ACT


The House resumed from Wednesday, May 1, consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and Motions No. 19 (Mr. Axworthy) (p. 4313) and No. 20 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 4314).


NDP

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse (Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):

Mr. Speaker, when my remarks were interrupted by the adjournment of the House last evening I was discussing the reason we need an agency to review foreign investment. Canadians ask themselves, very legitimately, if we want foreign investment which cannot meet the test of being of significant value to the Canadian economy, which the previous Bill required. I also mentioned that the Government seems to be putting great stock in this Bill as it is the first and only economic measure which it has proposed in an attempt to turn around the dreadful unemployment rate in Canada. The Government seems to be throwing the responsibility for job creation to the private sector. Regrettably, with the rhetoric we have heard concerning this Bill, the Government seems to be relying almost entirely on the foreign private sector to create jobs. It is time we asked ourselves if that makes sense. I suggest that it does not.

The Investment Dealers' Association of Canada has pointed out that more than 95 per cent of the investment needs of Canada can be met by internal sources. If the economy was functioning at full capacity, instead of the restricted capacity at which it is functioning now, the investment needs would be surplus to the amount of investment which Canada could absorb.

The Government seems to spend a great deal of time attempting to copy the example and policy of the United States. I think the Government has missed the very significant differences between the U.S. and Canadian economies.

First, the savings rate in Canada far exceeds the savings rate in the United States. The Canadian rate is double or triple that of the rate of savings in the United States. That is one of the reasons, which the Investment Dealers' Association of

Canada has pointed out, that even with the depressed state of the economy Canadians can still raise over 95 per cent of Canada's investment capital.

A second significant difference between Canada and the U.S. is that the U.S. has had a trade deficit for the last four years and Canada has generated a trade surplus. Canada generates plenty of investment funds. It does not have to rely on foreign investment to get the economy moving.

If we look at the current account, we will see that for the first time in some months the Americans have a deficit. That tells us that the U.S. is beginning to rely on foreign investment, so much so there is beginning to be some question about the possibility of the U.S. being able to refinance its investment needs. In fact, most analysts have agreed that interest rates are so high in the United States because of the shortage of investment funds. The United States is hiking up interest rates and cannot attract money from outside.

I submit that Canada would make a great mistake if it followed that practice. Canada would end up charging more interest than it needs to, given the strong underpinnings of our economy. In short, the Government would be much better off concentrating on "made-in-Canada" interest rates in order to make use of the great amounts of money which are generated within Canada. If that were done, Canada could become self-sufficient in investment needs, and would be able to reap the benefits of the continued and accelerated ownership of Canadian goods and services by Canadians.

When we do set out to achieve Canadian ownership of key resources and sectors of the economy, we can be successful. While there were some problems with the National Energy Program, I think that programs preceding it and that program itself as it applied to Canadianization of the industry showed some progress. We went into that particular program owning about 11 per cent of our natural gas and oil reserves and refining capacity. Seven or eight years later that proportion of ownership had approached 30 per cent. I think that is a very good turnaround for Canadians in that period of time.

This assisted the creation of more control and ownership in Canada. It has meant that head offices are employing people in Canada. It has meant that the technology which the industry uses, because the decisions are made in Canada, tends also to be contracted within Canada. I am using that as an example, but it presents all of the arguments for some Canadian control over the type of foreign investment we have.

Because of the lack of time, I won't be able to describe a couple of recent cases where foreign investors received an advantage over potential Canadian investors, a form of dis-

May 2, 1985

Investment Canada Act

crimination which has gone on far too long in this country and which passage of this Act will only make worse.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
LIB

Don Boudria

Liberal

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to have an opportunity to participate in another debate on this Bill, particularly on Motion No. 19. I was somewhat hesitant to rise, Mr. Speaker, because I wanted to give the opportunity to Hon. Members of the Conservative Party to speak. I know that deep down inside they want to participate. Be that as it may, I guess they just won't be able to do so. They have probably been prohibited by someone on the Tory side. They have been whipped into line again and won't be able to say what they want to say. So I would like to take this opportunity to say it for them, as I think those Hon. Members opposite need and are looking forward to our help.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Oh, oh!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
LIB

Don Boudria

Liberal

Mr. Boudria:

I can tell from some of the noises coming from the book-ends over here, Mr. Speaker, that that is indeed the case.

The position of our Party is that the Minister and the committee chairman, of course, had rejected Liberal efforts in the past to make a positive contribution to this Bill by giving the Minister the power to promote investment by Canadians. The Minister only wants to exercise negative powers, as we all know, and then very rarely. The Minister seems not to be interested at all, unfortunately, in either participating in this debate himself or even to avail himself of those powers and then share them with his cabinet colleagues. He wants to exercise that authority himself and have that secretive type of discretion which we know is becoming an all too familiar approach of this Government.

I thought that some of the Hon. Members of the Conservative Party, who want a more open Government and who have campaigned on that theme during the last election campaign, would have stood today and demanded from the Minister that this whole process be changed.

I received a little pamphlet which I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker. It is entitled "Speakers Bureau of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada". It says that if one has a meeting someplace, one can phone that group and they will send back-benchers, Members of Parliament, Senators and Parliamentary Secretaries to speak in one's riding. This is misleading advertising, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) should investigate this. We in this House know that Conservative back-benchers do not speak. I have yet to see a Conservative back-bencher speak on this issue, save and except, perhaps, the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) who spoke for a few moments a few days ago. But the Hon. Member who is sitting at the other end here today should be making an important contribution to the debate on this Bill. He has factories in his riding, and the workers in those factories who want their jobs protected want him and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Ms. Jacques), and all the others, to participate in this debate.

We would hope that they will say that they want this Bill to be modified in the way that Liberals propose.

S)

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Oh, oh!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
LIB

Don Boudria

Liberal

Mr. Boudria:

Of course, if the Minister really had the interests of the Canadian people at heart, if he really wanted to do the proper thing, he would withdraw the Bill entirely. But we know that that is not likely to happen, so we have attempted to put forward a series of strong and constructive amendments to convince this Government that the Bill could be salvaged somewhat, given a certain willingness on the part of Conservative members to understand that the modifications are indeed very necessary. We have not had the opportunity of convincing them so far, but we will continue to make our point and speak forcefully in this House on behalf of the people of Canada because the back-bench Conservative members are either unable or unwilling to do so. I am sure you understand this, Mr. Speaker, and that at an opportune time you of course would want to say this on behalf of the people of Canada because of the unwillingness of the Conservative members to do so.

We in our Party want to make the sharing of information with other Departments and agencies a formal duty of the Minister. We remember from the Domtar case and others that this particular Minister, and perhaps others who will succeed him in the future, does not have the regional interests of this country at heart.

I see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) sitting across from me. He will know, because he knows how government does business, being in charge, in a way, of letting government contracts, that this can sometimes lead him into controversy. But the fact that he is familiar with how government does business, and being a Minister from Quebec, he will know, and so will the Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner), that it is important to have that regional input into those kinds of decisions which may have an adverse effect on Canadian jobs. One of the best ways to prove this is to look back at the Domtar issue and several others in which unilateral decisions were imposed on everyone by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). I see my friend across the way is shaking his head in disapproval but he knows, being the good Member that he is, that many, many people had to lobby the Minister, and ultimately the real power in the Cabinet had to tell the Minister what to do, otherwise that province would have been forgotten. Well, on many other issues there may not be the intervention that there was in this particular case. Ministers would have their way individually and not act in the best interests of our country.

That holds true on several other issues. We know the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has some rather unique views, shall we say, on the issue of foreign investment. He believes all investments should be allowed to come in, even if it means eliminating Canadian jobs.

May 2, 1985

I remind you again of the issue I raised with you only a few days ago about the member from the Simcoe area who stated publicly that FIRA had not been strong enough to stop the take over of the Black & Decker factory in his riding and the eventual loss of hundreds of jobs. This was a Conservative member saying that FIRA was not strong enough. I am sure that when he is given the opportunity to vote on this Bill he will stand up and vote against the proposed Investment Canada legislation; he has already stated that the existing legislation needs to be strengthened, not destroyed. I find it unusual that that Member, who made such strong statements, did not participate in this debate. I challenge him now to stand up and make a contribution on the record, indicating how his constituents feel about this issue. He was quite forceful during last summer's election campaign when he talked to the good people of Barrie. He told them that he, as a Member of a Government of his Party, would not have allowed that takeover. They won that election and are in power-not that I like it, but nevertheless they are in power temporarily until the next election. They had promised to strengthen the legislation to ensure that there would not be take-overs that would unduly affect their constituents.

Rather than introducing measures to help small business, to assist the farmers of the country, or the people on social assistance, the Government's first priority was to help out the large multinational corporations. That is the priority of the Tories, Mr. Speaker. What happened to the beautiful promises they made to the people of Canada? They forgot them. They made 338 promises and probably around 325 of them will never be fulfilled.

That is enough to cause a backbench revolt by some of those very forceful Tory backbenchers who want the Government to do something to help small business and want to strengthen investment review legislation in order to ensure that jobs are not lost. Instead, they sit on their hands in the House, not even making a contribution. They do not say a word while the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is perpetrating this vicious attack on the Canadianization of our industries. When the Bill was introduced all Members on the Government side who were in the House that day applauded the legislation. They sat in their places applauding legislation which was contrary to the promises they made to the voters of their riding in the last election campaign.

The Government should withdraw the Bill entirely. However, the very least it can do is to approve whole-heartedly and speak in favour of Motion 19 as proposed by my colleague.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
NDP

James Douglas Manly

New Democratic Party

Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to make a few remarks on this fourth group of amendments and to indicate my support, as well as that of other New Democrats, for Motion Nos. 19 and 20. Motion No. 19 was moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and Motion No. 20 was moved on behalf of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).

Investment Canada Act

Both of these motions relate to Clause 6 of the Bill which reads:

There is hereby established an agency, to be known as Investment Canada, to advise and assist the Minister in exercising his powers and performing his duties under this Act.

Both of these motions are intended to ensure that this agency known as Investment Canada will have a degree of independence and will be able to perform the functions for which it is intended. While Investment Canada is supposed to assist the Minister, we believe that the assistance the Minister needs must be of a very broad nature.

Motion No. 20 reads:

That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line 14 at page 5 the following:

"(2) The Agency shall have the power to ask for policy directives from the

Governor in Council as it deems necessary."

Very simply, we on this side of the House believe that Investment Canada should be able to appeal to the entire Cabinet rather than be completely under the thumb of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens).

Clause 7 of the Bill states that the Governor in Council shall appoint a person to be the president of the agency, to hold office during pleasure. Clause 9 points out that other officers and employees of the agency will be appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act. The president will be appointed by the Governor in Council. We hope that the president will not simply be another patronage pay-off to another Tory hack.

We urge the Government to implement its promise that there will be an all-party committee of the House that will vet senior appointments such as this to ensure that we do have a president of Investment Canada who will have an independent mind, a broad grasp of the issues and an understanding of the implications of Investment Canada, particularly with respect to investment by non-Canadians Ih-a great many areas. Some of those areas that are particularly sensitive include culture, energy and resource development.

We believe it is necessary to appoint someone of independent mind, with a broad capacity to be aware of the implications affecting these many areas. That person should be able to receive advice from employees in the agency, because many concerns will go far beyond the scope of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.

Although there are 40 Cabinet Ministers, far too much power is already concentrated in the hands of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. A number of Ministers, such as the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew), do not have their own departments and we believe that if we are to have 40 Cabinet Ministers they all should have some real power. That is the reason for our Motion No. 20 that would give Investment Canada the right to appeal to the entire Cabinet.

Bill C-15 will increase the power of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to a dangerous level. We have already

May 2, 1985

Investment Canada Act

seen how the views of the Minister are not necessarily those of his Cabinet colleagues. For example, he was completely opposed to doing anything to help the Domtar situation, yet some of his Cabinet colleagues who were closer to the situation and more sensitive to it saw that there was a need for Government action in this area. Thankfully, the Minister was overruled.

Our Motion No. 20 simply provides that the agency will be able to go directly to Cabinet. This is particularly important when we are dealing with non-Canadian investment in such areas as culture or energy. I see we have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) with us this morning. I would be interested to hear his opinion on this amendment. Would the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans like the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to have the absolute discretion about investment in fish processing plants and aquaculture? Does he agree with leaving that absolute discretion in the hands of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, a person who knows absolutely nothing about the field with which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is concerned?

[DOT] (M30)

We want to see a more independent agency that has access to Cabinet at times of real concern. If the Government follows our suggestion and appoints a person of some independence of thought and mind, if the Government follows its own promises and establishes an all-Party committee to vet senior appointments like this, then we would not simply have just another Tory hack, another patronage pay-off, but someone who might have some legitimate concerns that he or she would want to take to committee. I urge support for Motion No. 20.

Motion No. 19 moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry spells out the powers of the Minister that this agency is supposed to assist. Those powers, as spelled out in this motion are to help:

-the Minister in exercising his powers under this Act, to secure notifications and conduct reviews of investments by non-Canadians under this Act, and provide to other relevant federal Departments and agencies information about means to stimulate investment by Canadians in Canada.

These powers are very important, Mr. Speaker. We believe the intention of the Bill should spell them out.

Investment Canada should have information about notifications of investment. The Investment Canada Agency should be able to look at and examine these investments and determine whether or not they really are in the best interests of all Canadians. It should be able to conduct reviews. While we are abolishing the Foreign Investment Review Agency, there will has to be an element of review even though Members opposite might not like it. There still has to be somebody charged with the responsibility of ensuring that investment is for the benefit of Canada. There should be somebody charged with coordinating information and making sure that other government Departments are responsible. This fits in very well with our Motion No. 20 that would give Investment Canada direct access to Cabinet. It should have access to other federal Departments and be able to call them in to make sure that any

investment is co-ordinated to serve the best interests of all Canadians.

What we want is to strengthen Investment Canada so it can serve the real purposes of all Canadians. This is not a good Bill. We are not happy with it. We would like to see it improved in certain key areas, by strengthening Investment Canada, by giving the Agency access to Cabinet and by spelling out the powers and duties of the Minister that Investment Canada is supposed to assist. We do not want the Minister simply to have carte blanche for his open door policy. We want to see some vestige of a review process, and we want to see wherever possible that Investment Canada will have the option of going to Cabinet when it has a concern, and not be completely under the thumb of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

Dave Nickerson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):

Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief words on what is taking place today on Motion No. 19 and Motion No. 20. Having listened again to the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) and the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), it is very apparent that hon. gentlemen opposite have run out of things to say on this Bill. They have become extremely repetitive. I would admit that on occasions these two gentlemen do have good ideas and do have something to contribute to debate in this House. At the present time though they have run out of ideas. What we are witnessing is something we very often get at report stage on a Bill where there is a wide difference of opinion between the Parties represented in the House of Commons.

A number of motions have been introduced, not with the idea that they add or take away anything from the Bill, but just as a vehicle for debate and prolongment. The motions we are dealing with here are frivolous motions. They are meaningless. They are senseless motions.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
LIB

Jean-Robert Gauthier (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Liberal Party)

Liberal

Mr. Gauthier:

That's nonsense.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

Dave Nickerson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nickerson:

The Opposition is using the occasion for delay. I do not mind the Opposition doing that. I spent a lot of my life on that side of the House. I am glad I am not there any longer. I am quite happy to be on this side. But what we will have to think about in the future is changing the Standing Orders of the House of Commons dealing with report stage on Bills.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
LIB

Jean-Robert Gauthier (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Liberal Party)

Liberal

Mr. Gauthier:

Speak to the motion.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

Dave Nickerson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nickerson:

When we have a Bill of this nature the Opposition feels obliged to put motion after motion on the Order Paper and have these debated ad infinitum, thereby forcing the Government to bring in time allocation. That is something we do not want to do. We have been very lenient so far in this debate. There is no threat of time allocation closure as long as Opposition Members behave themselves-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Oh, oh!

May 2, 1985

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

Dave Nickerson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nickerson:

-are nice and get this over with in a reasonable period of time. I ask Members of the Opposition not to force us to bring in time allocation on closure. I think we have to look at the rules of the House of Commons so we can allow the opportunity for a certain amount of delay-that is the only real power the Opposition has-but at the same time not force the Opposition into forcing the Government to bring in time allocation on practically every Bill where there is a great difference of opinion between the two sides of the House.

With respect to Motion No. 20, this is one of the most peculiar motions I have ever read in this House. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) who introduced this should go back to law school and take a course in legislative drafting, because the motion is meaningless. It purports to give to the agency the power to ask for policy directives. Any one can ask for a policy directive. I can ask for a policy directive. One does not have to write that into legislation.

If we really want to take a look at what it says here and draft it properly, what we would be saying in the Bill would be the other way around. It would say the Governor in Council shall have the authority to give policy directives to the agency. If that is what was said here, can you imagine, Sir, the howls of indignation that would come from the benches opposite? The Governor in Council is the Cabinet for all intents and purposes and we would be hearing that we have in law set up an agency that is supposed to conduct its affairs with some degree of objectivity, yet here you are giving a bunch of politicians who form the Cabinet the power to overrrule them. That is what is really being said here. If that was translated into proper, legal legislative language, I am sure opposition Members, particularly those in the New Democratic Party, would be absolutely against what they are trying to say here. It makes no sense whatsoever.

If we look at the motion introduced by the former Minister of Transport, we see that it is completely superfluous and redundant. All one has to do is read Clause 5 of the Bill. The agency is supposed to advise and assist in the exercising of all the powers and duties of the Minister by virtue of the existing Clause 6. They are all listed already. They are precisely the things which are repeated again in Motion No. 19. There is absolutely no need for it. All it is is a vehicle for debate and prolongment. There is no way that we on this side of the House will vote for something which is as nonsensical and as redundant as Motion No. 19. All these authorities are already given; all the directions are given to the Minister by the House of Commons, by the Parliament of Canada, in Clause 5.

In conclusion, I would like to make an illustration or give an example. When we had FIRA in the country, it was the big brick wall. Everybody was up against FIRA. It was an agency of Government, and its objective appeared to be to stifle investment in Canada. It was the agency which always said no. It was a very negative agency.

Investment Canada Act

In this Bill we are trying to do quite the opposite. We are trying to establish a positive agency which can be a repository for advice, knowledge and expertise in the field of investment in Canada, both by Canadians and by non-Canadians. When people walk into the office of the new agency, they will be welcomed. They will be told that we want them to invest and to create jobs in Canada. They will be told that we want profitable businesses in Canada. If they are profitable, then we can tax them. We will not subscribe to the old Liberal ideas where we have to say no to everything. We will not tell them to keep out, that we do not want their business or that we are not worried about jobs and profits.

Two or three years ago I had the opportunity to visit Malaysia which had an agency in some respects similar to the one we are trying to establish under this Bill. In talking with the members of that agency, in comparison with crossing the street and talking with FIRA people here, it was like night and day. Although there were the same kind of political problems there as there are in Canada, in that they were worried about an excess of foreign ownership and having to put on some degree of control, just as we are doing with this Bill, the whole emphasis or attitude was different. It was: "Come on in and we will try to facilitate the making of your investment because it will be to the benefit of both of us". That is what we are trying to do with this Bill.

I hope the Opposition Parties will quit using delay, will state the case and be prepared to vote on the Bill so that we can get the Act into effect as quickly as possible and start creating jobs and investment opportunities in Canada.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
LIB

Jean-Claude Malépart

Liberal

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House after the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). As far as the Hon. Member saying that the motions proposed by Opposition Members were stupid, I would like to inform the Hon. Member that I have never heard a stupid person make such a stupid speech in this House.

Mr. Speaker, while Opposition Members have from the outset been trying to explain the logic of-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lanthier:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

Marcel Danis (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

The Hon. Member for La Salle (Mr. Lanthier), on a point of order.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink

May 2, 1985