Gordon Harvey AIKEN

AIKEN, Gordon Harvey, Q.C., LL.B.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Parry Sound--Muskoka (Ontario)
Birth Date
September 26, 1918
Deceased Date
February 12, 2000
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Aiken
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=ed12247f-6e06-4e1a-ab17-7b5e98dc6247&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
barrister, judge

Parliamentary Career

June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
PC
  Parry Sound--Muskoka (Ontario)
March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
PC
  Parry Sound--Muskoka (Ontario)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
PC
  Parry Sound--Muskoka (Ontario)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
PC
  Parry Sound--Muskoka (Ontario)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
PC
  Parry Sound--Muskoka (Ontario)
June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
PC
  Parry Sound--Muskoka (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 463)


June 14, 1972

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):

Mr. Speaker, was the government of Canada consulted before the decision was made to abstain on the interim resolution? Were instructions given by Ottawa?

Topic:   ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Subtopic:   STOCKHOLM CONFERENCE-CANADIAN POSITION ON RESOLUTION TO BAN NUCLEAR TESTING-FURTHER STEPS TO OPPOSE PROPOSED TESTS BY FRANCE
Full View Permalink

June 1, 1972

Mr. Aiken:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on this matter. The point is that the amendment is relevant to the main motion and is actually on the same subject matter. It is merely the latter portion of the amendment which would provide a different remedy. I think this is perfectly consistent. The main part of the motion moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway remains in the motion. The amendment merely alters the general procedure in dealing with the problem. I believe it is certainly relevant to the original motion. I do not think I need refer to Beauchesne in too much detail. Citation 203, however, states:

The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject-matter with the original motion, they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto.

I think that is a clear and straightforward answer to the question which arises in Your Honour's mind. It is relevant. It is on the same subject matter as the original motion. That leaves it fairly broad. I believe that if one were restricted narrowly in respect of amendments, one would find difficulty in moving amendments. The hon. member who has just moved the amendment has not changed the subject matter of the original motion. His motion would merely alter the means by which the problem of the steadily rising food prices can be met. I think this is such a minor change in the nature of the motion, that it does not substantially affect it. I really cannot see any difficulty which would arise.

If the amendment were accepted and voted upon, it would merely mean that there would be concurrence in the motion has introduced and in her general statement. However the remedy would be slightly different. Instead of the subject matter being referred to a special committee for investigation, it would be referred to the Prices and Incomes Commission. I cannot see any real difficulty here.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Full View Permalink

May 30, 1972

Mr. Aiken:

Foreign investors are using the savings of Canadians, deposited in Canadian banks, to take over Canadian companies or to establish new industries in this country.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT
Full View Permalink

May 30, 1972

Mr. Aiken:

Ambiguous is a good word.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT
Full View Permalink

May 30, 1972

Mr. Aiken:

That is what I object to most. I have heard much talk about preventing foreign capital from entering this country. I do not object to bringing in foreign capital when it is used to develop our country. As happens so often, the representatives of large financial institutions or international corporations bring no money at all to this country when they establish new plants or take over old ones. When they come, they bring with them nothing but their credit. They establish credit with local banks. They show that they possess sufficient collateral and deposit it often in the form of stock of their parent company.

On the strength of these securities they can borrow enough money from Canadian banks to carry on the business they want to take over. Following that, they use the savings that we Canadians are stupid enough to put into our banks and that national policy is stupid enough not to force into Canadian investment. This is not a case of bringing in foreign funds. In many takeovers not one cent of foreign money comes into this country and is used in the takeover. I do not think we ought to permit this situation. That is the sort of thing this bill might well have been directed against. As I said before, we welcome foreign capital that comes into our country to be used for development. In Ontario, where I come from, and in several other provinces this has been happening over the years.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT
Full View Permalink