June 7, 1993

PC

Charles Deblois (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Progressive Conservative

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):

Is the House ready for the question?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
?

Some hon. members:

Question.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
PC

Charles Deblois (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Progressive Conservative

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
?

Some hon. members:

Agreed.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
?

Some hon. members:

No.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
?

Some hon. members:

On division.

Motion No. 1 negatived

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
NDP

Steve Butland

New Democratic Party

Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie) moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-89 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is a much more consequential one and impacts upon the legislation. It deals with the oil and gas sector.

For the benefit of those who may be watching and trying to comprehend exactly what we are up to, clause 3 would extend to U.S. investors and U.S. investors only in Canadian oil and gas enterprises. It would be the same review thresholds as apply to other sectors of the economy under the free trade agreement.

Is this free trade driven or is it legislation in isolation? We suspect that all along the Americans would be pushing and pressing for it and would have their way with us once again.

Under the free trade agreement some sectors of the Canadian economy have been opened to American investors in the sense that FTA permits higher thresholds for review of U.S. investments than for investments from other countries.

Other sectors however have been explicitly excluded from the favourable treatment under the free trade agreement. These sectors included oil, gas, uranium, financial institutions, transportation and culture.

However the bill will bring forward and remove that onerous restriction upon American investment. Clause 3 would remove the oil and gas sector from the exempted or reserved sector, an action that is consistent with the general thrust of the 1985 act, setting more liberal standards for an investment and setting more liberal

standards certainly for American investment without any sense of review.

We believe it is already suggested in the free trade agreement that we must guarantee the Americans access in times of energy shortage in Canada to the supply they are already receiving. This is a further aggravation of the free trade agreement. That is why we have suggested that this clause be completely deleted to ensure that oil and gas is protected like whatever little else is protected under our trade laws with the United States.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
PC

Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):

Mr. Speaker, I will just respond very briefly to my hon. friend by reminding the House that this amendment is of course the completion of the policy that was announced by the energy minister some months ago.

By increasing the threshold we in fact increase the access of opportunity for Canadian companies. It is interesting to note that the investments made by Canadian companies and the Canadian share of ownership of the oil and gas sector have in fact increased since that policy change was announced because of course it makes Canadian companies more attractive for investment purposes.

The issues raised by my hon. friend were discussed very thoroughly in committee and I think the points were adequately made there. It would seem that if the government were to agree to this amendment then it would have been pointless to bring forward the bill in the first place. This amendment would in effect nullify the bill.

We obviously feel that the bill would be beneficial to the industry. I think this has been demonstrated by the investment impact of the announcements.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
PC

Charles Deblois (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Progressive Conservative

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):

Is the House ready for the question?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
?

Some hon. members:

Question.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
PC

Charles Deblois (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Progressive Conservative

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):

The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
?

Some hon. members:

Agreed.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
?

Some hon. members:

No.

Motion No. 3 negatived.

June 7, 1993

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
PC

Thomas Hockin (Minister for Science; Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism))

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Tom Hockin (for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology) moved

that the bill be concurred in.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
PC

Charles Deblois (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Progressive Conservative

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
?

Some hon. members:

Agreed.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
?

Some hon. members:

On division.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


PC

Charles Deblois (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Progressive Conservative

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):

When shall the bill be read a third time?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
PC

Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McCreath:

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I think you will find there is consent to proceed directly to third reading.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink

June 7, 1993