1983-06-17

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, on May 15, at the William Head Penitentiary near Victoria, B.C., Professor Douglas Ayers drew attention to an important change in public policy with respect to penitentiaries. He reminded Canadians that traditionally in our social policy one of the purposes of our penitentiaries is rehabilitation. We have never accepted the view that the sole purpose of a penitentiary is to punish, or to deter, or to hold people in custody. Reflecting our moral perspectives, we expect penitentiaries to try very hard to encourage, direct, and lead prisoners to responsible lives. The way we deal with our prisoners reflects the kind of people we are and the kind of society we wish to be.
The annual report of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) for 1981-82 defines the over-all mandate of the Correctional Service of Canada as being " . . . responsible for administering the sentences of the courts, as well as the decisions of the National Parole Board, affecting the release of offenders sentenced to two years or more". There is nothing in this statement even suggestive of rehabilitation. The June 6 article in Maclean's magazine by Val Ross suggests that in recent years the purposes of Canadian penitentiaries have been reformulated in such a way as to exclude that goal. Dr. Ayers pointed out that this is why the Solicitor General was so easily able to threaten to cancel the effective ten-year-old education program of the University of Victoria.
I would urge the Government to be unequivocal and to restore rehabilitation as one of the primary goals of the penitentiary system.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, every Canadian believes deeply in two principles-that his or her fellow Canadians are decent, honest and law abiding, and that those who would disrupt our system of peace, order and democratic Government should be found and dealt with. That
these two principles are sometimes difficult to reconcile is inevitable. But it is also true that, in reconciling them, balance must be steadfastly sought. For this reason, the comments of the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) yesterday, to the effect that nobody is exempt from security service scrutiny, are an affront to decent, thoughtful Canadians.
The Minister, who appears to be running for membership in George Orwell's "Animal Farm", has somehow lost sight of the first principle of justice in a free society, that is, that nobody should be the object of a security inquiry by the state without some reasonable evidence in the first place that a security risk may exist to justify the investigation.
Any Minister who accepts the view that all Canadians should be automatically and routinely suspect, that someone who is not guilty would not object to being investigated, that we, as loyal citizens, should bear the onus of proving our innocence, that Canadians should assume they are under scrutiny and behave accordingly-any such Minister has no place in office in this land and most certainly not in the office of Minister of Justice.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to call the attention of the House to the report that Canadian National Railways intends to merge the administration of its trucking and express divisions and to base the new operation in Toronto. That will result in the loss of some 350 jobs across the system. Also, apparently the prairie merchandising and claims centre is to be moved from Winnipeg to Calgary, meaning a loss of jobs in Winnipeg. Within this context I would also like to call attention to the increasing centralization and automation of railway services within the CNR. This all constitutes part of the continuing attack by the CNR on the number of people who work for the railways.


Mr. Pepin:: An attack on deficits.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: In this instance 350 jobs are involved, but literally thousands of jobs are being weeded out of the railway system on a year by year basis.
I call on the Minister of Transport to do something about this attack on the over-all numbers of people who work for the CNR, and particularly in the case of this latest merger on the number of unionized employees who will be working for the

June 17, 1983
CNR. I should also like to call upon him to investigate the way in which safety is often affected by these so-called rationalizations. In this case I am referring to something that Members are already aware of, and that is the Nakina run-through, which will mean less actual visible inspection of track and fewer people on the ground, so to speak. We will be more reliant than ever on computers for rail safety, and this is not a good thing.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, it is a concern to me that many Canadians are not aware of the various disarmament initiatives in which Canada participates.
The most notable arms control negotiations currently under way are, first, the Intermediate Nuclear Force talks which are being held between the United States and the Soviet Union in Geneva, and second, the Strategic Arms Reduction talks in which the United States and the Soviet Union are debating the reduction of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Canada, as a member of NATO and NORAD, through our discussions with the United States, has an important say in these arms control negotiations.
Canada is a full participant in the mutual and balanced force reduction negotiations between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, which are looking at the number of troops and weapons that would be acceptable for each side in Europe.
In addition, Canada participates in the 35-nation conference on security and co-operation in Europe, which includes discussions on military matters such as confidence building measures between east and west European nations.
Canada also participates in the United Nations Disarmament Commission which meets year round in Geneva. Of special note for the current year is that Canada is chairman of the committee which is working toward a ban on all chemical and biological weapons.
In addition, Canada is one of the very few countries which has an official ambassador for disarmament.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, for over a decade military observers have viewed with alarm the deterioration of the Canadian Armed Forces. Personnel has
been reduced from a 1960 level of 126,000 to a current level of
80,000.	The reserves experienced an even greater reduction.
[DOT] (mo)
Much of the equipment used by the Canadian Armed Forces is now aged and obsolete, yet the officers and ranks struggle to meet our NATO and other commitments in defence of Canada and the free world. Promises of improvements and increased spending on national defence have not been kept. Now the Government must act.
The House of Commons has been silenced by the Government majority, but the report of the Senate subcommittee on National Defence has exposed the real facts on Maritime Command and defence policy to public view. We see a naval force crippled by inadequate equipment and stymied by lack of ministerial policy direction.
The subcommittee recommendations are detailed and thoughtful, and deserve careful examination by the Government. In broad terms, we must give force to the demand for a $550 million annual increase in the expenditures to arrest the decline in status and readiness of our Maritime forces. Such an increase would generate job-creation activity in shipbuilding, and more important, would stall the decline in conventional arms and minimize the need to resort to nuclear weapons in our national defence.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, in a speech to the United Nations Association in Ottawa the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) stressed Canada's opposition to armed attacks on legitimate Governments in Central America but remained silent on U.S. financed and directed attacks on Nicaragua. The Canadian Government has not demanded evidence of the existence of arms shipments from Nicaragua to Honduras which the U.S. says justifies its support for counter revolutionary activities in Honduras and Nicaragua. The Canadian Government has not condemned the U.S. program of "destabilization" of Nicaragua, a program which has brought about the death of over 700 Nicaraguans in the last six months. The Canadian Government has not challenged the U.S. campaign of disinformation about conditions in Nicaragua, and in particular the American distortion of the situtaion of the Miskito Indians.
Instead of silently backing U.S. policy in Central America, Canada should be moving forward to help Nicaraguans build a democratic, pluralistic and prosperous society as they approach the fourth anniversary of their revolution this July 19.
June 17, 1983


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, surely by this time the Government must realize that western Canada does not want Bill C-155 in its present form. My idea of a democratic Government is that it endeavours to reflect the thinking of the people in its legislation and in its administration. If the Government would do that instead of telling the people what is good for them, as Bill C-155 does, it would call a meeting of the western Members of Parliament who represent the people of the West, and who are accountable to the people who elect them, and ascertain what has to be done to remove the major objections to the Bill.
For instance, why would the Government of Canada want to destroy the cattle and hog industry of western Canada? What changes to the Bill would have to be made to permit these industries to expand and reach their potential? Industrial development and manufacturing are required in the West. We have many raw materials and the expertise; why can we not invest and build up this industry? Surely in a country as large and as diverse as Canada there is room for development in both the West and the East. Let us start talking reasonably to each other with a view to permitting and encouraging the people of all parts of this great country to grow and play their part in building a greater Canada.
Forcing Bill C-155 on western Canada may appease the appetites for power but will, in the long run, be another nail in the coffin of Confederation. I love Canada and I do not want to see it broken up. Why can we not build this nation together, with all the regions of Canada playing their part?


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, the increasing involvement of the Liberal Government in the economy through public enterprise has been questioned by many concerned Canadians as they have watched through the last decade the increased deployment of Crown corporations and the tremendous waste of public funds which followed. Yet the Liberal Government attempts to get away with another unwarranted intervention, this time in agriculture. The new state agency, Canagrex, will emerge as the Petro-Canada of the agriculture industry, with its shark of debts, mismanagement, and lost opportunity for private enterprise. Again, the Government has created a public leech ' which is stealing business from the private sector.
The strong opposition to Canagrex voiced by numerous organizations across the country indicates our society's current mistrust of state management. Canadians are not willing to accept direct Government intervention in agriculture. The example of other bankrupt Crown corporations taught them a
Oral Questions
hard lesson. They treasure their economic and personal freedoms too much to let them perish.
[DOT] (ms)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. He is aware that the Auditor General announced yesterday in committee hearings that there was a special task force report produced in early 1982 resulting from the 1981 financial statement of Canadair. Upon investigation into the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce he uncovered a need to see this report. The Minister's predecessor agreed to allow him to see the report so that he could complete his statement in his report. Therefore, I ask the Minister to release this report which has caused this country great concern, and which will result in a write-down in excess of $2 billion on Canadair's operations.


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the report was referred to by the Auditor General in his 1982 report to Parliament. The report in question, was prepared for Ministers and therefore falls within the rules applying to Cabinet documents. In spite of that, my predecessor, in an effort to be helpful, did make it available to the Auditor General on a personal basis and, as far as I know, he is satisfied with the basis on which he received it.


REQUEST THAT AUDITOR GENERAL INVESTIGATE REPORT
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, the Auditor General is responsible to Members of Parliament. He was told this report was for his eyes only. In a previous incident, referred to as "Coalgate", the Minister of Energy provided documents which assisted us in finding out what happened. In . view of the depth of the debt of Canadair, I insist that this Minister at least permit the Auditor General's Department to do thorough research into this report because the Auditor General said in his statement that the company over-emphasized the sales potential. Will the Minister agree to that?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, with respect to the premise of the my hon. friend's question, I do not think the material he referred to involved Cabinet documents. I again repeat that the report in question is a Cabinet document and the principles applying to Cabinet documents are the same now as under previous administrations.
In spite of the status of that document, in an effort to be of assistance to the Auditor General my predecessor made it available to him on a personal basis. Obviously the Auditor

June 17, 1983
Oral Questions
General made use of the material in that report in preparing his comments in his 1982 report to Parliament.


REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE BE PERMITTED TO EXAMINE REPORT
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, the Auditor General has expressed to us his frustration that this report was for his eyes only. I acknowledge that we want to get into new technology, but we are in a very serious situation where it is costing every citizen in this country $95 to support Canadair. I insist, in view of the fact the Minister has given the Auditor General this report for his eyes only, that he broaden the terms and allow this report to come before committee so that we can report back to the citizens of this country about what actually went on in Canadair.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, as far as I am aware, the Auditor General, rather than expressing frustration about the basis on which he received the report, expressed satisfaction that, in spite of its status as a Cabinet document, he was allowed to see it and review it, so I must say that I do not agree with the interpretation of my hon. friend.
Aside from that, the Minister responsible for the Canada Development Investment Corporation, as far as I am aware, has presented a very complete report to both the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance Committee, and has made himself and his officials available to provide just the kind of information my hon. friend is seeking, so that the ground he is interested in is in fact being covered.


CERTIFICATION OF 1981 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the President of the Treasury Board. We all know that the underlying basis of confidence in our financial and corporate system lies in the auditors and their signing of the financial statements of corporations. On January 22, Thorne-Riddell signed the 1981 financial statements of Canadair. No mention was made of any financial problems. Yet a mere three weeks later Canadair asked for a letter of comfort in the sum of $1.3 billion. My question is this: Did the Government, or the Board of Directors of Canadair instruct, ask, or imply that Thorne-Riddell should omit any reference to the disastrous financial position of Canadair?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, in line with the principles involved in the role of Cabinet Ministers, I think that that question should be referred to the Minister currently responsible for the Canada Development Investment Corporation and Canadair. However, I must say that I am surprised at the inference, the innuendo in my hon. friend's question, when he is referring to a major, respected, national accounting firm.


Blaine Allen Thacker: If the Government would put its Cabinet Ministers in this House where we could question them, I would be asking the responsible Minister that question, but it stows him away in the Senate, where you cannot get at him. That answer is not good enough. That answer smells of a cover up.


INQUIRY RESPECTING POSSIBLE REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO AUDITING FIRM
Blaine Allen Thacker: I am repeating my question to the President of the Treasury Board. Did any Cabinet Minister or did any Board of Directors of Canadair instruct, ask, or imply that Thorne-Riddell should omit any comments about the disastrous financial position of Canadair in 1981?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, there is a Minister in the House answering for the Canada Development Investment Corporation, the Minister of National Revenue, and the Minister-


Mr. Nielsen:: He's not here.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -who sits in the Senate has appeared both before the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance Committee and, on behalf of the Government, has attempted to be very open and very helpful to Members of Parliament in this very important matter. Again, I want to say that I am surprised at the innuendo in the question, referring, as it does, to a major, national, and reputable accounting firm. I think that that innuendo should be rejected.


Mr. Lalonde:: Say it outside the House.


SPECIAL RECOVERY CAPITAL PROJECTS PROGRAM
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the minister of Finance which concerns the 1.5 milion unemployed men and women who would still like to have jobs. It is now two months since the Minister announced in his budget-and I think he was using the language without intended irony-his special recovery, fast track, accelerated Capital Works Program intended, one thought, to create many jobs. Thus far, from the $550 million which was intended to be spent this year, the only jobs about which we know are those which have gone to five consultants who have been paid $1.5 million. Could the Minister tell us how many jobs have been created by this so-called fast track policy, and where are they?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the Leader of the NDP that since last November we have created 300,000 more jobs in this country. On a seasonally adjusted basis, the equivalent of
200,000	new jobs have been created in Canada since last November. These are the facts.
June 17, 1983

As far as the recovery program is concerned, no five consultants have been paid $1.5 million. The consultants required for the program have been hired by the special secretariat and will be called upon to help fast track the program, and will be paid the professional fees which are normally paid in those circumstances. They are retained on a need basis in order to avoid expanding the Public Service.
Most of the projects have already been announced, and they will be taking place across the country. The secretariat is in the process of designating the professionals to undertake those particular activities. We expect that a number of them will be starting this summer and proceeding as planned during the course of this year and early next year.
As for the total number of jobs that will be created, I indicated before in answer to similar questions that I would not speculate on the specific number of jobs. We will spend, as the Hon. Member knows, over $600 million this year alone, as part of the $2.4 billion program. The number of jobs created directly and indirectly by such a program will be in the tens of thousands. Exactly how many, I cannot help the Hon. Member.


STRATEGY OF PROGRAM
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, with all due respect, the Minister has added even further confusion to the confused statements uttered by the Minister of State for Economic Development as quoted in yesterday's press.
1 would ask the Minister of Finance to listen to what the Minister said yesterday and then respond to my question. Perhaps he will see the logic, because I cannot. On the one hand the Minister of State for Economic Development said that he could not give an estimate on jobs. On the other hand he said, "The program was not designed as a job creation program." That is rather bizarre. Finally he said, "It will eventually create tens of thousands of jobs." Perhaps that is good Liberal planning. If they sit down and devise a program that is not intended to create jobs, may be that is the only way we will get jobs from those guys.
Will the Minister tell us the definitive, coherent strategy that the Government has developed vis-a-vis this program? Is it intended to create jobs and, if so, when will we get them, and in what sectors of the economy?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have difficulty believing that the Hon. Member is serious in his question and his reasoning. It is rather flabbergasting. 1 do not know where he was during the last two weeks when he was not in the House but, frankly, he did not come back in a very helpful mood.
The program is a $2.4 billion program that has been presented as an acceleration of planned investment by the Government of Canada for enhancement of the infrastructure that will be required in this country to make the economy more competitive, efficient, and thereby capable of creating more
Oral Questions
jobs in the private sector. It will put us in a position to support a growing economy.
Obviously, if we spend over $2 billion on developing the infrastructure of the country it will create tens of thousands of jobs. There is no doubt about that.
The Minister responsible has indicated that the first objective of the program is to provide a better infrastructure in this country by accelerating expenditures planned by the federal Government. At the same time tens of thousands of jobs will be created.
I would remind the Hon. Member of one example. Yesterday we received tenders on the construction of icebreakers that have been planned for years. These tenders are before Treasury Board. They will be examined and, as soon as they are processed, those tenders will be decided upon. This will create jobs in the shipyards of our country.
There are more projects of this nature taking place everywhere. In the meantime I would invite my hon. friend's Party at least to let the Crow legislation go to committee.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


CONSULTANTS' REMUNERATION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I remind the Minister that it was not anyone on this side but he who described it in his budget puffery as a special recovery program, an accelerated spending program, and a fast track program. I say to him that ordinary people interpret that to mean jobs now and not two or three years down the road. He comes back to the House today and still talks about Treasury Board meeting to consider submissions. That is like waiting for Godot. It may be another five years before we get action.
Let me ask the Minister about the people who have jobs- the five consultants. Will he at least tell us what the Government plans to pay these five consultants? They are receiving $1.5 million. Do we divide that by five? That is quite substantial. Will he tell us what their daily rates are, because surely the people of this country have a right to know?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, again I find it amazing to hear the Leader of the New Democratic Party advocating that we do away with the public tender process on large expenditures. We have received tenders for the construction of ships. Thanks to the fast tracks process, within two months of the budget announcement we have been able to have tenders submitted on specific shipbuilding projects. These are being examined at the present time. The announcement should come very shortly.
With respect to the Coast Guard we have planned $790 million of expenditures on shipbuilding in the next period. This will mean that jobs will be created for Canadian workers in all parts of the country. The consultants are engineers who will help us speed up the process and make sure that the jobs will be created as fast as possible. As far as the specific expenditures are concerned, they will be on a professional basis and

June 17, 1983
Oral Questions
they will be available to the Hon. Member and the House on a normal basis like all expenditures that are made. My hon. friend should take the time to examine the facts.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, on May 24 I asked the Minister of National Defence whether he would consider grounding the Starfighters because of their unacceptably high attrition rate. He replied:
Madam Speaker, if there were any unreasonable risk in letting our pilots fly any of our planes I would stop them from flying right away.
According to press reports the Minister has stated that he will not ground the fighter but will temporarily curtail certain operational exercises. In view of yesterday's accident, will the Minister not now completely ground the Starfighters until the causes of the crashes are known and, possibly, rectified?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, after the news of the crash in Germany reached me I had a conversation with the Chief of Defence Staff and the Director of Air Command. I asked them for their opinions. They advised me there was no serious reason just because of the accident to ground the aircraft. They indicated that most of the maintenance and safety precautions with respect to the aircraft are at the highest level they have ever been. They also advised me that only 15 per cent of the accidents that have occurred in the last 15 years of flying these planes were due to mechanical defects. The remainder were not as a result of mechanical defects.
Also, as a precaution, the Chief of Defence Staff yesterday issued an order at my suggestion that some of the air to ground exercises will be suspended until we have the reasons for the last two crashes. According to the Chief of Defence Staff at Air Command there was no serious reason why we should ground the aircraft.
Yesterday was a very bad day. Two Jaguar aircraft from the British Air Force crashed in Goose Bay. That was not a reason, again, to ground these aircraft just because these accidents happened. These Jaguar planes were also old. They are to be replaced by the Tornado, probably next year.
Just because there are crashes and even though we know the reasons for these crashes, we do not think that these reasons call for us to ground them.


PILOT ERROR FACTOR
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of National Defence. I would like to point out to him that the CF-lOls are not crashing, and the CF-105s are not crashing. It is only the
CF-104 that seems to be crashing fairly frequently, much too frequently.
The Jaguar crash provided good grounds for believing there was pilot error. Yesterday in an interview the Minister said that the pilots were to blame for the crashes and not the planes.
Frankly, I think that Captain Bayles' reaction yesterday may have been the smartest move he will ever make, when he bailed out of the CF-104. Can the Minister tell us any fact or give us any evidence that he has for thinking that yesterday's crash, or indeed that the last three crashes could have been caused by pilot error?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I did not say anything about the last three crashes being due to pilot errors. I think that the media took my remarks from my interview out of context. What I did do was to quote the figures I have for the different causes for accidents. These reasons could be personnel, materiel, environment, operational, unknown. Statistics say that 60 per cent are caused by human error; 15 per cent are material; 14 per cent are environment; and 13 per cent for other reasons. 1 do not think I said it was strictly a human error. It could be human error. The statistics are there.
Maybe I should mention, Madam Speaker, that following these accidents, I, of course, sent my condolences to the Minister of Defence for Germany, and I received his reply today. I want to quote his concluding sentence. It reads as follows:
We will continue trying to prevent such accidents, and it is our belief that the Canadian pilots contribute their part to flight-safety over Germany and are esteemed as especially competent and capable flyers.
I think that is a good commendation from the German Minister of Defence.


SENATE COMMITTEE FINDINGS ON MARITIME DEFENCE-LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Defence. It deals with policies affecting our naval force in Maritime Command. The Minister has continually assured the House that Canada is fulfilling its NATO commitments and maintaining an adequate level of personnel and equipment. Now the Senate subcommittee on National Defence has destroyed that assurance concerning maritime defence.
Since the Minister has already refused the recommendation to increase expenditures on maritime defence by $550 million per year, as recommended by the Senate subcommittee, what increase in expenditure will he provide the Maritime Command? What does the Minister intend to do in response to the scathing criticism of his administration contained in the subcommittee report on matters like the patrol frigate program, additional Aurora aircraft, diesel submarines, patrol boats, and all the other specifics which the subcommittee says are now required?
June 17, 1983


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I have not finished reading the report. But, as I said yesterday, this report was made by professional people and people with great knowledge of maritime matters. However, 1 never said either that I would refuse $550 million a year for Maritime Command. I said that I doubted very much whether the Minister of Finance would allow me to add $550 million every year to my budget just for Maritime Command.
I would like to stress to the hon. gentleman that, for the last three years I have been Minister of National Defence, we have had a substantital increase in the budget of National Defence amounting to 15 per cent to 17 per cent every year, which brings us over the 3 per cent real growth target of our NATO commitment. I think that in this way we have done exactly what we wanted to do.
As far as the Maritime Command is concerned, Hon. Members know very well that the construction of six new frigates is currently under cabinet discussion now. I hope this decision will indeed be taken in the very near future. I would say, as Minister of National Defence, that 1 do hope this is a good start.


WEARING OF NAVAL UNIFORMS
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of National Defence. I want to remind him that this criticism does not come from outside sources or from Maritime Command, it comes from his own colleagues in the other place. If the Minister is not going to do anything substantial right now for Maritime Command, would he at least review recommendation 19 of the Senate subcommittee report, which reads that:
-personnel be issued and permitted to wear recognizeable trade badges and distinctive rank identification.
I will add to that my own request that our Maritime Command be allowed to return to wearing navy blue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: Will the Minister allow that right now as a token of his esteem for Maritime Command?


Mr. MacEachen:: Tory blue.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I think that as long as we will be in this House there will probably be a discussion about this question of uniforms in the Armed Forces. Since 1970 there has been unification of all the Forces, Army, Navy, and the Air Force. They all have the same coloured uniform. I am an ex-Air Force man. 1 can assure the Hon. Member that my heart is for my blue Air Force uniform.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Gilles Lamontagne: But, on the other hand, we have to abide by the unification decision which was taken and I am sure the hon. gentleman understands that reasoning. But I do not say in their hearts that even members of the Maritime Command do
Oral Questions
not think it would certainly be something very nice to have their dark blue suits.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PARLIAMENT HILL
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister in the understandable absence of the Prime Minister who, I presume, is discharging his responsibilities in connection with the visit of their Royal Highnesses. It has to do with the visit of their Royal Highnesses to Parliament Hill next Monday. Will the Deputy Prime Minister take steps to remove the eyesore that is next to the Centennial Flame on the direct access route to the Centre Block in order that Canadians might perceive their Royal Highnesses on television via pictures taken from the platforms erected directly opposite that eyesore?
Their Royal Highnesses are being received with warmth, grace, and dignity. The idea of peaceful demonstrations is one thing which is acceptable in this country, but permanent squatting, particularly on this Royal occasion, is something that I suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister cannot be tolerated.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is absent today, meeting the Prime Minister of Australia, though he did host a very splendid dinner for the Royal visitors in Halifax on Wednesday night. As my hon. friend has pointed out, the Prince and Princess of Wales have been received very enthusiastically and warmly in Nova Scotia, and today in New Brunswick. Undoubtedly they will be received in a very spontaneous and warm way when they visit Parliament Hill.
I believe, Madam Speaker, that the responsibility for locations on Parliament Hill is not the responsibility of the Government. If it is a question of taking steps to handle events in the precincts of Parliament, it is not in this case the responsibility of the Government, though I do generally support the sentiments of the Hon. Member.


Madam Speaker:: I would just like to interject that it is not the responsibility of the Speaker, if the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister is alluding to that. Anything outside the Parliament Buildings is the responsibility of one or two Government Departments.


Erik Nielsen: I commend the Chair for that intervention. May I suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that we cannot

June 17, 1983
Oral Questions
escape the acceptance of responsibility for cleaning up Parliament Hill in anticipation of the Royal visit. The City of Halifax cleaned up the whole city to receive the Royal couple. Surely we can take some lessons from that example.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF REMOVAL
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, would the Deputy Prime Minister take it upon himself to assure us that the Prime Minister, by virtue of the fact that he is the official host of Canada to the Royal couple, sees to it that that eyesore is removed so as not to mar a visit by the Royal couple, of which I am sure all Canadians want to be proud? We certainly cannot be proud of a situation where that kind of eyesore is allowed to interfere, and will interfere, with that visit to Parliament Hill next Monday. It is surprising if he cannot give us that assurance in a major program. Today we are told that the Direct Action Group is now involved with that display on Parliament Hill. This is the group that blew up Litton Industries. Can the Government not take the responsibility, on the basis of shear security, to get rid of a security risk, if not the eyesore?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Leader of the Opposition for his question because I think it is a matter of interest shared on both sides of the House. There is no doubt that, on the matter of security, representatives of the Secretary of State have been in touch with the Peace Camp people. We have explained to them that, for the matter of security, it would be advisable to have them move their equipment, at least during the Royal visit. They have agreed to remove their equipment. Their equipment will be moved this weekend, so that the ceremony could take place around the Centennial Flame. They will have the same right as any Canadian to attend the Royal visit, to participate and to express their opinion, as they have and as they are entitled to according to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but in a context which will not jeopardize the security and the proper setting of the ceremony.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I cannot believe my ears, if I heard correctly. The Government has negotiated with these squatters to see whether they might be disposed to remove this rubbish on the main entrance way for one day. Peaceful demonstration is one thing; permanent squatting is another.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, is the Minister telling us that the Government will allow untold numbers of groups, if they wish, to camp on the parliamentary lawns and on all access ways to these buildings, and that this is an open invitation to clutter up the whole of the parliamentary precincts to any group which wishes to come and set up a tent?


Serge Joyal: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has to make up his
mind. He is making speeches all over Canada saying that this Government is jeopardizing freedom. We try to respect the freedom of expression of all Canadians, especially when they are on public grounds. They have a right to come here and express their opinions, even though their opinions might be questioned by some other people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Serge Joyal: We have voted on both sides of the House for an article in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that established the kind of freedom of expression to which each Canadian is entitled. At the same time we have the responsibility of maintaining security of the state. That is exactly the kind of balance we want to achieve in that regard.


PERMANENT CAMP PROTESTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 have a final supplementary question. No one is arguing with the right of citizens to demonstrate peacefully. But I suggest that the Government is clearly ducking its responsibility if it suggests to us that there is a right to permanent squatting by tenting all over the parliamentary precincts. We are not arguing with the right to peaceful demonstration; we are arguing that permanent camping on these grounds is intolerable. Will the Government allow that sort of thing? Is this an open invitation to any group that wishes to set up a tent anywhere it pleases on the parliamentary precincts?


Serge Joyal: Madam Speaker, not at all. It is quite visible that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition does not know the rules. There are Acts of Parliament which have been voted, and regulations that provide the setting of orders and instructions which any citizen who wants to come on Parliament Hill has to respect. We have expressed those rules to the Peace Camp people. They have abided by those rules. At this point in time they know the rules and they know that if they break the rules they can be moved away according to that set of regulations.


Erik Nielsen: They can legally squat; that is what you are telling us. Ridiculous.


Serge Joyal: No government has the discretion to push away Canadian citizens without informing them of their right to come on the Hill to express their opinions.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the high-flying Minister of State for International Trade. It concerns the implementation of the report of the auto task force and the fact that the voluntary agreement with the Japanese on the import of Japanese
June 17, 1983

automobiles expires on July 1. Could the Minister give us a commitment that in his talks with the Japanese about the importation of Japanese cars he will try to negotiate the recommendations of this task force so that there will be Canadian content in the Japanese cars which Canadians will want to buy?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his very pertinent and timely question. I want to say to him that the negotiations with the Japanese in relation to a further period of restraint are continuing and that I would be hopeful of having in place, by July 1, an arrangement which would cover a restraint level until the end of the fiscal year, next March 31. If that is not the case, then I would propose other action to Cabinet prior to July 1, 1983.
In relation to the recommendations of the task force, I think the manner in which that must be approached is that we get into place an agreed level of restraint from now until March 31, and that we take advantage of that time period for the distinguished Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in co-operation of course with the Department of Trade, to see to it that negotiations with the Japanese on the question of content go forth pursuant to examination by Cabinet of the recommendations of the task force.


CANADIAN CONTENT IN JAPANESE MANUFACTURED TRUCKS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question also concerns the task force. The principal recommendations of the task force are really very similar to the 1965 Auto Pact with the United States that called for Canadian content for the production of American cars in this country. It is really a fair play document that is expanding the same rules to other companies in other countries.
1 would like to ask the Minister, in light of the fact that the importation of Japanese trucks has gone up by 54 per cent over last year in the first quarter of this year, is he including the importation of Japanese trucks as part of his talks with the Japanese. Would he like to see the same rules of Canadian content apply to trucks as the report of the task force says should apply to both trucks and cars? Would he also negotiate for Canadian content in trucks as well?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, trucks are, of course, part of the automotive trade between our countries and provide jobs in the same way as do cars. While the Japanese have historically been reluctant to include trucks in any arrangement for restraint, that is a subject of discussions that are taking place.
1 want to point out to the low-flying Hon. Member that there are two factors which I consider to be very hopeful at the present time. The first is that the market for cars is improving substantially this year as recovery from the recession takes place. The other is that there seems to be a growing indication
Oral Questions
that North American automobiles are becoming more competitive in the eyes of the public. I see a pattern of recovery coming about in the choice of North American cars over imported cars.
We are watching the situation in relation to trucks very closely and we are concerned about the number of trucks that have been sold. That is a matter for examination along with the matter of automobiles.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board and is supplementary to that of my colleague. No one in the Progressive Conservative Party questions the integrity of Thorne Riddell whatsoever, Madam Speaker. What we do question is the matter of Joel Bell wandering around acting like a pseudo Lee Iacocca of Crown corporations.
A representative of Thorne Riddell, appearing before the committee which was examining Canadair, made it quite clear that notes to the financial statement are notes of the management. My question to the President of the Treasury Board is this: what was the reaction of the Government when it found out that it had been misled by management?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend says that he is not questioning the integrity of Thorne Riddell, but I respectfully suggest that the innuendo was very much present in the questions of his hon. friend. As far as I am aware from reports I have had of the Public Accounts Committee meeting, there was no suggestion made by Thorne Riddell that the type of activity suggested by his colleague has taken place.
With respect to my hon. friend's question, the details of action taken by Government were set out in great detail before both the Public Accounts and Finance Committees, in the statement tabled by the Minister of State for Social Development and in the subsequent exchanges with the Committees. I believe that I should refer more detailed questions on this subject to the Minister delegated to respond on behalf of the Canada Development Investment Corporation in this House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, the puppet who responds in this House for the man in the other place is not here today.


NON-DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATION'S LOSSES
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, Canadair adopted the program accounting treatment which, according to the representative of Thorne Riddell, is only used by one other company in Canada. Is it not true that a program accounting treatment was encouraged by the Liberal Government because it enabled Canadair to hide the losses which it hid from the Government and the taxpayers of Canada for so long?

June 17, 1983
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, with respect to the comment made about the absence of the Minister of National Revenue, he has been here very frequently and in fact has been present every day except today. He has been delighted to answer the questions of Members of the Official Opposition quite freely and openly. Even though the matter falls within the area for which he answers to the House, 1 think that I can say that it is my understanding that the program accounting method is one which is fully accepted as an accounting standard in the country. It is one which was obviously accepted and used by the accounting firm of Thorne Riddell, and my hon. friend has just testified to that firm's integrity.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and is supplementary to the questions that were asked by the Leader of the Official Opposition. If police officers and officers of Canada Parks can forcibly evict squatters from Long Beach, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, who were enjoying a peaceful tenancy of that area which was taken over by the Government of Canada, then why does the Deputy Prime Minister not see fit to remove, for a temporary period of time, the eyesore of squatters in front of the Peace Tower in Ottawa?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is a bit rhetorical. I think that he would be the first to admit that there is a difference between Parliament and its precincts on Parliament Hill and any other piece of ground in the country. I think that it has to be recognized that Parliament Hill has, over the years, become a place where people come to express their views. To that extent, it is quite different.
I believe that the answer provided by the Secretary of State was complete and comprehensive and dealt with the concerns of the Leader of the Opposition. We will endeavour to make the visit of the Royal couple successful so that the Canadian people can express their warmth to them when they arrive. I am certain that the matter raised by the Hon. Member will be dealt with satisfactorily.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the Deputy Prime Minister that there has been much rhetoric about equity, and a just society, and equality for all.


POSSIBLE CREATION OF PRECEDENT
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he is not fearful that he is setting a very dangerous precedent for all dissenters, no matter
how small the minority, by allowing squatting beside the Eternal Flame on this important day in Canada's history. Is he not allowing a very dangerous potential for further disorder on Parliament Hill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, I do not think that a dangerous precedent would be set. I think that if we were to take very drastic action that would deny individuals the possibility of expressing their views, it might set an even more dangerous precedent.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture whose Department is embarking upon a bold new experiment with meat inspection services which will increase the reliance on the plant classification system over the use of on-site inspectors to ensure the quality and safety of processed products for Canadians.
Since we already know that the Department of National Defence will not take a product from plants in Canada unless it has received continuous inspection, how can the Minister be certain that some less scrupulous operators will not take advantage of the new opportunities to pass stamped products through the system to ordinary consumers since the plant will essentially be in control of the quality standards for the product? What safeguards to consumers are there when the inspectors may be miles away from the plant while the product is being stamped as inspected and approved?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the other day, the Hon. Member and one of his colleagues tried to indicate that we were lowering standards for the inspection of meat products and meat processing in Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth. We do not intend to lower them one bit. As far as we are concerned we have one of the best inspection services, if not the best inspection service, in the whole world.
For instance, Madam Speaker, there are 541 plants in Canada that meet the American import standards. Those plants are the same plants that provide a product for people within Canada. In the United States, however, there are only 141 plants in the whole nation that will meet the specifications required to export meat to Canada. In essence what we say is that meat that is good enough for anybody else and that is exported to any part of the world, is of the same standard as that which is made available for Canadians. The Hon. Member brought up a question about the Department of National Defence. I am not aware of any ruling that the Department has, and I would have to check on that further.
June 17, 1983


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I will discuss the Defence Department matter with the Minister later.


MAINTENANCE OF HIGH STANDARDS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Since there seem to be some communication problems between the veterinarians, meat inspectors, health officials and, to some extent, even Meat Council members, concerning these changes-the financing, the allocation of staff and so on- would the Minister consider referring the whole question of meat inspection to the Standing Committee on Agriculture or to another Committee of the House so that we can ensure that the inspection standards and the excellent rating that Canada has in this area are maintained?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, what the Hon. Member suggests is not unrealistic. I will consider it and make recommendations.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Chair advised the House that a late objection had been filed to the report of the Saskatchewan Electoral Boundaries Commission. I wish to advise that I have reviewed the matter with my colleagues who are amazed at the lack of understanding exhibited in the objection. Whoever drafted it has obviously spent too much time in Ottawa and not enough time in Saskatchewan. We are therefore unable to agree to the objection being submitted.
Order Paper Questions PARLIAMENT HILL


REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF PEACE CAMP
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I listened with some interest to the response made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) regarding squatters on Parliament Hill. He indicated there were some rules and regulations. I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to table those rules and regulations in the House.


Madam Speaker:: Order. That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member might want to make inquiries from the Minister in another Question Period and find out about these matters.


Douglas Charles Neil: It is very important.


Madam Speaker:: Of course it is.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Ontario in which they say that millions of Canadians are now unemployed and that of those Canadians, thousands are exhausting Unemployment Insurance benefits every month. They say that these exhaustees are now obliged to rely on provincial and municipal social assistance programs for support and that the cost of this unemployment to social service programs is astronomical. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to extend Unemployment Insurance coverage to all those entitled to benefit for the duration of their unemployment; and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,789, 4,802, 4,836 and 4,879.


Mr. Howie: As of January 1 (a) 1981 (b) 1982 (c) 1983, how many persons were receiving old age security benefits?

June 17, 1983
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Old Age Security Basic Pension As At	Only
(a)	January,	1981	1,051,352(b)	January,	1982	1,104,443(c)	January,	1983	1,168,250
Basic Old Age Security
and Guaranteed	Spouse's
Income Supplement	Allowance
1,245,662	85,175
1,257,997	86,961
1,253,967	87,560


Mr. Howie: What safeguards are in place to protect citizens against tampering with over-the-counter medications?


James Duncan Schroder: On December 29, 1982, a departmental news release announced that regulations would be passed ensuring that security packages are used for all non-prescription drugs manufactured after January 1, 1984. The reguations will apply to drugs for ingestion, inhalation, insertion or application to the eyes and will require that drug labels alert consumers to the security features used so that products may be examined to ensure that they have not been opened.
Although the schedule for implementing these proposals provides for orderly changes in production without disrupting the consumer's access to products for self-medication, many manufacturers have already introduced new packages with additional security features.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a Canadian Commercial Corporation Industrial Advisory Committee and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii) term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount did each member receive (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the government?
2.	(a) What are the terms of reference of the Committee (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Committee publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?


Gerald Augustine Regan: 1. Yes, there is a Canadian Commercial Corporation Industry Advisory Committee.
(a)	A list of its members is shown below.
(b)	(i) Background or expertise: Most organizations are represented by the full-time executive director or president, as well as by one of the practising or operating members who is particularly concerned with, and knowledgeable about the types of activities in which the Canadian Commercial Corporation is engaged, (ii) Term of appointment of each member; no fixed time-limits.
(c)	The members do not receive any remuneration in the form of a salary; if reasonable travel expenses are claimed they are paid. To-date, since 1979 travel expenses have been claimed by only one member, in the amount of $163.95.
(d)	No other funding has been provided by or through the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
2. (a) Terms of reference of the Commitee: The CCC Industry Advisory Committee was established in 1979 as a means of ensuring that the Corporation is aware of and responsive to private sector needs. Generally there are two representatives from each of the major bodies whose professional and business activities reflect a strong interest in exports or in overseas capital projects. They provide the Corporation with advice on these matters.
(b)	In fiscal year 1982-83, it considered CCC's role, present and future.
(c)	The Committee met once during fiscal year 1982-83; no specific number of meetings is prescribed, but it generally meets once or twice a year.
(d)	The Committee did not publish any report or recommendations in fiscal year 1982-83.
CCC Industry Advisory Committee
Organization
Air Industries Association of Canada (AIAC)
Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada (ACEC)
Canadian Bankers Association (CBA)
Canadian Chamber of Commerce (CChC)
Canadian Construction Association (CCA)
Canadian Export Association (CEA)
Canadain Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) Canadian Manufacturers Association (CM A)
Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers Association of Canada (EEMAC)
Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC)
J. DesRoches-President
V. V. R. Symonds (Litton Systems Canada
Limited)
-Chairman, Marketing Committee, AIAC
J. Tremblay-President
(Les Consultants Pluritec Ltee)
H. R. Pinault-Managing Director E. J. Morris (Can. Imperial Bank of Commerce)
-Chairman, Export/Import Committee, CBA
S.	F. Hughes-President
Stuart McEvoy (Alcan Aluminium Ltd.)
-Chairman, Intern. Affairs Committee, CChC R. E. Nuth-President R. Balfour (R.B.E.C.S. Ltd.)
-Chairman, CCA Export Committee
T.	M. Burns-President
P. G. Opler (The Foundation Company of Canada Limited)
-Chairman, Foreign Capital Projects
Committee, CEA
J. F. Bulloch-President
R. L. Phillips-President
Ronald McCallum (Hawker Siddeley
Canada Ltd.)
-Chairman, Export Committee, CMA D. E. P. Armour-President N. J. Fodor (Electrovert Limited)
-Chairman, Export Council, EEMAC (P. van Es) Executive Director Boris Zerafa, FRAIC
June 17, 1983


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is the Economic Council of Canada's econometric model capable of estimating the impact on short-term and long-term interest rates in Canada for varying levels of the deficit and, if so, what changes in short-term and long-term interest rates from current levels does it predict based on the deficit projections contained in the Budget?
2.	What impact would the changes in interest rates have on the cost of servicing the national debt?


David P. Smith: 1. (a) The Economic Council of Canada econometric model is capable of estimating the impact on short-term and long-term interest rates in Canada for varying levels of the deficit. Depending on the factors that cause the deficit to vary some judgments are necessary when using the econometric model to estimate such impacts. These judgments are related to channels of influence that the econometric model, in its general form, does not account for when used in a specific application.
(b) Imposing, among other things, our best judgment about the path of interest rates in the United States, the most recent national accounts revisions and the April 19, 1983 federal budget, on the econometric model of the Economic Council of Canada, annual averages of short-term interest rates in Canada in the medium run will remain unchanged from current levels; annual averages of long-term interest rates in the medium run continue a downward trend.
2. in the absence of any change in spending levels the cost of servicing the national debt and interest rates are positively related. For example, see Table A-2 of The Fiscal Plan, April 19, 1983, The Federal Budget. In Table A-2 the impact of reducing interest rates by 100 basic points is reported. Such a reduction would reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion. A similar result has been obtained using the econometric model of the Economic Council of Canada.

Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of objections to the reports of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions for the Provinces of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan.
Electoral Boundaries
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I rise in a representative capacity on behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party from the Province of Nova Scotia to indicate our objection to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Nova Scotia.
We appreciate and recognize that it is always a difficult task to settle what must be, in the final analysis, an arbitrary decision, but at the same time there are methods and processes that can be followed to bring about a proper distribution that will be satisfactory to the greatest number of persons.
Let me begin by recognizing that the point of the exercise is to ensure the representation of people, in this case people in the Province of Nova Scotia, in the Parliament of Canada. It is for that reason that we want to be extremely careful that the process results in a fair and adequate representation.
Let me provide some background to this process, Mr. Speaker. Under the provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act we implement those provisions that were enshrined in the British North America Act, now called the Constitution Act, that were intended to ensure proper representation for Canadians as time went on. The method for ensuring such representation was to provide for a decennial census. This census began in 1871 and has continued every tenth year thereafter. It was on the basis of the results of that count of the population that we determined the representation in the House of Commons.
Nova Scotia has not always fared well in this process. In 1867, at the time of Confederation, the Province was one of the key members of the Confederation. Over the years the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec developed at a much greater rate and, in the result, Nova Scotia tended to pale in comparison to the major Provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Now there is rapid development in the West in the Provinces of British Columbia and Alberta and Nova Scotia assumes a relatively lower level role in our Confederation.
All of this has been taken into account in the process. It is now part of the process that Provinces are classified for electoral representation purposes as larger Provinces; other Provinces fall into the category of small Provinces. Nova Scotia falls into the small Province category.
I point that out because we in Nova Scotia believe that we are at our minimum level of representation. In fact, according to the floor rule for parliamentary representation, Nova Scotia cannot go below a level of ten Members of Parliament, that being the level equal to the number of seats provided for Nova Scotia in the other place.

June 17, 1983
Electoral Boundaries
In reviewing the history of this, I want to point out that on two occasions in the recent past, as a result of the 1941 census and as a result of the 1961 census, Nova Scotia has lost representation. Prior to the 1961 redistribution, Nova Scotia had 12 seats in the Parliament of Canada; as a result of the 1961 census, Nova Scotia was reduced to 11 parliamentary seats.
The proposal now before the House and represented by the work of the Commission under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act would restore Nova Scotia to 12 seats. In a sense, the Province stands to gain by this process. The important point is to ensure that the gain is properly distributed over the population within the Province.
That brings me to the basis for our objection, Mr. Speaker. We do not consider that the work done by the Electoral Boundaries Commission in Nova Scotia, however adequate it was, should be approved without reflection of the kinds of criticisms we have raised. We have done that specifically in our objection which is part of the records of the House of Commons.
We believe that the Commission failed to give adequate attention and consideration to geographical, political and demographic factors when planning the distribution of electoral boundaries.
My second point, Mr. Speaker, is that the Commission included Sable Island in the constituency of Halifax. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), has a very special interest in that aspect of the redistribution; I am sure he will want to speak to that subject as this debate continues.
The third listed reason, Mr. Speaker, is that the Commission did not give adequate consideration to all the representations made to the Commission during the course of its public hearings.
I will begin, Mr. Speaker, with a consideration of the last point. There was very little in the way of public representation made to the Commission when it held its hearings across Nova Scotia. In fact, in some cases the hearings were cancelled because of lack of interest.
To put that matter in context, let me point out to the House of Commons that in the case of Nova Scotia the quotient which was used to determine the population base for each of the 12 constituencies was 70,620. Under the rules and regulations which apply to this redistribution process, that number can be varied by 25 per cent either way, that is, a minimum of 25 per cent below, which is a population of 52,965, and a maximum of 25 per cent above, which would result in a population of 88,275.
I believe the next step, Mr. Speaker, is to review the actual setting up of the 12 constituencies in relation to that population base, and what we find in terms of public objections which we feel were not given proper consideration. First of all, in those constituencies where there was no change in the boundaries and where, in fact, the population base was relatively
close to the mean of 70,600-that would include the federal constituency of South Shore and the federal constituency of South West Nova-there were, naturally enough, no real objections. I feel that pertains as well to the federal constituency of Cumberland-Colchester which was unchanged with a population base of 78,455. There were no objections. I believe the area of objection, Mr. Speaker, centers in the Halifax district where there now exists under the present electoral representation three federal constituencies within the County of Halifax. Under the changes which are proposed by the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Nova Scotia, there will be four constituencies, almost exactly within that same area. It is in fact Halifax County, plus a portion of Hants County.
It is understandable, therefore, that the majority of the objections would arise in relation to this change in the Halifax area whereby three federal constituencies are being expanded into four. I will deal with that in a more direct way and I am sure my colleague, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, will want to make some remarks on the effects this has on his constituency, which will become the constituency of Dartmouth, and on the failure to include Sable Island within the constituency of Dartmouth.
I would like very briefly to comment on the federal constituencies for the Province of Nova Scotia. First of all, we have the constituency of Annapolis Valley-Hants, which has been well represented by my hon. colleague in the Progressive Conservative Party for over 18 years now. There has been very little change in the population base. After what little adjustments have been made it will be 72,174.
Cape Breton-East Richmond, which is a constituency the representation of which has fluctuated from party to party over the years, will have a population base of 64,495, which is a substantial 6,000 below the mean. However, there does not appear to be any special reasons for including territorial areas in that constituency beyond what are now part of the existing boundaries.
Cape Breton Highlands-Canso has a population base which has not changed. The population base is 65,883. Of course, we don't want that to change because the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) has enough difficulty getting around the constituency as it now is, and to provide the services which we all provide in our constituencies. Therefore, we do not want to see the people of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso be any less served than they are now. Therefore, we are not going to raise any special objection. Because of the fact that that is one of the smaller constituencies, no attempt has been made to enlarge it.
Cape Breton-The Sydneys involves the industrial community of the Sydneys and the surrounding area. It has a population base of 65,000. I would have to have some concern for my colleague who represents that constituency because it has a great deal of difficulty, mostly based on economic policies of the Government and the failure to provide adequate assistance for the Cape Breton steel industry-Sydney Steel Company-
June 17, 1983

which is a large employer in that area. Again, there cannot be real objection to the relatively low number of persons which form the population base in that constituency because it will provide sufficient difficulties for the Hon. Member who represents it. I know that Hon. Member is having quite a bit of difficulty at the present time.
The fifth constituency of Central Nova is well represented. Of course, the seat has now been declared vacant and we are anticipating a by-election there. We anticipate the continued good representation for that constituency by not only a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, but by the newly-elected Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party who, we understand, intends to run in the constituency of Central Nova. Under the adjustment process, that constituency would have a population base similar to Cape Breton Highlands-Canso and Cape Breton-The Sydneys of 65,332. Cumberland-Colchester is the sixth constituency and it will remain unchanged, along with South Shore and South West Nova, which are the eleventh and twelfth numbered constituencies, and they have not created any great difficulty in this process.
The new proposed constituencies are as follows: No. 7, Dartmouth; No. 8, Halifax; No. 9, Halifax East; and No. 10, Halifax West. Those are the four constituencies which are in the greater Halifax-Dartmouth area and are the constituencies with which we have the greatest complaint.
In the case of Halifax West, if that constituency had been left alone to include my own area of Clayton Park, the very place in which 1 live, it would have had a population almost exactly similar to the constituency of Halifax. For some strange reason, however, which I have yet to understand, the Boundaries Commission took the area of Clayton Park, where 1 live and where my children go to school, and where we patronize the local grocery store, lifted it out of Halifax West and plumped it down alongside Halifax, which is represented by my colleague, if not my friend, the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan). In the result, instead of each constituency having the mean number of 70,6000, the federal constituency of Halifax ends up with a population base of 78,231 and Halifax West ends up with a population base of 68,676. If the location of Clayton Park in Halifax West had been left alone, the two constituencies would have been almost equal in population base. 1 feel it is kind of a strange thing-I am sure even my Liberal colleagues would agree-when they lift my very residence out of Halifax West and put it down in Halifax, resulting in an imbalance of population of some
10,000.	There is a difference now of 10,000. Halifax West has a population of 68,676 versus Halifax with a populaton of 78,231.
One of our concerns in this process must be the allegation of gerrymandering of constituencies. Of course, that immediately comes to mind when virtually your own house is moved from one place to another. However, I do not suspect that at all because I know that the honourable persons who served on the Electoral Boundaries Commission would not do something like that. 1 know Mr. Justice Pace, who represented the Liberal Party so well in the House of Assembly in Nova Scotia, would not do anything like that. I know Mr. O'Coyne who worked
Electoral Boundaries
and toiled so hard for the Liberal Party as an executive officer, or in some other capacity, would not think of doing a thing like that. I would not at all suggest that there would be any chicanery involved in this process, so I do not want to object any further to the removal of my own house and property from the constituency of Halifax West. I know the Minister of State for International Trade will not be there the next time around and I will not have to worry about that too much.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that we are concerned that everyone in Nova Scotia receive adequate representation as a result of this process. We appreciate the fact that, as a result of the process, which incidentally increased the number of seats in the House of Commons from 282 to 310, Nova Scotia will get one more seat, an increase from 11 to 12, which will bring it back to the 1961 level. There are some benefits but we are concerned that the process is fairly and properly conducted. We have concern that the process was less than entirely adequate, with all due respect to the persons who applied the process and with all due regard for the fact that it is not a perfect process.
I want to give my colleague, the Hon. Member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East, the opportunity to contribute to this debate because I know he has some special concerns with respect to his own constituency, particularly with respect to the inclusion of Sable Island within the boundaries of the new constituency of Dartmouth.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish we had more time in debates like this. There are a lot of Members from Saskatchewan who would like to speak in this particular debate about the report of the Saskatchewan Boundaries Commission in 1983. My good friend from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) is in the House. I know he would like to speak and I am sure he will later on. There are other Members of our Party who want to speak as well.
We had three very distinguished gentlemen on the Saskatchewan Commission which held hearings throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker, but 1 want to say, with respect, that I think they did not listen very well to many of the representations made to them by representatives of all three political Parties in Saskatchewan, members of which I think would concur in that statement.
Many of the hearings were very well attended. We had many ordinary citizens who came out to many of these hearings. We had representatives of all three political Parties who concurred on a number of things. We had the concurrence of the Saskatchewan MPs in the Conservative Party, which is half the Province, or seven, and the New Democratic Party, which is the other half, or seven, on many of the boundaries. Despite this harmony, this commonality, concerning what we thought should happen, in many cases the Commission did not listen to us or the people. For that reason we decided to file the objection we are now discussing in the House.

June 17, 1983
Electoral Boundaries
I want to stress at the outset that many of the things said to the Commission were said by representatives of all three political Parties and because of historical community interests and traditions in Saskatchewan. The point that really puzzled a lot of us in Saskatchewan is that the Boundaries Commission did not make very much use at all of the plus or minus 25 per cent rule. They drew arbitrary lines in many cases for our 14 Saskatchewan constituencies. They did not deviate from an average. For example, the least populous riding as recommended by them, to be called Regina-Lumsden, has a population of 67,183. The most populous riding is called Saskatoon-Dun-durn, which is primarily city but also partly rural, with a population of 71,432. So of the 14 ridings in Saskatchewan the difference between the least and the most populous will be 4,549 people. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is good enough.
1 have had a chance to look at Boundary Commission reports from other Provinces and I notice that in many other Provinces the Commission has, in my opinion, more wisely interpreted the Act by making sure that the deviation is greater for sparsely populated and remote areas. The population will be larger for the urban centres. This was not done in Saskatchewan where a lot of the boundaries are very arbitrary. It is almost as if they took a calculator and divided our population into 14, then took a ruler and put it on the provincial census map and drew 14 areas. 1 do not think that is good enough. We should go back to the drawing board in Saskatchewan and come up with a map that the people of our Province want, one that will reflect the reality, the community interests, the history and traditions of Saskatchewan in a way which has been done many times in the past, and in other Provinces by Boundaries Commissions in the last few months.
To be specific, Mr. Speaker, the Commission ignored some of the guiding principles in planning redistribution, mainly the recognition of a community of interest. I can go over a number of these, and the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain could do the same thing, where that community of interests was often ignored by the Boundaries Commission. They wanted to have a more exact population figure in each riding, ignoring many times the community of interests.
The second principle they often ignored was the need to follow geographical patterns and boundaries. There is an excellent example of that in that part of the Province represented by myself and the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, namely the Qu'Appelle River Valley. The Qu'Appelle River is a natural geographical boundary and a natural community boundary. It is a natural boundary in so many ways historically in our Province yet that was ignored. In addition, the Commission did not agree to make as few changes as possible to establish ridings. That is spelled out in Subsection 13(b), Subsection 13(c)(1) and Subsection 13(c)(2) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and is included in the terms of reference of the Commission. They did not follow the principle of community interests, geographical patterns and that of making as few changes as possible.
One can go over the map specifically. The map I have before me will create a brand new riding called Prince Albert-Churchill River. That riding, believe it or not, takes up over half of our Province geographically. Yet despite its massive
size that constituency has 68,132 people living in it, according to the census. We have many northern ridings in this country with small populations because they are remote, small communities, difficult to serve and with special interests and special needs. In this particular riding there are some 27,000 people who live in the north. They are lumped in with the environs of the City of Prince Albert in one particular constituency. If they wanted to recommend the creation of a northern constituency similar to some of the other Provinces or the Territories of this country, they could have recommended a special Act of this Parliament where we could create a northern riding that would have less than the minimum population. Or, Mr. Speaker, they could have used the plus or minus 25 per cent rule and create a riding which was much smaller in northern Canada. But they ignored this.
In our two big cities, Regina and Saskatoon, they once again ignored the community of interests. What they should have been doing was creating urban ridings because of the commonness of the community sense, or the community feeling. Because the two cities are now too large for just two urban ridings in each of the cases, what they should have done is what has been done time and time again in our Province and other Provinces, federally and provincially. They should have taken the overflow and the new suburbs and placed them into the most relevant rural ridings which touch the city boundaries. However, that was not done.
In the case of the city of Regina, they should have created two urban seats, placing the new suburbs on the east side of the city, into the Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain constituency, and, on the western side of Regina, placing the new suburbs in the south end of the city, Albert Park and other areas south of Waskana Creek. They should have put those into the Assiniboia riding to raise its population, so that we could have saved Assiniboia, which will disappear, by the way, for the first time ever if the new map comes into effect, a historical name and riding which the people in the Province want to keep and deserve to keep. By the way, it is not our riding now, it is a Conservative riding. However, this is one way of doing it.
Farmers in those rural communities would still have had their own constituency and some of the new suburbs of Regina, which are bordering on the riding, in the riding to give them adequate population. The people and the City of Regina would have had two totally urban constituencies, and that sense of history and tradition which is so important would have been guarded and preserved.
The same is true in the City of Saskatoon. Once again, we have a recommendation of three urban/rural ridings: part rural, part urban, part rural, part urban, part rural and part urban. That is not good enough. I do not think that reflects what our people want at all. Again, we could have had two strictly urban constituencies, placing some of the new suburbs into the adjoining rural riding of Humboldt-Lake Centre to
June 17, 1983

bring up its population and to preserve it, placing some of the new suburbs in the west end of Saskatoon into the adjoining riding of Kindersley, and that riding would have then been adequate in terms of numbers as well.
These are some specific examples of where the Commission did not listen to the people, where the Commission did not follow the history, precedent and practice of other Boundary Commissions, federal and provincial, over the years. 1 mentioned Assiniboia. This historical riding will disappear. There is also a boundary change in Swift Current-Maple Creek but, again, I think that this is going in the wrong way. A boundary change for Swift Current-Maple Creek could have been reached north of the South Saskatchewan River, as has occurred in the past-and I want to underline that-rather than moving the boundary substantially toward the east, which means eliminating Assiniboia in the process and creating all kinds of contortions in southeastern Saskatchewan as well. If it would have moved the boundary north, the boundary would have been where it has been in the past, and that would have been much less confusing for the citizens of that part of the country.
In my own constituency of Yorkton-Melville, I believe the Commission erred in both the northern and southern boundaries of the riding. Our part of the Province is one which has two natural boundaries. We have the Qu'Appelle River, the Qu'Appelle River Valley to the south. As Saskatchewan Members like the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) and others know, that is a natural boundary. There are school board divisions where, in the south, people are in a different school board than those in the north. Wheat pools are divided by the river, municipalities are divided by the river, and all kinds of community activities, church groups and so on are divided by the river. Instead, the Commission ignores the fact that this is a natural geographical, community, social, cultural and historical boundary and tries to put people on both sides of it into the same constituency.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Is that wrong?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In fact, there are people from communities in the southwest part of the new proposed Yorkton-Melville riding who never go to Yorkton and Melville to shop. They go into Regina to shop because it is much closer. That is where they always go for their social activities, or else they go into the eastern towns of Indian Head, Wolseley, Moosomin, Whitewood, or down toward Weyburn. Their sense of community is in that direction or in the direction of the City of Regina, and not north and east a long, long ways into the City of Yorkton.
I would like to mention the second natural boundary. Again, the Commission ignored the advice of ordinary citizens and folk, I suggest from all political Parties. I say this in response to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) who asks "Is it bad?" The Minister can check with Mr. Ralph Goodale, if he wishes.
Electoral Boundaries
In the north, we have a forest reserve. It is a natural boundary. It is natural because it is a big forest. People very seldom go through the forest reserve because all their organizations, communities and so on are to the south or, north of the reserve, to the north and to the west. It is a forest reserve where there are bears and other animals. However, people see that as being a natural boundary and that was said time and time again to the Commission. In fact, two members of the Commission on their way to Yorkton for the hearings drove through the forest reserve. They said they understood that this was a natural boundary because of the fact that they had just driven through it and they had seen what a forest reserve is really like; yet the map ignores this very natural boundary in northeastern Saskatchewan.
I do not know why these Commissions do not listen to ordinary folk. There is much more common sense in the minds of ordinary citizens of this country, it seems at times, than there is in the minds of people who are appointed to high positions by various Governments across the land.
I mention the constituency of Humboldt-Lake Centre, represented by my friend who is here in the House today. In the new map, this constituency disappears altogether. It is going, I believe, into five different constituencies. Right now that constituency which, I suppose, was historically called the old Lake Centre riding, represented by a former Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker, is one which was basically carved out of central Saskatchewan, the great grain producing area. There is commonness of interest, I suppose among those people who live between Prince Albert and Regina and Saskatoon, those who live in the central part of the Province. That riding, too, will disappear, going off into five different constituencies.
One way of saving the riding would have been to add some of the new suburbs of the City of Saskatoon, from the south eastern part of the City of Saskatoon, to Humboldt-Lake Centre. That would have raised its population very well.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Would that be natural?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I think it is more natural.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It never was natural, never.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is a riding which is in the centre of everything. I think it is more natural to have two totally urban constituencies in the City of Saskatoon and to place the new suburbs into adjacent rural ridings than it is to create three ridings which are partially urban and partially rural.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The point is that you always trade off something.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: One always trades off something. The populations are not large enough to create three fully urban ridings, but they can create 2.5 urban ridings. Instead of creating six urban ridings between the two cities, this way there would be four which were urban and two which were urban and rural. That would give a greater sense of community. In any event, that was the feeling of so many people in the Province from all the different political Parties.

June 17, 1983
Electoral Boundaries
Therefore, where do we go from here? I hope we can persuade those involved in the process from here on in that we should go back to the drawing board and listen to the ordinary folk in order that we might make greater use of the plus or minus 25 per cent rule, which has been done in Quebec and other Provinces, such as Ontario. Some of our rural areas have smaller populations because they are a little more scattered and remote at the north. If we are to have only one riding there should be a smaller population because of the fact that it is also remote. The urban centres, because they are more compact, could perhaps have slightly larger ridings or populations. Perhaps even a riding like mine, which is rural and urban now but where the towns are closer together and the farms are a little bit smaller, could be on the larger side as well. Those kinds of suggestions make sense.
Another matter which arose in our hearings concerns the fact that Saskatchewan has certain ethnic patterns, cultural patterns, in terms of where people live. This is another factor which was ignored by the Commission as it sat down and arbitrarily drew 14 lines on the map of our Province without anywhere near the regard it should have had for the reality concerning the Province.
One can also say that the riding of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake changes quite drastically as well. It is interesting once again to note that representatives of both political Parties that have MPs in that area were in agreement that the proposed boundaries by the Commission did not make any sense. In this case, they made some boundary changes but a change that was not recommended by either. I do not know where they get their ideas.
With that, I look forward to hearing other Members of the Saskatchewan delegation from both our Party and the Conservative Party try to persuade the powers that be that we have a map that reflects what the people of Saskatchewan really want and need.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there are only ten minutes left. I also know that the presentation on Nova Scotia was only half completed; the other half will be completed later.
1 will reduce my remarks to approximately five minutes since they correspond in many ways with those of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). I will put it very clearly to the House that the problem in Saskatchewan is basically that we have 4 per cent of the population of Canada and 35 per cent of the roads. The roads are our main communication technique.
The Commission has held to the view of the nineteenth century concept that one person should get one vote, or representation by population. To hold to that view realistically forced Parliament to introduce new legislation 25 years ago that used the word "may". While the British North America Act provides for keeping a provincial average, the legislation gave the Commission power to vary them up or down 25 per
cent based on two reasons which were geography and community of interest. The previous speaker has already referred to that. Therefore I want to keep my remarks confined to a simple part of the problem which was dealt with by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville. Simply, it is southern Saskast-chewan.
The community of interest can only be appreciated by those who must live and work there. I come from a riding south of Qu'Appelle where the boundary line has always been that river along which we have always moved back and forth in an easterly direction. It is a historic riding from where Members of Parliament have been sent to Ottawa since 1882, long before Saskatchewan was a Province. We call ourselves the mainliners because the main line of the CPR runs through our constituency and because the Trans-Canada Highway runs through it now.
The mainliners are from a cultural community that moves towards Regina east from west. Melville has east and west connections to Regina and Yorkton has east and west connections partially to Regina and partially to Saskatoon. For any map to meet the geographic conditions of Saskatchewan, it must allow for these features of geography.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville talked about a big forest barring one part of his riding from another. I talked about the Moose Mountains that are a barrier to us in the south. The point I am making is that the historic seat of Qu'Appelle has been cut into four parts. It certainly smashes a 100-year-old tradition and breaks the hearts of those people who went there from Quebec, Ontario, the Atlantic Provinces and all over the world. We have kept it as a community and to see it broken apart is a very dreadful experience for those who must endure it.
In my submission which I intend to send to the Commission, I have proposed more precise maps based on municipal boundaries, based on the barriers and based on the community of interest. This helps the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville by putting the natural boundary of Qu'Appelle between us and ties up the highways from Melville and Yorkton running north and west right through an area that he knows well since it was part of the seat he represented when he first came here. Those people move up and down that line. It is based on highways and the geographic boundaries.
The five constituencies which I believe I have mentioned in my representation are Yorkton, Melville and Regina, Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, and Swift Current. I put this proposal forward to the Commission in the form of maps. While they have seen those maps before, they did not listen properly and I hope that this time they will seriously consider these boundary adjustments for which all Parties made strong representations in the eight meetings we had last fall on these boundary adjustments. When we have all parties in Saskatchewan agreeing, that is news.
I am simply suggesting that the Commission pay attention to what the people who have to work in the fields and with others are trying to recommend. I have suggested minor changes as well. I will conclude my remarks and hope that the
June 17, 1983

House will take kindly to the representations we have made so that the Commission is impressed by the fact that Parliament does not like being confronted with actions which are different from what Parliament has directed this Commission to follow.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I will also be relatively brief since 1 believe there are only about four minutes left. I wish to make three points. First, 1 am rapidly coming to the view that perhaps this Chamber might be well advised to express its sincere appreciation to the distinguished Commissioners and ask them to retire so that the House itself could undertake this job. I am coming to that view for a variety of reasons. The principal view is that I strongly believe that Members of this Chamber, as it exists on June 17 of 1983, are quite capable of rendering that type of representation which is required for the people of this country. I suggest that enlarging the House from its present 282 Members to approximately 312 Members is a burden on the taxpayers of Canada. It costs approximately $550,000 in taxpayers' money to keep each one of us here and support us with the variety of services that we require as matters become more technical in nature.
The fact of the matter is that when 1 came here I represented approximately 240,000 people. We did not have telephones. I was not able to fly home every weekend. Members had secretaries whom they called up from a pool and who were kind enough to type letters for us. By and large correspondence with our constituents was handwritten. It worked well. The countryside from Ecum Secum to Hubbards, Nova Scotia, including the Cities of Halifax and Dartmouth, were well served, if I may modestly suggest that.
I see no reason for us to go through this exercise. I would simply repeat that perhaps the Commissioners might now retire and let the Members of this House finally address themselves to whether or not the formulas we worked out a few years ago are in fact necessary. Let us be absolutely certain of that before we add some $16 million or $17 million in expenditures to this Chamber and the taxpayers of this country.
Among other things, I have objected to the Commission's work with respect to Dartmouth. It is not singularly because a new seat for Nova Scotia has been carved out of the Dartmouth-Halifax East riding but that it crosses municipal and provincial lines and makes somewhat of a mockery of the social structure of our communities.
Before I adjourn the debate, I wish to make one final point. Historically, Sable Island has been administered by the Department of Transport from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. The custodian of that island is in the marine agency in Dartmouth. The overseer is in the marine agency in Dartmouth. The facilities at Sable are maintained by employees of the Department of Transport whose headquarters are in Dartmouth. Ten years ago when we had redistribution the Commissioner was not really thinking about it and simply put it in Halifax because that is where it had always been. It had been the electoral district of Halifax. We had redistribution. We created three ridings. The commissioner left Sable Island in its
Canada Student Loans Act (No. 2)
unnatural habitat, that is, in the electoral district of Halifax, and it should have been in Dartmouth electoral district.
Mr. Speaker, would you like me to adjourn the debate?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to a House order adopted yesterday, we will now proceed to Orders of the Day.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I believe I am joined by the Government in this point of order. I simply want to say that it should be our understanding and the understanding of the House that debate on these two objections has been adjourned for continuation at a later date. It would be the wish, I believe, of all Parties that no report be made by the Speaker to the Electoral Reform Commissions of either Nova Scotia or Saskatchewan until such time as that debate has been completed by this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that the unanimous understanding of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Serge Joyal: that Bill C-161, an Act to amend the Canada Student Loans Act (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, with the unanimous consent of the House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, upon rising today to resume debate on this Bill, I would like to express my gratitude to my colleagues on the other side of the House.

I want to thank all Members on both sides of the House for their co-operation, and especially the Ministers of Education in Canada who have co-operated with the Canadian Government in past months to achieve the proposed amendments that we will be debating today.

The Canada Student Loans program was established in 1964 and, since that time, has benefited about two million students. In 1980, an in-depth study was made of the various federal and provincial programs providing student assistance, and it was found that the vast majority of students, parents and the general public supported the basic principles underly-
26496

June 17, 1983
Canada Student Loans Act (No. 2) ing current student assistance programs. We are aware, however, that after twenty years, it is time to change some of the plan's basic elements to allow for rising costs of higher education and the socio-economic climate confronting the student today. The changes we are proposing involve additional funding of $60 million, to be paid over two years. In my view, these changes should not be seen as just amendments to a specific piece of legislation but as one of the basic elements of a broader objective, which is to make education accessible to all Canadian students and to maximize development of human resources.
My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), has established a national training program which includes the Skill Growth Fund and the Critical Trade Skills Training Program. In addition, the Minister of State for Economic Development and the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston) has been collaborating with other Ministers on improving the direction and structure of research and technology development, especially in terms of the joint effort being made in this area by Government, industry and the academic world.
These initiatives and others of a similar nature, to which will be added the proposed changes in the Canada Student Loans Act, are all part of a group of proposals that reflect the changing character of higher education and of our economy. [English]
I would now like to indicate to the House the three main concerns which are addressed in Bill C-161 and to explain their importance to Canadian students.
The first concern pertains to loan limits. The present weekly loan limit is $56.25, a limit which was based on a previous annual limit of $1,800 set in 1974. We know that a 1983 dollar and a 1974 dollar do not have the same purchasing power, hence the need for an upward revision in the loan limit. The Bill now before the House proposes increasing the weekly loan limit from $56.25 to $100 a week, with some provision for escalation as required.
The Bill also takes into account the needs of students pursuing long-term studies. It is obvious, for example, that students pursuing medicine, law or post-graduate studies will require loans over a longer period than students following a three-year undergraduate or community college program. We are, therefore, advocating in this Bill dropping the lifetime limit of what students can borrow, which presently stands at $9,800, and replacing it by a simple limit of ten years. It has been generally agreed that dollar levels will be established which will be used as guidelines by Provinces to monitor the debt load of individual students.
The increase in loan limits to $100 a week will not satisfy- everyone, but in a time of economic restraint we had to look at a scale of assistance that we could deal with, thus the determination to see if we can help those who need help most.
This brings me to the second main concern with which we deal in this Bill, the client group served. The present Canada
Student Loans Program applies only to full-time students, but in today's society there is another population with very real needs as they pursue post-secondary education. I am referring to part-time students, both at universities and community colleges. This group of students has been making known its needs over the years. COPUS has made many representations. COPUS, the Canadian Organization of Part-Time University Students, represents over 250,000 students and as such reflects a real and growing constituency.
In recognizing the needs of part-time students we are recognizing the evolution of Canadian society. For instance, as women become a larger percentage of the labour force, parttime studies often provide them with a bridge between child rearing and employment. In many cases in the past, part-time students simply have not had the funds available to pursue the courses which could add to their future employability. This has meant a loss to the work force, particularly in regard to professional and skilled positions.
Under the Bill before the House, part-time students taking post-secondary courses accepted by the designated institution as credit toward a degree, diploma or certificate will qualify for a loan. There are, of course, various limitations to this provision. The course must be equivalent to a course that may be taken by a full-time student as part of a program of studies of at least 12 consecutive weeks' duration. The applicant must demonstrate a need for assistance as measured by a means test. The loan will cover the cost of tuition, books, transportation, child care and miscellaneous allowances.
At the present time it is difficult to predict how many part-time students would qualify for assistance under this new provision, but we anticipate that more than 20,000 to 30,000 students a year might apply.
The third main area of concern which we address in this Bill relates to the problems which many students are encountering when they complete their education and attempt to enter the labour force. The transition from university to the work place, which at one time could be accomplished within a space of one to four months, is no longer an easy transition.
As I see the clock, Mr. Speaker, I would like to stop at this point and resume the debate at two o'clock.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue the presentation of the content and core of this Bill. As I was reminding Hon. Members before we adjourned for the lunch-
June 17, 1983

eon break, the third main area of concern which we address in the Bill relates to the problems many students are encountering when they complete their education and attempt to enter the labour force. The transition from university to the work force, which at one time could be accomplished within a space of one to four months, is no longer an easy transition. The fight against youth unemployment is an increasingly strong priority of Government. A student loans program must therefore take into account the fact that many students will not be able to begin to repay their student loans as quickly as may have been possible in the past.
The Government of Canada recognizes the legitimate difficulties that some graduates are encountering in finding employment on the completion of their studies. We are therefore proposing in the legislation an interest relief plan to cover interest charges on outstanding loans for a period of up to 18 months, in addition to the current six-month period of interest-free status for those who complete their studies.
The interest relief provisions in the proposed amendments to the Canada Student Loans Act are aimed at the unemployed borrower who is unable to keep up the payments. Under these provisions the student will be able to apply for interest relief for an initial period of three months but for no longer than 18 months in total. To qualify for interest relief, the individual must be unemployed and have a gross family income below a minimum level.
The interest relief provision is important for a number of reasons. We know that students embarking on a loan worry about the day when they must repay it. This is a particularly vital worry to young Canadians from lower income families who realize that they will be able to account on little assistance from their families when the time for repayment arrives. For students such as these, the prospect of a major debt load combined with worries about finding a job could turn them aside from their studies. These provisions will give reassurance and a greater sense of security to students as they enter into student loans.
Interest relief will also cut down on defaults because of its more generous time period. We do not know how many defaults can be explained by unemployment since the banks, in pressing their claims, do not always give a reason for defaults. However, over the past year there has been an increase of 20 per cent in claims by the banks, and I think it can logically be assumed that much of this increase is attributable to diminished employment prospects.
It is hoped that the interest relief provision will help to alleviate time pressures which are experienced by those who are to begin repayment of their student loans. I suggest, too, that it will have a psychological benefit by presenting to young Canadians a loan plan with which they feel they can cope.
1 mentioned earlier that the amendments to the Canada Student Loans Act presented in Bill C-161 are aimed at helping those Canadians who need help most. In that regard I want to highlight one provision which I feel should gain full support in this house, particularly in regard to the Government's response to the Obstacles Report. The special interest-
Canada Student Loans Act (No. 2)
free periods proposed in Clause 7(1) include, in addition to the unemployed, those borrowers who are incapable of working due to illness or disability. There is also a waiver provision for those who are permanently disabled. Special concern for disabled Canadian students and graduates is thus a feature of this Bill which will give added protection and security to this group of Canadians.
I have now outlined the three main features of the amendments: higher loan limits, aid to part-time students and interest relief. These amendments recognize real needs and take solid steps on a number of fronts. In addition, the proposed amendments have met with an encouraging degree of support from Provinces participating in the Canada Student Loans Program.
Consultations with the Provinces were carried out, both at the ministerial level and at the official level. It is in the context of these consultations that I point to a high degree of provincial support. Indeed, on April 25 the Hon. Bette Stephenson, chairperson of the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada, issued a communique to federal Ministers of Parliament which I am sure all Hon. Members will recall. In the communique she indicated:
We are hoping for speedy passage of this legislation, which we believe is appropriate for these difficult times, especially in view of the fact that assistance through the federal student loan plan has not changed for almost ten years.
The Provinces are thus encouraging us to get on with it. I, for one, am most anxious to take advantage of this federal-provincial co-operation and accord to bring about much needed further assistance to Canadian students.

Mr. Speaker, we obviously want students to be able to benefit from these, more generous, terms of federal assistance, and I am counting on the provincial Governments to help us achieve this objective.
In addition to encouraging comments received from the provinces and various student associations, I noticed that both Opposition parties seem to be in favour of this legislation. I would therefore urge the House to consider this Bill without delay, so that students across Canada will be able to benefit from its provisions as soon as possible.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-161, an Act to amend the Canada Student Loans Act (No. 2). I assure the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) that my colleagues and I in the Official Opposition are in a position, as he knows, to co-operate in the passage today of this legislation. In fact, he knows we have been ready to do so ever since he announced his proposed changes outside the House on March 18.
Our major concern, now that it has taken the Government three months to introduce the Bill, is whether or not these changes will be in place in time for September, 1983. I, as well as other of my colleagues who represent university centres across Canada, have heard the concerns of admission officers,

June 17, 1983
Canada Student Loans Act (No. 2)
of students who are seeking to make their plans and of parents, families and others who are supporting students, and those anxious to continue their education.
The Minister is aware of the April 25 communique he received from the Council of Ministers of Education which stated even then the need for quick action to provide, and I quote:
-additional financial assistance to post-secondary students . . . especially in view of the fact that assistance through the Federal Student Loan Plan has not changed for almost ten years.
As we now know and as the Minister has been outlining before the House, this legislation provides for changes to three major categories. First, guaranteed loans are being extended to include eligible part-time students. Second, an interest relief program for unemployed graduates will provide for the payment of interest charges on student loans for both full and part-time students for a period of up 18 months. Third, the weekly student loan limits will be increased from the current level of $56.25 to $100.
I would like to comment on these measures, but first, in the way of general background to this legislation, 1 would like to take a brief look at the Government's treatment of postsecondary education as a whole and look at these amendments in that context.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) recently tabled Bill C-150, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, which enshrines the earlier announcement of his intention to limit transfer payments to the Provinces for post-secondary education support to the six and five formula. The savings to the federal Government compared with what would have been paid out under existing legislation will be $104 million in 1983-84 and $247 million in 1984-85. The two-year break in the normal escalation formula will result in additional savings in each subsequent year, since transfers will escalate from a lower base.
In the meantime, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has announced an extra $50 million for the 1983 Canada Summer Student Job Creation Program. Likewise, the Secretary of State said that the amendments we are discussing here today would cost the federal Treasury another $60 million in loan guarantees to the bank. But I would like to know where the balance of the savings from putting the EPF transfers on six and five, some $240 million, are going.
We know that these savings are not-and I repeat not- being used to reduce the federal deficit. We are regularly asked to deal with Bills requesting additional borrowing authority for the federal Government. Now we know from the Minister of Finance that the money is not being spent in any form on either post-secondary institutions or their students.
Once again it would seem that, in a policy area that is crucial to the development of the nation's most important resource, our youth, the Government has no long-term direction. Many of us on this side have questioned various Ministers in the Government about this very troubling deficiency. We
have noted that more and more people are choosing to remain in or return to post-secondary institutions because they cannot find work or because they need new skills to be able to qualify for the few existing jobs. Yet at the same time as enrolments are swelling, the federal Government has decided to cut back its support of post-secondary education.
To return, Mr. Speaker, to the amendments proposed in the legislation before us today, let me take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister for extending eligibility under the program to part-time students. This has been advocated by all sides of the House for some time. The Minister is aware that this has long been the position advocated by the Canadian Federation of Students as well as the Task Force on Student Assistance initiated by the Clark Government. It is a long overdue amendment which we on this side of the House welcome.
I do, however, have some trouble with the increase in the weekly loan limits. Let me read a recent letter sent to me by Ms. Diane Flaherty, Executive Director of the Canadian Federation of Students. She writes:
Our greatest concern with the proposed legislation is the increase in the loan ceiling. Student movement research has demonstrated that greater debt loads do not, in fact, increase accessibility for potential students from low income backgrounds. If the proposed changes are to increase accessibility for these students, as we would suggest the changes should do, then they are not fulfilling their function. The only equitable program is one based on non-repayable bursaries, not loans.
The Secretary of State will remember that last summer his predecessor told the Canadian Federation of Students to expect an announcement of a $250 million bursary program. Instead, they are now faced with an offer of $60 million in loan guarantees. The past president of the University of Waterloo Students' Federation, Win Simonis, makes the point that while more money is being made available for students, applicants from lower income families are reluctant to enter into a risky high-debt situation. They are faced with a disincentive to continue into post-secondary education. I might expand that point to include women who are seeking to re-enter the labour force by returning to universities to upgrade their skills. Without that promised bursary program, I think the Secretary of State would agree that anyone faced with the prospect of accumulating a debt load of up to $12,800 over a four-year program, taken on a full or part-time basis, will not see this as a particular incentive.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) has asked elsewhere, what about the student who enters into a loan agreement at a given interest rate, much like someone who enters into an agreement for a mortgage at a high rate, only to see the prime rate fall, leaving him or her with an enormous repayment schedule? I see nothing in this Bill that would provide some flexibility in the interest rate formula which is established by the federal Government. I do, however, understand that negotiations between federal officials and the banks are being planned for later this summer. I want to encourage the Secretary of State
June 17, 1983

to enter those negotiations mindful of the current interest rates on repayments faced by students who already carry loans taken out when rates were extremely high. This Bill, of course, in its present form, offers them no relief. We look forward to a further amendment or announcement on that.
I look forward as well to hearing of some progress that can be communicated to students who are applying for assistance in the months that lie ahead. I know that the Secretary of State is aware that applications for student assistance were up 23 per cent across the country in the last year alone.
Finally, on the matter of the extension of the interest relief period to 18 months, 1 and my colleagues on this side of the House welcome the proposal. My concern, however, is for those students carrying large debts, many of whom have been unable to find work. For them, this move comes rather late in the day.
The Secretary of State knows of the record unemployment rates in the age groups which encompass graduating students. Their plight has been well documented by my colleagues. I know that if today's debate were longer, my colleagues, the Hon. Members for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) and Peace River (Mr. Cooper), could express their interest. Other Members who have expressed to me their interest on this topic are the Hon. Members for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie), Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) and St. Catharines (Mr. Reid). These Members and others whose constituencies include universities hear regularly from students. Until we see a comprehensive strategy from the Government on both post-secondary education and student assistance as well as an assurance from the provincial Governments that all post-secondary transfers and student assistance funds are maintained for those uses, we will continue to be watchful.
1 want to conclude with the expression of this Party's overall support for the legislation. I think I have made it sufficiently clear that we have problems with some areas that we believe the Bill does not address, but in general its provisions will not be delayed by this side.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, neither shall I delay the Bill unduly today. We have an agreement to pass this necessary piece of legislation into law as quickly as possible and, as is our practice in this Party, we will attempt to co-operate on matters such as this.
I want to make it clear that I speak not only for Members of the New Democratic Party caucus who are eager to see the legislation passed, inadequate though we may feel it is, but I also speak for the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) who urged that I make his support for the legislation known to the House. 1 do not know why he asked me; he does
Canada Student Loans Act (No. 2)
not often ask for that but I assume there must be a political gain it it somewhere.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member points out to me quietly, behind his hand, that it is a confliict of interest as his daughter has made application. I will have to take that into account.
This Party is not opposed to the legislation. We recognize that young people in Canada have been suffering a serious economic setback and are in need of whatever kind of help they can get, even if it is only superficial. We believe that the Bill deals only superficially with the problems of financing education at the post-secondary level. The Bill embodies what most of the legislation has been about for the past year or two, and that is an effort to give the appearance that something is being done rather than actually doing something. What little is being offered to Canadian students will not be received by many of them in time for the fall enrolment if we do not deal with the Bill expeditiously. To get it through today is an important step in order to make sure that young people who are continuing or are beginning their education at the postsecondary level are made aware as quickly as possible of the content of the legislation and the availability of assistance.
The Bill increases Government spending at the federal level in the order of $60 million over the next two years. It amends the Canada Student Loans Act in three ways. First, it increases the weekly loan limit from $56.25 which, if it were not so pitiful, would almost be laughable, to the grand sum of $100, which I suppose is intended to take the increased cost of living into account.
Second, it provides an increased relief program for unemployed graduates of an additional 18 months, bringing the total relief plan up to two years; and after six months it is renewable every three months.
Third, and perhaps most important, it guarantees loans to part-time students to cover tuition fees, books, learning materials, local transportation and related costs. We recognize the necessity for all of these and are prepared to support them.
I would like to refer to the press release issued by the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) on March 18 in which he announced the changes and noted that the Canada Student Loans Program and the associated provincial student aid programs had been recently reviewed in depth by a federal-provincial taks force which determined that the basic principles underlying these programs had overwhelming public support. I am not surprised at that, Mr. Speaker. Those of us who have been involved in politics and active with young people were well aware that the public in general was eager to make sure that those with ability gained access to postsecondary education regardless of their financial backing.
I am curious to know exactly what the basic principles are that underlie the Canada Student Loans Program. If they aim to perpetuate a post-secondary system that increases rather than decreases the social-economic gaps in Canadian society, then the CSLP is clearly meeting its goals. It is rather odd that the Minister would use a public opinion survey to determine the worth of the CLSP when the program is utilized by only 40

June 17, 1983
Canada Student Loans Act (No. 2)
per cent of the student population and only 30 per cent at the time of his survey. In short, the federal-provincial task force on student assistance did little more than what I have just said. It reaffirmed that the CLSP is a large public expenditure program in which the poor tend to subsidize the rich, unfortunately. I want to deal with that later.
What we have now in the Canada Student Loans Program is a system which, in the face of rising living costs and tuition fees, has continued to extend insufficient funding to students, penalizing those who utilize the funding with an accumulated debt burden far exceeding their ability to pay in these very difficult economic times. This debt burden ultimately rests more heavily on the poor than on anyone else. I do not have to go into detail on that, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that everyone appreciates that those with limited means accumulate the same amount of debt as those with greater means. The result is that on graduation the student has accumulated approximately the same amount of debt but has a far lesser potential for repayment or for absorbing it.
The increase in the CLSP weekly loan ceiling from $56.25 to $100 barely meets the increase in inflation and without the accompaniment of some form of grant, substantially increases the burden of debt on students from $1,800 per year in 1975 to $3,200 per year in 1983-84. A student who borrowed the maximum CSL of $3,200 for four years and repaid it over a nine and a half year period, which is entirely within the law, at current interest rates would have a total debt load of something in excess of $ 15,000.
We are particularly concerned about this problem as it affects women, who accounted for more than 95 per cent of the increase in full-time enrolment between 1970 and 1979 and whose enrolment in post-secondary education continues to increase at a higher rate in proportion to men. While Canadian women continue to earn only half as much as Canadian men in most, if not all, occupations, they are obviously the least able to bear the burden of debt imposed by the CLSP. Adding insult to injury, it has estimated by R. A. Holmes in a study entitled "Male-Lemale Earnings Differentials in Canada" that "the potential lifetime earnings of a female university graduate is about equal to that of a male high school graduate".
The fact that this slight increase in federal spending on the CSLP comes to us at the expense of federal support for the whole post-secondary system due to the imposition of six and five on the federal share of post-secondary education funding truly reflects a retrograde attitude on the part of the federal Government. Last year the system lost an estimated $1.9 billion when the federal Government eliminated the revenue guarantee in the Established Programs Linancing Act, and this year losses are estimated at $ 102 million with the imposition of the six and five program on the federal share of post-secondary funding for 1983-84.
The Secretary of State claims that he has sought and obtained the assurances of the Provinces that this increase in spending on the CSLP will not result in provincial cutbacks. However, I want to draw to the Minister's attention that,
notwithstanding his own pronouncement, we are aware that in the Province of British Columbia there has already been imposed new restrictions in the criteria for obtaining student loans. The Government of that Province has increased the course load requirement for full-time students from 60 per cent, as it exists now across the country, to 80 per cent. This will cut out a lot of students with families and part-time jobs who will not be able to afford to continue their education on the part-time assistance available from the federal Government. Of course, the provincial officials justify this change on the grounds that financial assistance is now available to parttime students. 1 will elaborate on the shortcomings of this assistance plan later on.
1 say to the Minister that while this Government might have been happy to see Bill Bennett re-elected, whatever message he conveyed with regard to the commitment of the Province of British Columbia not to unduly interfere with the program about which we are now talking, as usual it is not living up to its commitment. I ask the Minister to review that with the Government of British Columbia because, frankly, I feel that it is typical of the way that Government has acted toward young people over the course of the last few years.
In an effort to make it more difficult all around for students to obtain financial assistance, the B.C. Government has also tightened up restrictions for independent students. A married student is presently classified as independent if he or she is (a) married or in a long-term common-law relationship, or (b) in the work force for two consecutive 12-month periods, or (c) four years out of secondary school, or (d) without a parent or guardian. The new criteria in British Columbia will disqualify any independent student if he or she receives from parents $600 in cash or kind either during the school year or in the four months prior to the beginning of the school term, or has driven a motor vehicle which is registered, owned or maintained by the parents during the same period, or has lived more than six weeks in a home owned or rented by parents.
1 say to the Minister that this surely is a departure from what I know he would have wanted to see occur.lt certainly does not meet the kinds of standards which we would like to see set. It is clearly an attempt by the Government of British Columbia to undermine the system. I would urge upon the Minister that he not except this kind of action by that Government, and that he make arrangements to meet with them forthwith and bring to their attention that this is a direct violation of what we in the House of Commons believe is an appropriate way to act.
The real issue here however, is not so much provincial cutbacks, but the role of the federal Government in fostering national goals in education by providing the Provinces with incentives to increase their support. Indeed, the lofty goals outlined two years ago by the then Secretary of State expressing the federal Government's "strong interest in the general health of the post-secondary system and in wide and equitable
June 17, 1983

access to that system", seem to have all but disappeared. When will the federal Government begin to take some responsibility for grant assistance to students? The Provinces have been forced to introduce grants and other forms of nonrepayable assistance to help students meet their financial needs and reduce their debt load. As a result, the federal share of student aid expenditures dropped from 50 per cent in 1965-66 to 26 per cent in 1980-81.
The Minister also must surely review his own statements, having promised students again this year that he would be introducing a bursary program. Of course, to this point in time neither the students nor Hon. Members of the House of Commons have seen this bursary program. I would like to urge upon the Minister on behalf of my colleagues, and 1 suspect on behalf of other Hon. Members, that he proceed with that bursary program as quickly as possible. It is absolutely essential.
I would like to turn to another aspect of what is before us, the interest relief plan. Federal student assistance has done more to benefit private lending institutions and collection agencies through interest and default payments and collection charges than it has helped the needy student. Over $7 million has been paid to collection agencies over the years 1980 to 1982. That is the amount of a 25 per cent collection charge on some $36 million collected. Defaults have steadily risen in the last two years, from 11,000 in 1980-81 to 13,000 in 1981-82, and a startling 15,000 just in the first three months of 198283. I believe the Government understands why. It is a natural consequence of the economic conditions in the country.
Going back to 1980, one could readily see that the economic conditions in the country were not fostering better occupations. The people were not provided with the necessary financial backing which they would need and so one could not expect other than that the numbers of defaults would rise. That does not mean that the students are not prepared to repay, I hasten to add. It does not mean that they do not intend to repay. I am sure the Minister would agree with me that by far the vast majority, when asked, have every intention of repaying. It is just simply that they cannot repay when their income has not yet reached the point of meeting their basic needs, let alone paying back their obligations to the Government.
The 18 months interest relief plan is a welcome recognition of this problem but is not the solution. We in this Party have proposed that the interest-free grace period be extended until the student has achieved a satisfactory job. How one defines that may be a subject for discussion. Nevertheless, I do not believe it is beyond the wit of man to find a way to define it.
We have also proposed that lending rates for student loans not be based on the bond rate, but perhaps established on the basis of a weighted average of the loan rate in effect every year that the student takes out a loan, or some other measure similar to that which would offer students some relief from the erratic fluctuation of interest rates.
Our Party would also like to see the interest relief plan extended to part-time students as well. Part-time enrolment in Canadian universities has increased dramatically in the postwar era and continues to rise. You would know, Mr. Speaker,
Canada Student Loans Act (No. 2)
that in 1979 there were more than a quarter of a million registered students in credit courses, representing over one-third of all students attending university. The growth rate for part-time students in the undergraduate programs between 1972 and 1981 is reported by Statistics Canada as 61 per cent. This compares with a growth over the same period for fulltime undergraduates of 25 per cent. From 1970-71 to 1980-81, the part-time undergraduate student enrolment at Canadian universities grew from 52 per cent of the full-time total to 64 per cent. I believe the Minister can see the trend, as anyone else can see it. Part-time graduate and undergraduate women over the age of 25 increased by a startling 250 per cent in the period 1970-79. Just as women are attempting, through education, to break out of the low wage job ghettos which entrap them, institutions are forced by Government action to withdraw the very programs they need.
The manner in which the Government is offering assistance to part-time students is really a token recognition, however long overdue, of the increasing demand and importance of part-time study in this changing industrial climate. One wonders what benefit this assistance will be to part-time students when preferred programs of study are not available because of Government cutbacks to the system in general. In reality, the Government is merely putting up collateral for a loan to the part-time student, whose only difficulty is a temporary cash flow problem.
Holding this false perception of the part-time student, it is no wonder that the Government has failed to include part-time students in its interest relief program. Instead, the Government is requiring repayment of part-time loans in this Bill no more than two years after the loan is made, beginning payment one month after the loan is received, with interest accruing immediately and creating a more stringent means test than that in place for full-time students, such that the ability to repay seems a greater factor in determining loan eligibility than financial need.
Many part-time students are just that because of the increasingly prohibitive cost of obtaining a full-time university education. The costs incurred by a part-time student are the same per course as full-time students. A number of studies have demonstrated that part-time students tend to come from families whose parental income and educational attainment are lower than full-time students. They are part-time because they cannot afford to be full-time and cannot afford to draw on family resources to enable them to be full-time. Therefore, they should be treated in a different way than they are being treated in this legislation.
I go back to British Columbia because it is a good case in point. It costs seven times as much per instructional hour to take vocational courses part-time as it does full-time in that Province. Fees for evening courses exceed similar fees for daytime courses, measured by the instructional hour. Rural areas are poorly serviced. Use of family income criteria for a loan deters the participation of married women and works to

June 17, 1983
Canada Student Loans Act (No. 2)
maintain their dependency on the family situation. Financial aid for part-time college and university students remains extremely limited in spite of the Bill.
A 1982 Gallup survey commissioned by the Canadian Association of Adult Education, and the Institut Canadien d'Education des Adultes, using a random sample of 2,000 Canadians 18 years of age and over, determined that the greatest beneficiaries of part-time education are those who generally come from middle to high income backgrounds and have already achieved the university level of education. Those who need part-time education the most are three times less likely to enrol because of financial and social restraints of the current system which favours the rich at the expense of the poor. I think there are times when people do not believe that any more. But the facts are that with changing economic conditions there is no question in the minds of those who have looked at it that the education system once again-if it ever changed and there is some question about that-has begun to favour the entrance of the rich to post-secondary education over those who are somewhat less well endowed financially. You can see it in the education system inasmuch as universities are struggling for dollars and are very eager to have those with higher incomes involved. Those with lower incomes do not have the support base necessary to carry the additional financial burden.
The CAAE survey shows that 17 per cent of the adult population in 1982 has left initial schooling at the elementary level, and a further 47 per cent left at the secondary level. The same report argues that in view of the rising levels of educational capacity required to function in a technological society, much of this population may end up functionally illiterate. They say the persistence of this phenomenon is dangerous both for the productivity of the Canadian economy-because it so seriously hampers the adaptability of the labour force in an age of skill obsolescence-and for democracy because of the connection between functional literacy and skills of participation and citizenship. That is something I know the Minister himself is vitally interested in.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP-


David P. Smith: Hurray!


Ian Deans: Well, I could go on if you like. I realize that you are always eager to have me speak and I would be delighted to continue.


Mr. Cosgrove:: A very good speech.


Ian Deans: Thank you, I appreciate that. I am sure you would recognize one, not hearing many from your own side.
We in the NDP support any federal Government move in the direction of assistance to Canadian youth and students generally, but we do wish the Government would take its responsibility somewhat more seriously, especially when youth unemployment is so high, causing unforeseen increases in enrolment over the last year of about 8 per cent. At a time
when we are facing such major industrial change, only a strong post-secondary education system will equip us for this change.
The country is facing a crisis which is reflected in education and also in economic conditions. The future of the country depends on our having a well educated population, educated to the maximum of its ability, given every opportunity and encouragement to enlarge upon the capacity of each individual to absorb learning and to apply it. The future of the country socially depends to a great extent on the ability of people to learn through the education system and other systems about how to socialize, to adapt to and accommodate others in the way in which they go about their lives. The country, even from the point of view of its diversity, given that it has a number of regions, each one quite different from the other, can only benefit from an educational system which will allow for the teaching of the differences which make us one rather than divide us. The future of the country rests on whether or not we are prepared to place the kind of emphasis on education at every level which will enable each Canadian to acquire the necessary learning skills so they can adapt to the changes, technological and social, which are taking place.
I urge the Government once and for all to commit itself to developing a national policy on post-secondary education, a strategy based on the principles of equal opportunity and equal access. We are one of the few industrialized countries in the world which has not yet faced that particular challenge. Time is passing us by.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, with the unanimous consent of the House, referred to a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Blaker in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 6-Special Interest-Free Periods
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, there is one question 1 would like to ask the Minister. I notice there is no set amount for students; it is going to depend on the division of the total by the number of students throughout the country. There is one point 1 am a little bit in fear of, although it is perhaps already covered. In some of these programs there is no particular limit and the money gets used up. Then those who apply near the end are told the money is all gone. I hope that will not happen in this student program.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Chairman, I can reassure the Hon. Member because the amount of money provided to us by the House could be readjusted through supplementary estimates. If it does happen that there is an increase in the enrolment in universities to a point that the amount of money provided by the Minister of Finance is not sufficient, then we could come back to supplementary estimates. So I can reassure the Hon. Member to that end.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, there is just one other point. 1 suppose this is counterbalanced because a student does not get
June 17, 1983

the maximum amount. Some are more needy than others. There is provision made for that, is there?


Serge Joyal: That is exactly so. One point I want to add is that the Canada Student Loans Program is complemented with, of course, provincial programs. 1 have the list here of statistics and it shows there is a great variety and diversity among, for instance, the provincial loans afforded to students by each provincial Government, or the provincial grants system administered by each provincial Government. In fact, we are dealing with a complement to the provincial system which already exists and works well in the country. Therefore, what the Hon. Member has said is exactly right, because each provincial Government administers some criteria.
Of course, we urge the provincial Government, as was stated by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, to have the widest opening of criteria to ensure that we in fact work on the broadest approach to student help, student grants and student loans. He is right in stating that those loans and grants are measured according to the needs of the students. There are a set of criteria which are devised by Provinces to ensure that there are some kind of national standards which can be respected in each Province to ensure mobility. One of the key or essential elements of the system is mobility, especially when one addresses post-graduate studies. A student might want to involve himself or herself in the type of curricula which is not immediately available in his or her region and must travel to another Province. Therefore, we must consider some kind of standardization of those criteria to ensure that we afford the necessary help to students.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 12 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
[ Translation]
Serge Joyal: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? With the consent of the House, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Serge Joyal: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed. [English]


Serge Joyal: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know it is a general interpretation as to what is a point of order in our
Farm Improvement Loans Act (No. 2)
procedure, but I would certainly like to thank my collegues on all sides of the House for the passage of the legislation to ensure that, by September 1, it could be implemented for all students in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has had to deal with many points of order which have had less merit than that. I think it is the wish of the House to proceed now with Bill C-148.


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT (NO. 2) MEASURE TO AMEND
Eugene Whelan: that Bill C-148, an Act to Amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


David P. Smith: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe there would be unanimous consent to refer the Bill to Committee of the Whole so that it could be dealt with in all stages today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the remark of the Parliamentary Secretary. Is there unanimous consent to moving immediately to Committee of the Whole?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blaker in the chair.
Roderick Blaker: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-148, an Act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act (No. 2).
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Eugene Whelan: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will not delay the proceedings of the House very long with respect to the Bill. It is an important Bill. It is one which we have adopted several times, changing its provisions, adding to it, making it more workable for the agriculture industry of Canada. Thousands of farmers benefited last year from many of our different programs for financial assistance. It is said that we do not care. However, these include Small Business and Small Business Development Bond programs and the Farm Credit Corporation's special farm financial assistance programs. On top of those, of course,

June 17, 1983
Farm Improvement Loans Act (No. 2)
thousands of farmers also took advantage of the Farm Credit Corporation's regular lending program, the interest-free advanced payments for crops program, the prairie grain advance payments program and the farm improvement loans program that we are passing here today.
This organization was started in 1945 and more than
1,800,000	loans, totalling over $4.7 billion, have been guaranteed to Canadian farmers under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Last year $208 million in new loans were guaranteed under the program. It was a 10 per cent increase over 1981. The figures speak for themselves. The farm improvement loans program is obviously very popular with Canadian farmers. Unfortunately, it is due to expire, if we do not pass the legislation, at the end of this month.
1 wish to thank the Members of the House of Commons for what we are doing here today with this important piece of legislation. At the time the program was started, chartered banks were virtually ignoring the farm credit market. This is why the farm improvement loans program was started. In order to gear up for the post-war agricultural boom which was expected, farmers had to make significant capital investments in their farms. That called for financing. That is why the federal Government passed the Farm Improvement Loans Act for an initial period of three years. For several years after the program was introduced, nearly all the intermediate-term credit extended to farmers by banks was guaranteed under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
Over the years, the provisions of the Act have been amended to reflect the changing conditions affecting agriculture. As a matter of fact, the Act has been amended 18 times, extending this program for 12 additional years. It clearly indicates how popular the program has been with three generations of farmers and the various Governments of the day.
Initially, in 1945, the federal Government guaranteed loans up to a maximum of $3,000 under the Act. The last time we amended it, it was changed from $75,000 per farm to $100,000 per farm. Loans can be obtained from chartered banks, credit unions, caisses populaires, trust companies or Alberta treasury branches. The Act stipulates that the repayment must be made within 10 years, except for loans to purchase land, which must be repaid within 15 years.
Currently, the Act stipulates that interest rates float at lending institutions' prime rate plus 1 per cent. Farm improvement loans must be secured and borrowers are required to provide a certain portion of the cost of a purchase or a project from their own resources.
A brief review of the 1982 farm improvement loans program shows that the federal Government guaranteed 15,584 loans at an average of $13,385, for a total of $208.6 million. Almost 69 per cent of this money was lent for the purchase of farm equipment while 11 per cent was lent for construction, repairs or changes to farm houses and buildings. The remainder of the money was lent for land and livestock purchases, other farm improvements and machinery repairs.
As you might expect, there was a slight increase in losses under the program in recent years, but the losses are still relatively small. For instance, in 1982, claims totalling just over $1 million were paid out. Yet the total loans outstanding amounted to over $500 million.
Farmers are generally a very good credit risk. This is clearly indicated by the record of the Farm Improvement Loans Program. Since 1945, more than 1.8 million loans totalling over $4.7 billion have been guaranteed under the program. But during the same period only 6,500 claims totalling $9.8 million were not paid and $2.3 million of this money was later recovered.
Farmers, by nature, pay their bills off quickly and keep their debts as small as possible. According to a nation-wide survey conducted by the Farm Credit Corporation in January, 1981, the average Canadian farmer had debts equal to only 15 per cent of the total value of his or her farm assets.
The farm credit market has changed considerably since the post-war years. It has grown by leaps and bounds, and lenders have responded. But without the Farm Improvement Loans Act a great many farmers would still have difficulty borrowing the money they need to make the necessary changes and improvements in their farming operations.
The program is still extremely important and probably more important in one region of Canada than any other, that is, in western Canada. An abrupt end to the program would cause serious repercussions in some locations, especially those rural areas that are served by only one financial institution.
The severe financial problems faced by some farmers today make it advisable to continue this program so they can obtain the credit they need. We will continue it. I might say that if 1 am here in two years' time this program will be completely reviewed in the next two years, and if changes are necessary at that time I am sure the House of Commons would be glad to make them. I will simply say that this is a good Bill and I thank the House for its co-operation.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few brief remarks and indicate the support of our Party for this Bill which extends the term of the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
I would point out that over the years we have always supported this particular Bill and the amendments that have been brought forward from time to time. As a matter of fact, we in the Official Opposition support any good legislation that tends to assist the farming population. We always agree to put good Bills through in short order, as we are doing this afternoon.
Only when a Bill is detrimental to the farm population, Bills such as Canagrex or the Crow rate, do we dig in our heels and attempt to do our best to improve the legislation and make it acceptable to the farming population. I believe the Minister would agree with me in that regard.
June 17, 1983

There is one problem, not with respect to the Bill itself but to its utilization. I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister that 1 do not believe that this Bill has received the necessary publicity. I am aware that banks are reluctant for some reason to encourage a farmer to make use of the FIL Program.
I am told that it is like pulling teeth to persuade them to allow a farmer to use the program. I have talked to many of my colleagues who represent agricultural areas who have said that their constituents have encountered the same problems.
I recall several years ago when the Hon. John Turner was Minister of Finance that this matter was brought to his attention by many on this side of the House and he undertook to speak to the banking association. 1 believe that as a result of his representations the banks did in fact tell the farmers that this program was available. However, I believe that an educational program still must take place.
I hope that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will take some steps to let the farming population know that this Bill is in existence and is available to them so they may borrow money at lower rates than ones at which they would ordinarily pay to the bank. It is my understanding that interest rates under the FIL Program are one per cent above prime, which is probably somewhat lower than what the Farm Credit Corporation is charging for its loans at the present time.
In closing, I would simply say to the Minister that there is a need to help the farming population. Many farmers are in serious financial difficulties at the present time. Interest rates have been high, input costs have been high and the price of their product has been relatively low.
I am aware that the Farm Credit Corporation has done an excellent job in rearranging loans and refinancing farmers who have been in serious financial difficulties. But the interest rate is still high when one borrows from the Farm Credit Corporation.
I was interested to hear the Minister's response, I believe yesterday, to a Member when he said that the Farm Credit Corporation was now out of money and he was asking Cabinet to allow the Farm Credit Corporation to go offshore presumably to borrow money. He took similar action a short while ago when I believe the FCC borrowed $50 million offshore from Belgium at a rate of approximately 12 per cent.
1 would like to list again some of the programs that we on this side of the House have proposed to the Minister and the Farm Credit Corporation over the years in order to make money available at low interest rates to the Farm Credit Corporation to lend to the farmers. I refer specifically to the agri-bond program which we have pushed for many years, as well as the program whereby the capital gains portion of the selling price of a farm might be lent at low interest rates-6 per cent or 7 per cent-to the Farm Credit Corporation and then relent to the young farmer at possibly 8 per cent or 9 per cent. That would be a substantial saving.
I hope the Minister will use his good offices and power in Cabinet to persuade Cabinet and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Farm Improvement Loans Act (No. 2)
Lalonde) to adopt the agri-bond program and some other programs that we have been suggesting to him over the years.
If the Minister is seriously interested in agriculture, as I am sure he is, and seriously interested in the farming population, he will do his utmost to see that these programs are implemented. It makes no difference whether these programs have been suggested by the Opposition or by anyone else. If they are good, I think it is the Minister's responsibility to do his best to see that the programs are brought in in the best interest of the agricultural community.
In closing, I would simply say that we in the Official Opposition heartily endorse and support this Bill. I am pleased that we are able to give three readings to it this afternoon.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I only have a few things to say about this Bill. This Bill represents a very minor change and is a simple housekeeping order to make the Farm Improvement Loans Act available to farmers for another two years.
I would like to point out that there are a couple of things I would like to see changed in the Farm Loans Improvement Act which are beyond the power of an Opposition Member to move, so I simply raise them in the debate today and the Minister can keep them in mind for possible amendments in the near future. Any Minister in 1985 could incorporate them in the amendments that are required to continue the Farm Loans Improvement Act another two or three years at that time. Basically they have to do with the over-all limits to the loans. At the moment the Minister knows that the limit is $100,000 per customer. In the case of most other Acts where we have limits per customer, the Government and the Department of Agriculture have recognized legal partnerships and coop farms. But that is not the case with the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The limit is $100,000 regardless of a legal partnership or a co-op farm. A co-op farm may have anywhere up to a dozen members, and it may have a great need of a broad range of capital. However, the Farm Improvement Loans Act will allow them to borrow only up to $100,000, the same as an individual operator. I think that is something the Minister should keep in mind. Perhaps he could draw it to the attention of his officials so that when he or a future Minister brings the Farm Improvement Loans Act before the House another time the needs of co-op farmers could be dealt with as well.
We note the good experience with the Farm Improvement Loans Act since its inception in 1945 or 1946. It provided loans to farmers which assisted in the recovery of the economy after the Second World War. It put the machinery manufacturing sector on its feet, because it was basically farm improvement loans that went to farm machinery, and the two programs, development of the farm machinery industry and the provisions of credit, work very well together. In fact, until 1965, 100 per cent of the intermediate term loans which farmers took out were under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Until that time the rate was fixed at 5 per cent. After

June 17, 1983
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act (No. 2)
1965, there were some changes to the Bank Act which permitted the banks to get back into the mortgage field, an area they had not been in for a long time. With the experience the banks had gained from administering the Farm Improvements Loans Act, they very quickly moved into the farm credit field to the point where, rather than 100 per cent of the intermediate term agricultural loans being carried by the Farm Improvement Loans program, we had less than 20 per cent of such loans being carried under the Farm Improvement Loans program in 1980.
We can see the private banking system has moved into that particular field of credit in a fairly big way, thanks to the experience they got under the Farm Improvement Loans Act between 1946 and 1965.
The use of FIL funds for debt consolidation or for shortterm loans to handle production credits is not allowed under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. That is an area not fully recognized by lending institutions operated by the Government of Canada. The Farm Credit Corporation does permit debt consolidation. At a time like the present, farmers are under considerable financial strain and are requiring debt consolidation measures in order to stay in business in the hope that the bear markets will turn up so farming can again be profitable. We note that the Farm Credit Corporation has been getting more and more into debt consolidation as a part of its business. In 1980, roughly 16 per cent of the business that the Farm Credit Corporation generated was for farm debt consolidation. The next year, 1981, that figure was up to 35 per cent. We know that in 1983 the call for funds to consolidate debts through the Farm Credit Corporation is so large that the Farm Credit Corporation has already run out of funds in just a few weeks. There is a great need for that kind of funding. I am not sure whether FIL loans are the place to do it, but certainly if farmers have chosen the Farm Credit Corporation as a place to go and the service is there, more funds should be made available so that more of those loans could be provided to farmers in an effort to stave off bankruptcy for a few more years to spread their debt repayments in order to survive this particular heavy downturn in the market for their products.
We support this amendment to renew the Farm Improvement Loans Act and we hope it goes through very quickly now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the House agree to the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT (NO. 2) MEASURE TO AMEND
Eugene Whelan: that Bill C-147, an Act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Some indication has been given to the Chair that there may be some discussion on third reading. Of course, I recognize now, at second reading stage, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), if he so wishes. Shall we wait for third reading for comments by Hon. Members?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blaker in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Roderick Blaker: Shall I report the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Eugene Whelan: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When shall the Bill read a third time? By unanimous consent now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eugene Whelan: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this Bill on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane). It being third reading 1 want to say only a few words. This legislation is to extend and simultaneously amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
In general terms, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act is intended to facilitate the availability of credit to fishermen for a variety of fisheries improvement projects. In order to encourage private financial institutions to make such loans to fishermen, the Act authorizes the federal Government to guarantee lenders against loss incurred on loans made in accordance with its provisions.
The legislation specifies the amount that can be outstanding to an an individual borrower at any one time, and the maximum repayment term of each loan. It also specifies the lending period and the aggregate principal amount of guaranteed loans that my be made by all lenders in that period.
This Act was originally administered by the Department of Finance and was transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in June, 1978. The existing legislation does not go beyond June 30, 1983, and in the interests of the many fishermen who depend on this Act for credit, I sincerely thank the House for its speedy passage. This is highly desirable action.
Here is what the amendments will do. They will extend the Act for a two-year period from July 1, 1983 to June 30, 1985,
June 17, 1983

and set the aggregate principal amount of loans made during that two-year period, in respect of which the Minister would be liable for losses, at $100 million for all designated lenders under the Act.
Some people may wonder why I am speaking on fisheries. I was Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Fisheries for two years and I understand fisheries. It is really a crop harvested from the sea. I come from an area which has the largest freshwater fishing industry in the Commonwealth in Lake Erie. By the way, those fish are free from any impurities. People may think they have impurities, but they are perfectly safe to eat by anybody anyplace in the world. I am very familiar with the fishing industry.
I would like to think that all Hon. Members of the House of Commons take a special interest in the fisheries because it is an important industry. They should be aware that the general question of financial assistance to fishermen was raised in the two major studies recently completed on Canada's commercial fisheries. Of course I am referring to the Atlantic fisheries task force report prepared under Michael Kirby and Professor Pearse's Pacific fisheries study. Without getting into the pros and cons of the recommendations in these two reports on the particular issue, it is entirely possible that at some point in the future, with the concurrence of the industry, we can come up with an improved financial assistance program for fishermen tailored to the prevailing economic situation. However, any such new scheme will need much careful planning and consultation and could take a number of years to implement. In the meantime we feel it is in the best interest of fishermen and the industry as a whole to continue with the present Fisheries Improvement Loans Act for at least another two years.
A further amendment to the Act which is being sought will make it mandatory for lenders to comply with the provisions of the regulations. By way of explanation, perhaps I should point out that the existing Act empowers the Governor in Council to make regulations concerning the administration of the program, but there is no provision in the legislation which makes it an offence to contravene the regulations. Under the proposed amendment, failure by lenders to comply with the regulations would void the Minister's liability under the Act. In effect, the amendment will firm up the program administration and require lenders to register with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans all loans made under the provisions of the Act within three months of the granting of such loans.
Loans made by chartered banks and other designated lenders under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act have risen significantly over past years. I might point out that from the inception of the plan in 1955 to March 31, 1982, some 14,759 loans have been made, amounting in total to approximately $184 million. The average size of the loan has increased from just over $1,000 in 1955 to $18,000 at the present time.
I am sure it will be recognized that the guaranteed loans program provides a solid credit base for fishermen through recognized credit institutions across the country. In the absence of this program, it is very likely that a large number of small independent fishermen would attempt to get financial
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act (No. 2)
assistance from large operators, which would jeopardize their status as independent fishermen. The need to increase the independence of fishermen, rather than the reverse, was a constant preoccuption of the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and it is an objective with which the present Minister is wholeheartedly in agreement.
In these times it is not easy for fishermen to maintain an independent status, particularly when it comes to paying out thousands of dollars to purchase a new boat or modify an existing one to keep up with technological advances. If fishermen cannot raise the necessary funds on their own and get locked into the position of having their boats mortgaged to a processing company, they are in a very poor position to bargain over prices for the fish they have to sell.
The Fisheries Improvement Loans Program is one avenue the fisherman can take when looking for financing to enable him to maintain his independence. It is also increasingly popular with fishermen, particularly on the West Coast where there is no provincial loan board. I might add that fishermen have proved themselves to be a good credit risk. The loss ratio of this program since its inception has been less than 1 per cent.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that this is a very worth-while program for which there is a great deal of support. The Provinces are familiar with it and have indicated their approval for its continued existence. I am sure Hon. Members will recognize its importance to the fishermen of the country. They have displayed this by their endorsement of the Bill, and I thank them on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane).


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief as well. I have two or three comments to make with respect to the program. It is the type of program which must be put in place. Any good government would put it in place as part of the social and structural needs of that section of Canadian society. One difficulty we continue to have with the program arises out of the fact that of all Government programs this one has had no publicity whatsoever. When a fisherman goes into a bank, the bank lends him money at prime plus four, when in fact it should be prime plus one. The bank does not tell the fisherman that he has another access.


Eugene Whelan: Shame on the banks.


J. Michael Forrestall: I hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). He introduced this measure and has responsibility for guiding it through the House of Commons. I am sure the fishermen of Canada will applaud him. I do not say, "Shame on the banks"; I say, "Shame on the Government for not having publicized it". If the banks and lending institutions are at fault, even at greater fault are the Government and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans because they will not tell fishermen. Approximately 26 organized fishermen's groups in Altantic Canada were canvassed by Pete Marwick at the request of the Department of Fisheries. They were canvassed

June 17, 1983
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act (No. 2)
by A1 Billard of Halifax. No one knew anything about it. They did not even know it existed. Is that why 70 per cent or 75 per cent of the loans guaranteed in fact occurred on the West Coast? What about East Coast fishermen? They did not know about the program. They did not even know it existed. Why? God knows the Government spent millions and millions of dollars advertising the Crow.


Paul James Cosgrove: And you criticized us.


Eugene Whelan: You could have put it in your householder.


J. Michael Forrestall: However old this program is, not a single piece of information has come across my desk other than what 1 dredged out this morning by looking back at Estimates to see how much money went into Atlantic Canada. The Government, as much as the lending institutions, is at fault with respect to this program.
I agreed that we should reduce the level at which loans are guaranteed. In 1983, at the rate at which we are going, less than $8 million or $9 million will require Government guarantees. To have guarantees well in excess of $100 million is not realistic. Why is the guarantee level so high and the borrowing level so low? The Government put a program in place because it was convenient for one of the Ministers at one point in time to be able to say, "We will guarantee loans to fishermen". It was convenient politically. I am glad to see a couple of the fast trackers in the House. It is very convenient.
The people Eastern Passage, the last fishing community in Halifax harbour, one of the great harbours of the world, have tried for eight years to get new wharf facilities. Programs that would allocate money for this purpose were never make known to them. They simply did not know about them. When the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) is finished with the pot and when the other distinguished Liberal Members of Parliament are finished with the pot, there is nothing left over for the rest of the Province. We do not find this out first, second, or third. We find it out last. So, yes, I accuse the Government of deliberate deceit with respect to programs such as this. The fishermen of Atlantic Canada did not know and were not made aware and continue to be unaware of the benefits of dealing privately and being able to exercise their own judgment. Who wants to borrow from the Government if it can be done the right way from the lending institutions?
These people need help but they do not want subsidies. They do not want to borrow money and let the Government pay it off. They are independent people. They are honest, hard working, industrious Canadian citizens.
That is one concern, Mr. Speaker, that we have respect to this Bill. We will let the Bill go through, there is no question about that. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) said earlier, our concerns are for the abnormalities that come through this Chamber from time to time like the
Crow and like Canagrex and all of those other nonsensical Bills. What benefit does the Crow offer eastern Canada? What happens to MFRA? What happens to CN and CAST? 1 wish I could have asked the Minister that question earlier today, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Do it on Monday.


J. Michael Forrestall: I think that the figures with respect to borrowing under this Act as put on the record by the Minister clearly demonstrate that there will be no complicity about it. There will be no great big advertising campaigns directed to our 40,000 fishermen. They do not care.
The Minister of Agriculture is here. Where is the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. De Bane)? Where is Fishy himself?


Jean-Luc Pepin: He is announcing a program in the Maritimes.


Mr. Tobin:: He is working with great diligence.


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, I read the story in the Financial Post. He has one of the greatest pork barrels of all times, half a billion dollars to a billion dollars to restructure the East Coast. It has to be done, there is no question about that, but I would like to see what Dr. Kirby does with this before it is all finished.
I would like to make another serious comment, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this Bill. Under the legislative authority enabling the Government to guarantee the loans of fishermen, a general authority was used and cited in the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and it was a general authority that we have had for long time. It covered students, it covered farm loans, it covered a broad spectrum of Canadian Government participation in that interface between people and their needs. But now there has been inserted into the authority a very simple word that, if interpreted closely and narrowly, can mean that Canadian fishermen may have some difficulty with respect to loans that are made and guaranteed by the Government. That word is the word "can". This amendment authorizes the Government to refuse to pay a defaulted loan if in fact any regulation has not been specifically met.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The same as the banks.


J. Michael Forrestall: Not even the banks are as cruel as the Liberal Members. They have given themselves the authority to back away from guaranteeing loans. If I were a West Coast fisherman, I would get this clearly written out in blood.


Eugene Whelan: If they get a contract, they will not have anything to worry about.


J. Michael Forrestall: I notice that the Minister of Agriculture has not included that word in his own Farm Loans Board authority. That word does not appear there, does it? Admit it.


Eugene Whelan: We do a lot of-


J. Michael Forrestall: Admit it. It does not appear there. At least the Minister of Agriculture has had the fortitude not to include within his own legislative authority an open door that
June 17, 1983

would allow Government to run away from an undertaking to guarantee loans.
We are in general sympathy with this amendment and are quite prepared to let the matter come to some formal conclusion. But I have two points to make. The Department of Fisheries itself saw the need to call in Peat Marwick to do a survey to find out who in the fishing industry was aware of the details of this program. Peat Marwick's report, which is not a formal report, has now been buried somewhere. That report criticizes the Government for not having publicized one of its own programs. Usually it is the other way around.
Perhaps I should commend the Government for not wasting money on an advertising program, but it should tell the people at whom the legislation is aimed and to whom benefits should flow now that the program is in place and can be utilized. It should tell them about the parameters of the program. The Government did not do that and Peat Marwick, its own consultants, said that it should. We on this side of the House look forward to some indication to Atlantic, Pacific and lake fishermen that in fact this type of a protection is available to them.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased that I have been given an opportunity today to place some remarks on the record that concern a piece of legislation which is before us. With the permission of the Chair and the tolerance of the Members of the House, I would like to deal with some of the other factors that influence the application of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
I believe that we all agree that this particular legislation is necessary and should go forward as quickly as possible, but certainly some dilemmas have been created in the past that relate to expansion of the fleet under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act with the encouragement of the Government of Canada. I refer to the problem of overcapitalization of the fleet on the West Coast. That fleet has been built up to a point where fishermen, in order to build bigger and faster vessels to catch more fish, had been encouraged to do so by the Government of Canada. It is interesting to note that a number of Government programs have forced fishermen into bigger and faster vessels, but they are catching fewer and fewer fish. This has caused a tremendous problem for fishermen and has caused tremendous dislocations in the communities that depend upon them.
Historically, it was the Davis plan, I think, that first began to create tremendous problems for the fishing industry in British Columbia with its terrible lack of control over license limitations. Another factor was the complete failure of the Government to follow the recommended advice of its own people. The Davis plan ultimately led fishermen to attempt to enhance their vessels through borrowing. The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act was certainly one of the access mechanisms for this. The willingness on the part of banks to lend money during the heyday of the herring season and the time of high priced salmon when the Japanese were becoming involved led fishermen to borrow enormous sums of money to build larger and larger vessels. When the economic cycle
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act (No. 2)
began to turn downward, fishermen ultimately found themselves in an absolutely terrible position. As with so many other economic sectors, whether they be small business or farming, fishermen were implicitly encouraged by the Government to borrow money for bigger and faster vessels. The management plans were directed to encouraging them to do that. When things turned around, fishermen found themselves with enormous debts on vessels but they were not permitted to catch sufficient fish to pay them off. At that point interest rates took off and fishermen found that they could not meet them.
In addition, the Government of Canada imposed further costs on the fishing industry through fuel costs which rose substantially. Today an average fisherman working off the West Coast claims that if he cannot make $500 per day, he cannot meet his basic costs. When the economy turned around, the cost of fishing rose enormously but the availability and the price of fish dropped.
The role of the banks was mentioned by Members on both sides of the House today. I should like to go over some things that have happened in my area, and I am sure they have also happened in the areas represented by the two Hon. Members who spoke earlier. The banks played a very interesting role here. Due to high interest rates promoted by the Government, high energy costs promoted by the Government, and the need, because of management plans, to use overcapitalized vessels, the banks freely lent fishermen the money they needed. Then they increased the interest rates. When a fisherman could no longer meet the payments, according to many cases that are documented on my file, the bank threatened to seize the vessel. The fisherman replied that he did not make any money last year and could not even pay the interest rate on the vessel. Then the bank said that it would seize the vessel so that the fisherman could not go out and fish. The bank realized that it could not sell it because no other fisherman could pay the price. It would tell the fisherman that it was prepared to let him keep it if he would get a co-signer-his parents or friends, or family. Some fishermen were able to find a co-signer but others were not. As soon as he found a co-signer, then the bank snatched the boat. It did not matter to the bank how much money it received from it as long as it got its pound of flesh. If a fisheries improvement loan was involved, that paid off the other pound of flesh. The fisherman and the co-signer were hooked and so was the taxpayer, but the bank came out of the deal smelling like a rose. If there was not a co-signer, the bank would threaten to take the boat and deprive the fisherman of his means of making a living unless he was willing to sign his house over as security. At that particular time the price of fishing vessels and the price of houses were depressed. If the bank seized either it was not likely it would get its money back so in some cases it went after both. When the fisherman was on the hook-and some banks managed to get co-signers, the houses and the vessels-then the bank moved in. I have never seen anything so unscrupulous in my life, Mr. Speaker.
Let me give another example that happened in the community of Sointula with the Royal Bank of Canada, proud

June 17, 1983
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act (No. 2)
institution that it is. A fisherman had an enormous debt on a large vessel so he fished in the wintertime to try to make enough money to make a vessel payment. He managed to put $30,000 together. He assumed the bank was dealing with him in good faith so he offered it the $30,000 The bank took the money-and then seized his vessel. That is the most disgusting think I have ever heard in my life but unfortunately, it has been repeated time and time again. The Government should introduce legislation to stop this kind of nefarious activity by the banks-these predatory actions by which the banks attempt to feed on fishermen, small-businessmen and home owners. The performance of the banks throughout this recession has been disgusting. We are at fault, Mr. Speaker; we represent the people. Nothing has been forthcoming from the Government, however.
Something that should be coupled with this legislation is that people who have loans with the banks should be entitled to refinance them automatically at the lower interest rate. Interest rates have dropped like a rock but some people are still paying 19 per cent or 20 per cent. A clear message should be sent to the banking community from the House of Commons that it will no longer tolerate the exploitive activity of the chartered banks and that they must offer some sort of legitimate corporate responsibility and citizenship. The people who own vessels are labouring under enormous burdens, trying to pay off loans at outrageous rates of interest. The House should pass a law to the effect that an individual who has a loan with extremely high interest rates should be able to refinance it immediately at a lower rate. That would be a tremendous benefit not only to fishermen but to home owners and to the small business community. Without that kind of companion to the legislation before us, the Government has no conscience.
The Government could do some things that would assist this legislation which, in isolation, is of very little use in allowing fishermen to earn an income. The Minister mentioned the Pearse Commission. If its recommendations are implemented it will mean an enormous dislocation in the fishing industry in British Columbia with people being driven out of it. The Government seems to want to place the industry in the hands of a small number of people.
In some respects the processing industry in British Columbia has been in the hands of a small number of firms such as B.C. Packers for years. That company almost operated the coast of British Columbia like a feudal system. The House had the opportunity, under the Combines Act, to provide some remedy and give assistance to small firms and native communities to get into the processing industry. There was never enough money, never quite enough interest in the job to do it properly. The Pearse Commission seems to feel that there should be even more concentration in that industry with a small number of large processors and a small number of fishermen. Ultimately I think the key to preventing dislocation along the coast of British Columbia is to enhance and improve the operations of small processors and increase the number of people in the industry so that there is somewhere that fishermen can sell
their product for the highest price. There should be opportunities for people to get into speciality areas such as smoking fish, pickling fish or handling speciality products. A way must be found to glean the maximum dollar value from the industry and channel it into the communities that depend on fishing. That is basic. The legislation runs contrary to the Pearse Commission report. What is the point of a fisheries improvement loan if the report recommends driving fishermen and processors out of the industry?
There is another aspect to this and that is what I cal! the support side of the industry. On the coast of British Columbia there are problems related to the provision of sufficient ice. Fishermen cannot operate without ice, yet the ice facilities are controlled by a small number of large companies which only provide ice to their own vessels or vessels that fish for them. There is limited access to ice. Bella Coola is short of ice, although that problem is largely due to a fire, but other communities suffer the same problems with access to ice, and that is going to impair their activities. Independent fishermen do not have access. Up and down the coast of British Columbia small craft harbours development is in absolute chaos. What we wind up with is announcements, "We are going to do this harbour, that harbour, and the next harbour". That usually comes in the form of a Senator making a pronouncement in a community. I would have suspected that this ad hoc process would be done in order to win votes. Ultimately, however, in every case which I know of, votes have been lost because such conflict and dissension have been created over the harbour development that people are just outraged.
We must have a five-year plan which is public. 1 have asked for this since I have been a Member. The people I represent in my riding have asked for it. I know in other ridings along the coast the people have asked for it. The needs of every harbour up and down the coast of British Columbia where harbour planning has been done, whether it be Lund, Powell River, Campbell River, Alert Bay, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, wherever it happens to be, must appear on a list, or in a development plan, in order that these communities know where they stand on the priority list. It then becomes a public process where people can understand where they are on the list in relation to other communities. They can then begin to do reasonable planning in their own communities to respond to that list and those priorities. The way the Liberal Government has handled small craft harbour development is absolutely incredible. It is hard to understand why it would continue a process which does most of those communities no good and in fact loses any confidence which those communities had in Government.
Another problem is the way in which small craft harbours are serviced. Those harbours need security. Providing services of wharfagers must be looked at seriously so that people cannot start fires and break into vessels when owners are paying harbour fees. There must be water, electricity and service facilities available. In some communities there is a desperate need to expand small craft harbour areas and
June 17, 1983

provide float plane access. That is an absolute must. That is a glaring omission by this Government.
In my riding alone, Mr. Speaker, there are between 6,000 and 8,000 native people. Their sole income depends upon access to the fishing industry. The people from Bella Coola have called to the attention of the Department of Fisheries that its fishery management plans are under serious question. I would like to comment how in one particular case this is causing an enormous problem. In Rivers Inlet the Department of Fisheries advocated an escapement of 800,000 sockeye salmon. However, in the same Rivers Inlet, the Owikeno Lake area, it is allowing the logging companies to go out and strip the river valleys and the spawning areas and refuse to attempt an integrated resource management study. And it is not just Rivers Inlet, it is the Kimsquit and the Nimpkish system. In system after system they are failing to provide integrated resource management studies and plans and at the same time saying, "Well, we need to keep the stocks up and therefore we are going to have to increase the escapement". Therefore, we are in a cycle of destruction here. We are destroying the habitat in which spawning occurs. We cannot produce enough spawners to go into those areas and recover when the flooding begins to wash out the spawn and destroy the run, no matter how many sockeye salmon go in there. Ultimately, communities are destroyed all up and down the coast. Native people need access to that fishing resource. They need access to the management plan and a fair catch.
That improvement loan should be provided to native communities not only for vessels to catch the fish. Communities should be encouraged to become involved in processing so they can balance the economy and give some strength and depth to their economic base. Ultimately, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the West Coast of British Columbia-and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary would be in a position to press this point home, along with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan)-must get involved in an affirmative action program whereby native people would be hired by the Department eventually to go back into their communities with some expertise and create some understanding and dialogue between those communities and the Department. It is imperative that that Department, which has a very large representation of native people in the industry, begin an affirmative action plan which puts native people to work in the Department.
The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act should also be targeted to the shellfish industry. There are very few areas on the coast of British Columbia in which shellfish can be effectively developed. Okeover Inlet, Jervis Inlet, and places like that, are excellent areas. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans must allocate staff resources to move quickly to get development going in the shellfish industry in that area. The enormous red tape must be cut. Expertise and assistance must be provided, as well as financial assistance, so we can at least protect those areas. If we do not move very soon, Mr. Speaker, those areas will be subject to other competitive uses, such as mining, as in the case of Okeover Inlet, or recreational land use, and those areas will be ultimately polluted as is Boundary Bay and Ladysmith Harbour. Some of the finest shellfish areas on the coast of British Columbia have been lost because
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act (No. 2)
of pollution. Unless the Department of Fisheries and Oceans moves quickly, the ones which are left will be lost also.
With respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act, what point is there in lending a fisherman money to build a bigger boat if he cannot fish? As more and more of the Fishing . opportunities are closed down because you have bigger boats chasing fewer fish and a management plan which is beginning to fail, unemployment insurance for these fishermen becomes absolutely necessary in order to put food on the table for their families. What we have is an unemployment insurance regime in this country which discriminates against fishermen the way it does against no other occupational group.
We had a situation in this House not too long ago in which we debated the issue of fishing. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that there were fishermen in the communities of my riding who waited up to 12 weeks before they were able to get their claims processed. They were on welfare. Trying to collect welfare took them six weeks. There is a desperate need to improve the administration of the unemployment insurance system. There is a desperate need to provide some equity in unemployment insurance benefits so that fishermen who fish in the winter can claim in the period when they are normally disqualified, and the same for individuals who injure themselves or are in ill health. There is tremendous discrimination. It has often been said that that is the only group which is selfemployed which has access to unemployment insurance benefits. However, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, there are strong indications there that we need improvements and we need them soon. Thank you.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have just a very quick comment to make. I would like to assure both hon. gentlemen that their comments have been listened to with great interest. It is my own view, and I am sure the view of the officials of the Department of Fisheries, some of whom are listening now, that very constructive advice has been given. We shall attempt to recognize that which has been constructive and to make whatever improvements can be made in future when Bills of this sort come before the House.
I would simply like to emphasize again to the Hon. Members the Minister's appreciation for allowing this Bill to go through three stages today. Without this authority, the Act would expire effective July 1 and loans could not be made. It is particularly important in the case of British Columbia where 70 per cent of all of the loans go.
It would be of interest to the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), that in the case of the Maritime Provinces, provincial Governments do provide loan board. In the case of British Columbia this is the only means available. 1 thank hon. gentlemen opposite for allowing this Bill to go through today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the wish of the House to adopt the motion?

June 17, 1983
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act (No. 2)


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the wish of Hon. Members that the Chair call it five o'clock?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, given that we have put three Bills today through all the stages, we have done a good day's work.
I am sure everyone in the House will see the clock as reading 5 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 4 p.m. the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



[DOT]jg |

Monday, June 20, 1983