June 7, 1993

PC

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

Progressive Conservative

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):

Is there unanimous consent to proceed to the third reading?

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

Some hon. members:

Agreed.

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 read the third time and passed.

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 apologize that the title is so long. The three proposed amendments to the Investment Canada Act under Bill C-89 are intended to facilitate the attraction of more international business investment to Canada. The amendments will help Canadian companies attract the capital and technology they need to grow and compete in an evolving global marketplace.

Globally the role and importance of international investments have resulted in fierce international competition for capital and other benefits which come with investment, technology, management skills, market access and jobs.

The Investment Canada Act recognizes that Canadian prosperity was dependent not only on welcoming international investment but also in establishing a business and investment climate in Canada that would encourage increased levels of investment by Canadians and non-Canadians.

As the minister has stated, the creation of such a business and investment climate has made Canada a more attractive site for domestic and international in-

Govemment Orders

vestment. A major reform of the tax system and substantial deregulation of the transportation, telecommunications, energy and financial services sectors has helped to open the Canadian economy to international competition and investment. Bill C-89 represents a further step on the track to attract, facilitate and increase international business investment in Canada.

The first amendment will extend to investors in the oil and gas sectors the same review thresholds that apply to other sectors of the economy under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. For U.S. investors this will raise the thresholds above which an acquisition becomes subject in the act to $152 million for direct acquisitions. There is no review for indirect acquisitions.

For all other international investors thresholds for review will remain at $5 million for direct acquisitions and $50 million for indirect acquisitions.

Canadian owners of oil and gas properties will be able to sell their properties to any investor for the best return and rationalize their holdings. Similarly international owners may now make acquisitions which have a strategic fit with their existing holdings. The over-all result will be an enhancement of the value of the resource base for all investors and a stronger Canadian exploration and producing industry.

The second proposed amendment will enable Investment Canada to enter into agreements with Canadian companies or business associations to share the costs of programs and initiatives designed to attract international capital and technology to Canadian companies. Such international investments and investment partners are critical to the ability of Canadian companies to compete, grow and provide jobs for Canadians.

Since 1989 the agency as part of the federal government's investment development program has worked with many Canadian companies to assist them in finding them international investment partners. During that time Investment Canada has facilitated deals between Canadian companies and international investors as part of the federal government's investment development program. An increasing number of Canadian companies and business associations are now prepared to share the cost of seeking international investment and finding investment partners.

Government Orders

The third amendment relates to the cultural sector. The support of a strong cultural sector is a priority of the government. The amendment will give the minister new powers to determine whether or not a business entity in the cultural sector is Canadian controlled.

The retroactive provisions are designed to discourage an investor from quickly completing an investment which could not withstand the scrutiny of the minister using new powers as of June 19, 1992. Investment Canada is active in promoting Canada as an attractive investment destination. The main thrust of the amendments to the Investment Canada Act is to increase the attractiveness of Canada's investment environment and to facilitate cost sharing between the private sector and governments in seeking investment initiatives.

Clearly this legislation is in the interests of Canada and the economic development opportunities for all Canadians. I encourage all members of the House to give it their support.

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

David Kilgour

Liberal

Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on this bill, and I believe the hon. member from Montreal will also speak to it.

I think it was indicated earlier that an amendment of mine would have said that investors from the Asian Pacific region and from places other than the United States should have the same right to invest in the oil and gas sector in Canada as do the Americans under this bill.

It seemed to me and I think to members of the committee that it was not very sensible to say one group of investors, albeit important ones living to the south of us, can invest in the Canadian oil and gas industry but someone from Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia or any other place among the two billion people who live on the Pacific Rim would not have the same right.

Therefore my amendment would have simply said that everybody would be treated the same. It seems to me that is a pretty reasonable thing today when everybody from Kiev to virtually any comer of the earth now is looking for foreign investment and investors to invest in their economies to make them more efficient and so on.

We would be treating non-Americans the same as we treat Americans under this bill. Perhaps it was you, Mr. Speaker, who made the ruling that the amendment was out of order and went beyond the terms of the bill. I must defer to that ruling. The Canadian economy is being opened up almost weekly. Although, as my colleague will say, the cultural industries are in fact being tightened up with respect to foreign ownership. I believe she will have comments on that issue. The rest of Canadian industry is being opened up to foreign investors and that is not always, but mostly, to our neighbours from the south.

A brewery in the United Stated is buying 20 per cent of Molson Breweries. AT&T is acquiring 20 per cent of Canada's new long distance phone company Unitel. American Airlines is seeking 33 per cent of Canadian Airlines International. The three American companies Mobil, Chevron and Murphy will end up owning approximately two-thirds of the Hibernia oil field as I am sure one is aware.

There have already been substantial foreign investments in Canada's energy sector. Consider Alberta's oil sands. I wonder if anyone knows that this constitutes a veritable Saudi Arabia in Canada's own backyard in terms of its oil reserves potential. Increasingly, Americans and more recently people from Japan and China have invested in our oil sands.

Mitsubishi Oil America now has 5 per cent of Syncrude which is one of the great Canadian success stories in terms of turning an enormous resource into jobs, income, profits, income taxes and so on.

JAPEX has invested $6.5 million in the Alberta oil sands technology of horizontal drilling.

Last year a Chinese oil company, the China National Petroleum Corporation became the first foreign investor in the oil sands research facility at Fort McMurray, Alberta. The Chinese will invest $6.5 million over the next two years in AOSTRA.

In April of this year the acquisition of control of Westcoast Petroleum by a group of Hong Kong based companies was approved. Those investors intend to support WPL's business plan which calls for an increase

June 7, 1993

in capital spending in Canada from $53 million in 1992 to $96 million in 1997. That represents a lot of new jobs and a lot of opportunities for young people coming out of our universities and people with trades and people with a desire to work in the oil sector in western Canada. They will also seek to introduce WPL to oil and gas exploration and development opportunities in China and other countries in the Far East. This hopefully will not include Burma until the democratic government takes over there.

There is also the question of Numac Oil & Gas Ltd. which is based in Edmonton and the fact that that company will indirectly fall under ownership by people who live primarily in Hong Kong. Then of course there is the famous 1991 case of the Hong Kong financier, Li Ka-shing, who spent $250 million to complete his Husky Oil takeover.

In many countries around the world foreign investment laws have been liberalized to reduce or eliminate restrictions on foreign ownership and to place foreign investment under more equal footing with local investors. Governments have also introduced legislation aimed at reducing taxes on foreign remittances or on foreigners reinvesting profits in the local economy.

One might be interested in knowing that the Japanese share of foreign direct investment in the U.S. has climbed from 6.2 per cent in 1980 to 16.2 per cent in 1989.

Where does all of this leave us? I know that there are many people who do not want to see further takeovers of Canadian industry by non-Canadians. There is 11.4 per cent unemployment. Some 40,000 to 50,000 people in my own city are now officially unemployed. Employment is largely a function of investments and the more investment we can get in Canada-this is in my view and I am speaking only for myself-from any place in the world, then the more jobs that will be created in this country. Indeed, the next government, which I hope will be a Liberal government, will have to work very hard at setting a better business environment than this government in office now has done. I guess I would cite as example number one the last budget. It is probably one of the worst received budgets in Canadian history in the view of both Canadians and the foreign investor community alike.

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

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

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hockin:

No increase in taxes.

Government Orders

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

David Kilgour

Liberal

Mr. Kilgour:

All my Ph.D. friend can whisper across the floor is: "No increase in taxes". There is something that he does not want me to say but I think I should say it in the interest of fairness. This government, as everybody in this House knows, has either added or created approximately 38 taxes since it took office in 1984. The average family in Canada is now paying approximately $2,000 more in taxes since the Conservatives took over. That is one of the many reasons why, along with their profligacy, the helicopters being one of the first examples which comes to mind, they will be voted out of office no matter who they elect as the new leader.

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

John Paul Manley

Liberal

Mr. Manley:

Besides there were tax increases in the budget.

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

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

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hockin:

Name one.

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

John Paul Manley

Liberal

Mr. Manley:

The GST reduction in rebate to the poor is an increase in the fiscal year.

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

David Kilgour

Liberal

Mr. Kilgour:

Since we are talking about the GST, I have the most recent figures showing that abominable tax took in $29.6 billion in gross revenues last year. After reimbursements, tax rebates and administration costs were taken out it netted approximately $14.5 billion or less than 50 per cent on every $1 it took in. That should be in The Guinness Book of Records for the tax that took the most and netted the least of any government perhaps on the face of the earth. It is one of the reasons why we are proud to say that we will repeal that tax and ask Canadians how we can best replace the missing revenue.

I guess I am getting a little off subject, although I am not surprised that the minister who I think is retiring wants to-

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

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

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hockin:

No.

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

David Kilgour

Liberal

Mr. Kilgour:

Oh, excuse me. He is the only one today who is not retiring.

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

David Kilgour

Liberal

Mr. Kilgour:

At least not voluntarily. I think his voters will have something to say about that.

In conclusion, as an Albertan and the energy critic for my party I welcome the move in this direction. I just wonder why it has taken this government until its dying

Government Orders

days literally and the dying days of this Parliament to recognize that the world has changed and people in virtually every country on the face of the earth will now do virtually anything to attract foreign investment except, as I think the member for Mount Royal is going to say, in the area of cultural industries.

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

Sheila Finestone

Liberal

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):

Mr. Speaker, I intend to only address those sections of the bill that deal with the direct and indirect take over of the book publishing companies.

This Investment Canada bill addresses a very sensitive and important area of Canada's cultural life. It is an area where our writers are able to express a point of view and indicate from their own Canadian perspective matters that can have intellectual interest and importance. It leads to such writers as Michael Ondaatje winning the Booker Prize and Antonine Maillet winning the Gon-court Prize. We have all kinds of Canadian prize winners. We need to be able to build up from the base and strengthen the cultural potential which is found not only in book publishing but in all the other aspects of cultural expression such as film, video, dance, theatre, et cetera.

This particular bill directs itself to changes which the government is implementing in its new book publishing policy as announced by the Minister of Communications in January 1992. This new policy from the perspective of the Official Opposition establishes foreign investment rules with the potential to undermine the structures of the Canadian book publishing industry.

In an attempt to sell the deal to the Canadian industry, the government announced with a great deal of fanfare a $20 million subsidy to Canadian controlled publishers in an attempt to literally sugar-coat the bitter ownership policy and camouflage the real issue of what was taking place.

In presenting these new initiatives, the communications minister claims he was in the midst of strengthening the foreign investment rules and the new funding represents a substantial increase in federal money. That is really stretching it to say it mildly. If the impact of the postal subsidies alone was taken into account we would not really be addressing the question of this new $20 million fund which the minister was so pleased to announce.

It took the Association of Canadian Publishers a short while before it recognized this was no present. It was wrapped in very pretty packaging but when it was looked at and analyzed it realized that it really was not a very good idea. It passed a resolution at its meeting expressing great concern about the government's retreat from policies aimed at achieving Canadian ownership and control of the book publishing industry in Canada. It also expressed time and again its very firm opposition to any policy that would permit foreign takeover of Canadian-owned firms in book publishing and distribution.

Tb understand the new investment regime it is really necessary to know what it is replacing. I will give a little historic background. In May 1985 the minister at that time, the hon. member for Frontenac, established with the government's approval what was known as the Baie Comeau policy and we all know what a beautiful part of the world Baie Comeau is. He was in a position to table a very enlightened approach to book publishing which would have addressed much of the buy around problems and the sale of Canadian book sellers. The rules that he established at that time were to apply equally to all new investments as well as existing book publishers of Canadian origin in this country.

In a nutshell, if any existing owner decided to sell controlling interest it had to be sold to a Canadian. It was not a case of writing it off and telling it to divest. When the moment came if it was interested in selling to either a Canadian company or a company owned by foreign multinationals it had to be put up for sale to an indigenous Canadian company. If the takeover of a publishing company in Canada was either direct or indirect the end result was for it to end up in Canadian hands.

That was a very enlightened policy. The minister is to be congratulated for developing a policy to enable this industry to grow and flourish as Canadian cultural products and industry are growing in this land. In 1985 the government believed these changes were necessary and the key to strengthening Canadian industrial strategies and structures for the future.

Currently three out of four books sold in Canada are foreign. For this industry that really amounts to over $750 million leaving Canada each year as the book sales are in excess of $1 billion. Our markets are dominated by major multinational foreign companies. The Baie Comeau policy was to address that problem just as the foreign ownership limits on broadcasting were instrumental in repatriating the broadcasting industry in Canada in the late 1960s and built up the cable industry. We have very

June 7, 1993

successful and important entrepreneurial undertakings in this country. This was like the next step not in the broadcasting field but now in the book publishing field.

What were the results of Baie Comeau? Initially it was very exciting. It was very positive. There was significant progress made toward the objectives that were stated. The major retail chain, W.H. Smith, became Canadian controlled. An important book wholesaler, John Coutts Ltd., returned to Canadian ownership. The Doubleday Book Clubs were brought under Canadian control with a resulting fivefold increase in sales of Canadian authored books.

For the first time Canadian controlled publishers handled an increasing share of the distribution of imported books which amounted to about 70 per cent of the book sales in Canada.

The government should have been so proud of the minister's memorandum of understanding initiatives. They were productive and effective and it looked like we were heading toward a very exciting new future for book publishing in this country.

Despite assurances to the contrary, the government proved unwilling to implement the Baie Comeau policy after signing the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Is that not amazing? The free trade agreement just happened to interfere with the end goal sought by the United States. Who remembers the famous scorched earth letters that came from Ambassador Gotlieb when Prentice-Hall and Time Warner threatened us here in Canada with all kinds of sanctions? It was really quite a disgraceful display. Not only was the film distribution bill buried which would have allowed for the growth and development of our films, distribution and marketing program and projects, but again it impacted on our own publishing industry.

Legislative amendments that were needed to give the Baie Comeau policy teeth and require approval before rather than after investments were completed and require that real control rests with Canadians were never made. Although the minister was creative, he was never able to convince his colleagues. He did not get it through

Government Orders

cabinet which is just too bad and free trade won out once again.

It would have been marvellous if there was freer trade and a fair playing field. We could have had some sense that there was a part for all of us on the North American continent to have the kind of trade that would be good for everybody, for all the people who live in this wonderful land. That was too much to hope for from this government.

Canadians who actively tried to buy a company called Ginn Canada found out that real control was not for sale. I say real not in guillemets but in reality. Canadians could have equity control but not in decision-making or on the board. Any veto power remained in American or foreigners' hands.

What kind of business man would knowingly invest most of his money in an equity position in a company or business and then not have control over decisions about how to make the company work? Who would invest in such a decision-making process? Not very many enlightened people who have big money to invest would undertake such an activity when they would not be able to have real control over the company in the end. It would not be smart business at all. Needless to say Ginn Company remained in foreign hands.

The new and supposedly improved ownership policy now of this Minister of Communications will permit foreign takeovers of most companies. The exception is foreign acquisitions of businesses owned by Canadians. Now, that really makes sense does it not? These will not be allowed unless the business is in "clear financial distress". The irony here is that foreigners can sell healthy companies but Canadians can only sell sick ones. Tell me that makes sense. That is sick.

The government says its goal is still to strengthen Canadian ownership and control foreign investors. While generally allowed to buy control, foreign investors will be asked for commitments likely to benefit the Canadian controlled sector. They have not demonstrated much will to do that to date. I want to know what the incentive measure is that is going to make them do it now.

June 7, 1993

Government Orders

The $20 million a year in additional direct funding which the government said it provided as an incentive for Canadian control is far from that. Investment Canada, in this new environment, is only going to approve foreign takeovers of Canadian businesses if they are of net benefit to Canada and the Canadian control sector of the industry. The first big test took place on November 27, 1992 when Investment Canada approved the foreign takeover of HarperCollins by Rupert Murdoch's News International. Canadian publishers have been vigilantly watching this takeover. It is not the Liberal Party, not this side of the House, but the industry itself which disputes whether or not there is net benefit to the Canadian sector.

For example, recently Canada book publisher Avie Bennett argued with Investment Canada's statement that HarperCollins publishing had produced 111 new Canadian titles from June 1991 to June 1992. This was their claim, that they had improved and increased the Canadian market for Canadian publishers and Canadian writers. Bennett claims that in his search of the National Library catalogues it showed far fewer titles even if he included pamphlets and reprints in the survey. Something was a little bit wrong with how we did the counting.

Stan Cover, president and chief executive officer of HarperCollins Canada, says that in fact HarperCollins had published 20 more titles than Investment Canada's stated 111 titles. There is the dilemma. Who was right and who was wrong? Does it really matter as long as we just do not control our own companies? I am not sure it does, but my understanding is that the centre of the dispute here lies in the question of what is a title.

For example, does it include pamphlets and reprints of books originally published by others or is the printing of a book first as a hard cover, then second as a trade paper quality, two different titles or is that one title? These are the kinds of questions that Investment Canada needs to address before further acquisitions are allowed.

I had hoped that when this went to legislative committee this would be looked at. It is unfortunate that it was not.

Presently Canadians await Investment Canada's decision as to whether the foreign takeovers of Canadian subsidiaries Collier-Macmillan and Grolier will be allowed. These have been before Investment Canada for over two years without a decision. There we had HarperCollins, Grolier, Collier-Macmillan, Ginn, a whole series of these things.

Hearken back to what I said at the beginning, that at the very outset it looked like a very positive move forward and the industry was growing. Now we see the sad result of no positive action, no forward vision by this government in respect to the cultural industries.

The interest of the Canadian book publishing industry would be well served and still could be well served if Investment Canada within its undertakings and perhaps through regulations will at least require Investment Canada's approval prior to the takeover as opposed to after, which is presently the case. I would point out that this would be similar to the procedure with the sale or takeover of television or radio companies with the CRTC and telephone companies for that matter like B.C. Tel. I really think that has to be looked at very carefully.

The Minister of Communications has acknowledged the importance of strengthening the domestic book publishing industry and I support that statement. I wish he would put it into action rather than just language. He has invited the publishers to hold his feet to the coals to make sure he follows through on that commitment. We know this Minister of Communications likes to please everybody. The problem is we have not had any legislation that seems to please the forward movement and the growth and development of these cultural industries.

Unfortunately it is not the Minister of Communications who will be making the decisions. Maybe I am being unfair to the Minister of Communications because I do not know that he has much strength in there. It is not he who will make decisions on new foreign investments. It is the Minister for International Trade whose feet the American publishing industry has already very successfully scorched in a much hotter fire. What Canada's cultural industries need is strong action by this Conservative government, not just the fluff and the language of prepackaging. It is very good at that kind of marketing and sales. The only thing is that when you open that package it is empty.

June 7, 1993

What Canadian culture needs is a government that is committed to its growth and development, a government committed to understand that a country that does not have an identity is not a country of any value. It must recognize that only those countries that have promoted the arts and cultural industries and architecture and things of that nature have remained and left a mark in the evolution of world society.

Look at what this government has done to the Canada Council, forcing it into a remarriage that it does not want, cutting it and starving it. Look at what it has done to the CBC, Radio Canada International, Telefilm, the National Film Board, to all those agencies and organizations which are key and vital to the public lending rights which also is related to books and publishing and Canadian presence and Canadian return.

There is no commitment by this government to this whole sector. How foolish it is because it could be an enormous growing sector of the economy and bring billions of dollars into the gross national product of Canada.

With that I would like to say that this sector of the bill certainly does not speak in the interests of the book publishing industry and it is a regrettable fact but perhaps the government might tinker with it and fix it up under regulations.

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

Steve Butland

New Democratic Party

Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to deal with the contents of the bill after having proposed a couple of amendments, one of which I thought would be acceptable. It was not.

The bill is kind of ironic because on one hand it is suggesting that we open the doors for investment, particularly American investment. On the other hand through the cultural components of the bill, it will be as good or as bad as the next minister will be. If he or she chooses to use the anti-avoidance clause of this bill, it could have some teeth.

On one hand we laud that aspect of it but again it will very much depend on the desire and whim of the next minister. If that minister chooses to be Canadian culturally oriented it may in fact be a positive.

Government Orders

On one hand we are saying we must protect and if one were suspicious one would say on the other hand the bill says we should open the doors, Americans come on in. There will be no review of investment whatsoever.

This is dealing particularly and specifically with oil and gas but I think we would be loath not to bring in the whole mandate of Investment Canada. There have been

10,000 cases come forward for review by Investment Canada. The number that has been turned down is absolutely zero. Not one of those 10,000 was turned down.

Immediately one has to be suspicious. Canadians are probably not aware of this. I am sure when they hear the number zero for 10,000 they will immediately become concerned. They will say foreign investment is required. American investment is required but at the same time a complete open-door policy is not acceptable to us.

On the one hand we are saying let us open the doors for American investment. On the other hand we sign a free trade agreement which does just the opposite. In fact Canadian investment in the United States is outdoing American investment in Canada.

What is the reason for that? Free trade has encouraged Canadian investment in the United States and discouraged American and other investment in Canada.

I read an article just yesterday on North Carolina. They are doing a booming business there since free trade because it is called a right to work state, which means there is no minimum wage. There were tragedies beyond telling in North Carolina where these people work in factories, resembling the Maquiladora in Mexico, with absolutely no health and safety standards. In fact just two weeks ago we read about people trying to escape from a poultry factory and could not get out when there was a fire because the doors were chained.

There is no such thing as a workmen's compensation board. If in North Carolina your body breaks down because of the work load, so what? You are on your own. You are on the scrap heap. There are human tragedy stories that are in Canadian newspapers, Canadian publications, for all of us to see.

On the one hand we are saying: "Americans, come on in". But on the other hand it is really a discouragement. Why invest in Canada? This Investment Canada mandate says no reviews are necessary, absolutely none. There used to be a threshold of five. It had gone up to, I

June 7, 1993

Government Orders

do not know, around 152 million and now there is no threshold at all. That must give all of us concern.

The debate comes up from time to time as to how much foreign ownership is acceptable. We do not wish to discourage foreign ownership but without any review in place it is not acceptable. I think Canadians reject that.

As for unresolved investment issues, I used this at second reading but I think it is worthy of repeating. This comes from a supporter of the government, an economist who supports government policy: "Canadian negotiators were not as successful in other areas of negotiation with the United States. For one thing, Americans continue to refuse to abdicate their rights to apply extraterritorially to American subsidiaries operating in Canada". In other words the U.S. government reserves the right to apply American laws to subsidiaries of American companies operating in Canada. It does not need to have any due regard for Canadian law even though they are operating in Canada. This plays right hand in hand, arm in arm with trade policy.

All the trade harassment that is going on is based solely on American trade law and whether the Americans are applying trade law correctly or not. It is very easy to apply and it is very easy to get through their Department of Commerce, very easy. Their rules are there to protect industry. Our rules are here to uphold the law. We are great law-abiding citizens and we have put down Canadian law to be fair to everybody. We want to be fair to everybody, but in particular we want to be fair to the United States and to Americana investors.

We say that this legislation cannot be dealt with in isolation. It is part of a much larger package that has taken away from the Canadian government the ability not to restrict but the ability to have any say. It has taken away its jurisdiction over investment in Canada. All of these bills continually circumvent the Canadian identity, the Canadian sovereignty.

Not being against investment, we have grave concerns about the bill in isolation because it is a part of a much larger package. That is why we are opposed.

As I said earlier, it is ironic. There is the temptation to applaud the cultural components of the bill. We believe there is an anti-avoidance clause and we hope that that will be implemented, but once again that will be as good or as bad as the next minister would want it to be.

For that reason we will be opposing the bill.

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. DeBIois):

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. DeBIois):

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

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink

June 7, 1993