But I mean that in many cases, a province may quite well claim to be-
-even if its interest is rather marginal. Then a conflict may exist.
What is even more important is that situations may arise where the interest of a province or of a group of provinces will obviously be poles apart from that of another province or group of provinces. Then the mendatory formal consultation process might very well amount to a federal-provincial conference without a very clear decision being reached at the end of the debate.
Anyway, I wanted these arguments to be on record. I also wished to point out the dangers of this formal consultation as implied, a few moments ago, by the hon. member, that is to determine when a consultation is valid and when it is not. To force the central government to consult with the provinces or vice versa amounts to virtually including as a prerquisite for a marriage contract that love should exist. All this is somewhat redundant.
At all events, I wanted to prove that if this consultation were mandatory, it might create real problems.
As for the second part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, it reads as follows:
-the effect of the acquisition on the industrial and economic policies of each such province.
This wording-if I may be a bit harsh-is defective since the problem is not to know, what might be the effect of this acquisition on the industrial and economic policy of the province, but whether this acquisition is compatible with the industrial and economic policy of the province or provinces involved.
I simply point this out to show that the wording of this amendment is somewhat defective, at least in my opinion.
Subtopic: FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT