May 12, 1993

IND

Alex Kindy

Independent

Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present on behalf of 5,000 Albertans a petition in memory of all children who have suffered at the hands of others.

The petitioners request that we re-establish capital punishment for child murderers and stiffer penalties for child molesters. They say that if we cannot protect our children from the people who commit these crimes then who will?

May 12, 1993

Government Orders

Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation against this type of offender.

He * *

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   PETITIONS
Sub-subtopic:   VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN
Permalink

QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER


(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


PC

Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence; Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 479 and 515.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
NDP

Ms. Mitchell

New Democratic Party

Which training programs offered by the Department of Employment and Immigration have (a) a literacy component (b) an English/French language training component?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
PC

Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

Mr, Speaker, training programs offered by Employment and Immigration Canada that have:

a) A Literacy Component:

Purchase of Training

Project-Based Training

Youth Initiatives (Literacy Corps)

These components are under the Employability Improvement Program.

b) An English/French Language Training Component:

Purchase of Training *

Project-Based Training *

Labour Market Language Training (LINC)

* These components are under the Employability Improvement Program of the employment program.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
NDP

Mr. Laporte

New Democratic Party

With respect to the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan (GRIP) (a) how much is spent nationally and in Saskatchewan on administration and (b) what is the total amount of money paid through the plan to farmers nationally and in Saskatchewan?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
PC

Charles James Mayer (Minister of Agriculture)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan (GRIP), the total estimated administration costs for the year 1992-93 are:

a) Nationally $40 million Saskatchewan $17 million

The total estimated pay-out to fanners for 1992-93 with respect to the GRIP is:

b) Nationally $1.5 billion Saskatchewan $450 million

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
PC

Andrée Champagne (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Madam Deputy Speaker:

The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
?

Some hon. members:

Agreed.

He * *

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
PC

Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence; Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):

Madam Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Permalink
PC

Andrée Champagne (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Madam Deputy Speaker:

Shall all notices of motions stand?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Permalink
?

Some hon. members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Permalink

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

INVESTMENT CANADA ACT


The House resumed from Tuesday, May 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-89, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.


LIB

Dennis Joseph Mills

Liberal

Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):

Madam Speaker, as I was saying yesterday before we concluded, I realize that the government will use its majority to put through these amendments to the Investment Canada Act. The operative agency is Investment Canada. Nevertheless I felt it was important we were on record flagging our concerns about the way the government has altered the approach to foreign investment from that of the previous government.

The example I used yesterday was the example of Mercedes-Benz and Freightliner. Here was an example

May 12, 1993

where Mercedes-Benz wanted to have more retail outlets for its cars in Canada. I remember in 1981-82 we said to Mercedes-Benz: "There is no way you are going to sell more of your product in Canada unless you give us a firm commitment that you are going to maintain the manufacturing of the Freightliner trucks in British Columbia".

As I stated yesterday Mercedes-Benz really did not want that imposition by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, FIRA. The company fought it and we maintained our ground as a government. Ultimately the company honoured the commitment to Freightliner.

Today Freightliner, which operates out of St. Thomas, Ontario, has about 600 manufacturing jobs. I guess it was last year that the former president of Mercedes-Benz told me when I ran into him at a luncheon in Toronto: "I was certainly mad at the Foreign Investment Review Agency in 1981-82, but I can report to you today that Freightliner is now one of the most profitable divisions in Canada under the Daimler-Benz or Mercedes-Benz umbrella".

That is for me the way the Investment Canada operation should function. It should be functioning in that way. When people want to come to Canada to do business it should be challenging them to set up manufacturing concerns. In fact in my view it should be giving them firm advice that this is the way we expect them to do business in Canada. We do not just want them to come here, set up a warehouse, hire an ad agency, market their product and have a few sales people. We want them to come here and do some research and development and some manufacturing.

What has happened in the country in the last few years is that we have just seen a retreat from research and development and a retreat from manufacturing. I believe that this all goes back to chapter 14 of the free trade agreement.

Essentially I am a free trader. I am not against Canada trading around the world. I have always had a pretty progressive attitude toward trade. We have to have an understanding and a regulation by sector and there has to be some sense of fair play in this.

The Prime Minister even said this before he was elected in 1983 in my riding when he was campaigning to

Government Orders

be the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. He made the statement that unfettered, unlimited free trade with the Americans would be no different than a mouse sleeping next to an elephant. Somehow he forgot that commitment he made in 1983 and here we have chapter 14 of the free trade agreement.

I want to be on the record. This is not the first time for me. When I was campaigning in the last election I flagged this chapter as the one area of the free trade agreement that was ultimately going to lead to a Government of Canada calling in on the abrogation clause.

I really wish Canadians could go to their libraries or call their local MPs and ask them for a copy of chapter 14 of the free trade agreement, which is the chapter that really deals with the sovereignty of this country. It is the chapter that is directly related to this bill, Bill C-89, with the amendments to the Investment Canada Act. It has to do with the whole approach in terms of when people come to this country and the terms and conditions under which they do business.

I want to quote directly from article 1402 of this free trade agreement that says basically: "Subject to paragraph 3 each party shall accord to persons of the other party treatment no less favourable than that accorded in like circumstance to its persons with respect to the measures covered by this chapter".

Point two says: "The treatment accorded by a party under paragraph 1 shall mean with respect to a province or a state treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment accorded by such province or state in like circumstances to persons of the party of which it forms a part".

My concern is that there have been too many instances where we have not been given equal treatment under this section of the free trade agreement.

Of course the government agency or body that has been responsible for making sure that that type of treatment is being maintained is the Investment Canada section of the Government of Canada. When I hear of instances like the General Motors van plant in Scarborough shutting down and moving to Flint and about organizations that are shutting down and retreating to the United States, then I get very concerned that chapter 14 of the free trade agreement is not working the way it was intended to work.

May 12, 1993

Government Orders

I am concerned about the government agency Investment Canada.

I have always been a supporter of the notion that we need foreign investment in this country. We need an exchange of technology. We need manufacturing. We want companies to come here and set up their manufacturing concerns. I really think our negotiating skills in making sure part of the package is that they manufacture here have wilted away. We do not seem to have the same political will today to meet that objective as we did a few years ago.

Today we debate amendments to Bill C-89 and the government will put this bill through with its majority. I want to go on record as saying that I have concerns about the direction Investment Canada has been taking in the last few years. I especially have concerns about the fact that chapter fourteen of the free trade agreement has really not met the stated objective of the government's campaign in 1988.

The minister of trade and the Minister of Finance will stand and give all kinds of examples where certain sectors of the economy have surges in exports. I happen to think the main reasons those exports are up has to do with not only our levels of productivity but also our rate of exchange in terms of dollars. I still believe if we had mandated companies to keep their manufacturing businesses in Canada they still could have maintained their profitability. We still could have maintained those jobs and the economy would have been much healthier than what we are dealing with today.

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

Nelson Andrew Riis (N.D.P. House Leader)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Riis:

I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the flow of the excellent debate, but I think you will find there has been discussion among all parties in the House of Commons.

The House has agreed that debate on Bill C-106 at second reading stage is completed. A vote has been called for and will be deferred until May 25, 1993 at 6 p.m., at which time the vote will be taken.

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

Marcel R. Tremblay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister; Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance; Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport))

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):

Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House agree to support this proposal.

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

David Kilgour

Liberal

Mr. Kilgour:

Madam Speaker, I am not aware that the debate has been concluded and therefore this party will not agree to that proposal.

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

May 12, 1993