1981-05-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the dismissal of Robert J. Bertrand, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Bureau of Competition Policy and Director of Research and Investigation under the Combines Investigation Act, by the Liberal cabinet, and as a result of questions recently raised by interference with the Advisory Council on the Status of Women by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), I move, seconded by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence):
That the House request the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to make a full statement on motions setting forth in detail the reasons for Mr. Bertrand's dismissal by cabinet, and that the matter be referred to a parliamentary committee whose mandate will include examining the present reporting relationship to cabinet of these officials, advisory councils and agencies, with a view to respecting the principle that all future appointments be approved by Parliament to ensure that the power of the executive is limited and the role of Parliament is enlarged.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter which I think all fair-minded members of the House will view as urgent and pressing under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
The SCA Chemical Services, hazardous waste disposal company of New York State petitioned that state to relax restrictions on the amount of chemical industrial pollution it is allowed to discharge into the Niagara River. Since millions of gallons of such waste are to be pumped from the SCA site through a five-mile pipeline into the river less than two miles upstream from the source of drinking water of literally thousands of Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
That this House goes on record as vigorously opposing any relaxation of New York State permit standards which will cause the Canadian environment to be polluted or the health of Canadians to be harmed.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that in the Third World 10 million babies suffer and one million die from starvation and disease due to bottle feeding every year, and that this situation has led the World Health Organization to introduce an international code to curb promotion of infant formula in developing nations, and in view of the fact that the United States government is on record as being opposed to this code, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House send a message to the U.S. government, informing it that Canada intends to support the international code, and asking that the U.S. government reconsider its position and vote in favour of the code in recognition of the fact that the World Health Organization is aiming to protect infant lives.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 20, 1981
9722__________________________


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Each day Liberal and NDP policies make it more expensive to eat and live in Canada. At the same time there are 39 widows of RCMP personnel who have pensions of less than $100 a month, a total of 193 receive less than $300 a month, and there are 216 children who are orphans and receive an average of $69.12 a month. Liberal policy has made it impossible for them to live on these amounts. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the Solicitor General immediately take the necessary steps to ensure that the widows and orphans of members of the RCMP who have served this country be given pensions which make it possible for them to live with dignity in the country.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRICE OF SYNTHETIC CRUDE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the government indicated its desire to settle the current oil pricing impasse with the producing provinces and its strong support for the continued development of Canada's oil sands resources, vital to Canada's energy future, and whereas the Suncor operation at Fort McMurray receives approximately $17 per barrel for its synthetic production, while Syncrude Canada across the road receives world prices, creating a situation where prospective oil sands investors might quite legitimately wonder if they too will be given the "Suncor shaft", 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources establish immediately a pricing structure for synthetic crude production which will eliminate this discriminatory pricing practice and encourage stabilization and development of the oil sands industry.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I seek the attention of all hon. members of this House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Considering the fact that Mr. Fair-weather, the Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in his fourth annual report dated March 31, 1981 to the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, recommended to this Parliament that Sections 9(2) and 14(C), sections allowing for the imposition of mandatory retirement, be deleted from the Canadian Human Rights Act; and in view of the fact that the same recommendation was made by the Special Senate Committee on Retirement Age Policies on April 15, 1980; and in light of the reality that non-discrimination rights based on age have been written into the proposed Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. Campbell):
That the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada introduce, before July 1, 1981, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act which would end the imposition of early mandatory retirement.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a very urgent matter under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the very serious situation which faces the farming economy with regard to record high interest rates, and an increasing number of bankruptcies among farmers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That the government take steps immediately to deal with the very serious situation of high interest rates to farmers.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
May 20, 1981


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 in an effort to obtain the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Recognizing that the government is proceeding with unnecessary haste with its metric conversion program, and also recognizing that the government has failed to take the necessary steps to ensure that the hundreds of millions of dollars required by small businesses to be spent on new metric scales will go to Canadian manufacturers of weighing and measuring equipment, and not to swell our balance of payments deficit on finished manufactured goods, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the government extend the easing-in deadline to ease the adjustment for small businesses and to enable Canadian manufacturers and suppliers to prepare themselves in order to supply this government-initiated demand, rather than foreign suppliers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OIL SUBSTITUTION PROGRAM INFORMATION-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In the October, 1980, budget the Liberal government announced the creation of the Canadian oil substitution program. At that time the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources promised that the program would start on April 1, 1981. Since it is now May 20 and the program is still another broken promise, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek):
That this House direct the government to make available immediately application forms and information for the oil substitution program to those Canadians who have been patiently waiting for seven months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, the Vancouver Rail Task Force, formed as a result of the 1977 Report on Grain Handling and Transportation in western Canada, is threatened with immediate extinction because of lack of funds, even though it still has important work to complete for the Vancouver terminal area. The government committed funds to this task force last September, yet Treasury Board has not yet released these funds. The money the task force has on hand will run out in 11 days. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
That this House declare its commitment to the continued work of the Vancouver Rail Task Force and that it call on the government to give immediate approval for the release of the funds which were committed to the task force last year.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, since the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is presently engaged in traversing Yukon and the Northwest Territories, ostensibly to find out what northerners think of Bill C-48, and the issue of the special terms of a whole host of oil and gas leases to Petro-Canada, as well as about proposed pipeline construction, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That this House congratulates the minister on his new-found sense of responsibility, but requests that in future he undertake the process of consultation before, not after, the relevant decisions have already been taken.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 20, 1981
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, and the subject is the government's deliberate high interest policy and the devastating results on all food producers in all regions of the country. The minister knows full well that bankruptcies are on the increase. Bankruptcies in the province of Ontario have increased 90 per cent. Forced sales, general dispersals, and the farm property listings for sale have increased, it is estimated, by ten times the normal rate. The minister simply talks about this problem. Canadian farmers cannot substitute the empty words of the Minister of Agriculture when they are required to pay interest rate charges. I want to ask the minister now, when can Canadian farmers expect to receive at least some relief and some action? He knows it is a serious problem.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, first of all I disagree with the preamble to the hon. member's question when he suggests that all farmers are facing this devastating experience because of high interest rates. That is just not fact, and he knows it is not fact. There are many sectors of the agricultural economy which have systems which take interest rates into consideration in the cost price formulae that they use for selling their product. The letters that I am receiving, and I am sure that he is receiving, are from two main sectors-the pork producers and beef producers of this nation. Ninety-nine per cent would be letters from those people.
We do think it is serious for this other sector of the economy in production, a very efficient and productive group. We did call a minister's meeting across Canada seeking suggestions, etc., for them. We do find there is a great amount of disparity which exists between the programs of the provinces which are creating more inequality and economic disparity between them.
For instance, in Ontario they spend about $200 million on agriculture. The federal government spends $263 million in Ontario, which is substantially more than the rich province of Ontario spends. All one has to do is check the budget brought into the provincial House in Ontario last night and see how much they are going to give to agriculture in that province, as far as that goes, and see how sincerely they take it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Turn the page.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Eugene Whelan: When he talks about the number of bankruptcies that are taking place, the number of bankruptcies is from about 78-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MINISTER'S ADVICE TO FARMERS
John Wise: Madam Speaker, I am not so sure that I am alone in this House, but I have some difficulty understanding the minister's answer. I think the minister continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth-


Mr. Nielsen:: Talks out of the top of his green hat.


John Wise: When he's out in the country, he talks about the seriousness of the problem. However, when he is in the House and in the presence of the Prime Minister, he continues to defend the government's deliberate high interest rate policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: The minister has made a commitment to do something. The minister made that commitment, not just recently and not just a month ago or a few months ago, but, rather, he made this very same commitment in January of 1980, about 16 months ago. That commitment remains unfulfilled today.
Is the minister telling the Canadian farmers today to expect the same thing that he told them they might expect back in January, 1980, namely, nothing?


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member and his government of that time, when he was minister of agriculture, had the opportunity to do something-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: -and what did they do? Nothing.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Eugene Whelan: So, when the hon. member talks about what we are doing and what we have done, all one has to do is check the record and see the different programs that we have put into force. We have put 14 new programs into force since I have been Minister of Agriculture, to help the farmers in Canada.


Miss MacDonald:: Tell us about interest rates.


Eugene Whelan: So, when the hon. member talks about what we are doing and what we are not doing, we have recognized the seriousness of this problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hooray, hooray!


Eugene Whelan: We have, as I said, met with The Canadian Bankers' Association; we have met with the farm organizations-


Some hon. Members:: Hooray, hooray!
May 20, 1981


Eugene Whelan: -and we have outlined to them the former government's policy, which was ridiculous.


Some hon. Members:: Hooray, hooray!


Eugene Whelan: They also said so themselves, that it was ridiculous.


Some hon. Members:: Hooray!


Eugene Whelan: I met with the Secretary of Agriculture for the United States of America.


Some hon. Members:: Hooray!


Eugene Whelan: One of the things was to try to undo the ridiculous poultry import quota that he, the hon. member, negotiated, Madam Speaker, and which is causing the depressed prices for the poultry industry in Canada. Madam Speaker, the Secretary of Agriculture for the United States of America and I have agreed to work together on this to try to solve the problems we face today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
John Wise: Madam Speaker, the quality of the minister's answers certainly continues to deteriorate. Why does the minister not level with Canadian farmers? Why does the minister continue to hold out false hopes? He knows that the future of food security in this country is in serious jeopardy. Why does he not do the honourable thing and tender his resignation? He has produced absolutely nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, over all, the agricultural industry, as the hon. member well knows, is one of the healthiest in the whole world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: It has been recognized, if he wants to be honest-and he is one of the few over there that I think can be-that there are certain economic production entities in agriculture which need assistance at this time. We are doing our darndest to help them. I want to tell the hon. member that I say the same thing in this House as I say any place else, regardless of what he says, whether the Prime Minister is present or not present. The Prime Minister knows that. The Prime Minister has the prerogative, if he wants to use it, to change that in any way he wants as far as I am concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hooray!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


FARM INCOME STABILIZATION POLICY
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. This exchange would be humorous if it were not so tragic in its consequences for farm families and low-income earners. Yesterday in his reply the minister indicated that a number of farms were being forced out of business by the banks, in addition to the regular bankruptcies. I want to ask the minister what he is doing as the Minister of Agriculture to put in place a food policy that would have the effect of stabilizing income for farmers and controlling farm inputs and stabilizing, at least in some way, prices to consumers which would help ease the burden on low-income earners in this country.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the parts of agriculture that I did not mention have a stabilized economy, a stabilized income. They are not the ones writing the letters. I appealed for those letters and that is how I know what is going on. If he wants to come to my office I will let him read until midnight some night so that he will understand who the real people are who have the financial problems.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Try it yourself.


Eugene Whelan: When he refers to food that is produced in Canada, I would point out that some of the producers are from his part of the country but I have not seen him defend them. I am not receiving any letters from the people in marketing boards. The price of food produced by marketing boards has stayed well below the inflation rate, averaging about 8 per cent, while the inflation rate for food that we import and produce outside the marketing boards is, as he knows, about 15 per cent. Let him face those facts.
There is no shortage of food in those areas where there are marketing boards; indeed, there is a surplus. The people who are in trouble in Canada today-for instance when you can buy a ham for 88 cents-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nowlan:: You get it cheap here!


Eugene Whelan: I can tell you, Madam Speaker, no matter what they sold those hams for over there, they would not sell anyhow, no matter what price they put on them!
When you can buy ham for 88 cents per pound in one of the big chains in this city today, and for the next five days, it is like giving it away during the depression. When you consider that you can buy a dozen eggs for ten minutes of an hour's work time when it used to take an hour and a half at one time to buy a dozen eggs in this country, I ask who has become more efficient, who has become more proficient, who has produced food in a better fashion and put it on the market shelf in a more economic fashion than we have?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 20, 1981
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the trouble with the minister is that he has read too many of Paul Martin's speeches. I will have to wait to read Hansard to see what the minister said.


SOCIAL SECURITY
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The fact is that with farmers going out of business because of high interest rates, food production in this country is decreasing. Yesterday the minister talked about the child tax credit as being one of her solutions to ease the burden on low-income families. She talked about indexing on an annual rate being able to catch up with the rate of inflation. That does not square with the fact that the latest report from Statistics Canada, "Income Distribution in Canada" shows that an additional 100,000 families in this country in 1979 fell below the poverty line. That is tragic.
Has this minister, who has the over-all responsibility for welfare in this country, discussed with her colleagues in cabinet, and with the Prime Minister, putting in place some kind of food policy for this country and re-examining the child tax credit to see if it can be used at least as an instrument to ease the burden of high interest rates on the poor and low-income families of this country, and to lessen farm bankruptcies?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member raises the general issue of fighting against poverty in Canada and bridging the gap between the average Canadians and those who are below the threshold of poverty. As a matter of fact, we are fully aware that the child tax credit has enabled us to earmark hundreds of millions of additional dollars for the category of very low-income workers known as the working poor.

We are presently working on ways to improve the child tax credit as the best means of redistribution of money. 1 am sure that mothers below a certain level of family income, who are right now receiving $238 per child, are conscious of that fact. We may need the approval of the House for further improvements to the tax credit. We have, however, reduced the level of poverty from 20 per cent of the population to 12 per cent over the last decade in this country.


NORTH-SOUTH RELATIONS PREPARATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUMMIT MEETING
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It concerns the North-South question and the dialogue between the industrialized nations and the poor developing nations. As the Prime Minister has just returned from a trip to Algeria and Italy, is he now ready to tell the House in what state the preparations are for the summit meeting which will be held in Ottawa two months from today? What positive policy recommendations has Canada prepared to put to that summit?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am not sure that I can give a satisfactory answer to the hon. member. The member knows that of the seven participants, four of them will be new. Indeed, five of them will be new if we include the eighth member of the economic community. My purpose until now in visiting as many of them as possible was to try to ensure that there would be a united front by all of us, not only on the North-South question referred to by the hon. member but on other important subjects, such as international trade, and the macroeconomic policies of the respective countries.
The hon. member asks about the state of the preparations. I think there have been some five or six meetings between personal representatives of the participants to the summit. Some of them have changed because of recent political events in other countries. The preparations, however, are well along. Each country has prepared a paper in one area or another to be the subject of eventual discussion by summit members. I hope the further meeting to be held, I believe in Vancouver in a couple of weeks, will continue to accelerate the state of the preparations.


IMPLEMENTATION OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, at this particular time concerning north-south, which I believe is a top priority of the Prime Minister at the summit meeting, Canada and the Canadian government are very key to formulating and bringing off that question properly. Can the Prime Minister tell the House now when the government will put into effect the 38 recommendations of the all-party unanimous report on North-South, so that we will go to the summit with credibility, which means more than just taking trips?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I believe I had occasion to say previously that the committee of the House of Commons produced an excellent report. It has inspired the government in drafting precisely some of these documents to which I referred earlier. As to unilateral adoption of them, the hon. member knows that many of the measures recommended would be impossible of adoption or ineffective if they were only adopted by one
May 20, 1981

country. That is why our objective at the North-South item discussion in July, at the further meeting at the Commonwealth summit, and eventually at the further meeting in Mexico in October, will be to ensure as much progress as possible by all participants on many of the actual recommendations made by that committee.


QUERY RESPECTING CANADIAN SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES POLICIES
Robert Joseph Ogle: Will the Prime Minister tell the House of Commons what he and the government have been doing in relation to the United States which has taken a very assertive type of approach to the whole question, has dropped the Law of the Sea, and yesterday proclaimed a vote at the World Health Organization that probably will amount to the death of a million children around the world. Is Canada's policy going to be uniquely different in this question of North-South from the American policy, so that we do not have to get caught in another El Salvador question by backing a policy that finally turns out to be anything but good?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is inevitable at a summit such as we will have in July that different heads of government will come to it with a reflection of their own political philosophies and priorities. We know from the statements made by the U.S. administration that they are more keen on bilateral aid and perhaps aid from the private sector than on multilateral and public aid. This is not the point of view of Canada or of other summit countries. The summit will be an occasion to try to convince the United States that the world is very much in need of its generous participation in international aid. We have already expressed these views. I have expressed them to President Reagan. When 1 met Mr. Clausen, the new American designate head of the World Bank, we discussed these questions at some length.
It is impossible to predict at this stage what final position will be taken by the President at the Ottawa summit or, for that matter, at the Cancun summit.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. At the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence last Thursday, May 14, the minister said that "Canada has made a new commitment to deploy its NATO forces outside the normal NATO treaty area". He has also been quoted in the Montreal Gazette and the Ottawa Citizen as saying that Canada is willing in principle to contribute to a United States rapid deployment force in the Middle East. Can the minister verify to the House that he has made these
Oral Questions
statements, and will he explain who authorized such commitments without parliamentary approval?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know better than he just stated, because I corrected that yesterday at the SCEAND in front of him. At the time I read the statement at the SCEAND on May 14, I said that Canada had made no new commitment to deploy its NATO force outside the normal NATO treaty area. That is what I read. It is possible the transcript did not show that. However, I wrote to the chairman of the committee to correct that. The hon. member knows very well because at the committee yesterday I was asked about that twice, and I told the hon. member there was no new commitment. I think it should be clear enough.


PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL FOR USE OF CANADIAN FORCES ABROAD
Allan Bruce McKinnon: I received my written transcript of those minutes yesterday and they certainly show exactly what I quoted here. I would like to go to the minister's further statements about helping the U.S. rapid deployment force in the Middle East. The minister sometimes seems to confuse peacekeeping and the RDF which in no way can be considered to be a peacekeeping force.
I would also like to question why Parliament is not consulted before he makes these statements. Is he not aware of the principles set out by the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson in 1964 when he said:
-if a request is made involving the use of substantial numbers of Canadians abroad, we would bring the matter before Parliament before any final decision is made.
Can the minister assure the House that any such commitment to reinforcing or helping the United States rapid deployment force will be first approved by this Parliament?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I can assure the House that any action of this kind will certainly have to be approved by the government and this House, as was said by Mr. Pearson. I suggest the hon. member read what was distributed to all members of the committee, which is a communique from the DPC NATO meeting in Brussels. I will not read it here. It is a communique on the possible actions of some members of NATO. The commitment was that consultation would have to be carried out by NATO first. It would then be up to individual countries to decide on their own what they want to do. However, there is no commitment to action outside the area of NATO, and even collectively there is no commitment of that nature.

Oral Questions


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
May 20, 1981

Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister respecting the federal-provincial dispute over ownership of offshore resources on the Atlantic coast. In April, 1981, his government approved exploration permits for over three million acres of submarine lands claimed by the province of Nova Scotia. He knows also that the same ownership dispute threatens the development of the Hibernia oil fields off Newfoundland which are claimed by that province. What is he prepared to do now to resolve this dispute?
Also, I want to know why he publicly chastises the Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Newfoundland who are making these legitimate and honest claims for the benefit of the people of their provinces.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I certainly have not publicly chastised, to use the expression of the hon. member. The situation is that the Premiers of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia are claiming that the offshore out to the 200 mile economic zone belongs to the provinces and is within provincial jurisdiction. We, supported at least prima facie by a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the British Columbia reference case, claim that the offshore is under federal jurisdiction and is in the ownership of the federal government. There is a difference of opinion. We have proposed repeatedly throughout the last decade that we set aside the question of ownership, that both parties cease to claim ownership, and on the contrary we seek administrative arrangements and division of revenues which would be acceptable to both parties.
There was an acceptance of that by three of the maritime provinces in 1978, but this was rejected when the Premier of Nova Scotia came into office under his new mandate. Therefore the management arrangement was set aside and negated by him. We are now back to the original question of who owns it. We have proposed that that be settled by a reference to the Supreme Court. In both cases, and particularly in the case of Newfoundland, they have refused to co-operate with a reference to the Supreme Court. That is the situation as it lies now. I would be grateful if the hon. member would use his influence to bring the provinces either to accept an administrative arrangement or a reference to the court.


REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Howard Edward Crosby: The Prime Minister knows, and it should be stated for the record, that the 1978 agreement was not an agreement but merely an arrangement to explore a resolution of the dispute in that manner. I ask the Prime Minister why, if the government is not prepared to refer the matter to the Supreme Court on its own motion, the National Energy Program contains a statement to the effect that the government is anxious to refer the matter of ownership quickly to the Supreme Court? Why does he place the burden on the provinces? As a constitutional scholar, surely the Prime Minister realizes that this is essentially a constitutional question to be decided by political action? But, if he will not take the step to decide it by such agreement or political action, why does he not take the step himself to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada and have the dispute resolved for the benefit of all Canadians, both those in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in so far as the hon. member says it is originally a political question, certainly I have indicated my agreement with that, and since 1969 I have been seeking a political agreement with the provinces. I repeat, in the British Columbia reference the Supreme Court decided the offshore was Canadian. I do not know if it would decide the same thing on the Atlantic coast. But I said, "Never mind. We are the owner according to the Supreme Court, on the west coast, but we are prepared to seek political agreement." We sought one for ten years. We finally reached one in 1978. I am not sure what the point the hon. member made about that 1978 agreement was, but I will be prepared to hear it again.
We sought agreement for some ten years. We would still prefer a political agreement. That not being possible, I am now told by the hon. member that we should do the honourable thing and refer it to the Supreme Court. My fear was that we would be accused of unilateral action, provocation, and so on. But, if I sense it is the view of the opposition that we should refer it to the court, Madam Speaker, I am prepared to do that tomorrow. I see the hon. member nod his head indicating yes. I hope he is speaking for his party, but I would like confirmation of that, perhaps from his House leader.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Bertrand report not only showed a rip-off of $12 billion by the oil companies against the Canadian consumer, but it indicated that the rip-off was continuing. The minister of energy admitted in this House that in the recent increases there was a six-cent increase per gallon which was piggybacked on the increases by the oil companies. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has just fired Mr. Bertrand. He told me in the House he would refer my inquiry and my demand for a roll-back of these illegal increases to Mr. Bertrand. Now that he has fired Mr. Bertrand, what does he propose to do about rolling back these illegal increases?
May 20, 1981

[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, first I would like to say to the hon. member and to his colleagues that, contrary to the hon. member's statement, Mr. Bertrand was not fired. I find that remark altogether unfortunate and out of line. Mr. Bertrand was a senior official who served Canada very well. He has been appointed to another post, in fact it is a promotion for him, and I find it regrettable that anyone should want to insinuate that he was fired.
As to the issue raised by the hon. member, namely, whether there has been an unwarranted and illegal price increase by the oil companies, I have already said in the House that I had referred the question to Mr. Bertrand. He completed his study and gave me a written report on the subject, advising me that there was no need for him to investigate any further into this latest charge which the hon. member has just made. With respect to this latest accusation, he believed that the oil companies had not acted illegally.


FURTHER INVESTIGATIVE ACTION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, Mr. Bertrand did, indeed, serve his country well. He was probably and still is a breath of fresh air in the civil service. The minister was spineless and gutless in moving him from this important position.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is the same old Liberalism. My question is this. I see the Minister of Energy smiling. He pretends he is progressive too. What happens now that Mr. Bertrand, who helped put this landmark report together, is removed from the scene and cannot implement the further investigation? What is going to happen to the investigation, and will the consumers of Canada ever get their $12 billion back?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, again I would remind the hon. member that Mr. Bertrand has completed his assignment. His new appointment is one which he himself has accepted. I am told that several positions were offered to him and he himself accepted his new appointment. In other words, Madam Speaker, there can be no question of Mr. Bertrand having been fired. I suggest that the use of that expression in his case is insulting. His investigation has been completed, Madam Speaker, and it now stands referred to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. The hearing will be held during the coming months and the Department of Justice will appoint lawyers who will argue this case before the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
Oral Questions


HUMAN RIGHTS
Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and it grows from my Standing Order 43 motion for which I could not receive unanimous consent.
On April 10 of this year I wrote to the minister regarding Captain Ross Stevenson of Toronto, a pilot with Air Canada, who is being forced to retire on September 1, 1981, at age 60, while other airline pilots are allowed to work until age 65. Considering the fact that mandatory retirement is an obvious violation of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms in the proposed constitution resolution which is before the Supreme Court of Canada, and in light of the reality that the working binding agreement between Air Canada and the airline pilots was not signed until April 3, 1981-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please ask his question?


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, would the minister please tell this house whether he would consider an order in council in this case to allow Mr. Stevenson to work past September 1 until the issue of early forced retirement with Air Canada is resolved?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the regulations of my department on this subjet of age of retirement for air pilots do not specify any particular age. The regulations are essentially based on fitness and capacity to perform the job.


Some hon. Members:: Resign!


Jean-Luc Pepin: The pilot in question works under an agreement between CALPA and Air Canada, and the position found in the agreement is one that is very much willed by the pilots of Canada. This age limit is of their own making and I would not dare, at this point anyway, go against an agreement reached between an airline and its employees.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and it concerns the poor health of the James Bay Cree. I am sure she is still having nightmares over the mess she left up there when she pulled out federal health services at the end of March of this year.

May 20, 1981
Oral Questions
I have here in my hand a report by one of her officials. It is the Sanitary Survey of the Cree Indian Reserve of Paint Hills, dated January 26, 27 and 28, 1981. What this report says is that the water supply to the village of Paint Hills is heavily contaminated by bacteria and is dangerous to drink. I also have a letter here from the interim director of specialized health services for Quebec, a Mr. Turcotte, dated March 3, fully 34 days after this other report was brought down, informing the chief of Paint Hills that this water was contaminated and should not be drunk.
In view of the fact there were a number of deaths last summer due to gastro-enteritis, and that there is an outbreak of gastro-enteritis in Paint Hills right now, how can she explain that a member of her staff sat on this report for 34 days, yet it was April 3 before the chief got the letter from this official telling him how dangerous this water was to drink? Can she please explain that to this House?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I certainly could have explained if the hon. member had had the rather elementary good sense and courtesy, this being a very special case, to call up and advise us that he wanted a reply to his question. I have no idea whatever of what he is talking about. I hope he knows, because last week he dared bring accusations, which were reported in every Canadian newspaper, against the Regional Director of Medical Services who, being absent, was unable to defend herself, claiming that she had failed to carry out her duties at Fort Rupert, which is one of the reserves under our jurisdiction, when on the contrary she had carried them out fully and had not lied. She had informed the committee members that the work had been done and that the health facilities had been restored. Once again, I do not know what the hon. member is talking about, as he has not given me advance notice of his question. I will inquire, however, and report as soon as possible.


TESTING FOR TUBERCULOSIS
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Every time I get up in this House 1 get the same runaround from this minister. She accuses me of having my facts backwards and forwards. This was brought up in committee last night-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member does not have the floor to argue but to ask a question.


An hon. Member:: The answer was provocative.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: You have continuously told us there was no epidemic of tuberculosis in Mistassini, and yet there is. You told us in April in committee that only 900 people out of a population of 2,200 have been tested for tuberculosis in Mistassini, and yet ten days ago in Petawawa we had an outbreak of tuberculosis and 6,000 or 7,000 people have been tested in a
matter of ten days. Now, why in Mistassini, where they have had tuberculosis for three years, perhaps only a third of the population has been skin tested? Please answer that question.


Monique Bégin: I repeat, Madam Speaker, that I do not find constructive at all the line of questioning-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Monique Bégin: I wish I could answer the line of questioning of the member who is not familiar with the facts and figures. It is quite obvious. I repeat that the statistics I gave are true. I checked all these facts myself with the Director of Medical Services for the Indians of the province of Quebec, Dr. Jean-Paul Fortin, and the member has just put together a situation in Petawawa with the situation that he suggests exists, or existed a few months ago in the Indian reserves of the James Bay area. This is unacceptable, and is not a way of improving the health of Indians.
I repeat, on the first question I will look into the specific accusation he made.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister who will know that the meeting of the shareholders of the Canada Development Corporation is taking place tomorrow in Winnipeg and there are many small investors who are very upset with the government's political meddling in its attempt to get members of its particular persuasion on the board of directors. The Prime Minister will have received the letter from the president of Burns Fry Limited in which he suggests that the government put up its shares, within the constraints of the legislation, and they are prepared to put together a package to sell those shares, thereby allowing the government to use the proceeds, if it sees fit, to set up any other organization as a tool of government policy.
I want to know from the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to accept the proposal put forward by Burns Fry Limited, reducing its interest to 10 per cent in the CDC, and if ministers want to change the concept of the CDC they can create a new vehicle for that particular purpose and leave the CDC alone.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have not read the details of the particular offer the hon. member is talking about, yet it seems to me he is suggesting we divest ourselves of the shares of the CDC. Is this a recommendation on behalf of his party?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: There has been an offer made.
May 20, 1981


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Or is it the hon. member who thinks this? Well, I am trying to understand the seriousness of the question. I remember that the hon. member and his party had certain views on the government divesting itself of Petro-Canada, and then they waffled on that and changed it several times. I am not sure they are not on the same course on this one.


APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTORS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 1 can tell the Prime Minister has returned from Italy because he is doing some fast footwork in his new Gucci's. If the Prime Minister had taken the time to read the act setting up the CDC he would understand what I am talking about.
There are now reports of additional Liberal hacks being proposed to the board of directors, and I wonder if he can tell the House whether or not the government is proposing, recommending or harassing the other directors and shareholders involved to put on the board Joel Bell, of Petro-Canada, and David Beatty, a close confidant of Mr. Jim Coutts of the Prime Minister's office.
Is he prepared to indicate whether in fact an attempt has been made to bring these two people on the board of directors, and whether he will not now cease and desist from this attempt to persuade the shareholders as to who should be on their board of directors?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I want to point out to the hon. member he does not know the difference between Gucci's and Roots, and he does not know the difference either, I think, between one good director and a bad director.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In the last couple of weeks the minister has announced agreements with the aircraft industry, the coal association and the mining association for the training of workers to meet their shortage of skilled workers. Given the repeated assurances by various government ministers that they would consult on major questions with the unions concerned, I would like to ask, in connection with these three recent agreements, why the unions were not consulted or questions discussed with them before the agreements were announced.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has pointed out what I think is one of the more important initiatives we have taken to establish effective planning of human resources in these key industrial sectors. We signed four of these agreements in the past three or four months and are continuing to
Oral Questions
negotiate with the construction industry and others so that we can have, in each of the major industrial sectors of Canada, an arrangement whereby we can undertake serious planning of the skilled labour needs in those areas, and develop the appropriate training programs.
In this case we have been negotiating with the associations representing those industries and it is obviously their responsibility to deal with the individual companies and unions within each of those industrial sectors. Through the commissioners of our department, one of whom represents labour, and one business, they have been keeping both those primary sectors informed of the development of these planning and training agreements, and we would certainly hope for the co-operation of labour in developing future programs.
At this stage what we are interested in doing is having the agreements signed with the companies themselves so that they will undertake the affirmative action and planning programs in their own companies and negotiate with the unions on the shop floor for the implementation of these programs.


NEED FOR CO-OPERATION WITH LABOUR UNIONS
David Orlikow: Last January the minister and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce announced an industrial training program of $350 million for areas that were hard hit, and they listed Windsor, Sept-iles, and one other city. In those three cities the steel, auto and paper unions which have all those industries organized were not consulted until long after the agreements were signed, if at all, and I am asking the minister is he going to continue to ignore the unions as he has up until now, or he is going to work with them and get the co-operation of labour as he ought to do if he is serious?


Lloyd Axworthy: Well, Madam Speaker, once again the hon. member for Winnipeg North points to an important innovation of this government in developing new policies in the labour field, because the development of the industrial adjustment program began through a long series of discussions and negotiations between officials of my department and officials of the UAW, beginning last summer when the auto industry began to experience a downturn. It was those negotiations and discussions on how we can bring to bear additional labour programs in the city of Windsor which gave rise to the industrial adjustment program.
In each of those programs committees are being set up in the four communities named, representing business, labour, local government and provincial authorities, to represent the interests of all those key sectors, and in the committees that are being established, certainly in the case of Windsor, labour is a chief participant and player in those areas. So frankly, Madam Speaker, the hon. member is not describing what in fact is taking place, that we are consulting with the unions in this very important program.
9732

May 20, 1981
Oral Questions TRADE


EXPORT OF AUTOMOBILES FROM JAPAN
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In his meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan a few days ago, did the Prime Minister of Japan assure the Prime Minister that, in future, Japan agrees to cut back on its export of automobiles to Canada in the same manner in which it has agreed to cut back on its exports of automobiles to the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we did not ask the Prime Minister to give that particular undertaking because there were meetings in the days preceding our meeting at the prime ministerial level. There were meetings between our officials and the Japanese officials in Tokyo. We sensed that they were progressing in the right direction, toward the end wished by the hon. member and by members on this side. So the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that there would be an early resolution of the difficulty.


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, at the end of his meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan, did the Prime Minister feel that the assurances of progress he received were of any more substance than the snow job which was put over on this government and this Prime Minister by the President of the United States when he visited here a few weeks ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is obvious, when listening to the hon. member, that he is not really dealing seriously with this question. I do not think if he were sitting, God forbid, on this side of the House, that he would accuse the United States government and President of putting a snow job over on Canadians when they gave assurances in good faith.


George Harris Hees: That is what he did.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But the hon. member is never too serious when he makes his accusations. I understand the spirit in which he is joking today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
* *
*


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It is well known that reserves are of great importance to the defence of the nation, by developing leaders among young Canadians and enhancing Canada's war deterrence capability. It has been brought to my attention that there is an inherent flaw in the militia structure of the Canadian Armed Forces, since some employers will not allow employees time off work
to take part in the training and educational activities which are an integral part of the reserves program. Can the minister, in consultation with the Minister of Labour, study this matter with a view to establishing either policy or regulations which would facilitate continuance of this most worth-while program?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, we have already set up a committee of several businessmen to look after this matter, to encourage other employers and to see that military people who want to serve temporarily in reserves have all the facilities to do so. But I will take that question very seriously under advisement and consult with my colleagues to see if we can improve that committee and the facility for some of our Canadians to serve in reserves.


REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. I assure the Minister of National Defence there is an interest in that important question on both sides of the House of Commons. Given that expression of interest, would the minister undertake to consult with the government House Leader to see if any further reference to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence is required, so that this matter could be studied in depth by the committee, on the understanding that with respect to this kind of reference there would be some discussions as to a limitation of debate, so that the committee could get to work on this very important matter?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member is stressing its importance. I assure him that I will consult with the House leader on the matter, and probably consult as well with the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to see if we can follow up on the suggestion of the hon. member.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I gave you notice today of a question of privilege which I intended to raise respecting a matter which affects not only my privilege but the privileges of every member of the House.
I come directly to the point. On March 19, 1981, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) tabled in the House a number of documents relating to the development and the export of coal from northeastern British Columbia. Also he tabled a list of over 100 studies on the project conducted by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the British Columbia government. In his
May 20, 1981

remarks when he tabled the documents, the minister said that these studies were available upon request from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The reference to the tabling of these documents appears on page 8411 of Hansard of March 19, 1981.
I have attempted to take the minister's advice since that date and procure these documents from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I have met with nothing but stalling and frustration.
Now 1 have finally been told that the only way I can procure any or all of these documents, the titles of which were tabled in the House on March 19, would be at my own cost which was estimated at $8,000. I will be very brief, but it is important-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The substance of this question of privilege is to obtain certain documents which the hon. member feels are indispensable to the carrying out of his duties. He indicated that he has not been able to obtain those documents. He has a recourse. He can put a motion on the order paper for the production of documents. That is the recourse of the hon. member, and I invite him to do so.


MR. DOMM-WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT-NON-OBSERVANCE BY GOVERNMENT WITH PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege, of which I served notice today, stems from the fact that an act of the House is not being fully observed by those charged with carrying out its provisions, and that the duty and privileges of individual members of Parliament to inform citizens of their rights with respect to an act of Parliament and proposed amendments to it are being nullified in the eyes of the country. Members have informed citizens in good faith of certain rights to representation they enjoyed under the act, when in fact these rights were not and are not now being observed.
My question of privilege refers not only to the circumvention of my privilege as a member, but also to the privilege enjoyed and expected by the House of Commons. Erskine May indicated at page 67 of the nineteenth edition:
The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I know Erskine May by heart. Please tell me what is the question of privilege.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: This House was pleased to pass an act in 1971 entitled: the "Weights and Measures Act". Chapter 36, subsection 10.1. Paragraph (1) of the act indicates:
Subject to subsection (2), the Minister shall publish in The Canada Gazette a copy of each regulation that the governor in council proposes to make under paragraphs 10(A.l), (H.l), (K.l) and (K.2) and a reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to interested persons to make representations with respect thereto.
Chapter 2, paragraph (G) of the same act indicates:
"Minister" means the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
On February 28, 1981, the minister was obliged to fulfil Chapter 36, subsection 10.1 of the act and had published in
Privilege-Mr. Domm
part II of The Canada Gazette at page 1289 the following order:
Public notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 10.1(1) of the Weights and Measures Act, that the governor in council proposes to make the following regulations under paragraphs 10(H.l), (K.l) and (K.2) of the weights and measures regulations. Any interested person who wishes to make representations with respect to this proposed regulation may forward such representations to the Assistant Deputy Minister (Consumer Affairs)... Ottawa, within 60 days of the date of the publication.
This is from what my question of privilege stems. It was signed by Henri Chasse, Assistant Clerk of Privy Council.
All members of the House of Commons well know what Wiktor and Tanguay state at page E-47, Volume 2, of their Constitution Act of Canada. It reads:
(The Prime Minister and, at various times, parts or the whole of cabinet) form the essential component of the Queen's Privy Council mentioned in Section II of the BN A Act... members of the cabinet-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member's question of privilege that the dispositions of the act have not been followed? At this point it is not necessary for me to know what happened or what the documents are that the hon. member would like to invoke in argument. We have not come to the point at which we are discussing the question of privilege; we only want to know whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would limit himself to telling me of any other point of privilege he has to raise. I understand that the hon. member is complaining that the disposition of an act has not been followed.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: During the course of the 60 days following publication of the proposed order in council, which I have just cited and which was extended to interested parties who wished to make representations with respect to it, I and several other members of the House urged the citizens of Canada, both directly and indirectly and in good faith, to fulfil their democratic right to make representations with respect to this order in council. In this I believe I was fulfilling the prerogative of Parliament and furthering the wishes of Parliament as is set out in section 10.1.
Furthermore, on noting the preamble to the proposed order as published in the Gazette, where 60 days were allowed for representations, I believed that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) was fulfilling his responsibility to Parliament according to his constitutional duty as set out in Wiktor and Tanguay, and to the country, as set out in the act. However, it came to my attention recently that these representations, which were made during the allowable 60-day period by concerned and interested citizens of this country-as was their right-were not being received by the minister. Rather, the assistant deputy minister charged with receiving the representations of interested persons chose to forward such correspondence as she received to the chairman of the Metric Commission, who has no direct constitutional, statutory or legislative responsibility to Parliament whatsoever and who is in no way involved in repealing, amending or carrying through

May 20, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Waddell
an order in council. Indeed, as the Commission itself wrote me recently:
It is... a fact that the decision to make metric conversion mandatory in this sector was made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the cabinet.. . Metric Commission Canada is an advisory commission.
Madam Speaker, my point of privilege is twofold: first, that an act of this House is not being fully observed by those charged with carrying out its provisions, that is, that a right extended to the citizens of Canada allowing them to make representations to the minister respecting proposed changes to the act is being circumvented.
In this case, as Erskine May states "The privileges of Parliament are rights which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers", and these rights are not being truly fulfilled.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I asked the hon. member not to quote Erskine May to me unless he is really making a point directly related to the question of privilege. He is telling me over and over again what constitutes a question of privilege. I think it is fair for hon. members to assume that I know what constitutes a question of privilege and that I need not have Erskine May quoted to me every time a question of privilege is raised.
I have heard what the hon. member has had to say. I feel he is asking the Chair to interpret legislation, to determine how it should be applied and whether someone who is responsible for applying that legislation has done so in the proper way. Now that I have put it this way, the hon. member knows that it is absolutely impossible for the Chair to interpret legislation or the way in which it is applied.
The hon. member may have a grievance about this matter, but he certainly does not have a question of privilege. The Chair is in no position to interpret legislation. I think the hon. member does not have a prima facie case of privilege. He might have a very important grievance, but he should find other ways of bringing it to the attention of the House.


POINTS OF ORDER
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, in answer to a question I put to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) during question period he referred to a report, which was apparently given to him by Mr. Bertrand, the former director of combines. This matter about alleged overcharging by oil companies in the recent oil price increase was raised by me twice before in the House. Since the minister referred to the report in answer to my question, I wonder if he would table in the House of Commons a copy of that report.


Madam Speaker:: I am not sure that the minister quoted from the report. He referred to it. At any rate, I have no
authority to force a minister to table a document. If he quotes from it in the House, then his obligations are different. The minister referred to the report, if my memory serves me correctly.


André Ouellet: If I may, Madam Speaker, I should like to clear up this point. I would like to say to the hon. member that when the Director of Investigation and Research makes an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act, at the end he mentioned three options: refer his file to the Department of Justice; refer it to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission; or write to the minister to say that he has completed his investigation and has no intention of investigating any further. It is obvious that in this instance the director, Mr. Bertrand, selected the third option. In other words, in his annual report he will describe this investigation he has made and completed at his own discretion. When the time comes for me to table the annual report of the Director of Investigation, the hon. member will find the answers to the questions he has in mind.


MR. WADDELL-POSSIBLE WITHDRAWAL FROM PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY OF REPORT &quot;CANADA'S OIL MONOPOLY&quot;
Ian Gardiner Waddell: I must accept what the minister says because I have no choice.
I need some direction from you, Madam Speaker, since you are responsible for the Library of Parliament. I wanted to obtain a copy of the Bertrand report on the oil price fixing. There is a report in the Library called "Canada's Oil Monopoly." It is published by James Lorimer and Company. I am told that the government has just obtained a writ, I believe from the Supreme Court of Ontario, but I stand to be corrected, suing the author for publicizing this book and asking all stores to recall it. I wonder if the Library of Parliament will be subject to the same recall so that members of Parliament will not be able to obtain a copy of it. I think this is shocking, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am afraid I cannot help the hon. member. I have not seen the writ. I can look into the question raised by the hon. member, but I really cannot commit myself to either having or not having the book withdrawn.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member or some of his colleagues want to have copies of the Bertrand report they simply have to contact my department and we will send them free copies. The document just shown by the hon. member is a book which has been published without the agreement of Mr. Bertrand or of the Department of Supply and Services, which is responsible for publishing and
May 20, 1981

distributing government documents. That company acted on its own when it published that document without any approval from government authorities and that is why this case is now before the courts.
However, if the hon. member wants to have original copies of the Bertrand report, I will be glad to send him one free of charge, whereas he undoubtedly had to buy the other book or obtain it in the Parliamentary Library. In any case, it is not an official version and does not contain the full Bertrand report.


Madam Speaker:: Now I think this settles the matter and the question of the member's access to the report referred to by the minister. As far as the book is concerned, it is, if I am not mistaken, a book like any other. It was published by a private firm and I can assure the hon. member that there is no Index at the Library of Parliament. We have all the books that are published and can be of interest to members of Parliament.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: With great respect, Madam Speaker, perhaps that is not the point. The point is that this book is being withdrawn from Coles book store in Toronto. I understand the government has attempted to withdraw it from Smith and Sons book store. It has attempted to withdraw it from all the book stores. Your Honour promised to look into it, so I will make it perfectly clear, as one politician said. Would Your Honour look into whether this book is going to be withdrawn from the parliamentary library? It concerns me because I gather, from what the minister said, it is going to be withdrawn. It is very important that it not be withdrawn from the library.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member wants me to cause a book to be withdrawn when the case is still


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, Madam Speaker, the opposite. I want Your Honour to stop the government from withdrawing this book from the parliamentary library because we believe in freedom of speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Unlike the government, we want this report published and spread around, and we want access to it. The government is withdrawing it from all the book stores in Toronto.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Do I recall correctly that the hon. member has procured this book from the library?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Therefore, as I said in French-
[ Translation]
There is no Index at the Library of Parliament.
Tabling of Documents

-that is to mean, we do not censure. We buy the books we think are important for the members to have access to. The book the hon. member is referring to obviously was in the library. He did have access to it. I do not understand what he is complaining about.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will not prolong this any more, but the complaint is simply that the government has withdrawn the book from all the book stores in Toronto and the other parts of the country, and I do not want it withdrawn from the parliamentary library. That is dictatorship.


An hon. Member:: Keep it.


An hon. Member:: Give it back.


Madam Speaker:: The book has not been withdrawn. I think that should satisfy the hon. member.
MR. MacKAY-CLARIFICATION OF MADAM SPEAKER'S RULING ON QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE RAISED BY MR. DOMM


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: I rise on a point of clarification, if I may, Madam Speaker. 1 did not quite get some of Your Honour's words. With respect to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peterborough, (Mr. Domm), I understood Your Honour to say, if I am correct, that the hon. member had no question of privilege but he had a grievance, and that there was some other recourse. I am just wondering if I heard correctly, and I am not reflecting on your ruling, Madam Speaker. Essentially, did Your Honour say it was a legal matter, or what did you say? I am sorry. I did not quite understand.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, that he did not have a question of privilege and that he could use other means of bringing the question to light. I am sure the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) has lots of imagination and knows the rules and means at his disposal in this House to do so. I give him full marks for imagination and creativity.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour of tabling in the House, in French and in English, the first interim assessment report on legislation dealing with firearms control.

May 20, 1981
Order Paper Questions THE CONSTITUTION


TABLING OF PETITION FROM STUDENTS SUPPORTING PATRIATION OF AMENDED CONSTITUTION
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 67 and on behalf of Mr. Vincent Quinchon, president of the Youth Committee of the Federal Liberal Association of Laval, I am pleased to table a petition bearing the names of 1,000 Laval students, in support of the patriation of the Constitution with a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an amending formula. This is an expression of faith in the future of Canada which will have the most progressive Constitution in the world, and the gesture of these young Canadians was commended by all members on this side of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,874, 2,139, 2,155, 2,172, 2,334, 2,337 and 2,339.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Madame Claudette Nadeau, President of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, in her office during business hours on December 11, 1980 and, if so, what were the exact hours?
2.	If Madame Nadeau was not in her office on December 11, was she away on business for the corporation and, if so, where?
3.	For the three week period prior to December 11, was Madame Nadeau in her office and, if so, on what dates?
4.	If Madame Nadeau was not in her office for the three week period prior to December 11, was she away on business for the corporation and, if so, where?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows: 1. On December 11, 1980, Mrs. Nadeau was performing her functions as President of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
2.	See reply part 1 above.
3.	During the period Mrs. Nadeau was performing her functions as President of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. On November 25 and 26, 1980, Mrs. Nadeau was in Toronto on official business.
4.	See reply part 3 above.


Mr. Lawrence: 1.	Was a committee announced on February 16, 1981, to recommend improvements in measures for the protection of children from sexual abuse and, if so (a) what remuneration will be paid to the members (b) how often is it expected to meet (c) will it occupy permanent premises and, if so, in what location (d) will it be empowered to travel?
2.	What process of recommendation and/or referral was followed in the selection and appointment of members of the committee?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: 1. Yes. On February 16, 1981, the Minister of Justice announced that he, in collaboration with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, had appointed the Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youths to inquire into the incidence and prevalence in Canada of sexual offences against children and youths and to recommend improvements in laws for the protection of young persons from sexual abuse and exploitation.
(a)	The members of the committee, excluding the chairman, will be paid only their expenses for travel, accommodation and meals for meetings of the committee. No honorarium or other remuneration is to be paid. The chairman is on leave from the University of Toronto to the extent of two thirds of his time which has been committed to the committee. The government has undertaken by contract to pay for that portion of his time. His travel expenses will be paid according to Treasury Board guidelines.
(b)	The committee is expected to meet three or four times a year or more if deemed necessary by the chairman and members.
(c)	The committee will occupy premises in Toronto provided by the Department of Supply and Services.
(d)	The committee may hold its meetings from time to time in other Canadian centres.
2. Officials in the Department of Justice and the Department of National Health and Welfare were asked to submit the names of judges, lawyers, physicians, nurses, journalists and persons experienced in the field of social welfare and health, as well as the names of persons active in community service for the consideration of the Ministers of Justice and National Health and Welfare. The members of the committee were appointed by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of National Health and Welfare from names submitted.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In (a) 1977-78 (b) 1978-79 (c) 1979-80, by province, what amount was paid by the government for the funding of social services?
2.	What amount is estimated for the year 1980-81 and what amount is budgeted for the year 1981-82?
3.	What are the estimated changes to these figures that would have resulted from the passage of Bill C-55 in the Third Session of the Thirtieth Parliament?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1 and 2. Please see list.
May 20, 1981

3.	Please see list below.
Order Paper Questions
1 and 2. Social Services Payments (Includes the Canada Assistance Plan, Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons and Young Offenders) ($ Millions)
1977-78	1978-79	1979-80	1980-81*	1981-82*Newfoundland	8.9	9.6	9.3	11.4	13.5Prince Edward Island	2.1	2.7	4.3	3.5	3.9Nova Scotia	14.2	14.2	15.2	12.3	26.6New Brunswick	8.6	9.5	11.5	19.0	16.0Quebec	207.1	229.3	226.4	165.0	182.3Ontario	114.2	122.6	149.0	319.4	312.5Manitoba	24.5	25.5	27.1	27.6	30.9Saskatchewan	17.5	19.8	17.7	26.1	26.2Alberta	30.7	38.8	44.5	49.1	62.2British Columbia	46.2	55.7	76.8	93.3	94.2Yukon Territory	l.l	1.6	l.l	2.3	2.8Northwest Territories	2.8	4.3	2.9	3.6	5.1Total	477.9	533.6	585.8	732.6	776.2
Source: CAP Supplementary Estimates 1980-81.
[DOT][DOT]Source: 1982-83 Multi-Year Operational Plan.
Note: The above amounts for Quebec include the value of 5 tax abatement units relating to Social Service type costs.
3. Estimated Federal Payments for Social Services if the Social Service Financing Act (Bill C-55) Had Been in Effect (S Millions)
1977-78	1978-79	1979-80	1980-81	1981-82Newfoundland	8.9	10.2	15.7	17.8	20.6Prince Edward Island	2.1	2.4	3.6	4.0	4.6Nova Scotia	14.2	16.2	24.1	27.3	31.2New Brunswick	8.6	10.2	16.8	19.7	23.2Quebec	207.1	227.3	308.0	342.4	382.4Ontario	114.2	128.2	186.6	211.0	239.3Manitoba	24.5	26.8	36.1	40.3	44.7Saskatchewan	17.5	19.8	28.9	32.5	37.1Alberta	30.7	36.0	56.1	62.3	72.2British Columbia	46.2	52.6	77.8	89.0	102.9Yukon Territory	l.l	1.2	1.4	1.6	1.7Northwest Territories	2.8	2.9	3.3	3.6	3.8Total	477.9	533.8	758.4	851.5	963.7
Note: An escalation factor of $5.07 (escalated by the Gross National Expenditure) has been added to 1979-80 and subsequent years as stated in section 8 of Bill C-55. All provinces have been leveled up or down by 10 per cent per year in accordance with the formula as stated in section 7 of Bill C-55.
Note: The above amounts for Quebec include the value of 5 tax abatement units relating to Social Service type costs.
STACKING OF DREE AND IT&C GRANTS OR LOANS


Mr. Herbert: Can a company receive loans and/or subsidies from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and (a) if so, under what conditions (b) if not, what determines to which department a company should apply?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: yes, it is possible for a company to receive for the same project financial assistance from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (IT&C) and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (DREE), for example, a loan guarantee from IT&C and a regional development incentive from DREE.
To receive such assistance, the project must qualify under and meet the objectives of each department's programs. In addition, it must be demonstrable that the project needs both forms of financial assistance in order to be viable. In cases where only one form of governmental assistance is considered necessary to satisfy the financial need, then only the relevant department would make that assistance available.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Privy Council Office purchase brochures and booklets valued at $85,870 from Public Press, Winnipeg, Manitoba and, if so, in each case (a) what was the title (b) to whom was it distributed (c) what was the cost (d) were public tenders called?

May 20, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
contract referred to by the hon. member was awarded by the Department of Supply and Services, on behalf of Parks Canada, not the Privy Council Office, to Public Press, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the amount of $85,870.
(a), (b) and (c) See list below.
(d)	Tenders were invited from ten firms listed on a Department of Supply and Services source list. Seven firms submitted bids and these bids were opened publicly.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Brochure Or Booklet Title
Lower For Garry National Historic Park-History Brochure
Lower Fort Garry National Park-Area Guide Brochure
Fort Walsh National Historic Park-Area Guide
Manitoba North-National Historic Sites
Battleford National Historic Park
Riding Mountain National Park-Main Brochure
Cypress Hills Massacre- National Historic Site
Fort Walsh-National Historic Park
Riding Mountain National Park-Lake Katherine Campground
Kippechewin and Ma-Ma-O-Pe
Camp Manitou-Riding Mountain National Park
Battleford National Park- Historic Brochure
Delivered To:
Lower Fort Garry National Historic Park, c/o The Superintendent Box 37 Group 343 R.R. 3 Selkirk, Manitoba R1A 2A8
Same as above.
Fort Walsh National Historic Park P.O. Box 278, Maple Creek, Saskatchewan SON 1 NO
Parks Canada
The Superintendent Box 127 Churchill, Manitoba ROB 0E0
Parks Canada The Superintendent Fort Battleford National Historic Park Battleford, Saskatchewan SOM 0E0
Parks Canada The Superintendent Riding Mountain National Park. Wasagaming, Manitoba ROJ 2H0
Fort Walsh National Historic Park P.O. Box 278 Maple Creek, Saskatchewan SON 1 NO
Same as above
Parks Canada The Superintendent Riding Mountain National Park, Wasagaming, Manitoba, ROJ 2H0
As above.
As above.
Parks Canada The Superintendent Fort Battleford National Historic Park, Battleford, Saskatchewan SOM 0E0
Cost


[Stage Direction]
$ 3,614.88 $	440.00
$	365.97
$	264.18
[Stage Direction]
Auyuittuq National Park
Kathleen Lake Campground
Angling Regulations	<
Summary Prairie Region
Riel House
Lower Fort Garry Poster
Guide to South Nahanni and Flat Rivers
York Boats and Buffalo Robes
Batoche-National Historic Site
Sub-Total
Federal Sales Tax Contract Total
Parks Canada The Superintendent Auyuittuq National Park Pangnirtung, N.W.T.
[Stage Direction]
Parks Canada
The Superintendent Kluane National Park Maines Junction, Yukon Territory YOB 1L0
Parks Canada The Superintendent Riding Mountain National Park, Wasagaming, Manitoba ROJ 2H0
Parks Canada The Superintendent Prince Albert National Park, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan
Parks Canada The Superintendent Lower Fort Garry National Historic Park Box 37 Group 343 R.R. 3 Selkirk, Manitoba R1A 2A8
As above.
Parks Canada
The Superintendent Nahanni National Park P.O. Bag 300, Fort Simpson N.W.T.
[Stage Direction]
Lower Fort Garry National Historic Park
The Superintendent Box 37 Group 343 R.R. 3 Selkirk, Manitoba R1A 2A8
Parks Canada The Superintendent Fort Battleford National Historic Park Battleford, Saskatchewan SOM 0E0
(9 percent)
[Stage Direction]
$	294.62
$	681.55
[Stage Direction]
$ 2,611.83 $	434.63
Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of National Defence purchase an engraving machine from Mikon Engineering, Downsview, Ontario at a cost of $37,017 and, if so, for what purpose and were public tenders called?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The Department of Supply and Services purchased for the Department of National Defence two engraving machines for a total of $37,017. The machines are intended to (a) replace a condemned item, and; (b) to meet a weapon shop requirement.
Requests for proposal were issued to 29 firms listed on the approved Department of Supply and Services source list.
May 20, 1981


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans purchase precious metals from Georgetown Shipyard, Georgetown, Prince Edward Island at a cost of $27,890 and, if so (a) what were they (b) for what purpose?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The Department of Supply and Services awarded a contract to Georgetown Shipyard, Georgetown, Prince Edward Island on behalf of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The contract was for the purchase of steel rods, reinforcing bars, washers, nuts and bolts, and was valued at $27,890. Our records indicate that these supplies were to be used to repair small wharfs.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
# * *


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 19, 1981, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet that Bill C-12, respecting bankruptcy and insolvency, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to rise this afternoon to share some thoughts with the hon. members of the House of Commons on Bill C-12, an act respecting bankruptcy and insolvency. 1 suspect that at First glance many hon.
Bankruptcy
members thought that we should be paying particular attention to this bill before us, recognizing the experience of the government in areas of bankruptcy, its success over the years in bringing us to the brink of bankruptcy and, as some people would suggest, its bankrupt policies in respect of a number of programs and perhaps even some principles.
I want to recognize the very excellent presentations made by a number of people on this side of the House in the last number of hours in reference to some of the details in Bill C-12. I am specifically referring to the hon. member from Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly); the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish); and, indeed, the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). Rather than repeat a number of the Fine points they made in their presentations yesterday, I want to focus my comments today on matters of economics and speak on Bill C-12 within an economical or political context, contrary to the comments of the minister who mentioned in his introduction of the bill that it had nothing to do with economics and little to do with politics. Having listened to a number of hon. members speak to this particular bill, that is certainly anything but the truth when one considers the very obvious economic and political overtures attached to it.
In an effort to present a historic pattern regarding bankruptcies, one would immediately recognize that over the last number of years bankruptcies have certainly been on the rise. Business bankruptcies, just to identify one category, numbered 3,905 in 1977. In 1980, business bankruptcies numbered 6,600. Over a three-year period there was an increase in excess of 40 per cent. Of course, if one were to look at the First quarter of 1981, one would see that in absolute numbers, the number of business bankruptcies, farm bankruptcies, personal bankruptcies and other is indeed higher in some cases than in previous years. Between 1975 and today, the number of bankruptcies has more than doubled. When referring to the number of bankruptcies amongst farmers; businesses and individuals, we are speaking of a phenomenon that exists from one end of Canada to the other. It is found in virtually every region, every subregion, every municipality and village. Bankruptcies are occurring at rates that not many years ago would have been considered unacceptable and even unbelievable.
I suggest that this is only the tip of the iceberg, Mr. Speaker. In discussing Bill C-12 and bankruptcies, we are just dealing with what we can see above the water, so to speak; nine tenths of the situation is kept from discussion by this particular bill.
If one were to look at the businesses that declare bankruptcy, one would Find that there are many others that simply find the struggle not to be worth while, that pay off their debts and close their doors. Other businesses, of course, would simply be put into receivership. From the record it would appear that for every small business bankruptcy, between three and six small

May 20, 1981
Bankruptcy
businesses, depending on the province and region, would be placed in receivership.
Each year, Mr. Speaker, approximately 8 per cent of small businesses in Canada die for one reason or another. During prosperous times, they are replaced at a rate of 9 per cent, 10 per cent or more. In other words, during healthy times there is a growth in small business in Canada, but at the present time, with interest rates well above 17 per cent, 18 per cent, 19 per cent, 20 per cent and, for many small businessmen, 22 per cent or 23 per cent, the rate of increase is cut back significantly. This leads to a phenomenon that draws the concern and ire of many, if not most, members of this House and that is the phenomenon of economic concentration in Canada. Already, Canadian businesses are the most concentrated of any of the western industrialized nations while our merger and monopoly laws are the weakest.
In a recent issue of Maclean's magazine, in an article on mergers and the growth of monopoly practised in Canada, there appeared the following passage:
This is at a time when the annual number of corporate mergers has doubled in five years, and when the 100 largest non-financial companies control just over half of all corporate assets.
The most recent figures for other industrialized nations show that the 100 largest manufacturing companies in the United States, hold 25 per cent of total assets, 33 per cent of the total in Japan, 47 per cent in West Germany and 46 per cent in the United Kingdom. In Canada, the 25 largest control 30 per cent of assets, while the 50 largest control 39 per cent.
The rise in the number of bankruptcies in this country is a not so subtle indication that small businesses are failing and that business concentration is continuing and, in the last three or four years, at an accelerating rate.
Any discussion of Bill C-12 begs the question of the impact of bankruptcies on the country. What do bankruptcies do to Canadian industry, Canadian commerce and to Canadians? If one were to simply identify the direct impact of bankruptcies, one would first of all have to recognize that the small business sector has been the major source of all new jobs created in Canada in the last decade. Job creation has been highest in this sector of our economy. Some of the major creativity is occurring in this sector which is finding new and fresh ways of developing our resources, of taking advantage of our location and expertise in the work force.
A rise in bankruptcies contributes to unemployment. When a business closes its doors, of course opportunities for employment with that firm no longer exist. It is important to recognize that this is occurring when we have an unemployment rate in excess of one million persons. To that we must add a category that is often ignored, the handicapped, the disabled- those people who do not show up on the unemployment rolls. Something in the neighbourhood of 600,000 or 700,000 Canadians are not taken into consideration in the calculation of the number of unemployed, yet perhaps 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the disabled are unemployed. When speaking of a serious unemployment situation with more than one million
people unemployed, we must consider that close to two million people could be working in Canada.
When referring to bankruptcies, we also have to recognize that they threaten our standard of living and certainly threaten the security of thousands of people. Many small firms are struggling from dawn to dusk, with bankruptcy just around the corner. The employees wonder whether the pay cheque will be forthcoming at the end of the month and this has social consequences. It puts pressure on many Canadian families.
Bankruptcies also threaten the fabric of our towns, cities and municipalities. The local tax base is affected at a time when the federal government is drawing back from programs which it had developed and which provided infrastructure for local communities. This places the burden on the local taxpayers. Bankruptcies remove a portion of the tax base and as a result, the level of local services and the development of necessary lands for further population growth are affected.
Those of us who have the opportunity to travel around Canada today will notice communities where every fourth or fifth business is boarded up. What does that do to the vision that Canadians have of our country who are trying to be optimistic? What does it do to the atmosphere in those communities where the feeling of failure is so prevalent? It creates a very depressing environment in many communities and drains the creative and innovative life-blood from them.
One advantage that Canada has over so many other nations is the feeling of vitality in the communities with their different personalities and characteristics. Unfortunately, the increasing level of bankruptcies does a great deal to erode that positive feeling.
As the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands indicated in her remarks yesterday, there is a feeling of despair and hopelessness across the land. More and more people are talking about the beginning of the end. Surveys which ask if people are as optimistic about their children's future as their own at the same age, respond almost universally, that they are not. More and more Canadians are beginning to feel that we are sinking in a quagmire of economic difficulties.
There is an old Hindu proverb which says: "Where there is no dream, the people perish". I suspect that unless the government sits up and takes notice of what is going on across Canada and refocuses its attention, not so much on bankruptcies, but on the cause of bankruptcies, that dream will slowly be extinguished.
Another direct problem attached to increased bankruptcies in the country is that we are seeing the transfer of millions of dollars in assets from individuals and small businesses accruing to the banks and other corporate lenders. Who are the beneficiaries of the bankruptcies occurring across Canada? As happens so often during difficult economic times, during times of high interest rates, it is the banks and the lending institutions which are the main beneficiaries. Who are the beneficiaries during bankruptcy proceedings? Once again, one finds that the corporate lenders are the ones who benefit the most. Surely
May 20, 1981

we have our priorities in the wrong place. If one wanted to identify the indirect impact of bankruptcies, most often not taken into acount, one would see that for every business officially declaring bankruptcy, there are many unsecured creditors who suffer losses which may, in turn, threaten their own business. How many of us have been approached by small businesses in our own communities which themselves have been dragged down by bankruptcies of neighbouring firms within that same community? Although a bankruptcy heralds the demise of one business, again it simply accelerates and adds to the process which causes economic strain on a variety, and in some cases on a wide variety, of suppliers, contractors and so on. Each year these losses, which small business by and large has to accept, run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and that is only in the case of bankruptcies.
Receiverships raise a potentially more serious problem. 1 say potentially because the government does not bother to collect adequate data on the number and impact of receiverships in Canada. It is estimated that for every single business bankruptcy, between three and six businesses are placed in receivership. If one considers the multiplier effect of this process on the unsecured creditors of businesses placed in receivership, the damage itself becomes absolutely staggering.
Last year, 1980, it is estimated that over $550 million in assets were seized from Canadian businesses placed in receivership by banks and other corporate lenders, including the Federal Business Development Bank. A recent study carried out at Western University by a scholar named Russ Knight showed that 90 per cent of all receiverships are initiated by the chartered banks of Canada. Of all the assets disposed of through receiverships, who is the main beneficiary? Again, 80 per cent of assets go directly to the banks of Canada. It is estimated that 40 per cent of these assets should have gone to unsecured creditors. Many of these are other small or mediumsized businesses which, under the present law, have no recourse, and will not have their position significantly improved under this proposed Bill C-12.
When you consider the devastating effect of receiverships on Canadian businesses and the fact that so little protection is provided in this area, and when you examine Bill C-12 clause by clause, you will notice that only six out of the 420 sections even mention the phenomenon of receivership.
A look at the record provides some insight into this government's failure to provide fair and even-handed treatment to small businesses having difficulty in a hostile economic climate created by what can only be called inept Liberal economic policies. I use that term hesitantly because it is difficult to identify what a Liberal economic policy is other than to say it is from band-aid approach to a knee jerking attack on some of the problems facing Canada today.
The present law that we are debating which does not even mention receiverships, has not been substantially improved for 30 years. Surely that in itself must tell us a great deal about the concern of the Liberal government regarding the problems associated with small companies experiencing bankruptcy. Five draft bills on bankruptcy have been tabled since 1975.
Bankruptcy
Unfortunately, that is as far as they went. As the MacEachen-Trudeau policy of stagflation drives the Canadian economy further into a quagmire, the number of bankruptcies and receiverships mount weekly. But increasingly, corporate lenders are resorting to the use of receivership to cover client debt.
Receivership occurs when a company's assets, which have been pledged as security for a loan or credit, are seized because the borrower cannot make the agreed upon payments. The secured lender is invariably a bank, and because it calls its loans as soon as the borrower's liabilities exceed his assets, little or nothing is left for the hundreds of unsecured lenders, which are mostly suppliers and other small businesses. Once again, under due process, it is the small entrepreneur who gets it in the neck.
Federal officials with the finance department admit there are almost no government controls on receiverships, and the field is extremely confusing. Under legal requirements for bankruptcy procedures, there is at least government supervision and protection of the law. But that protection does not exist in the case of receiverships.
Bill C-12, an act respecting the bankruptcy and insolvency, received first reading on April 16, 1980. Today, more than a year later, it has returned to the House for second reading. Mind you, what is another year when you have been introducing bankruptcy legislation since 1975 but never getting around to passing it? I am sure the Canadian people are impressed with the speed and efficiency with which this government moves, particularly in this area. But the problem is that Bill C-12 deals with post-mortems, in other words, with the bodies left in the wake of this government's economic policies.
The real bankruptcy we should be debating here this afternoon is the bankruptcy of a federal government which has allowed inflation to get so out of hand that it is now running at nearly 13 per cent, and a government that has increased interest rates to record levels, the highest in Canadian history, and that is determined in the weeks ahead to sacrifice even more small businesses, farmers and home owners with its bankrupt monetary policies.
I suggest that one of the most haunting spectres for small business, for farmers, fishermen and home owners are these excessively high interest rates. It is interesting to note now how spokespersons for the financial community, economists and financial advisers, are saying more and more that the government is on the wrong tack and that the way to slow inflation is not to increase interest rates. People are talking more and more about the spectre of 25 per cent interest rates. What is that doing to the imagination and the hope of Canadians and the vision of a better Canada when we have a government which is prepared to sit back and a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who is prepared to stand up and essentially say to home owners that they have never had it so good?
One wonders with all seriousness to what extent members opposite get out and actually talk to people in their constituencies. To whom do these people talk? With whom do they discuss economic policies? Surely it is not the people who elected them to the House of Commons because I have yet to

May 20, 1981
Bankruptcy
find an individual who would suggest that the best thing for Canada is to jack up interest rates even higher, and yet that is the policy which this government seems willing to continue.
We are looking at a government which, through its failure to provide leadership and a sound, long-range industrial policy for Canada, has presided over the balkanization of the Canadian economy and the systematic fragmentation of our industrial structure right across the country. As a result, our international economic performance has deteriorated dramatically over the last number of months. Last year we imported over $7 billion more than we sold to the rest of the world. This is something that I am not certain Canadians appreciate or that the government makes any effort to communicate, that the country imported over $7 billion more than it sold. Indeed there is a balance of trade, but when we consider the dividends that are flowing out of this country, we are talking about a $7 billion deficit.
Our balance on finished manufactured goods stood at a staggering deficit last year of $17 billion. As a result, the value of the Canadian dollar has only been maintained by massive interventions by the Bank of Canada in the foreign exchange market and by a crippling high interest rate policy.
There is a myth that the federal government has perpetrated across Canada that our Canadian dollar has been allowed to float on international markets. One then has to ask why these incredibly large infusions of money have been required and the answer is, obviously in an effort to prop up this dollar at an extremely artificial level.
As the demand for more efficient national industries increases in the face of more competitive international marketplace, we are sorely lacking in an all-out offensive in the area of research and development. Surely during these times when we must develop a competitive edge economically and internationally, research and development should be taking a high priority in our efforts, both privately and in our educational and government institutions.
This government not only has the worst research and development record among western industrialized nations, but has only recently announced what has to be described as a weak-kneed and inadequate policy in this extremely vital area. We are still seeing the spectre of $1.5 billion cutbacks in post-secondary funding, at a time when skilled development in the trade sectors is at an all-time low and when all sectors of the economy recognize the need for highly trained skilled workers with a very sophisticated expertise. There is a need for scientific research and technical research as never before, yet this government contemplates cutbacks of $1.5 billion in this very vital sector. Surely that is not the kind of leadership Canada requires at this point in time.
Nothing illustrates the bankruptcy of this government more than the bankruptcy of this government. The federal government's deficit this year will again be $14 billion. This government now is required to be in a position to have to borrow each year simply to pay off the interest on this deficit without
paying off any of the principal at all. This is a government very familiar with the problems of bankruptcy, a government which has led the way in bankruptcy legislation, but quite the contrary of what Canadians would like to have seen.
It is an irony when you look carefully at Bill C-12. The bill protects the most those who can best withstand bankruptcy loss and protects the least those unable to withstand bankruptcy loss. It is ironic in that it places goods and services above human beings. The workers of a bankrupt firm, the real producers in our country, the working people of Canada who make the goods from our raw resources, are by and large overlooked in Bill C-12. As with so many pieces of legislation coming from this Liberal government, it favours the large and the powerful and ignores the small and the weak, a tragedy indeed.
During the next number of weeks we will look forward to working with the minister in committee, proposing a number of amendments and articulating more clearly some of the more precise criticisms that ought to be made when the bill reaches report stage.
Mir. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine): Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-12 respecting bankruptcy and insolvency, I first want to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) who led the debate for this party on this legislation. I am sure he will make a further excellent contribution when the bill is discussed in committee.
It is quite ironic that this legislation is to streamline all bankruptcy procedures. Instead, the government should be bringing forward legislation to streamline policies to assist small businesses to survive in this country. We would sooner be debating that type of legislation.
The bill empowers the superintendent of bankruptcy to collect data to determine the feasibility of establishing a funded plan to insure wage earners against losses of wages and other benefits caused by the bankruptcy of their employers. The Senate committee had recommended such a plan when considering the original bill in 1975.
It is unfortunate the government has to bring in legislation and recommendations like this. If we had a responsible government, it would get off the backs of the businessmen in Canada and leave them alone. Nothing like this would have to be introduced.
Let us look at the number of bankruptcies, personal and business. In 1960, there were 3,641 and in 1980, 27,620, an increase of 758 per cent. That is the dismal record of successive Liberal governments. Farm bankruptcies in 1980 represented 79.2 per cent, an absolute disgrace. These numbers do not include businesses that collapsed but did not make use of the Bankruptcy Act; those placed in receivership, liquidated by secured creditors or that simply closed the shop doors. No wonder the Liberal government is driving so many businessmen and so much investment money to the United States.
It is high time that this bill was passed. It has been presented four times previously. It is essential today that we update, consolidate and substantiate the guidelines involving
May 20, 1981

the bankruptcy process because this government is going to be in power for another two or three years.
With the bankruptcy rate running rampant in Canada, the proportion of people who can be adversely affected by the dilemma is growing. In an over-all sense, the bankruptcy rate has grown by close to 15 per cent in the past year. This almost equals the 15.2 per cent increase in food costs. This insolvency rate breaks down into a number of categories. Farm bankruptcies totalled 224 in 1980 and to date in 1981 have reached 75 in number. Business bankruptcies totalled 6,595 in 1980 and to date in 1981 have reached 2,044 in number, and personal bankruptcies totalled 21,025 in 1980 and to date in 1981 have reached 6,152.
Ontario and Alberta had the highest rates in the country. Business bankruptcies in Ontario were up 17.9 per cent and consumer cases were up 24.8 per cent. Albertans saw an increase of 17.1 per cent for businesses and 26.6 per cent for consumers. It is not surprising that these two provinces are the hardest hit. In fact, I am quite surprised that, taking into account the quality of Liberal economic policies, these rates are as low as they are.
The people of Ontario are taking note of why this is happening. Most of it is directly caused by the national energy policy, if it can be called a policy. I have a document here prepared by the Nisku Businessmens Association in Alberta entitled "The Impact of the Federal Budget and National Energy Policy on 41 Oil Service Companies in the Nisku Business Park". They also explain how it affects the province of Ontario as a result of this ridiculous energy policy which should be withdrawn immediately. I will just quote a few of the statistics here to give an idea of how many other firms are moving toward closing and bankruptcy. It states:
The uncertainty resulting from the federal budget and NEP has caused a sharp decrease in rig activity in Alberta. This can be seen by looking at questionnaire results from five drilling companies who informed us of their expenditures.
From the following charts it can be seen that 1980 operations were not seriously affected by the budget and NEP. This is due in part to the fact that many contracts did not expire until the end of the year. However, expectations for 1981 are extremely poor. Proposed expenditures on drilling rigs have dropped 56 per cent and the actual number of rigs has dropped 52 per cent. This is only for drilling companies in the Nisku Industrial Park. Results would probably be similar for the industry in general, in Alberta.
This same can certainly be applied in Alberta and on into Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker.
The report also gives the effect on branch offices as follows:
Of the responding companies in our survey, 49 per cent indicated that they had some type of branch office located in Alberta or northern British Columbia. Some of the locations included Grande Prairie, Calgary, Lloydminster, Edmonton, Brooks, Fort St. John and Fort Nelson. Most of the branch offices were involved in either sales, manufacturing, repair, storage or supply.
Out of the existing branch offices, 40 per cent will be shut down as a result of the budget. Of those that remain, some will have cutbacks in staff or will curtail expansion.
You can see the course we are on and the government is determined to keep us on that course. Maybe some day we will
Bankruptcy
get an explanation why they ever introduced this ridiculous policy in the first place. I refer to this National Energy Program. It is obvious to everyone how disastrous it has been in the country, at least to everyone but this so-called Liberal party which is determined to pursue it.
We have a further explanation of the loss of operations in Canada which reads as follows:
One of the implications of the budget was the movement of business across the border to the United States. Prior to the budget's announcement, none of the firms responding to our survey had operations located in the U.S. As a result of the government's actions, 34 per cent of the companies indicated they would be moving a portion of their business outside of Canada. This movement will involve from 10 to 50 per cent of the firms total operations with an average of 30 per cent.
Perhaps we will not have so many bankruptcies to deal with, Mr. Speaker, because there will be fewer and fewer businesses in this country as they move to the United States where they can survive. The report goes on as follows:
It should be noted that most of these figures result from company forecasts. This may change as the situation concerning the budget changes.
Just to read the brief summary of results of this excellent document, Mr. Speaker, they point out:
Total sales volume in 1980 dropped from an expected $256,450,000 to $218,300,000, a drop of $38,150,000.
Total sales volume in 1981 is expected to drop from a forecasted total of $277,710,000 to an estimated $174,850,000, a drop in sales of $102,860,000.
That is disastrous, Mr. Speaker.
It goes on to state:
Drilling companies in the Park are forecasting a drop in the 1981 number of rigs from 42 to 20.
Forty per cent of branch offices will be shut down.
This will mean lay-offs, Mr. Speaker, The summary continues:
Thirty-four per cent of survey companies will be moving a portion of their operations to the United States.
This is when the Ontario people want to start listening, and some of those Ontario Liberals had better wake up. It states:
Loss of revenue to eastern suppliers as a result of purchase cutbacks of the responding companies was $1,470,000 in 1980 and will be approximately $20,000,000 in 1981.
This just covers one area in Alberta, so the figures can be multiplied by at least 20. It goes on to state:
Revenue loss to Alberta suppliers as a result of purchase cutbacks of the responding companies was approximately $2,500,000 in 1980 and an expected $30,000,000 in 1981.
Loss of employment in the surveyed companies will be 255 in the Nisku Park and 173 branch and field operations throughout Alberta.
In the face of all this, the Liberals have the unmitigated gall to tell us we are on the road to self-sufficiency and this policy is going to be good for Canada.
The Liberal government has to be blamed for the increase in bankruptcies in Canada and for bankrupting the country. What more can Canadians expect? The Grits cannot even keep their own house in order. If they are not careful, they will bankrupt the government through their policy of promoting and stimulating a huge deficit of over $121 billion. It is costing

May 20, 1981
Bankruptcy
Canadians almost $12.5 billion each year to service this debt. How can small, or large for that matter, businesses or individual consumers be expected to practise sound financial theories when they have no example to follow or learn from? The Grits certainly cannot provide this example, Mr. Speaker.
Another reason small business and consumers alike are suffering these difficult times is the Liberal government's stubborn approach on the constitutional issue. Month after month passed while important economic legislation waited on the sidelines. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) it seems, would rather see thousands of businessmen go down the tubes rather than have his Constitution delayed. Meanwhile Canadians are suffering and the figures blatantly uncover the government's failure.
As I explained earlier, the National Energy Program has placed unbearable pressure on the private sector. Not only has the government broken promises in respect of energy prices, which for many people demolished their budget projections, it is extending this deplorable position by its failure to come to a resolve with Alberta over energy pricing. Consumers must pay as much as 50 cents more per gallon of gasoline, as one example. I do not think we have seen the end of the increase in the cost of gasoline. A recent article in The Globe and Mail states:
Despite the continuing impasse between the federal and Alberta governments over the appropriate price for Canadian crude oil, the price of gasoline in the Toronto area is soaring at more than double the rate of general inflation.
A survey of more than 80 stations in and around Metro Toronto last week showed that the cost of an imperial gallon of gasoline has gone up between 50 and 60 cents a gallon in the last two years-
We were told during the last election that gasoline would not increase over 18 cents a gallon. The government placed us in this ridiculous position by not reaching an agreement with the Alberta government which wants approximately $35 a barrel. The situation is the same in respect of Saskatchewan. This government would sooner pay $45 to $50 a barrel to OPEC countries than reach an agreement with the provinces.
Imagine if we were paying that $35 to Alberta and Saskatchewan instead of sending $45 to $50 a barrel out of the country. I suggest we would have an economic boom in this country like you have never seen in your life. All these rigs and businesses would be staying in Canada; they would not be closing down.
Just to give the taxpayers a little idea of what this Liberal policy of importing oil from Mexico and the OPEC countries is costing, I would point out it is costing $500,000 an hour. We should be trying to reduce that figure. We are not going to reduce it, we are going to increase it, and I will give you the figures in that regard in a few minutes. If we were paying the $35 per barrel here in Canada, we would be using our own oil and much of that money could be used for research and development in respect of alternate sources of fuel. Many businesses, especially in the oil industry, and I am talking about Canadian firms-I do not want anybody to get the impression I am talking about multinationals-simply cannot afford to run machines, heat their warehouses or even drive to work. Alberta, for example, has suffered a 30 per cent drop in
its service sector as a result of the NEP. No doubt some of this has gone to the United States where economic conditions are more favourable. I would say most of it has gone there, but much of this loss is a result of bankruptcy, as I mentioned earlier.
Now on top of all this, businesses and consumers are being forced to cope with record high interest rates which, since the Grits took power in 1980, have gone up over 6 per cent to almost 19 per cent, or over 20 per cent for normal borrowers. The home owners, small businesses and consumers must all bear the brunt of these outlandish interest rates. Many, however, have only one alternative to paying high interest rates: declaring bankruptcy. To date there is no end in sight to this trend.
I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, when the Conservative party was in government we were the only people that took any action to deal with the interest rate problem, and I have to listen to the hypocrites, the NDP, who have the nerve to stand up here talking about interest rates. We appointed an all-party committee as our first act of business to deal with the interest rate problem and it was making some headway, witnesses were to be called in, but the committee was not allowed to complete its work because we were defeated by a facetious motion put forward by the NDP that nothing was being done about interest rates. We have asked for this committee to be reestablished so that it could come up with some answers and do something about this interest rate problem, but the government refused to reappoint that committee or even have anything to do with the excellent work it did over three or four months.
Now each and every day new obstacles get in the way of the normal activities of business and consumers. When we were in power, we introduced the small business development bond. This was finally passed on February 26, 1981 after several months of delay. This scheme was devised to help small businesses deal with higher interest rates and is, as a spokesman for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said, a lifesaver. A Royal Bank spokesman said the delay and start-stop scenario which unfolded after the Liberals came back caused some headaches for both businesses and financial institutions.
Just let me give another example to the Canadian people about the ridiculous policies of the Liberals relying mostly on imported oil. They made a deal with the Mexican government where we pay approximately $50 a barrel for their oil. They would sooner send $50 a barrel down there than keep $35 in Canada.


Mr. Huntington:: They cannot even use or sell the oil.


A. Daniel McKenzie: That is right. My colleague, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) says we cannot even use the oil, and that is correct. You have to cut the oil out of the barrel with a chainsaw and then it has to be run through a Cuisinart and forced out of the barrel, and we are paying $50
May 20, 1981

for this. They have to add oil to make it oily. That is typical Liberal energy policy to get us trapped into a situation like this where they would sooner send $50 down there for blocks of tar rather than give $35 a barrel to Saskatchewan and Alberta.
I also want to point out there is oil in every province of Canada, and if these moneys were kept here, we could be doing exploration work; instead, all we are doing is closing down wells. There are about 1,400 wells that have closed down in Saskatchewan and they are actually losing about 40 cents a barrel, so pretty soon there will be no more oil produced in that province under this ridiculous National Energy Program which is supposed to make us self-sufficient. What an utter farce!
Now a spokesman for the Bank of Nova Scotia said that a colleague in Alberta commented on the usefulness of the small business development bond and said:
A lot of our customers would not be borrowing and expanding right now with interest rates as high as they are, if it were not for the bond.
In other words, the bond is helping to instil some growth in the economy, even in strong areas such as Alberta. However, it is not the total answer, and with the high interest rate policy it is becoming less and less effective. It can be imagined what the bond means to other regions such as Ontario and the maritimes.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is high time this legislation was passed and it will help protect employees of those unfortunate companies which fail in their attempt to cope with the degenerating policies of the Liberal government. It will grant to wage earners priority over unsecured creditors for up to $2,000 in unpaid wages per employee, plus an additional $500 per employee in respect of amounts an employer is liable to pay as pension and other health and welfare contributions. It makes directors personally liable for unpaid wages and contributions but adds a defence of reasonable reliance on financial statements and other reports, and there is going to be a big line-up to get in on that, Mr. Speaker.
. I would just like to give you more statistics on what is happening to Canadian businesses under the so called Liberal policies. We were visited by representatives of 101 companies from Alberta and Saskatchewan two weeks ago. These are service companies supplying goods and services to the oil industry. They informed us that lay-offs in the industry in Alberta and Saskatchewan for the first quarter of 1981, since the NEP was introduced, totalled 2,040. They conducted a survey and claim that within six months, 40 per cent of these firms will be going bankrupt or just closing their doors, or moving to the United States, and they claim that 75 per cent will not be able to last one year. I cannot put the proper words to try and get the message across to the Liberals as to why on earth they are being so stubborn on this issue with this stupid, ridiculous program which is a tremendous burden on the backs of Canadian businessmen and is going to do absolutely nothing to make us self-sufficient.
These are disastrous figures. They claim that 75 per cent of these 101 firms will only be able to last another year. And there are further figures on how these policies are affecting
Bankruptcy
Canadians. The Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors claim there will be a grand total of 60,000 jobs lost by mid-summer due to the increasing number of oil and gas rigs leaving Canada. Stan Jones, executive director of the association, said:
-the 50 per cent decline in the number of rigs drilling for oil and gas during the past year has surpassed their worst predictions.
Jones blamed the federal government's National Energy Program and its failure to reach an oil pricing agreement with Alberta for creating the dramatic slump in the oil industry.
So I guess it is just as well we are debating a bill to streamline bankruptcy procedures and give some aid to the 60,000 employees to be laid off.
As to self-sufficiency, I cannot find anyone who agrees with the Liberal party that we are going to be self-sufficient by 1990. The industry has provided us with figures that Canada will be only 55 per cent self-sufficient in oil by 1990 and the cost of increased oil imports will be $182 billion over the decade. That is going to the OPEC countries, to Mexico and Venezuela. Just imagine, if we were working to keep those billions here in Canada, we would not be talking about bankruptcies and lay-offs and driving businesses out of the country. That is an awful lot of money to be leaving a country the size of Canada.
I would like to say that I support passage of this bill but we all must keep in mind the fundamental reasons why such a bill has to be introduced in the first place. As I have outlined in this speech, the Liberals are the root of our problem. They have operated a blank cheque-spending policy throughout their stay in office and have failed to develop any over-all industrial economic strategy that would stimulate and maintain a healthy financial environment in Canada.
The Financial Post has done a lot of research into the Liberal national energy policy and its effects on Canadian industry. I would like to read into the record part of an article which appeared in the April 18, 1981 edition of The Financial Post. It reads:
Since a surplus of rigs in Canada is expected, demand for repairs, new rigs, equipment and supplies is far less urgent than in recent years. The oilfield manufacturing sector, which used a lull in new orders since last October to catch up on back orders, now faces an alarmingly bleak future.
Partial reprieve for some companies, mainly the bigger, better capitalized ones, is to move south with the Canadian oil explorers.
They just do not go down there for a short visit. If something happened here which would remove the National Energy Program, it does not mean that they will all come rushing back. It will not happen because it costs a lot of money to move the rigs. They will stay there as long as they want. They are made welcome down there, but they are certainly not made welcome in their own country.
The article continues:
Dreco, for instance, the Edmonton-based company that builds rig masks and substructures, last year sold 55 per cent of its output to Canadian drilling companies for use in Canada. In 1981, only 25 per cent of its rigs will go to Canadian clients and even those are for use in the U.S. Dreco was fortunate to

May 20, 1981
Bankruptcy
have established U.S. plants in 1978, says Don Seto, vice-president, finance, pointing out the frenzied U.S. demand for rigs means this year's sales should climb to $170 million from $106 million in 1980.
Bill Hull, president of the Red Deer ESAA chapter and also president of Viking Oil Field Supply Ltd., is one of those looking south-his company is suffering a 40 per cent cutback in its $3 million annual sales of oilfield supplies.
"I'm heading down to Houston in June," he says. "These days you can hardly get a flight to Denver or Houston because of the people moving or taking a look. Many of them with, say, $1 million invested in a service operation have to move to survive."
More lay-offs, more businesses and regional offices are closing down; they cannot survive in Canada. I saw a recent advertisement in an economic magazine which referred to Kentucky as the eleventh province. "Come to Kentucky where you can survive, all you Canadians. Bring your money, your rigs, your businesses and your expertise". Also the advertis-ment indicated that "profit" was not a dirty word in Kentucky.
But I would like to indicate that the Liberals are coming up with some solutions. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) indicated that he would give us a tax hike because the economy is strong. But he forgot to say that the economy in the United States was stronger. Thanks to him and his colleagues, the economy in Canada is not strong at all. Their solution is tax increases.
1 should like to refer to what Mr. John Bulloch, the head of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, pointed out respecting the serious effects on his members owing to the stubbornness of the Liberal government in not reaching a solution with the oil producing companies, by allowing them $35 a barrel instead of the $45 and $50 out of the country. He pointed out:
The organization, representing some 57,000 small business owners and managers across the country, also says that a recent survey shows nearly 70 per cent of its membership support more rapid increases in domestic oil prices than those already set out by the government.
The members of that organization had the same feeling as many of us; Mr. Bulloch stated:
We don't believe that Alberta is as rigid as Lalonde says-
Anyone who would introduce an energy program as he has is certainly the one who is at fault; it is not anyone else. He is determined to get at Alberta one way or the other, but Canadians must realize the effects of this ridiculous policy. It affects all provinces, especially Ontario. Most of the trucks which are used out there are made in Canada. It will affect General Motors in Oshawa, Ford, International Harvester, White in Penticton and I understand the Kenworth Trucks outside of Montreal. I do not have the exact Figures, but there have been some serious cutbacks in production there because of the NEP. Some of the Quebec Liberals should check the figures to find out just what this outfit is doing.


An hon. Member:: Ask Bill Davis.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I hear a Quebec Liberal yelling out; he would not know anyway. I hope some of these facts and figures will at least get the message across to the people of Ontario and Quebec. The NEP is doing absolutely nothing for them. We hope the Liberal party will come to its senses in the very
near future and remove this ridiculous National Energy Program. Then we will not be required to debate great thick bills on how to streamline bankruptcy.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, in looking at Bill C-12, an act respecting bankruptcy and insolvency, I immediately asked myself what were the guiding principles which the designers, framers or draftsmen of the act actually had in mind. I thought 1 should point out the four or five guiding principles I would use to write a bankruptcy act for Canada today.
The first point I would put down is that honesty should pay off. It is not the basis of many of our bankruptcies or receiverships. Sometimes it is trickery, sometimes it is sharky deals, sometimes it is financial manipulation by so-called clever people. In many cases the honest chap gets the dirty end of the stick. I do not think that should be the basis of our legislation. At worst, bankruptcies and receiverships are a disastrous catastrophe for those involved and for the country as a whole. The basis of this entire act should be honesty. If honesty is not the basis, many inequalities will show up.
My second point is that bankruptcies should not be profitable. Going into bankruptcy should not be the means for a person to make money. Yet how many times has it occurred? I have seen businesses go bankrupt regularly every year and pay their debts based on a percentage of the dollar.
Whether it was five cents, 25 cents, 75 cents or 99 cents, in my view it was dishonest. They are paying their debts by making money themselves; they are not paying their logical debts. The person who takes the loss is the unsecured creditor. Bankruptcies should not be profitable.
This bill should include some guidelines which ensure bankruptcies are not profitable for certain people and terrible for those who suffer the consequences. The other night the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) cited a case similar to one which is familiar to me. I do not have all the facts with regard to the case before me, but his case definitely illustrated that honesty was not the basis of the receivership on that occasion. The farmer he talked about had to pay twice simply because he was doing business with a dishonest dealer who did not give him a proper receipt. The farmer was trusting, which is a nice element in any community, and he took the dealer at his word. This is common in many parts of Canada, but in the case cited by the hon. member the farmer had to pay $60,000 instead of $30,000 for a tractor. That is not fair nor right, yet it is what we are condoning in this legislation. Bankruptcy should not be profitable for some and disastrous for others.
The third point I wish to make is that bankruptcies are beyond the control of debtors and this fact should not be permitted to ruin a family. Today, in a number of bankruptcies, the debtor has had nothing whatsoever to do with bringing about a situation in which he loses his home. If the legislation for our country permits a banker or financier to
May 20, 1981

increase interest rates midstream, then who can stand up to that type of action? For example, if a man earns $10,000 a year and makes arrangements to spend a percentage of his income on a home, say at 10 per cent, if he suddenly finds that the interest rate has been increased to 15 per cent or 19 per cent, that places a burden on him which he cannot carry. Bankruptcy is beyond the control of this person and he can lose his home. His family will be ruined. This is happening to a great many people today. My heart goes out to these people because their bankruptcies are not caused by bad management; their bankruptcies have been caused by the actions of others over whom they have no control.
The fourth point I would like to mention is a basic principle. Wage earners, unsecured creditors and small businessmen should not be given the dirty end of the stick. Pardon my language, Mr. Speaker, but that is exactly what is happening today. When a bankruptcy occurs a wage earner does not receive his wages. He has no cash put by upon which he can live, so he and his family go without. The same is true for unsecured creditors. There are cases involving the assets of an estate being eaten up through the costs involved in litigation, the hiring of lawyers and chartered accountants and paying off secured creditors. When it comes right down to it, the unsecured creditors sometimes receive nothing. Sometimes they receive a percentage on the dollar, but at other times they receive no wages whatsoever. A wage earner cannot bear such a burden. I will deal with this aspect in more detail in a moment. A bill such as the one before us should ensure that wage earners, unsecured creditors, and in some cases small businessmen and farmers, should be given equality with secured creditors.
The fifth point I wish to make is that in dealing with bankruptcies you are really dealing with tragedies. They should be handled with understanding, fairness and equality to all concerned, including the debtor. I think that if the five points I have mentioned were the foundation for the bill before us, the debate today would not be very long.
I now want to deal with some aspects of the bill. What are the facts in regard to bankruptcies? At the risk of being repetitious I will quote some figures, since what I have to say is based on them. If we were having few bankruptcies in this country, then there would be nothing to worry about. Let us look at a five-year average for the last 20 years. In 1960, 1965 and 1970 the number of bankruptcies ranged from 3,500 to 5,500. The increased number of bankruptcies through those years was not dramatic. But between 1970 and 1975 there was a substantial increase of almost 6,000 bankruptcies. That is more than double the number in the previous years. That is a serious situation.
I would have thought the government of the day, in 1975, would have looked at those figures and realized that something was wrong. They should have found out what was happening and taken steps to correct it, but apparently nothing was done. Between 1975 and 1980 the situation grew dramatically worse. The figures rose from 11,293 personal and business bankruptcies in 1975 to 27,620 in 1980, an increase of 144 per cent.
Bankruptcy
Surely the minister in charge should have asked why this was happening. We must ask why today. I can understand the comments of the minister, who asked us not to discuss inflation and economics, but they are factors which are interwoven with bankruptcy. Today we have inflation and high interest rates. They are part of the cause to a very large extent.
Let us take a closer look at some of the bankruptcies on the personal side. In the first quarter of 1981 there were 6,152 bankruptcies. For the first quarter of 1980 there were 5,238. This represents a 17'/2 per cent increase in the number of bankruptcies in a period of only one year. Why should this be? The government should be trying to find out.
On the business side the figures are not quite so bad. For 1979 to 1980 the number of bankruptcies amounted to 5,523. But in 1980-81 the rise in the incidence of bankruptcy is 18.5 per cent. That figure is more than the rate for personal bankruptcies. Small businesses are going broke.
I would now like to look at the figures for farms. Often farms in our country are called the backbone of the nation. In the first quarter of 1980 there were 44 bankruptcies, while in the first quarter of 1981 the figure almost doubles, amounting to 75. This figure does not reveal the number of farms which went into receivership, nor does it include farms which fail. If those figures were included, a terrible picture would be presented. What is happening? We are not giving our producers a reasonable deal at all. As a matter of fact, we are providing no incentive for farmers to go out and break their backs the way they have been, and the way they have to today, working 10, 12 or 15 hours a day, particulary during seeding and harvesting. There is no incentive because, at the end, if they are trying to build stakes for their families, we now say: "You are going to be stuck with capital gains. We will not even give you once in a lifetime relief. If you pass it on to your families, they will pay; or if they pass it on, they will pay". So there is no incentive to try to build a nest egg any more.
Hundreds of farmers in this country today have spent their lifetimes building up estates. Now they want to retire, but they find that by the time they pay capital gains, they have nothing to retire on, or very little. They cannot buy homes in the city, where they want to spend their last few years.
As for production, we discourage production in this country. We are trying to get farmers to produce. There is only one thing this government is doing to try to stop inflation, and that is to bring in high interest rates. It is not being successful. High interest rates keep going up further, yet we still have inflation. With high interest rates, with taxes such as the excise tax on natural gas increasing, with inflation and the extra they have to pay for natural gas, it means the farmer has to pay more for heat, more for fertilizers, more for credit, more for machinery-more for everything. He is unable to cope with these increases, so what does he do? He cannot afford to buy more fertilizer because we put an excise tax on it, so he lowers production.

May 20, 1981
Bankruptcy
This is happening all across the country. When the farmer cuts production he again aggravates inflation, and the government again raises interest rates which lowers production still again, and the vicious cycle goes on and on. Flow the government can ever think that by continually raising interest rates it will solve inflation is completely beyond me. I think it is also beyond them, because this policy just is not working. It has not worked in this country yet. In spite of what Governor Bouey says, it is not working. Inflation is still going up.
If I were the minister of finance I would say to Governor Bouey: "Show me that it will work; if it will not work, find some other way". Surely there are other ways and other means. A far better way, in my view, is to increase production; but we are doing the very reverse in our system today; we are decreasing production. It is only by increasing production in this country in all industries, including farming, that we will be able to raise the standard of living and raise the pensions which could be paid to those who have already passed the age of production or to those such as widows who are trying to raise children. We cannot continue forever by borrowing money and paying it out as pensions and subsidies; we must do something to try to increase production.
I suggest that the government try giving lower interest rates to producers, just to those who produce our food. There are producers all along the way, from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland. Eliminate that excise tax on agricultural production and see what will happen. I will tell hon. members what will happen. Immediately the farmers will start putting in more crops. They will increase their production. They will use more fertilizer. They will buy more machinery. There will be bigger yields through the use of fertilizer. Then, when that happens, interest rates can be lowered again and inflation will go down.
There are two ways of fighting inflation. One is by fighting it with interest rates; the other way is to raise production. However, we are raising interest rates and lowering our production. I would like to know what the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and Governor Bouey have to say about that. There is surely an answer, and the people of this country are getting fed up waiting for an answer.
No wonder we have this number of farmers going bankrupt. It is a serious matter. The total number of bankruptcies increased 70 per cent during the first five months of this year over the first five months of last year. Seventy per cent! There is something wrong.
Another thing which could be done to fight inflation is to cut down expenses. We do not see very much going on in that area either. Lip service is given to cutting down deficits, but we are still borrowing money. We have already passed two bills to borrow more and more money. The government is trying to raise itself up by its bootstraps and it just cannot be done. Ultimately the country will go bankrupt. It is only because this is a vast country that we are able to withstand this type of situation. When people say the country was built on credit, they are right; but when a farmer borrowed $2,000 from the bank to enlarge his farm, he used that money to
increase production so that he had something left over for himself after paying back not only the $2,000 but the interest. However, here we are borrowing money and giving it away, expecting that it will lower inflation. There is a need. There are many places where money could be saved by this government, but apparently it has never thought of saving money. It does not want to save money, and I want to deal with that aspect in a few minutes.
We have a debt of $120 billion in Canada. As the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) said a few minutes ago, we are not even touching the capital. We are barely paying the interest. Where is it going to end? Every baby born in this country is born with a tag of more than $5,000 debt around its neck. That is their birthday present when they arrive on mother earth. Perhaps some of these babies will have something to say about that in a few years, too. It is not fair, it is not right and it is unnecessary. Why, we spend money like

 I was going to say like drunken sailors, but drunken sailors only spend the money they have. This government borrows money and then spends it.
The remarks I have just made relating to debt should indicate the causes. I think we should now look at some of the causes of bankruptcies. Then so far as time permits I want to deal with some of the clauses of the bill.
First of all, one cause of bankruptcy could be poor management. People get into water which is too deep for them. They do not have expertise or knowledge and so they go under. That is sad. They try, but they have gone beyond their own means. As the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said the other day, sometimes the manipulators are responsible. They play Russian roulette with their creditors. They go bankrupt in order to reduce a debt to pay a few cents instead of the dollar that they owe, and the unsecured creditors take a beating and perhaps even the wage earners.
Another thing to be considered is that credit is too easily available. People are urged to buy on credit and not wait until they have saved the money to buy an article. Those who make credit so easily available are partly to blame because they urge people to buy on credit-indeed, they almost beg them to borrow. Then when trouble comes, they are not so sweet and show their real colours.
Sometimes in the business world the banks are partly responsible for bankruptcies. They restrict credit to the point where they do not advance enough money for a particular purpose and, as a result, the business goes under.
The fifth point that I would mention is government legislation. The most conspicuous piece of legislation is the national energy policy which has driven business and capital out of the country. During the past recess I toured 67 places in my constituency and spent about half an hour or an hour on the streets of each, talking to people. The problem reaches down into the small businesses, the cafes, restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, hardware stores. All are now feeling the pinch because
May 20, 1981

the oil industry is at a standstill. This could have been avoided if the government had thought ahead.
In July, 1980 Premier Lougheed offered the government a way out when he proposed an oil price 65 per cent to 75 per cent of the Chicago price after three or four years. He included a lot of other fringe benefits, such as financing the pipeline to the maritimes and providing money for transportation of grain in western Canada. If that agreement had been accepted, millions of dollars would have been saved, but much of this money will now come out of the pockets of the people in Ontario and Quebec, where the major population is, to pay for foreign oil. Now things are worse. The sooner the government accepts that agreement, the better things will be. If it does not, more and more industries in this country will be wiped out. This bankruptcy legislation will not prevent any bankruptcies.
It may have seemed clever to try to hurt Alberta because it was doing well, but this country will not be built by penalizing those who are working and making it pay. I grew up in Alberta when it was one of the have-not provinces with a huge debt. The object was to get that debt paid and get the province back on its feet. The policy that started back in 1935 was pay-as-you-go. The policy of the present government is to provide for the present and for the future but not to go into debt unnecessarily and to spend money just because it has it. Every time a program is adopted, the cost five or ten years from now must be considered. There is no backing up on those programs.
I hope the minister will delay the legislation which requires metric measurement in our food stores. Thousands of people across the country have indicated that they do not want it, yet $7 million per year is spent telling them that they must have it. Metric measurement in food stores will only create chaos and hard feelings. It will not build any more trade. As a matter of fact, the IGA organization has said that it will lose trade because people who live close to the United States border will go there to buy food in a language they can understand. Why must we suddenly have metric in our food stores? The people of this country are not illiterate. They know what they want. They understand the imperial system. If the United States was changing, there might be some logic in this country's changing as well. There is no logic whatsoever in the government spending $7 million this year. That is unnecessary. The money comes out of the pockets of the people, or it is borrowed and the people must pay interest on it as long as they live and probably as long as their children live. It is all for nothing and the people do not want it. Metric conversion will cause bankruptcies if it goes through. I attended a meeting in Ottawa where representatives of IGA said that the cost would be something like $2 million which would be passed on to consumers. So it is not only inflationary, it is adding to the cost of living.
We also passed legislation to provide for two languages on every package of corn flakes, thus increasing the cost.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: If the hon. member opposite wants to make a speech, let him go ahead and make it. I have never seen
Bankruptcy
anyone so devoid of speeches. Hon. members opposite sit like lumps during the day and then when somebody else is speaking they start cha, cha, cha.


Mr. Parent:: That is what you sound like, cha, cha, cha, cha.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Where two languages are required, that is fine; but in many cases it is not required and it is not cheap at all.


Mr. Berger:: It is cheaper.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell me that metric is cheaper as well. What about the $7 million? The government knows better than the people. That is its philosophy, but the people of this country are getting fed up with it.
The government's legislation causes a lot of bankruptcies and the government will have to take responsibility for that. Government policies are also a major cause. High interest rates stop expansion, kill new starts and lower production. I suppose my friends opposite who have so much to say when they are in their seats will now be supporting high interest rates even though they are killing business. I should like them to put that in their pipes and smoke it. It is not fair to anyone to permit interest rates to change in mid-stream. When a contract is made for a mortgage on a house, the interest rate should not be changed. Otherwise it is unfair to the person who makes the contract.
Subsidies are provided for some people. Some of the companies that go bankrupt get a subsidy or a hand-out from the government at the expense of the rest of the people. Imperial Oil was not going bankrupt but it said it was leaving the country. The government should have entered into an agreement and thereby saved another few million dollars.
I understand we are now providing subsidies for a trucking company in the Northwest Territories. There have been trucking companies in that part of the country for many years which have built up their own business with hard work and their own capital. They have paid their way. But now competitors are coming in which are subsidized by the government. If you call that building a country, I say it is not. It is ruining a country. Subsidization like that should not be permitted. This would be a good avenue for DREE, but even DREE is doing that type of thing.
I have already written to the minister about one case where a government grant of $49,000 put one company into business but ruined another, one which had built itself up over a number of years with its own capital. The company which received the $49,000 subsidy could, of course, sell its product cheaper, and the other company which had paid its own way was ruined. That is not the purpose of government subsidies. There is a place for government grants in business but they should never put one firm in a better competitive position than another, particularly when the other one has been built through sacrifice and brawn without government assistance.

May 20, 1981
Bankruptcy
This country was built under the free enterprise system without government subsidies. If the government now start subsidizing certain businesses, it will put others into bankruptcy. That has already happened. One company has been ruined and there are others on the way out.
A few years ago we had this policy of importing beef. We increased the amount of beef we were importing from another country. As a result, scores of our young livestock producers went bankrupt. We looked after the people in another country but we did not look after our own livestock producers in Canada. That was government policy. Hon. members can talk about causes of bankruptcy. That was a cause of a tremendous number of bankruptcies among our young farmers, those who were just starting out and trying to make a go of it, but who then found out that the government had done something with which they could not cope. Government policies are one of the causes of bankruptcies.
Deficits too are a cause of bankruptcy. It is not right to operate under continual deficits. At one time the psychology of debt was abhorred by people, but the government has made it fashionable. The government has set an example to the people of this country. The government has said to the people: "Don't pay your way; borrow, borrow, borrow, and borrow to pay the interest". That is what we are doing in Canada. A business could not stand that, but that is what we are asking people to do. No wonder there is a $5,000 tag around the neck of every baby born in Canada. It is a disgraceful situation. However, we keep on doing this. We do not try to cut expenditures. We spent $7 million on a useless metric system, an unwanted system. We provide subsidies to companies to put other companies built by hard work and the capital of their owners out of business.
We wonder why inflation is rampant. We buy Petrofina at double its price, which does not bring one extra gallon of oil into this country, yet we charge the people for the acquisition. I say to hon. members, justify that policy to the people of Canada, because this contributes to inflation. To those who went about the country during the last election denouncing the 18-cent increase, I say tell the people of Canada why gas costs $1.41 a gallon today. If that is not inflation, I do not know what is. We are pouring oil on the fire of inflation. We wonder why inflation is increasing. We increase our interest rates hoping that this will put out the flame, but all the time we are just pouring more and more oil on the fire. This bill does not deal with those causes and that is my major criticism of it.
I want to deal in the time that I have left with one or two specific items. First, I want to comment on wage earners. The minister talked about a special fund being considered to which employee and employer would contribute. They would contribute ten cents or 25 cents a week or a month, whatever it was. But can anyone understand a worker being asked to contribute to a fund to save his employer from going bankrupt? I think employees in this country would laugh themselves sick if they were asked to do that. What if a person were told: "Your company might go bankrupt, so would you like to contribute 25 cents a week from your pay cheque to stop the business
from going bankrupt and so you can get some wages"? That was tried a few years ago through the compensation board. It was said to those workers injured on the job while producing for their masters who made the profits that they should pay part of the compensation. For a number of years that was done, until finally-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but 1 must advise him that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Has my allotted 40 minutes expired?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I am informed that the hon. member's time has expired.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry about that because you have missed the best part of my speech.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I will not be too long. I rise in my place because I have a very special interest in this piece of legislation. Bill C-12 was introduced into this House of Commons for consideration and debate by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouel-let) who also held that portfolio in 1975 when he introduced the bill for the first time. I had just joined the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as a public servant, where I remained for the subsequent five years. During that time, this bankruptcy bill was introduced into the House and went through the Senate committee three times. In the interim period, during 1979 when the Conservative administration was in power, this very same bill was introduced, word for word, with no changes, not one comma, not one dot over an "i", not one cross on a "t", and it is the same bill which has now been introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This is the honourable Senator Flynn's Conservative bill word for word. Yet for two days now the Conservative have held up approval on second reading with spurious discussion unrelated to the content of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: This is a good piece of legislation. The Conservatives agreed with that because they introduced precisely the same bill as that which went through discussion in this House, discussion in the Senate, discussion since 1972, following reworking and redrafting. This bill has been under consideration in the public service and in Parliament for nine years. We have finally come to a point where both parties are totally agreed as to what the optimal content of the bankruptcy bill should be, and both parties, via different administrations, have within a year introduced precisely the same bill. However, we cannot seem to come to agreement in this House
May 20, 1981

to give it second reading and send it to committee where it can be looked at in greater detail. When both ministers from two different administrations produce precisely the same bill, why can we not send it to committee? And even there, there should not be a great deal of discussion.
1 know personally the people intimately involved in the development and drafting of this bill. I was involved in another part of the department in federal-provincial conferences at which the content of this bill was discussed ad infinitum and ad nauseam with the provincial governments. There is agreement at the provincial level that this is good legislation. There is agreement among the parties in this House that this is good legislation. It is about time that we got on to the business of putting this bankruptcy legislation through all stages. It is good legislation. It is well drafted legislation. It is needed. It is legislation which by any standard this House has already agreed to.
I will not take any more of the valuable time of this House. I ask hon. members to put aside the temptation to use this debate as a vehicle for throwing in other items dealing with the economy and other matters. For example, tomorrow is an opposition day when we can talk about interest rates and all kinds of things. We do not have to do that with regard to this legislation. This legislation should be passed at second reading right now.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the parliamentary secretary stay and listen. He might learn something. The parliamentary secretary said that we were engaged in spurious discussion, in unrelated discussion. I find it incomprehensible for a member, particularly a parliamentary secretary, to stand up and say with a straight face that the economy is in no way related to the Bankruptcy Act. It is very apropos that the government brought in this bankruptcy legislation at a time when there is an all-time record of bankruptcies in the farming community, in small businesses and in personal bankruptcy. As a member of this House, I will stand at every opportunity to bring to task the government members, particularly the parliamentary secretary, for the disastrous way they are treating the Canadian economy and causing hardship from coast to coast.
The parliamentary secretary said that the civil servants and others who worked on this bill, but particularly the civil servants, did so for the past nine years. I would ask the parliamentary secretary how many civil servants run a business, have to borrow money to operate on their receivables and are on the verge of going down the tube because another company has gone bankrupt? I can tell you, there are not very damn many. How many of them even run a business or even have a concept of knowing what it is like to run a business? How many feeding at the government trough, working at 35 per cent capacity, have ever felt the pangs of going into personal bankruptcy? Not very damn many.
I would now like to get to my main remarks, and they are related to this bill. When the minister introduced the bill at
Bankruptcy
second reading, he asked the opposition to avoid playing politics. He said the bill is not related to the current economic problems facing Canada. He stated that a new Bankruptcy Act will not solve this country's economic problems because it is a legal question and is unrelated to inflation and interest rates. What nonsense! How can he say that bankruptcy is unrelated to interest rates and the economy? I do not know where he gets that kind of information. Maybe I will pass some of it on.


An hon. Member:: Is he an economist?


Jack Wendele Shields: He is not a very good economist, if he is. I would like to place some figures on the record. In 1980 there were 224 farm bankruptcies compared to 125 in 1979. No figures are available for 1978. We can rest assured that if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has the figure, it will not be made public in this House. In the first quarter of 1981 there were 75 farm bankruptcies. We will exceed the 1980 figure. In excess of 300 farm families will be forced into bankruptcy this year.
Let us look at the number of business bankruptcies.I am talking about small businesses and those a little larger. If they are as big as Chrysler or Massey-Ferguson they do not have to worry about going bankrupt. The government will dip into the barrel with the taxpayers' money and bail them out. I do not see the government coming to the rescue of the small farmer or small businessman. Let us see what is happening there.
In 1980 there were 6,595 business bankruptcies, 5,648 in 1979 and 5,646 in 1978, a definite trend. In the first quarter of 1981 there were 2,044 business bankruptcies. Therefore, there will be close to 10,000 business bankruptcies in 1981. That is clear to anyone who wants to dig into it a little bit.
Let us look at what is happening with personal bankruptcies. It is very easy to obtain credit. There is no onus on the individual granting the credit. We are creating a credit society. As the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) said earlier, we are at the point where people are starting to borrow money to pay interest on funds borrowed to pay interest on money they borrowed previously. They reach a point where they can no longer function on a daily basis because they are being hounded by the same creditors who consolidated their loans with a new loan at between 18 and 25 per cent, thereby forcing them into bankruptcy.
I ask hon. members to consider for a moment the pain, sorrow, humiliation and utter defeat an individual must go through when faced with a bankruptcy, particularly a personal bankruptcy. In 1980 there were 21,025 personal bankruptcies, 17,892 in 1979 and 15,938 in 1978. In the first quarter of 1981 there were 6,152 personal bankruptcies. We are looking at between 25,000 and 30,000 personal bankruptcies for 1981. In fact, the figure will probably exceed 30,000.
One might say in respect of personal bankruptcies that they are not so bad because they only affect one man, his wife and perhaps his children-just one family. We have counsellors for

May 20, 1981
Bankruptcy
this sort of thing. We have government services which come to their aid to counsel them out of it. They work out a system of going through a bankruptcy.
However, consider for a moment what happens in a small community, or any community for that matter, when a small businessman is faced with the kind of competition which grants indiscriminate credit. He is forced to stay in business and grant credit also. An individual bankruptcy of a small businessman works in exactly the same way. Let us consider a man who is a small entrepreneur. He may have a portable welding unit. He may have been doing fairly well with good jobs and established a standard of living for himself and his family. With the economic downturn we are now experiencing in central Canada and in the west, indeed in any part of this country, this man is faced with mounting costs. He is unincorporated so a bankruptcy is classed as a personal bankruptcy.
This man may owe the supplier of welding rod and other welding materials something like $30,000 a month, particularly if he is a contract welder. A small supplier of that material cannot withstand that sort of debt. As a result we immediately set up a domino effect with one business going bankrupt and then another and then another.
The minister stood before this House with a straight face and said he does not want Her Majesty's loyal opposition to play politics with this bill because it does not relate at all to current economic problems. How ridiculous can you be!


An hon. Member:: You can be a Liberal.


Jack Wendele Shields: I guess you have to be a Liberal to be that ridiculous.
The business community is a network of interconnections. A man establishes a line of business. If he is a supplier he establishes a number of customers. He gives them the supplies on the basis of 30 days net. In some cases when a man has a good job and it looks as though he is operating well the supplier will allow him 60 days net, but generally he gives 30 days net, and that is usually printed on the bottom of the invoices. For hon. members opposite who might not understand what that means, let me point out that it means the customer is expected to pay his bills within 30 days. A man can run up quite a bill in 30 days, particularly one of the small businessmen, entrepreneurs or operators. If the customer does not pay his bill in 30 days he goes into the 60-day accounts. After 60 days the supplier starts to worry, and in 90 days he starts to panic. We must remember that a small business community operates on its receivables. This involves unsecured debt, but the debt is out in the community.
The supplier goes to the bank with his invoices and shows his bank manager his receivables. The bank manager will usually advance 75 per cent of those receivables as operating capital. This is how these small businesses establish an operating line with the bank. As a result of this situation, if one man goes under and then a second goes under, before you know it a very healthy and viable service industry also goes under. This is the domino effect I refer to. That is what is happening right
now, though we will not see the entire effect of this immediately.
All this is happening because this government in its wisdom brought in a national energy policy which is absolutely destroying the service industry in Alberta and Saskatchewan. We are now talking about bankruptcies and I suggest this is very appropriate.
Last week we had a delegation from the oil service industry. Most of these delegates were from Canadian-owned small companies, and some medium-sized. They sat here with members from the opposite side and from the opposition and said generally that if the national energy policy did not change they were going to go bankrupt. The matter is that simple. Some said they would be bankrupt in three months. One fellow said he might be able to hang on for six months, but no one said he could live with the national energy policy as it now exists.
This energy policy has literally dried up exploration in the western basin, and when the big rigs are not drilling holes, the service rigs which come in after to clean the holes and prepare for production, including the mud companies, welding outfits and small pipeline contractors, start laying off employees. As a result their equipment sits idle. Yet the minister says he does not want the opposition to play politics with this bill because the Bankruptcy Act does not relate to the economic climate in Canada today. If anything relates to that economic climate it is certainly the Bankruptcy Act, because the policies of this present government are driving more and more small businesses into bankruptcy.
Let me refer for a moment to the very important riding of Athabasca. It is there that two megaprojects are being held up right now waiting for policy by this present government. These projects involve the expenditure of in excess of $20 billion. This is not government money. These companies are not in the pork barrel or at the government trough. These funds are already earmarked for the development of the heavy oil industry and the tar sands.
What happens when a company decides to expend $10 billion in a community like Fort McMurray, or perhaps $10 billion to $12 billion in a community such as Cold Lake-Grand Centre? The service industry must provide the services required by all the people who move there to work on these megaprojects. For three years, with no help from the government, no grants from DREE and without being propped up by the government trough, small entrepreneurs have invested their own money in these areas to build the necessary office space, warehouse space and other facilities. They have set up service firms and have employed a number of people. They did so with the knowledge that this country needed the development of the tar sands to survive.
What has happened? These people gambled because they are gutsy entrepreneurs. That is what free enterprise is all about. But they have overextended themselves. They are still not asking for handouts. They are not pounding on the door of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or asking DREE for money in order to survive. However, they are saying that if these projects do not go ahead they will pull up stakes
May 20, 1981

and leave. If this thing does not go, they are going to go bankrupt.
All they are asking is that this government move in with a policy that is realistic. This government knows deep down in its very soul that if those plants do not start producing the necessary supply of oil required for this country, the country will indeed go further into bankruptcy because we are importing oil and taking money from the taxpayer to pay for it. Thus we are pushing further and further into debt every man, woman and child in Canada.
A small businessman, and I stress small, could not function if he borrowed the way the present government borrows, because he would go bankrupt; he would be forced into receivership. This government cannot go bankrupt because they have nowhere to go. But they are bankrupt, and that is indicated when the foreign exchange value of the Canadian dollar starts to drop. Bankruptcy occurs because the government is defaulting on its debt. So what we are doing now, Mr. Speaker, is we are borrowing money from foreign sources, the New York exchange, the European monetary fund, anywhere we can get it, to prop up the Canadian dollar so we can buy back our dollars that are floating around all over the world because nobody wants them. That is what is causing interest rates to go sky high. How ridiculous can you get?
The first thing you hear from government benches, Mr. Speaker, is that hon. members over here stand up and start talking but have no concrete suggestions for the government to follow. I would like to make a few. Nobody is going to hear but maybe one person over there might hear. Does it not seem feasible to hon. members on the government side that if we allowed the two megaprojects to go ahead with an investment of $20 billion, that will immediately take the pressure off the Canadian dollar? Does it also not seem feasible that if there is a national energy policy in place that creates an economic climate in our country that will attract investment, people will be clamouring to invest their money in Canada because we are so richly endowed with every resource imaginable from water to oil? If people are clamouring at our door to invest and we say we do not want any more money invested, it seems logical that they will say that they will not charge us 15 or 20 per cent interest but will drop it down to 12 per cent or 10 per cent- because money is just another commodity.
All we have to do is look at the economic climate in Switzerland, where a few years ago-and this is well documented; all members have to do is go to some of the departments and read the information they have-there was a negative interest flow to invest in Switzerland. In other words, you paid them to take your money because everyone was clamouring to put their money in Switzerland. And it is logical. Interest rates in Switzerland are below 5 per cent even with inflation. Yet this government tells Governor Bouey: "Go ahead, Bouey; just lace it to them. We are going to cut off that spending spree that Canadians are on." Then when you turn
Bankruptcy
on the TV, the credit card companies say: "Don't leave home without it"! Who is kidding whom?
We are creating an inflation mentality across this country. People are scrambling to buy now at 20 per cent interest because next month it might be 25 per cent. And the minister says the Bankruptcy Act is really not relevant to what is happening in Canada today! Believe me, Mr. Speaker, it is.
Let us look at something else just briefly. The government's fiscal policies are obviously damaging the country. The NEP is damaging the country. And what is happening out there in the business community? I have seen healthy small businesses which were growing and prospering going into bad management practices because the inflation mentality has now hit them. They are saying: 'Buy now, stock up now, we will overstock for spring, because, by God, by the time we get stock in to sell it will have gone up 10 or 15 per cent and it is better for us to make the money". In most cases, for the past three years it has been that way, but now bankruptcies are coming in. They are overextending themselves because of poor business practice. The day of reckoning is at hand, and we have absolutely no one to blame or to look to but the present government because they have been in office for 12 years. They got us into the mess we are in.
Surveys have been done showing that the average working family are in debt to the extent of three times their annual earnings, excluding home purchases, and the figure is increasing all the time. In my riding of Athabasca, Mr. Speaker, the bankruptcy rate is starting to increase and can be related directly to the NEP brought in last October. This is a policy adopted by this government and it is hurting the gutsy little entrepreneur who will invest his money. When plants are set up you have to have services in place, because if you do not the turnover rate in those plants is so high that costs go up again. Schools have to be built, municipalities must expand, hospitals have to be built.
Not one small businessman in northeastern Alberta can plan for the future today. He cannot sit down and forecast, he cannot buy properly. He must be able to do this, because if he makes a small mistake he will go bankrupt. Why? Because of the national energy policy established in October.
I want to address the area of farm bankruptcies. I have expressed my feelings on the oil industry, but one cannot eat oil. The people in our country from coast to coast who live on the land, work the land and provide the bread and butter for Canadians who sit down to three meals a day, if they are lucky, are being shafted by the government's high interest rate policy. The farmer depends greatly on borrowing on the strength of his inventory. What is the inventory of a farmer? It is the basic stuff which goes on our tables, whether he is a hog producer, a cattle producer, a grain producer, a chicken farmer or whatever.
A grain producer cannot move grain to market because the government will not accept a plan to upgrade the transportation facilities put forward by the province of Alberta. He has it

May 20, 1981
Bankruptcy
in storage and it is worth dollars. He goes to the bank to borrow money on it so that he can operate. He mortgages his soul so that he can plant this year's crop when he is not rid of last year's crop.
1 do not know if there is something wrong with me at times, because I see this clearly. People seem to become involved in the incestuous relationship which we seem to have in Ottawa and absolutely ignore all these things. The minister stood in the House and said that we should not be talking politics about the Bankruptcy Act. This is not politics, it is common sense. He said that we should not be discussing anything, that we should bang this bill through the House of Commons and go on our merry way, because it has no relationship to the economic situation facing Canada today. What utter nonsense and rot!
It is correct and necessary to update the present legislation before the House. It has been long overdue. We all know of instances where a wage earner has worked loyally for a company which goes bankrupt and he loses all his wages; he might even have piled up wages. He is not able to get this wages because he is not a secured debtor. Bill C-12 goes a little way toward helping him, but would it not be more reasonable to give absolute paramountcy to the wage earner or the salesman who sells on commission for a company? Would it not be better to give him absolute paramountcy over everyone and to say, "You get paid first because you put your sweat, blood and tears into your job"? Then the secured debtors could be paid.
The government has built in a $500 to $2,000 limit for a wage earner. With inflation going the way it is, is that reasonable? I can remember taking a job, living high off the hog, thinking I was rich and doing well earning $3,000 a year. Hon. members know that one requires $12,000 to $14,000 per year now in order to live. That amount is increasing all the time with inflation and the manner in which the government is handling the situation. Why should we place a ceiling on it? If a man is owed a dollar because he put in a dollar's worth of work, he should get it. Whether it is $2,000, $5,000 or $10,000, he earned the money. The bankruptcy laws should be such that he has absolute paramountcy over any creditor.
We talk about the wage earner. We think he is the guy who punches the clock and gets his pay cheque every day, every week, every two weeks or every month. I am talking about the guy who buys his own car, gets his sample cases together, drives all over the country at his own expense and picks up orders. He is a commercial salesman. His company might give him a bit of a draw, but in essence he is not incorporated; he is still an employee of the company. He goes to the bank to borrow on his future earnings or the earnings he has. He picks up the orders, the orders come back, and he might wait four or five months before his money starts to flow to him. It is the nature of the business.
What about the guy who takes his savings and buys a gravel truck to start hauling for a construction firm? Usually he operates on a net 30-day basis, and the construction firm can hold him off for 45 days. In the meantime he has expenses. He
goes to the bank and says, "This is how much money the construction firm owes me; I will get my cheque next week." The bank advances him the funds to keep operating and driving his truck. Then there is a bankruptcy and, bang, he is lost because he is an unsecured creditor. It is not right, it is not fair. If a man puts an ounce of sweat into his job, he should be paid for it. He should have paramountcy in all legislation dealing with bankruptcy. Pegging the maximum at $2,000 is artificial indeed.
If inflation keeps going the way it is, we will be back here next year, the year after and the year after that. We may take another ten years to update this legislation again. I ask the minister to consider seriously including salesmen, selfemployed individuals and truck drivers. I am talking about the guy who goes out and buys a welding rig to weld on pipelines. They can be absolutely devastated by a bankruptcy and must be protected.
Who are the secured debtors? They are the Federal Industrial Development Bank-government and DREE. Let us put the priorities where they belong. The priorities must be with the individual who works day after day and depends on his cheque for his livelihood.
The government or government agencies should have the lowest priority of the secured debtors. We should think about that for a minute. If a government agency is willing to extend credit and to take the flier because the government is involved, it brings in on its coattails other people who say, "If the government is involved, that company must be pretty good or the government would not have advanced the funds." So, unsuspectingly, the small businessman comes along behind and grants credit. He says to himself, "Surely my government, which is knowledgeable about all these things, would not advance credit to this guy if he was no good." And bingo! He goes broke, Mr. Speaker. Who receives their money back first? It is the agency of the federal government. The small businessman is left out there-I have an expression to use, but I will not.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead!


Jack Wendele Shields: He is left sucking his thumb.
This is another concrete example I would like to give the House. The government should set up the legislation in such a way that the wage earner, the self-employed wage earner, and the others I have described, receive absolute paramountcy, before secured creditors or anyone else. The second suggestion I have is that the government, as a secured creditor, should be last in line behind all the other secured creditors. I think that is reasonable and fair.
There was a press release issued by the minister on December 29, 1980 announcing that a committee on insolvency problems would be established. We called the committee chairman's office. He is Mr. Landry of the University of Ottawa. We were not able to reach him but we did get hold of a Mr. Guam, who is on loan from the Justice Department. Mr. May 20, 1981

Guam said that the committee had finished its research and that a report was in the drafting stage. Think about this, Mr. Speaker. The committee's mandate was to study insolvency problems; in other words, to study the problem of bankruptcy. It was aiming at a June completion date. It had six months to do its work. The committee was studying the impact of bankruptcy on the wage earner only. The initial intention was that the committee would work for six months, which is not a long time, and that the report would be ready before the legislation in the House reached second reading. The report is not here. The government established a committee and gave it six months to study the effects of bankruptcy on the wage earner. We wanted to have that report before the second reading stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that the time allocated to him has expired. He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jack Wendele Shields: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Where is the committee's report? Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that we in this House should have a copy of the report immediately so that we may sit down, go through it and put forward some recommendations of our own?
I suggest that the minister would probably not wish to be embarrassed by this reversal in timing. We are at second reading stage before we have the report. I do not know why. If the minister, as he has said, wants this legislation to be non-political, and if he wants it to proceed to committee, then we should be making it the best legislation possible to assist the wage earner who has been discriminated against in our bankruptcy laws up until now. When will the minister have the report published and made available to members of Parliament? It is in the minister's power to do this. Will the minister have the report published immediately and distribute it to members?
Bankruptcy
There are serious problems facing our country and I become a bit upset when a minister stands to address members in the House and says. "Let us not make politics of this bill; if you have anything to say about the economy, you are making politics out of this bankruptcy legislation". That is not true. The bankruptcy bill is the most appropriate piece of legislation which this government could present at this time. It is as ironic as blazes that the government would bring in bankruptcy legislation now. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it had better be streamlined, because if this government continues with its ill-advised National Energy Program and disastrous economic policies, with its continued overspending and with the borrowing of money to prop up the Canadian dollar, then we will be in more serious trouble in two years' time than we would ever have dreamed possible. It is urgent that this government address the problem immediately. This government must take the responsibility for waste and neglect in our country.
The very last thing I wish to comment on concerns the president of Imperial Oil, who has very clearly indicated that if there is not some degree of certainty with respect to an energy agreement at their Cold Lake plant by June 1 the whole project will be shelved. That is a $12 billion project which will be of incalculable value to the Canadian economy.
More important, there is the $40 million which was lent to Imperial Oil by the government to keep its research team in place. Have hon. members opposite forgotten this? It only happened six months ago. That $40 million is non-repayable if the plant does not go ahead. Imperial Oil is on the verge of saying, "Gentlemen, if you cannot make up your minds with regard to national energy policy and if you cannot get together and come to some agreement, we will shoot our project down the tube and shelve it".
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 21, 1981