1983-09-26

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of all Canadians, Members of the House, and British compatriots, I would like to extend a most sincere welcome to the Right Hon. Margaret Thatcher during her stay here. As you know, Canadian and British parliamentarians have been exchanging views on world, economic, and social needs for quite some time, and this has always been in the better interest of the Canadian and British parliamentary systems.
Today will be an historic day in Parliament. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher will be the first British Prime Minister to make a joint address to the House of Commons and the Senate in 25 years. One must recall how another British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, addressed the Canadian Parliament in this Chamber in a time of global war, aimed at returning the world to global peace.
On this occasion we on this side of the House are particularly glad our Leader and Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will be engaging Mrs. Thatcher in important talks relating to economics, bilateral relations, and ways in which our two nations may work together to bring about world peace.
I know as you know, Madam Speaker, that Mrs. Thatcher will be treated with great civility during her visit to our Parliament. During her four-day visit to Canada, I am sure she will come to know the warmth and hospitality of all Canadians. Having had the honour of being received last spring by Mrs. Thatcher at 10 Downing Street, I can assure the House that the Prime Minister is a most gracious and humble leader of her country.
We are also convinced that Mrs. Thatcher's deliberations with Canadian leaders will be fruitful, meaningful, and will benefit all the Commonwealth.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I must say that the statement on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) is really a very borderline one. I was hoping that something would come out in
the form of a statement, but I should have stopped the Hon. Member sooner.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, the Government must know by now that the most important policy issue affecting Canadians who live and work in the northern part of Canada is that of taxation. Yet, last week at the Mines Ministers' Conference held in Regina, the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), to the dismay of his provincial counterparts, stated that the Liberal Government had no intention of moderating in the slightest its plan to tax hitherto non-taxed items such as housing and vacation travel allowances.
On the other hand it comes to light that senior officials in the Department of Transport, and CTC commissioners, have been receiving free airline passes from the airlines they are supposed to regulate, and that they have not paid income tax on those travel benefits.
The men and women who work in our northern mines, thereby creating new wealth for Canada, are tiring of the double standard whereby they are to be taxed on every last nickel of deemed benefits when the Liberal "fat cats" in Ottawa get away scot-free.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 21 on a question concerning safety for all Canadians who travel as air passengers in this country. On behalf of these Canadians I would like to put forward an additional intervention requesting that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) seriously consider within his Ministry banning smoking on all aircraft in Canada.
On June 20, 1983, 1 raised that question with the Minister's predecessor. As well, the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent) on June 23 brought this matter to the attention of the House under Standing Order 21 in an attempt to encourage support for the banning of smoking on aircraft. We have a ban on smoking in public places in Canada such as on buses, taxis, and indeed in the House of Commons. This matter is serious enough to warrant the consideration of the Minister of Trans-

September 26, 1983
port to find ways and means to implement a total ban of smoking on aircraft in Canada.


EXCISE TAX
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, the Grit Government should be fully aware by now of the serious economic situation which has developed as a result of the indexation of federal excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco. Automatic increases in these taxes cause future increases at both federal and provincial levels resulting from past increases. This results in a perpetuation of inflation of consumer prices, even if manufacturers were to stop net price increases altogether.
Tobacco is the nation's third most important cash crop. In 1982 it generated total tax revenue of $2.2 billion, of which $1.15 billion flowed into federal coffers. Tobacco manufacturers employed 8,275 Canadians in 1982, and paid more than $216 million in wages and salaries. Employment in the wholesale and retail segments of the industry is estimated at 31,000. The industry is in the top five in terms of capital expenditures, productivity, and absence of work stoppages. Punitive tax policies directly threaten the vitality of this sector of the economy.
Beer, wine, and liquor tax increases are costing that industry more than 37,000 jobs and will result in an increase in the tourism deficit of $700 million in 1983. The President of the Association of Canadian Distillers estimates a loss of 2,000 jobs in that industry alone.
We have seen what punitive taxes did to the oil industry. The pros and cons of smoking and drinking do not enter into this picture. At stake here are thousands of jobs, millions of dollars, and the economic viability of two important sectors of an already fragile economy. When will the Liberals stop using moralistic motives and stop reaping the profits-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time is up.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, a few months ago, as on other occasions, I raised the extremely important matter of unemployment as it affects not only people in Canada today but the future of life in our country. 1 welcome the fact that quite a number of Members have risen and made statements on the same matter. I have in mind, in particular, some of the statements made by my colleagues in this Party. But I want to take this moment to
emphasize that the problem of unemployment and what it may mean for the life of Canada five years or ten years from now is extremely important. It is something with which all of us as a political issue must be concerned.
One suggestion I make is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) consider the possibility of having a meeting of perhaps five or six Liberals, five or six Conservatives, and five or six New Democrats so that we can get together to'come up with statements which will really solve the problem of unemployment today. The future of living in Canada depends on winning this issue. I urge very strongly that we now take active action on it.

[DOT] (mo)


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, in Canada today we have assistance for those over age 65, we have the spouse's allowance for those between the ages of 60 and 65, and we have the Canada Pension for the disabled under the age of 65, but for thousands of women between the ages of 50 and 65 there is nothing. I submit that this big gap in our social assistance program is a priority item.
Every week women between the ages of 50 and 65 come to me. Some are single who looked after an aging parent or a crippled brother, some are divorcees who were left stranded to raise a family by an uncaring husband, and some are divorced, but all now find it difficult to get work even if their health permits them to work.
My husband left me with three little girls, and instead of going on welfare I scrubbed floors, sold cards, peddled seeds, and did everything I could to keep my children dressed and in school.
Now they are away from home, my health is gone, I have no unemployment insurance, I have no Canada Pension, and I am 60 years of age. Can you help me?
These were the words of a woman who bravely held back her tears when I had to tell her that there is no program in Canada to help her, except welfare. She shuddered at the thought of accepting welfare. This is not the story of just one woman. Thousands of women have similar stories, and they are heartbreaking. In this rich country surely we can provide enough priority to fill this gap in our social assistance program. These women lived in dignity. Surely we are not going to let them die in poverty.


CAPE BRETON COAL LIQUEFACTION PROJECT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise to make a statement regarding a report in this weekend's newspapers that the federal Government is ready to approve
September 26, 1983

another $750,000 grant for the controversial Cape Breton coal liquefaction project headed by former Liberal Energy Minister Alastair Gillespie. The Government would be wise to pause here and take stock before going ahead with these grants. To put it mildly, the matter raised quite a furor in the House of Commons for a week the last time the possibility of a grant to Mr. Gillespie and his associates was raised.
The Sharp task force, which was formed on July 7 of this year, is to look into the really difficult matter of conflict of interest guidelines for former Ministers. The Government should wait for its report. It should indeed have looked further into the Gillespie matter and held a special open inquiry.
1 also question the consistency of the policy as reflected by the energy policy and some of the statements made this past weekend by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien). Are we going for coal liquefaction, or are we going to stick with the $8 billion which we are giving for petroleum incentive program grants for the Beaufort Sea and other areas? Or are we going to buy, which would be cheaper for the Canadian consumer, offshore oil from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela? The Government is being inconsistent here. Before it gives this grant, it should take pause.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time is up.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, on July 15 Douglas Fraser and his wife, American tourists from Georgia, arrived at Canadian customs in Windsor. The purpose of their visit to Canada was to attend a Scottish festival in Orillia, Ontario. Mr. Fraser is the chairman of the Clan Fraser Society of North America. Not being familiar with Canadian customs regulations, they failed to declare $1,200 worth of T-shirts, crests, lapel pins and assorted articles, all designated with Clan Fraser crests which they intended to exhibit and sell at the festival. Rather than acting with understanding and good will, the customs officers seized all the articles and their vehicle, threatened them with jail, and refused to listen to any explanation.
My purpose for raising this on the floor of the House of Commons is this. We are trying to build a tourist industry in Canada. We do that by creating events and attracting tourists to Canada, to Orillia and other parts of this country. All of our efforts go for naught if heavy-handed customs officials at points of entry discourage tourists from coming to Canada by using secret police tactics on innocent people.
Oral Questions CRIMINAL CODE


CALL FOR REVIEW OF PROVISIONS GOVERNING GUN-RELATED CRIMES
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, we have all been saddened to see an increasing number of near fatal gunshot wounds inflicted by criminals while in the act of robbing service stations, quick-checks, milk stores, et cetera. I think it is long overdue that all members of the House give serious consideration to having the matter referred by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) to the all-party Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in order that we can review the facts that are before us today regarding the increased number of murders which occur while in the act of committing a criminal offence. The carrying of a gun is not permissible in Canada. The way some of these offenders are treated is sad.
[DOT] (ms)
I would like to see the Government show its responsibility to the Canadian people by referring this matter to the Justice and Legal Affairs all-party Committee in order that we can review the possible necessity of a return to capital punishment for premeditated first-degree murder.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, 1 appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister is unable to be in the House at the moment so I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
On Friday of last week official Government statistics proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the magnitude of the social problems that have been created because of the Government's misguided economic policies. Those statistics show that 4.1 million Canadians are living below the poverty line, an increase of half a million since 1981. Almost half of the single-parent families headed by women are living in poverty. Their income has dropped by 11 per cent in the past year. Those are the social problems that have been created by the Government's economic policies. Having created these problems, I would ask the Acting Prime Minister what the Government will do to correct them.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I believe there was a budget that was presented in the House not very long ago which was well received by everyone in Canada as a budget that was coping with the present situation. Of course we are aware of these problems and we are very pre-occupied with them, but

September 26, 1983
Ora! Questions
we do not think that there is a quick solution to such problems. We must make sure that Canadian policies are adjusted to the international economic environment.
I believe everything is looking much better at this time. There is a recovery under way in most of the western world and Canada is leading the pack in that recovery because the policies of the Government apply to the present circumstances.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, obviously the Minister has not looked at the statistics that were released on Friday. Those statistics prove that the poor in Canada are getting poorer and more numerous.


NEEDS OF SINGLE SENIOR CITIZENS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister about the one group in particular that is more likely to be living in poverty, single seniors. Six out of every ten single seniors live in poverty. In order to create a headline in July of this year, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that she was going to increase the incomes of single seniors next year. Since the Minister and his colleagues have been able to find the money to bail out Maislin, Dome Petroleum, de Havilland, and so many other companies this year, I would like to know why it is that senior citizens have to wait until next year to receive any assistance. Why is it that their needs are not considered as great as the needs of the President of Dome Petroleum?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, dealing with the question of the policy enunciated by the Hon. Member, we are now very happy to know that her position is that the Government should spend more money to cure the problems. Dealing with the other instances mentioned, some of the money, for example, the money for Dome Petroleum, has not been disbursed at this time.
The only point I would like to make is that in helping Dome, Massey-Ferguson and others, perhaps it is only a coincidence, but I think we were helping more by protecting jobs at the same time. If the Hon. Member is arguing at this time that to cope with these problems we should spend more money, we will take notice of that. However, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that, right after the 1980 election, the first thing we did was to give more money to single senior citizens. That was the first measure introduced by the Government when we came back into power in 1980.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Obviously the Minister has not been listening to his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who says that senior citizens are living in dire straits now but she will not do anything about it until next year.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: I should like the Minister to tell the House who made the decision to postpone the increase for single seniors until next year. Was it made on the basis that the increase would be available to them next year, an election year, in order to try to buy their votes? Is that the kind of cynical policy that the Government is putting forward?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I think that if we had been cynical we would not have moved right after the election when there were still four years ahead of us. The first move we made was to increase that type of payment, and now the Minister of National Health and Welfare would like to have another increase on top of the indexation already there. If she succeeds, it will be the second increase in one term. I think that shows our concern. At the same time we know that, if we do that, it will increase Government expenditures. We keep hearing complaints from the other side of the House that we are spending too much and that we should cut expenditures. Hon. Members opposite should make up their minds; if they want us to spend more, then they should not get up the day after saying we should reduce the deficit.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN PUBLIC SPENDING
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister-

-in English, the candidate.
Last week a Liberal Cabinet Minister told the Macdonald Royal Commission:
The more Governments support economic activities that are not viable.. . .the less they are able to maintain generous social security programs and ample social services.
It is not a question of spending more, Madam Speaker; it is a question of spending differently.
1 should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Government is giving urgent consideration to a change in public policy spending. Will the Government consider giving less money to Crown corporations and more money for social benefits?
I would point out to the Minister that the money the Government gave to Canadair alone would increase the guaranteed income supplement to senior citizens by more than 50 per cent.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member says that we should cut the Crown corporations, and he named one. It depends from which Province you come. There were some controversies in the House some months ago because we did
September 26, 1983

not want to close down the heavy water plants in Cape Breton. While campaigning in the next riding, the Hon. Member's Leader said that the Government was well advised to keep that kind of expenditure on the books. I think there should be communication between members of that Party about whether we should or should not help some of the industries that create jobs and maintain a certain level of employment. If it is good for us to keep the heavy water plants in Cape Breton, why is it not good for us to keep on the 7,000 workers employed by Canadair in Montreal? What is wrong with keeping the employees of de Havilland in Toronto working? We have to make some difficult choices.
I want to say again that the first thing the Government did after the election of 1980 was to increase the GIS for single people. The Minister would like to do it twice. I think it must be recognized that if we had been politically opportunistic we would have kept that increase until this time, but we did it as the first measure right after the election in 1980.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Given the track record of the Government we can expect it before the next general election, and not when people really need it.


EDUCATION
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister. The Government has to make difficult choices, and it chose to cut spending on post-secondary education. That is a choice which the Liberal Government made at the same time as it was throwing young people out of work in this country. Those young people want to go to school so they can get training in order to get jobs, but the Government cut the funds. Will the Government reverse that decision, and do it now in order to give us a chance to turn the clock back and put money into education? Young people need it today so they can get the training to get the jobs.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the Hon. Member has switched subjects. I am happy to reply to his question about post-secondary education.
When we started that program it was a 50-50 program between the Provinces and the federal Government; today in Canada the federal Government pays virtually 60 per cent of all the costs. The Provinces have increased the fees for students, and now the students pay more than 15 per cent while the contribution of the Provinces has gone down from 50 per cent of all the costs to 25 per cent of all the costs. As most of the Provinces are Tory, the Hon. Member would be well advised to tell them that, if they had kept their end of the 50-50 bargain for post-secondary education, the universities would not be in the position they are in today. If anyone is to blame, it is the Tory Governments in all Provinces but one.
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT POLICIES
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I find it strange that the Tories are bleeding all over the public parking lot on behalf of the poor when their colleagues at Queen's Park are calling for a leaner and meaner approach to social welfare.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, one year ago 12 per cent of all Canadian families were living in poverty and today that has gone up to 14 per cent. In other words, 3.5 million Canadians are living in real poverty and we read about it every day; people eating out of garbage cans, kids lining up at soup kitchens, people sleeping out in the streets overnight. This has come about, to a great degree, Madam Speaker, as a result of government policy to raise unemployment in its fight against inflation. Will the Government now reverse its thrust towards creating meaningful employment and get off its hick in fighting inflation, because it is killing the economy of the country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I think that is a repetition of the previous question which we were asked. The economic policies of this Government are presented to Parliament in the form of budgets. The last budget was very well received by all sectors of the Canadian economy.
I feel that some of the rhetoric used by the Hon. Member in relation to garbage cans and so on is a bit exaggerated. 1 might even call it demagogic. However, I agree with him that through the Tory convention in Toronto last weekend we now know that what they want to do, in the other extreme, is to cut.
I believe we are in the middle. In the Liberal way, we are trying to have a proper balance. But I would like to tell the House that Mr. Davis said last week that the opposition parties should have very precise policies, and not the way we see the party of the Official Opposition today, asking for cuts and at the same time asking for increased expenditures. He would like to-


An Hon. Member:: Get rid of the Liberals at the trough.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -have one firm policy. We have some policies. They are working in Canada at this time. The economy is turning around very well and we are very optimistic for the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest to the Hon. Minister that he need only walk a few paces off Parliament Hill and he will see in action exactly what I just described in my first question, a block and a half south of here.

September 26, 1983
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO STIMULATE CONSUMER SPENDING
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question concerns wage restraints. In view of the fact that a great deal of poverty in this country relates to single families headed by females who have been badly hit by wage restraints right across the board from coast to coast, will the Minister assure the House that not only will we not continue with the six and five program, but that he will stop listening to the rich in this country who want to bring in a 4 per cent and 3 per cent program. That is something that some Conservative leaders across this country are advocating at the present time. Will the Minister assure the House that the thrust will be the other way around, to stimulate the economy and consumer spending, to get us out of the recession, which is precisely what the Department of Finance report said-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, there is really no need for me to put up a big defence at this time, since the 6 and 5 policy introduced by our Government has been one of the most successful policies in Canada. The purpose of our policy was to bring down inflation. For 1983, our objective was to keep inflation down to 6 percent, and we therefore gave salary increases not exceeding 6 percent. Last month, the rate of inflation was 5.5 percent, which means that employees who received a 6 percent raised made a net profit in 1983, a considerable change from the situation that prevailed before. The 6 and 5 program has straightened out the economy in Canada, and I think it is one of the best programs we have developed in recent years. As far as what our policy will be when the program expires, this will be announced by the Minister of Finance at the appropriate time.


CANADIAN AND BRITISH POLICIES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. In a few hours we are going to be addressed by Prime Minister Thatcher of the United Kingdom, in many ways the soul sister in economic policy terms of this Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I want to ask the Minister, who is not without ambition himself, whether the economic policies of the Government are the same as Prime Minister Thatcher's policies in that the main fight is against inflation and not jobs, and that the Government intends to rely upon the private sector for providing jobs?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member
shows great taste at this moment in asking that type of question. But if we were to judge by electoral performance, I think his cousins in England got badly beaten in the elecion there. It is for the people of that country to decide.
I think the Prime Minister of England, Mrs. Thatcher, is most welcome in Canada. I do not think it is proper for the Government to debate here in Canada the policies decided by the electors in other nations, especially when their Prime Minister is in town.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Maurice James Harquail: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Communications my question is directed to his parliamentary secretary. It concerns the commencement of broadcasting for CBC Radio in northern New Brunswick. Indeed, as I talk today, we have yet to receive this service. We know that there has been a lot of negotiations with respect to television broadcasts in that Province. Can the parliamentary secretary give any assurances as to a possible start-up date and as to what the timetable would be with regard to the installation of the necessary equipment to bring that signal into northern New Brunswick?


Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, first I want to say that the Hon. Member for Restigouche has worked long and hard on this problem of getting CBC service to northern New Brunswick.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: I am pleased to report that the equipment is in place for the service to begin in northern New Brunswick. The exact start-up date is a question mark at the moment, but 1 can assure the Hon. Member that the CBC is working very diligently on this and that the start-up date should be announced within a matter of days.


CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. How does he justify the Government's spending priorities when the figures that were released to the House of Commons last Friday indicate that the Chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission ran up travel expenses for international travel in one year of some $66,000? Incidentally, much of this was for chartered aircraft and first-class travel. This was at the very same time as record numbers of Canadian
September 26, 1983

farmers were being driven from the land because of their inability to secure adequate financing from the Government.


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Agriculture will be in the House tomorrow and will be in a position to deal with that question.


USE OF CHARTERED AIRCRAFT
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, seeing as the President of the Treasury Board seeks to escape his responsibility for Government spending, let me put my question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture who, I am afraid, is the Minister of Transport. No doubt he is on top of this, though.
In view of the fact that the figures released show that chartered aircraft were used five times for round trips between Paris and Algiers, twice for trips between Ottawa and New York, and once for a trip between Ottawa and Montreal, how did this take place? Was it an example of poor planning on the part of the CDC, or was it a matter that the Chairman simply did not care about the expenditure of public funds?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, as the President of the Treasury Board said, it is a matter which the Minister of Agriculture will be in the House to address. I am sure he will provide an explanation to the Hon. Member, even though the Hon. Member will not understand it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Last week the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated in the House that if there were any suggestions made that would help increase the possibility of early compensation for Canadian victims of the Russian atrocity with respect to Korean Airline's Flight 007, he would be happy to hear them.
Would the Minister of Justice indicate whether his Department and its staff might be used for the purpose of providing services to the families and survivors of those ten Canadian victims so that an action might be commenced in the Canadian Courts for punitive damages and loss of support for those ten Canadians, with a view to obtaining writs of execution in Canadian courts that could then be levied against the property of the Soviet Union in Canada and thereby expedite the process? Is that a possibility, and can the Minister indicate to the House whether he is prepared to undertake it?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, there may be ways in which my Department can assist in counselling such people. As the Hon. Member knows,
Oral Questions
there are legal aid programs across the country which are funded in good part by the federal Government and are there for the purpose of helping people in all of their litigation when they have financial need.
Of course, in a case of this kind, as 1 understand my hon. friend to be referring to it, the law to be applied would be Canadian law so that these would be normal cases in the Canadian courts. Certainly if there is any general direction or guidance that my Ministry can give within its own guidelines of service, we would be very pleased to do that.


John Albert Gamble: I should not be surprised by that kind of response from this Government. Very clearly, the offer was made last week in the House that if some practical solution would be offered that could help the victims of that disastrous action by the Soviet Union, the Minister would be prepared to listen.


REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENT ASSIST IN PREPARING CLAIMS
John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, 1 have made a suggestion. It has nothing to do with legal aid, it concerns the responsibility of the Government to extract from that murderous regime in the Kremlin some compensation for Canadians. I ask the Minister to forget about provincial legal aid and deal with his responsibility. Will he now indicate to the House that the services of his Department, the solicitors in the Department of Justice, will begin to assist those Canadian families so that due compensation can be provided to them without delay?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I understand that this is a great occasion for my hon. friend to fulminate, but would he take into account the fact that lawyers in my Department do not give advice even to the Government, by and large, on the legislation of the various Provinces in Canada of the kind he is talking about. It is the mandate not of my Department but of the Department of External Affairs to give advice to the Government on matters of the kind he raises. We are bound by the legislation that determines the kind of advice we can give to the Government. As 1 indicated in my first answer, we will go to the limit of our responsibility to help Canadians who have the kind of problem of which my hon. friend spoke.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. How does he reconcile his Department's decision along with that of his predecessor to close down CFB Chatham in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister on September 23, 1976, that Chatham is indeed fulfilling a need and there are no plans to close it down? That commitment was made to the members

September 26, 1983
Oral Questions
of the Miramichi Regional Development Corporation in Bathurst.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Madam Speaker, I have not seen the statement to which the hon. gentleman refers. I would be pleased to receive that copy from which he quotes. However, there is no doubt that the Government has made the decision to close down Chatham and we are proceeding with that decision.
I point out as well that we are conscious of the impact that that program will have on the region. That is why my Department and other government Departments are reviewing what solutions can be arrived at in order to compensate for any job loss that would be created as the result of closing down the Chatham base.


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, we are dealing with approximately 3,200 souls who are losing their jobs and who feel a sense of despair as great as anybody who believes in the great Book of Revelation, who have sinned and feel themselves doomed to the fiery lake.
I ask the Minister what he intends to do in view of the Prime Minister's statement of the same day that, yes, the Chatham air base has a permanent status. In view of the Minister's comment today that that base will be closed down, is that an indication of how much the Prime Minister has lost control of his Party?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Madam Speaker, I am amazed that the hon. gentleman asks a question in those terms. We have had representations on an ongoing basis on this side of the House from the hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi relating to the measures that will be implemented in order to alleviate the negative impact of the closing of the Chatham base. The Hon. Member is a johnny-come-lately on that particular dossier. As a matter of interest,
1 am meeting with the local MLA this afternoon as well as with the Mayor of Chatham. Undoubtedly, they must be in the galleries and witnessing the shameful performance of the hon. gentleman. In the past, I have not heard his questions being directed in relation to that issue. I want to indicate to you, Madam Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blais:: I do not want to sit down before I indicate that I am ready and very willing to consider any solutions that the hon. gentleman may advance in order to soften the blow of the closing of the Chatham base.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, the Minister can rest assured that the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal will not advance any proposals. He will only gripe.


FUTURE OF BASE
Maurice Adrian Dionne: In
answer to the first question, the Minister said that the decision had indeed been made to close the base. That is news to me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crosbie:: Where have you been, buddy; where have you been?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, when the braying donkeys stop, I will continue.


An Hon. Member:: You haven't even informed the Member.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Member doesn't know.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The Government has made a decision to stand down 416 Squadron, but that is not the only activity connected with CFB Chatham. The other military activities there were not to be affected. If there is any change in the Government's decision, I would like the Minister to explain it, please.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Madam Speaker, the Hon. gentleman is quite right. It is the standing down of the squadron relating to using the CF 101 Voodoo aircraft at the present time.


Some Hon. Members:: Incredible.


Jean-Jacques Blais: In terms of the military activities that are also within the Chatham area, those activities will be maintained.


CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. The Canadian Dairy Commission continues to be tarnished by the escapades of its Executive Director, Mr. Choquette. Three official reports have questioned and censored the procedures and actions of the Dairy Commission. The RCMP is presently investigating its marketing procedures. Mr. Choquette and his assistant are spending $53,000 per year on travel alone. What action does the Government intend to take to control this suspicious expenditure of dairy producers' money?
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to be able to answer the Hon. Member's question, because three inquiries were conducted previously, and each inquiry found the administration of the Canadian Dairy Commission to be in accordance with the Regulations. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission has followed 30 recom-
September 26, 1983

mendations out of 33, and we feel that the present financial year should show some improvement.


REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Stanley J. Hovdebo: My supplementary question is also directed to the Acting Prime Minister, Madam Speaker. Would the Acting Prime Minister not agree that, as a matter of Government principle, Mr. Choquette should be suspended from his position as Executive Director while he is under investigation, so that during that period we can at least keep him out of the dairy producers' pockets?


Marcel Dionne: Madam Speaker, I certainly do not agree with the statement just made by my colleague opposite, because the Canadian Dairy Commission is among the best agencies of its kind in the world. Canada, thanks to its dairy policy, happens to be the only country in the world that does not have a milk surplus. All kinds of accusations are now being fired from various sources at the Canadian Dairy Commission. However, these funds were spent by the Commission's Chairman and the executive for the purpose of improving the position of dairy producers in this country, and this is proven by the fact that we have the best policies in the world.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence, who was sitting there just a moment ago, so perhaps 1 could-


John Carnell Crosbie: There he comes.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Here he comes. I have given the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary notice of this question.
Millions of Canadian animal lovers, and especially dog owners, will be upset to learn of the University of Ottawa's experiments on dogs, that is, irradiating beagles until they die, to determine the reasons for nausea and vomiting in humans. Will the Minister review this barbaric process now going on at Shirley's Bay, or preferably stop this process, this suffering, which is admitted by University of Ottawa officials?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his interest in the matter. 1 want to assure him that the experiments that are being carried on relating to radiation and its impact on dogs are a result of the necessity on the part of the Department of National Defence to evaluate the impact of radiation on human beings. The experiments are under very, very tight
Oral Questions
control. I can assure the hon. gentleman that we have reviewed the methodology with those who seek to protect the impact of such experiments on the animal species. They are satisfied that the methodology is appropriate and is acceptable.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Whatever methodology the Minister has reviewed, the fact remains that the animals are still suffering.


SELECTION OF BEAGLES FOR USE IN EXPERIMENTS
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: How can the Minister be sure that there is any correlation between dogs and humans in this case when tests with thalidomide, for example, proved positive on dogs, and we all know of the human tragedy that resulted, whereas testing with penicillin proved to be lethal to certain animals, including dogs? I am just wondering how the Minister can justify fiddling around with helpless animals which cannot complain, and why beagles? Are German sheperds and Doberman pinschers too dangerous?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Madam Speaker, 1 do not think the hon. gentleman should make light of the particular issue. I thought that his initial question was very serious and I know the hon. gentleman is concerned about experimentation of any kind involving animals. In this particular instance the best scientific advice that we received was to the effect that dogs were acceptable in terms of the experimentation that was being conducted, in terms of the relationship that the findings would have to human reaction. That is why the dogs were selected in this instance.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. He will know that the Chairman of CN has suggested that the railway's independence would somehow be threatened if the Auditor General were to audit CN's books. He will know that comprehensive audits are performed on government Departments by the Auditor General to determine if the Canadian taxpayer is getting value for money. Is it government policy to refuse to allow the Auditor General to perform comprehensive audits on Crown corporations, or is the Chairman off on a frolic of his own?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I do not think there is an over-all policy in the terms my hon. friend has suggested. The various Crown corporations operate under a range of statutes creating them, which were passed by this Parliament, and the role of the Auditor General with respect to Crown corporations is something that I and others have under study.

September 26, 1983
Oral Questions


CONCEPT OF COMPREHENSIVE AUDITING
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, to carry the subject further, I would suggest to the Minister that comprehensive audits are used in Crown corporations to see if the taxpayer is getting value for money. It is a way of determining the bottom line which is used in business. In refusing to allow the Auditor General, on a selective basis, to examine Crown corporations, does the Minister not feel that the Government is not taking into account a method of determining efficiency which would be in the interest of all Canadian taxpayers?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the concept of a comprehensive audit is still in the process of evolution. I understand that the accounting profession has not yet defined and decreed a generally accepted standard as to what comprehensive auditing means. But certainly in the minds of some people at least, it is proving to be a useful instrument and, as I understand it, the concept, to the extent that it has evolved, has already been used in some Crown corporations. One point at issue is whether any such audit is to be at the request of and for the board of a Crown corporation or for the Government or for Parliament as a whole. Therefore I think that my hon. friend will agree with me that there is a very interesting and important area developing. However, in terms of a generally accepted standard defining comprehensive auditing, the accounting profession itself is still in the process of thinking of a definition.
stage. As far as the possibility of commenting on the report is concerned, it is a matter I am considering at the present time, and as soon as a decision is made, I shall be glad to make a statement to that effect in the House.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL OF REPORT TO COMMITTEE
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Labour. The report is likely one of those which does not conveniently fall within our Standing Orders wherein its tabling results in it being deemed referred to an appropriate Standing Committee. In view of that, and in view of the variety of responses that one has heard from the various sectors affected, would the Minister consider initiating House action where by this report would be referred to the appropriate Standing Committee in order that that committee might not only study its recommendations but hear witnesses?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I should be happy to discuss the matter with the Government House Leader, and I am sure that he will be able to report to the House Leader for the Progressive Conservative Party on the appropriate way of answering the Hon. Member's question, either affirmatively or negatively.
* *
*


EMPLOYMENT
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour to whom I extend my belated but sincere congratulations on his assumption of new ministerial responsibility. My question relates to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Part-Time work, dated April but not released until September of this year. The Minister might comment on the five-month delay. In view of the variety of opinions received from the various communities affected, does the Minister intend, as the spokesman for the Government, to reply formally to the recommendations made by the Commission?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his question and his congratulations, and 1 would like to take this opportunity to, in turn, congratulate the Hon. Member on his appointment as official Opposition critic on labour matters.
As for the Hon. Member's question, the delay in publishing the report probably occurred, and perhaps this should be checked, at the translating and subsequently at the printing


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Cassiar Packing Company was recently placed into receivership by the Royal Bank of Canada, jeopardizing the jobs of 1,000 shore workers and fishermen. The action came only after the end of the season, about the time fishermen were to draw on their accounts with the company at the bank. As a consequence fishermen stand to lose up to $1 million in payments owing to them if this matter is not resolved satisfactorily.
What action has the Minister taken to intervene in this procedure taken by the Royal Bank? Would the Parliamentary Secretary assure the fishermen they will get the full value of their season's fishing? Will the Parliamentary Secretary also indicate whether this Government has a growing concern about the concentration of power the banks are getting at the expense of the fishing industry?


Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I cannot respond in detail to each of the two or three questions raised by the Hon. Member opposite because I am not fully aware of all the details surrounding this particular matter. What I can assure
September 26, 1983

the Hon. Member of is that we are concerned about the fishermen and about the industry, that it be a viable one and that any action taken by any group that impacts upon that industry, which has a negative effect upon its primary participants, the people who make a living from the sea, is of great concern to us. I will, on behalf of the Minister, be examining this question.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. This summer the Minister received an important report from the RCMP Commissioner which was very critical of the pension plan for widows and children of RCMP officers killed in the line of duty. These individuals are clearly disadvantaged by comparison with survivors under all other police force plans, not only in Canada but elsewhere. What action does the Minister intend to take to put a very early end to this second class treatment of members of the RCMP and their survivors?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, I have been very involved in this issue of getting better treatment for the survivors of RCMP officers and, indeed, correctional officers as well-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Correctional officers?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -slain on duty. Several years ago, shortly after I became Solicitor General, we did introduce a new program to provide increased benefits for them. The Hon. Member is pointing to the fact that some police forces in the country had still better arrangements for survivors in circumstances like that, and I asked to have a study done. The Hon. Member refers to it as if it were completed. It is not completed in final form. Work is still under way to assess exactly where the new plan that 1 have introduced, which moves so much further ahead, is in relation to other existing plans.
I can assure the Hon. Member that when I do have a final report I will look at it and consult with my colleagues from Treasury Board to be sure we give the RCMP and the Correctional Service of Canada the kind of assurances to their families-who see them leave every morning, putting their lives on the line for fellow Canadians-the kind of assurances that the backup we have for them is adequate.


PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM-ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. Is the RCMP
Oral Questions
investigating possible fraud in connection with the Petroleum Incentives Program introduced by this Government as part of the National Energy Program?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, in the normal course we do not make announcements about RCMP investigations under way.


Mr. Nielsen:: It is in the public press.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It is a very well established tradition, and one which is based on very sound reasons, that investigations take place off the record and that, when they reach a point where charges should be laid, that is the moment at which the fact that people are under investigation is made known. I would ask the House to respect that position and not to press me in every case, where you read in the papers that there are suspicions of an investigation under way, that that fact be confirmed or denied.


GRANTS TO EXPLORATION COMPANIES
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the Minister concerned at all about the possible abuse of the Petroleum Incentives Program in light of the fact that we taxpayers have spent some $2.2 billion to the end of the last fiscal year in giving grants to exploration companies? In light of the Minister's own concern about reviewing every drilling program over $50 million, which is essentially every offshore well, can the Minister tell this House whether he feels there may have been abuse?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I do not know of any specific instances where there have been obvious abuses. If the Hon. Member has some cases, she should refer them to me and I will certainly investigate. Of course it is a very expensive program. We have reviewed the administration since I have been Minister to speed up the program so that the industry would not wait too long before having a decision about Canadianization or the amount of money to be received. If there is some fraud, I would like to be informed of it and we will make sure that it is corrected.
In the case of the administration, if there are some specific problems I would like to look into them, but I have not myself received any complaints to that effect. However, I would ask the group working on that and satisfy myself that the administration is being carried out according to the law passed by Parliament.


IMPACT OF PROGRAM ON SHIPYARDS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, may I direct a supplementary, a very directly related question with respect to the PIP grants, to the Minister? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be aware that under the grants not only is the cost of leasing from offshore

September 26, 1983
Petitions
included under the qualifying arrangements for such grants but, as well, the bringing into Canada on a temporary basis of offshore ships. In order to recover some of the 7,000 jobs we have lost in the Canadian shipyards over the last year, would the Minister join with the Minister of Finance and review this situation, if for no other reason than to maximize the level or to set a minimum level of Canadian content with respect to the ships, so we will not be importing offshore service and drilling rigs?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, shipyards in Canada have built many rigs. Some have been operating in Canadian waters, some have been utilized in the North Sea and elsewhere. I guess at this time one of the preoccupations of the Government is the level of PIP grants that we have to face. As the Hon. Member's colleague from Vancouver mentioned, there are some people who are preoccupied by the level of these expenditures. We try to control the costs. To force the industry always to buy new ships from Canada will increase the costs even more, especially at this time when there is a large surplus of available rigs around the world. The industry is trying to get the best price possible. As the Minister I have to ensure that the cost of every one of these drilling operations is minimum, otherwise the PIP grants will increase accordingly.


LEASING OF OFFSHORE DRILLING RIGS
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister would look very closely at the situation as it in fact currently exists. The Canadian entrepreneur has been forced offshore. Petro-Canada, Bow Valley and other companies have built in Canada, sold their vessels offshore, and leased them back in order to obtain the 80 per cent qualification. Will the Minister look at the specifics of that effect of PIP?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I will certainly look at all aspects. I do not think the system described by the Hon. Member makes a big difference. The fact that one is leasing either from a Canadian or a foreign company does not increase the cost of leasing.

[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Friday, September 23, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventeenth report of the Standing Committee on Transport. This report contains some 89 amendments.
tEditor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Benjamin:: Madam Speaker, this is nothing more than a further extension of the black day in western Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENTS ACT (NO. 2) AMENDMENT TO INCREASE SUBSCRIPTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-168, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (No. 2).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,633 and 4,907.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	Did the McDonald Royal Commission into RCMP wrongdoing state that 800,000 files held on individual Canadians should be destroyed?
2.	Did the Solicitor General give orders to the RCMP to destroy the files and, if not, on what date will he do so?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far
as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are concerned:
1.	No.
2.	A new destruction policy for RCMP Security Service files on individuals was authorized by the Solicitor General on February II, 1983. A review of personal files is well under way to designate those which are to be destroyed pursuant to
September 26, 1983

this policy. All files on individuals identified for disposal according to the principles laid out in the policy, will be destroyed as soon as certain matters currently before the courts have been dealt with.


Mr. Epp: 1.	Did the Canada Council contribute to organizers of the Marxist Study Conference held at the University of Manitoba from March 12 to 15, 1983 and, if so, what amount?
2.	Did any other departments, agencies or commissions contribute any funds to the Conference and, if so, which ones and in what amount were the contributions?
3.	What was the purpose of the Canada Council contribution to the Conference?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: In so far
as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows: 1. To be answered elsewhere. 2. No. 3. To be answered elsewhere.
In so far as the Canada Council is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows: 1. No. 2. To be answered elsewhere. 3. Not applicable.
I am informed by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada as follows: 1. To be answered elsewhere. 2. Yes. A grant of $6,000 was made by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council under its program of aid to Occasional Scholarly Conferences held in Canada as a partial contribution to the travel costs entailed in the Conference. 3. To be answered elsewhere.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I 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.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 26, 1982, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Erola that Bill C-12, respecting bankruptcy and insolvency, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Bankruptcy Act
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make some observations about Bill C-12 before we pass it along to the Standing Committee. This Bill has been around for more than eight years. It has had a variety of Bill numbers. It was first introduced in 1975 as Bill C-60. After introduction and by negotiated agreement it was sent on to the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. That Committee recommended 139 changes to the Bill. It was withdrawn and resubmitted as Bill S-ll and introduced again in the Senate on March 21, 1978. It did not move forward for debate but was reintroduced as Bill S-14 on February 27, 1979. Again it was introduced in the House on April 16, 1980, and three years and five months after this present session commenced we have it before us again for debate.
The Bill has had about one and a half days of debate, and we now have it again for debate and reference to the Standing Committee. We might ask why this Bill, which is so vital to the conduct of good business practice, has been left on the back burner for so many years. It could be said that the tremendous increase in business and personal bankruptcies over the past five years made the Bill a focal point for an attack on Government economic policies. To put it another way, it was a good debating Bill but could be very embarrassing to the Government. It chose to keep it down the list of legislation.
But why bring it forward now, we might ask? The answer is quite simple: pressure from the business community, a good and valid reason. Business bankruptcies have risen from 3,700 in 1979 to 6,897 in the first eight months of 1983. Farm bankruptcies in that same period in 1979 amounted to 77 for the first eight months and 287 for the first eight months of 1983. The losses suffered were quite substantial-$585 million in 1979 and $1,390 million in that same eight-month period in 1983. If we add to that personal bankruptcies, sometimes called consumer bankruptcies, we see that they increased from 11,670 in the first eight months of 1979 to 18,476 in the January-August period of 1983, an increase of 58 per cent in four years.
The real reason the Bill is being brought forward is the Maislin Transport bankruptcy. Pay cheques were bounced in an operation into which the Government poured several hundred million dollars. The bail-out money did not help; it was just too close to home. Too many Ministers and Fiberal Members were feeling the heat, and now we have the Minister saying that she will amend the Bill to give some priority to wages of employees caught in a bankruptcy. It was only when a large Quebec-based company went under and its employees, friends and creditors put sufficient heat on Quebec Members to cause them to worry about their electoral base that the Bill was given priority and brought forward.
The statistical record is shocking. Just going back four years and picking the January to August period of eight months from 1979 to 1983, there were 77,547 personal bankruptcies and 26,981 business bankruptcies with losses of $4,270 million. That was the 1979 to 1983 period, the January to August eight-month figures. But only when Maislin Transport was in

September 26, 1983
Bankruptcy Act
difficulty, some employees had payroll cheques bounced and the heat was applied to Quebec Members of Parliament, did we see some movement on the Government legislative list. So much for the background and history of the Bill.
I have not mentioned the businesses which have been put into receivership or chose voluntary liquidation. We have no statistics for that group, but 1 have heard figures of from 6,000 to 18,000 per year. I accept the lower figure in the absence of some proof of the higher number. When we see the dimensions of this economic tragedy, we understand why there are almost two million unemployed people in Canada and the gloomy forecast for employment down the road. We cannot eliminate 26,981 businesses and have another 30,000 going into receivership in four years without expecting to have massive job dislocations and personal bankruptcies. You cannot wipe out $4 billion or $5 billion in losses as the result of bankruptcies and probably a similar amount from businesses placed into receivership and not have disastrous waves in the economy.
The human tragedy is the biggest loss. Thousands of entrepreneurs closed their doors forever. Using the full year's comparison for 1979 to 1982, the number of businesses forced to close their doors increased by 91 per cent. In 1982 alone, over the 12-month period, 10,763 businesses were forced to close their doors forever.
Rather than take action to repair the economy, the Government has chosen to throw massive amounts of money at selected companies. To date Canadair has cost the taxpayers of Canada $2 billion. That sum of money is almost equal to the total liabilities of ail the businesses that were declared bankrupt in 1982.
I know we have the commercial Galahads with us who say that only the strong survive or should survive. Others will tell you that the businesses were poorly managed. They will also tell you that most small and medium-sized businesses are undercapitalized. A few go under due to fraud. You may be surprised to learn that in the retail trade more losses are recorded by employee theft than by bankruptcy. I suspect there is a bit of truth in all the excuses or reasons for bankruptcy or receiver-trustee arrangements.
The bankruptcy legislation first passed in 1949 has not kept pace with the times. It was amended once in 1966 and has seen nothing more until this Bill in its various forms was introduced. In the intervening years much has changed in commercial practice. The employees and unsecured creditors have been abused by the major creditors and by autocratic receivers.
We are aware of deals between unethical receivers who dispose of assets at distressed prices through the economic vultures. These vultures are known to the receivers. They offer ready cash for good, saleable merchandise and raw materials. In many cases no competitive bids are received. A lot of arranged sales are made to the detriment of the unsecured creditors. Our objective should be to amend this legislation to see more justice, honesty and equity in these tragedies.
Today in Canada we have the most illogical, ambiguous, contradictory and grossly unfair income tax system of all the western democracies. We have bankruptcy legislation that has gone unamended since 1966. In that period of time our economy has exploded and we have been ravaged by inflation and bankruptcies. Survivors of the current recession are standing with their balance sheets stripped bare of capital assets. If there is a bump of any significance in the current recovery, many of the survivors will join the tens of thousands who have gone under.
Do we find many objectors to any amendments to this legislation? Not many have raised their heads to date, but I am sure there will be some. I note in the April 18 issue of The Financial Times that mention is made of a new Ontario law on liens and there is the comment that it worries the developers. The article states that the new legislation in Ontario that affects the assets of a bankrupt developer changes the rules under which major lenders extend financing. It further comments that it will raise the cost of borrowing for developers. I find that concept of financing rather disgusting. The article states in effect that should a developer become insolvent, the lender who finances the developer must have the assets of the suppliers and the subcontractors free from and unencumbered by liens at his disposal. The lender must have his free ride or he will raise the cost of money to the developer.
The Province of Ontario has moved, quite properly, to give some measure of protection through a lien to subcontractors and suppliers to a developer. One bank commented that this lien protection given by the new act in Ontario is a serious impairment to any lender. This recent change in Ontario legislation is a step in the right direction. It should cause us to look at the plight of the unsecured creditor and employees of a company in bankruptcy or receivership when we consider this legislation.
Many businesses with stripped balance sheets are at the mercy of the receiver-trustee who is petitioned to take over the business that is in difficulty. The receiver can, upon direction of the largest creditor, usually a bank, seize and sell the assets to satisfy the bank's liability. Inventory and good fixed assets are sold at distressed prices. Anything that is left is dispersed to the unsecured creditors. The bank and National Revenue are usually first on the list of those who are secured creditors and receive their outstanding accounts.
The power in the hands of the receiver is awesome. Some unsecured developers have developed a defence against the all-powerful receiver. I can recall a particular instance in my own business: a company ordered several thousands of dollars worth of material from my company. The credit information indicated the customer was in good financial condition. After 45 days passed, we called for our outstanding receivable only to be advised that the cheque was prepared and was awaiting signature. That is a favoured excuse. After 60 days we called again, accepted apologies, and were assured that the cheque would go forward within a week.
We heard a rumble in the trade that suggested our customer had a cash flow problem. We called again and offered to take
September 26, 1983

back some or all of our merchandise. The customer declined and said our cheque was on top of those cheques awaiting signature. Further commercial credit investigation did not indicate any serious financial problem beyond a slow-pay rating. We heard another rumble in the trade, called our customer again and asked if we could borrow back some of our merchandise as we had a large order to fill and did not have enough products on the shelf to fill the order. Our customer agreed to "loan" us our own merchandise and we despatched our truck to bring it to our warehouse. Within 48 hours the company was in receivership. Within 60 hours the receiver called and demanded that we return our merchandise. He fretted, he fumed, he used numerous unparliamentary words and expressions when 1 told him we would not return the merchandise. He quoted me the law, said he would get a court order and force me to return the merchandise and further threatened to bring the sheriff with him and seize the merchandise. The more enraged he became, the more secure I felt. I thold him where to go, how to get there and hung up the phone.
After several more phone calls with threats of court action, I invited him to proceed and said that we were prepared to meet him in court. My position was that he had taken every precaution possible in a normal commercial transaction. We had offered to take back the merchandise to relieve the cash flow problem we heard they were experiencing, albeit unofficially. We know what we did was unlawful. However, after you have been stung a number of times in bankruptcies, you get hardened to a law that is out of date with the realities of the commercial marketplace.
I could tell you more about experiences, Mr. Speaker, such as going to the final meeting of an unsecured creditor to find that I was the only one of more than 300 creditors who turned up. in fact, the meeting was held in the receiver's 12 by 12 office. He laughed when I asked for a statement of the final disposition of accounts. I did not laugh, but he thought it was strange that anyone would show up for the meeting. I was struck by the arrogant, callous and flippant attitude of the receiver. You get more respect from a slot machine. We must see that the unsecured creditors have a security mechanism available to them.
We must amend this legislation as well to protect the employees' wages. We must remove potential conflict of interest between receiver-trustee functions and manager-creditor functions. Unsecured creditors must be kept informed by the receiver-trustee of the amount received on the disposition of assets. More important, they should have some input into the decision to sell or dispose of assets by auction.
I would like to see an amendment put in the statute that would protect the businessman from the Government when that Government is party to his going into bankruptcy. I am sure all of us at one time or another have had a call from a businessman informing us that National Revenue is closing in because he did not remit his employee payroll deductions, income tax, UIC, CPP or whatever. It should be a requirement that those funds be placed in a trust account and not be
Bankruptcy Act
attachable by the bank. That should get the Government out of its preferred position in a bankruptcy. However, I refer to more serious matters.
There are many reasons for bankruptcies. Clarkson Company Limited, the oldest trustee in bankruptcy in Canada, estimates that 70 per cent of all business failures can be attributed to poor management. But what about the case of Mr. Lome Shields, a man who perhaps knows more about the bicycle business than anyone in Canada? Mr. Shields had an excellent business and earned about $400,000 annually in bottom line profits. He was an importer of bicycles who, for market and tariff reasons, decided to begin to manufacture his requirements in Canada. He set up a manufacturing facility, hired about 200 people, and pre-sold a year's production at a profit.
One day, Sir, Mr. Shields had a visit from a dominion customs appraiser named John Peillard who told Lome Shields that he was not a manufacturer of bicycles but was an assembler, and as such that he must pay duty on the imported components he used in his production. Mr. Shields said: "All my competitors import duty free". "No matter," said the dominion customs appraiser, "you are classified as an assembler and therefore you are not entitled to duty-free status; and furthermore, we demand payment of $310,000 duty which we have assessed your company".
Well, Sir, Lome Shields was devastated. He came to Ottawa, he bumped around National Revenue and finally, after numerous trips to the capital, the Minister of National Revenue agreed to see him. Now, the Minister with a smiling, shining face agreed that Mr. Shields had been badly done by. He said he would have the ruling changed right away and Mr. Shields left happy.
About two weeks later, Mr. Shields received a letter from the Minister saying that the Minister was very sorry but he could not change the ruling laid down by his officials, that the $310,000 levy must stand, that he was indeed an assembler and not a manufacturer and National Revenue must have its money now.
What Mr. Shields did not know was that a deal had been struck by the Enterprise Development Board. It had received an application from CCM for another bundle of money to bail it out of another financial mess. The Board turned that application down, but the Minister did not want to see CCM go into bankruptcy because an election was on the horizon. So they cut a deal, as they say in the trade. Somehow they had to get rid of Lome Shields' operation because, as the CCM people said, he had such a share of the market that CCM could not become profitable unless Shields was out of the market and they had his chunk of the market. So a method was found to put Lome Shields to the wall. All this had been cooked up before the dominion customs appraiser came to Lome Shields' place of business. He was only the messenger.
Mr. Shields was petitioned into bankruptcy by his bank. He had paid $230,000 of the $310,000 invoice for the duty to

September 26, 1983
Bankruptcy Act
National Revenue in the sure understanding that the Minister of National Revenue would have the classification of his business changed and the funds paid would be returned. Meanwhile, Mr. Shields' lawyer took the matter to the Tariff Appeal Board. It heard the case about 24 months later.
Mr. Shields and his lawyer had a discussion with the dominion customs appraiser. They questioned the definition of the terms "manufacturer" and "assembler". They asked to see the statute or the regulations that described a manufacturer and an assembler. The customs appraiser told them it was not written in the statute or the regulations but was contained in an interdepartmental memo between Deputy Ministers. In orther words, they had assessed a duty upon Lome Shields for imported components in his product and did not have the statutory or regulatory authority to back it up. They told him that interdepartmental memos were confidential and that he could not see them. The Tariff Board confirmed this fact 24 months later and ordered the return of Mr. Shields' $230,000 duty payment and the cancellation of the $80,000 outstanding balance being demanded by National Revenue.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you about the fairness, justice and equity of the situation, so here is what happened to the major players in this sordid game. Mr. Lome Shields went into bankruptcy and lost everything. The dominion customs appraiser, Mr. John Peillard, was given a lateral promotion and was moved to the electrical section as an appraiser.
The National Revenue officials, the Assistant Deputy Minister and the Deputy Minister to whom Mr. Piellard reported and took direction went on their merry way collecting their rewards as usual, protected from the commercial world they regulate.
The Minister of National Revenue went to his just reward in the other place, where he sits saying even less today than he said when he was a Member of the House of Commons. His face is still smiling and shining, especially when his monthly pay cheque arrives.
Did Mr. Shields, the victim of this undercover crime, have an MP? Mr. Speaker, I see that you are ready to rise. I would ask the indulgence of the House to allow me to continue. I have just a few more words to say, if you would put that question, Sir.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to conclude his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William James Kempling: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank Hon. Members for their courtesy.
You might ask, Sir, did Mr. Shields, the victim of this undercover crime, have an MP? In this representative democracy, was he represented in Parliament? Did Mr. Shields' MP try to do something or anything for him? Well, yes, he met Mr. Shields at a social function and said: "Sorry, there is nothing I can do for you". There was no measure of justice, equity or fairness that could be applied to the case of Mr. Shields.
What is Mr. Shields' MP doing today? Well, Sir, he is the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan). What happened to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who was the real mover and shaker behind this sordid economic tragedy? Well, he was defeated in the 1979 election, as he should have been.
Oh, yes, what happened to CCM? They were to benefit from the demise of Lome Shields' enterprise. Well, they finally bit the dust after consuming almost half a billion dollars in grants and guarantees over a period of years.
As horrible as all that sounds, Sir, it is a true story. I have to ask myself, should not Lome Shields get some redress? The Government of Canada, through its Ministers and officials, caused a thriving business to go into bankruptcy. Those Ministers and officials knew they did not have the statutory or regulatory authority to levy a tariff bill against him. Regardless, he was put to the wall and thrown into bankruptcy. He was a successful, profitable employer of 200 people, contributing to the GNP and the tax base of the country. Yet through behind-scenes manoeuvring, he was thrown into bankruptcy.
Almost three years from the time Mr. Shields gave the Government a $230,000 cheque, he received a rebate from National Revenue. It went to the receiver to try and pay some of his unsecured creditors.
Again, Mr. Speaker, National Revenue put the knife into Mr. Shields. After using his $230,000 for nearly three years, it did not even pay him interest on the money it illegally took from him. So much for fairness, equity and justice.
I do not know if we can protect people from devious and deceitful public servants. 1 have received a number of painful phone calls recently, and I know other Hon. Members have as well, from retail clothing store owners who told me that a special inspection was being put in place for textile products that they were importing. This was done without warning. Suddenly shipments were being held at the border, demurrage charges were mounting and fall retail sales were curtailed because the Government had only a handful of specially trained people to do the inspections. Had the situation continued much longer, many retailers would have gone bankrupt. As it now stands, many of them will have reduced earnings because of demurrage charges by the carrier of the goods and because of many lost sales. We need some protection from the Government, perhaps in the way of a court injunction or some other device. I hope that we can deal with this aspect at committee. Let us agree to have a full and thorough hearing before the standing committee so that these matters may be aired.
Let me conclude, Sir, by making a plea. People watching the House of Commons proceedings sometimes comment that our proceedings are irrelevant. They do not understand that this House is a debating forum and that it is the nature of a representative democracy that members bring forward their views on a variety of matters offered for debate and state them as forcefully as allowed.
September 26, 1983

One of the hallmarks of a democratic society is the measure of fairness, equity and justice written into its statutes. We have an opportunity to repair a statute that is short on those qualities.
Our economy is improving, but any slight bump or hesitation will cause it to fall back. Investors are looking for marks of confidence, indications that someone is seriously looking at the defects in our economic process. We have an opportunity to place a mark that says we have repaired the inequities in our bankruptcy statute and made it fair, equitable and just so that some of those businesses that find themselves financially strapped may have a reprieve or a second chance. If that is not possible, then the distribution of the assets must be done in such a way as to yield the greatest dollar value for distribution to all the creditors.
I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House for allowing me to have extra time to place those comments on the record. When the Bill goes to committee I hope we will have wide-ranging hearings so that we may repair some of the inequities that are present in our economy today.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) on his speech. Obviously he draws upon a wealth of personal experience in this area of the law. I look forward to hearing from the Hon. Member in committee. He would obviously strike terror into the heart of any receiver who dared come near any of his constituents. I commend him for the tenacity with which he has approached the question.
The Hon. Member referred to the glaring inequities in the legislation. One of the most glaring inequities, and I am sure he would agree, is the present status of wage earners who are often consigned to the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to distributing the assets of a bankrupt firm. I should like to ask the Hon. Member what the position of his Party is with respect to the establishment in Canada of a wage earner protection fund, an insurance scheme, which would be financed by contributions from employers. I do not mean from small employers of less than six people, but, rather, from large employers. What is the position of the Hon. Member for Burlington and his Party on the establishment of such a wage protection scheme as recommended by the Senate committee and the Landry Commission?


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the legislation has been around for eight years. It was brought forward in April, 1980 but we have not seen it since in any forum of debate. We intend to look at that question in detail when the Bill comes before committee. At that time we will examine what remedies and protections we can put in for employees.
From 1980 until April 26, 1983 there has been a massive disruption in our economy. What may have been adequate at the time of the Senate hearings is not adequate today. I think the wisest thing would be to take the matter to committee
Bankruptcy Act
where it can be discussed in full detail. The Hon. Member can attend those meetings and make his contribution.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a supplementary question. In the course of debate on this Bill his colleagues have taken a number of positions. One Member indicated that it is his view that the appropriate means of resolving this question is to establish a super priority for wage earners. The Hon. Member for Burlington is obviously knowledgeable and experienced in this area. Is he prepared to indicate whether he agrees with his colleagues on the establishment of a super priority, or does he agree with his colleagues in the other place that a wage insurance scheme should be established?


William James Kempling: I have to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation has been around for eight years but it has not been before the House for three years and five months. Much has changed in the economy in that time. I think we should hear the witnesses and representatives who come before the standing committee and then make our decisions, based on the realities of today.
My colleagues have commented on this in the past but much has happened since then. Many bankruptcies have occurred and I think it would be best to let the matter go to committee where we can discuss it.


Mr. Speyer:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is sincere in his inquiries of the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling), he should read my speech of May 19, 1981, which outlines the position of the Conservative Party. This was the only Party to say that wage earners will have a super priority. That was our position then and it is our position today. All I ask the Hon. Member to do is read the speech as he was not the critic at that time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are other Hon. Members rising to ask questions or make short comments? If not, the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Burnaby.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to make a few comments with respect to this important legislation which, as has been indicated by previous speakers, has been before the House in one form or another for the past eight years. I note that we finally have a reply from the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) about the position his Party takes with respect to the question of the protection of the status of wage earners. The Hon. Member indicated-and other positions on that may be taken by Members of the same Party in the other place, that he does not support the establishment of a wage insurance scheme, as was recommended by all of those who have looked at this issue.
During second reading debate my colleagues have dealt with a number of important issues which arise during any discussion of bankruptcy legislation. The Hon. Member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) and others dealt with many of the

September 26, 1983
Bankruptcy Act
key economic questions which arise in this important area of bankruptcy. They have noted, and I reiterate, that there has been an explosion in the granting of credit in Canada, there being some $30 billion outstanding in credit.
The Liberal Government's economic policy has not only failed but has resulted in high interest rates and the collapse of consumer demand. Small businesses have been particularly hard hit by this and the level of bankruptcies in Canada has reached historic high. Last year, for example, bankruptcies left behind some $3.6 billion in debts. As well, in 1982 there were over 40,000 corporate and personal bankruptcies in Canada. Many of these resulted in tragic personal losses to the individuals involved as well as to the communities. In the case of corporations which go bankrupt, the spin-off effect can be devastating to a small community.
I must also comment on what in my view is the serious failure of the Federal Business Development Bank to take a tough but fair look at requests for financing, particularly by small businesses, in these difficult economic times. While the Government is prepared to bail out the big boys, the Domes, the Chryslers and the Maislins, for too many small businesses go under when, with a little bridge financing by the Federal Business Development Bank, they would survive. A restaurant in my constituency of Burnaby is a prime example of this. The Federal Business Development Bank turned the owner down flat but he was able to borrow funds from other sources and, fortunately, his operation is thriving today. Had he not been in the position to borrow elsewhere, he might have gone under. That kind of attitude on the part of the FBDB in the face of Government largesse to the big corporations is unacceptable.
Credit is granted far too easily today. Many individuals have accumulated debts which they cannot possibly repay, whether they be credit card or other forms of consumer debt. The advertising which is used to promote credit is, in many instances, overwhelming, and when an individual loses his job he is often completely stranded.
These are some of the serious questions which arise in this difficult area of bankruptcy. I look forward to a careful study of the key issues which arise as a result of the tabling of the legislation. I believe that the committee hearings must be comprehensive and must afford an opportunity to all individuals to make representations as to the impact of this legislation.
At the same time I would note that clearly the time to move forward on changes to this area of the law is now. We have waited far too long for amendments to this archaic legislation. Certainly, as long as the Government is prepared to respond sensibly and with some concern, particularly in one or two of the areas 1 will be touching upon shortly, I am confident that finally we will see some changes in this area of the law.
By far the most contentious provision of this legislation is the provisions which deal with the priority which is to be accorded to workers who are owed money in the event of a bankruptcy. This is the issue, Mr. Speaker, which has dominated all of the discussions surrounding this legislation from
the time that the First Bill, Bill C-60, was tabled in this House in 1975. This Bill was tabled in response to the Tasse report, which was issued by the Government in 1970. This report very clearly documented that there are major flaws in bankruptcy legislation as it presently exists.
The Senate committee which looked into the provisions and studied the subject matter of Bill C-60 heard representations from a broad cross-section of the community. Following its study, it came to the conclusion that the recommendations of the Government in Bill C-60 were fundamentally flawed. That Bill recommended a $2,000 super priority for wage earners over and above secured and preferred creditors. The Senate committee unanimously rejected that approach and, in my view, its reasons for doing so are as sound today as they were when it came forward with its report in 1978.
I would note that again in 1980, following the tabling by the Government of Bill C-12, the Senate committee studied the whole question and paid particular attention to the arguments which had been made in support of a super priority. 1 note that the Bill which is now before the House, however, contains no super priority whatsoever for wage earners. Rather, it would place wage earners in the same category in which they are presently placed. The only change would be an increase in the overall amount. However, in virtually all instances that would have no impact whatsoever. Obviously changes must be made and made very soon, because far too many working people are left out when it comes to a bankruptcy or receivership.
The two fundamental approaches in this area are either super priority or the establishment of a wage earners' insurance fund. The Conservative Party has indicated that it supports a super priority and is opposed to the establishment of a wage earners' insurance fund, despite the evidence before the Senate committee and despite the unanimous report of the Landry Commission which very carefully examined this whole area.
Before looking at the relative merits of those two solutions, Mr. Speaker, I might indicate the dimensions of this problem. It is very easy to talk in global terms about the devastating impact of a bankruptcy on working men and women in terms of their inability to continue to pay their rent, buy food and pay for the ongoing expenses which they face in these difficult times. This point was dramatically driven home to me when I received a letter from one of my constituents, a young man who graduated from Burnaby Central Senior High School in 1982. I can do no better, Mr. Speaker, that quote from the letter which he sent to me, which very eloquently points to the difficulties facing working people in this area. He said the following:
During the summer months I entered the work force in hopes of obtaining sufficient funds to attend Simon Fraser University this spring semester. I was able to receive employment with Truwall Construction (Alberta) Limited of Calgary. Truwall met with some financial difficulties and was forced into receivership. I obviously felt bad for all those involved, but felt that reimbursement of wages to employees would most definitely be top priority. Today after several months of correspondence-
That was with the employment standards people in the Alberta employment standards branch.
September 26, 1983

-1 was rudely awakened to the fact that it was not me, the employee, whose concerns were met with first, but those of the Royal Bank of Canada.
1 find this to be a gross injustice to all those employees, including myself, who were affected in this manner.
I ask you, my Parliamentary representative, to assist me with this matter and to explain to me why those least able to defend themselves are hardest hit.
My hopes of paying my own way through university, at least for this year, are futile. My only recourse is to burden my more than willing parents with this.
Please consider my complaint.
The letter is signed by Brad Gilmour of Amberwood Place in Burnaby, British Columbia. What more graphic evidence does the Government need of the importance to move quickly to ensure a realistic priority for working people?
As well, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), has been most diligent in pursuing the question of the rights of working men and women at the White Farm Equipment Company of Canada in Brantford, Ontario. I would note that if this company were forced into bankruptcy, the employees there stand to lose over $6 million in fringe benefits and severance pay. We are talking here, Mr. Speaker, of over 1,000 employees. Imagine the devastating impact this would have not only on the employees and their families but on the entire community of Brantford, which is so dependent on this major employer. Once again I want to commend my colleague, the Hon. Member for Brant, for his diligence in pursuing efforts to keep this company alive and thriving in order that this bankruptcy will not in fact have this impact.
There are many other examples of bankruptcies in other parts of Canada, including the Maislin bankruptcy, where workers have been left completely out in the cold. The banks have swooped in and taken what assets do remain and have left the employees with nothing. In January of 1982 four building supply companies which were owned by a Vancouver chartered accountant were put into receivership when they could not keep up with their loan payments. The companies had stores in eight different British Columbia communities, many of them small communities. Most of their employees were laid off without any notice whatsoever. Because the companies filed for bankruptcy and the secured creditors swooped in, these employees were once again denied any back pay whatsoever.
As 1 have indicated, the problem is a real one. It is a growing one at a time of economic crisis and of record bankruptcies in this country.
The question is, then, having recognized the depth of this problem, what is the appropriate response to it? I have noted that there are effectively two alternatives: super priority, as proposed initially in Bill C-60, and the establishment of a wage insurance scheme.
The Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce unanimously rejected the proposal for super priority. I would like to outline its reasons for rejecting this proposal. 1 remind Hon. Members of this House and those persons who are viewing these proceedings today that this was a unanimous report with both Conservative and Liberal senators concurring strongly. The report stated that super priority, as proposed in Bill C-60, does not achieve the objectives of certainty of payment to the wage earner; promptness of payment to the
Bankruptcy Act
wage earner; ease and simplicity of administration; and the maintenance of the ability of a borrower to obtain financing for his business operations.
I will deal briefly with each of these points because on each count, Mr. Speaker, super priority does not answer the needs of working men and women. First with respect to certainty of payment to the wage earner, as the committee indicated there is no certainty whatsoever that wages owing by the bankrupt will be paid. In many instances, the assets of the bankrupt will be completely insufficient even to meet the top priority of wages, and often sophisticated lenders might stipulate that their loans will be made to an associated holding company which owns all of the valuable assets, once again leaving workers out in the cold, even in the face of a super priority.
A second and very important point is that the Committee noted that there is no guarantee whatsoever that the payment to the wage earner will be made promptly. Surely Hon. Members of this House will recognize the importance of promptness in making such payments because wage earners must pay their bills on a day to day basis and cannot afford to have significant delays-weeks, months, possibly even longer-in the payment of their claims. So once again, even though they may have super priority on paper, they will, in practice, not receive the funds for many, many months in many instances. Often the assets of the bankrupt company will not be readily convertible into cash and the lender might be very reluctant to borrow money.
Yet another difficulty with the concept of super priority which the Conservative Party supports is the serious difficulties in administration of this proposal. Most significant would be allocation of the burden of this super priority among the secured creditors of the bankrupt. The courts would be clogged with bitter disputes over the relative burden to be shared by creditors, and while the courts are clogged and lawyers are arguing, workers will receive nothing whatsoever.
Finally, I would note that super priority may very well very impair or reduce the credit which is available in a labourintensive industry. Surely this cannot be an objective which would be sought by Members of the House. The final conclusion of the Senate Committee was that super priority is not the proper method for granting wage earners the protection they deserve.
In the face of that conclusion it is most surprising to hear that the Conservative Party and apparently the new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) are prepared to accept a proposal for super priority which has been soundly rejected by a detailed study of the Senate Committee.
Not only did the Senate Committee look into this question, but following the Senate report the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs established a special committee to examine this whole question of super priority versus a wage insurance scheme. That was an outstanding committee with representatives including the chairman of the committee, who was a former superintendent of bankruptcy and dean of law at

September 26, 1983
Bankruptcy Act
the University of Ottawa; Ron Lang, who was a member of the Canadian Congress staff; George Hitchman, who is the deputy chairman of the Bank of Nova Scotia; and Raymond Dufour, vice-president of a major bankruptcy firm. This committee, with broad representation from business, labour, the academic community and bankruptcy trustees, once again examined the relative merits of super priority versus a wage insurance scheme.
What was their conclusion? To no one's surprise, they said that super priority was clearly not the answer and that workers would not be protected by super priority. Instead, this committee again recommended the establishment of a wage earners' insurance scheme.
It is very rare that a committee with representatives from the CLC and the banking community agree on anything, but in this instance the committee was unanimous in saying that working people will be left out in the cold by super priority and that the only answer to giving equity in this area is the establishment of a wage insurance scheme. They recognize that some time would be needed in order to implement this recommendation and they suggested a three-year period in which the Consolidated Revenue Fund should ensure a super priority up to a maximum of $1,000.
We in this Party would be prepared to look at the possibility of some other interim solution, even including the possibility of a super priority for that limited period of time. How the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or the Members of the Conservative Party in the House can possibly support a super priority which has been utterly discredited not only by their colleagues in the other place but by a non-partisan committee looking into this question certainly escapes me and, I am sure, those persons who are looking at this area of the law.
I will certainly look forward to the respresentations before the committee hopefully by Mr. Landry, who chaired the committee, by the CLC and many others who will graphically demonstrate that super priority is not in fact the answer. The answer must be the establishment of a wage insurance scheme such as those which have been in existence for some time in France, Germany and the United Kindgom. They have been operating successfully, I might add.
The other major area I would like to touch upon in conclusion is the question of the very difficult times which are facing farmers and the suggestion by the Government that it wishes to insert a provision in Bill C-12 to deal with the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. My Party and particularly the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), who has been in the forefront of efforts to ensure the passage of Bill C-653 as amended where necessary, are prepared to have that Bill passed forthwith. To suggest that farmers and workers should played off against one another in Bill C-12 is obviously completely unsatisfactory.
In conclusion, 1 look forward to the very serious concerns of the farming community and particularly the working people being brought before the committee for a very thorough and
comprehensive study. Change is certainly long overdue but we must ensure that that change is not merely cosmetic.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). I am somewhat fascinated by the association which he and his Party has with banks and insurance companies with respect to the question of super priority and insurance schemes. Does he appreciate that under an insurance scheme the workers in a potentially bankrupt company would have to contribute toward payments to an employer that ultimately went into receivership? Does he appreciate the fact that workers would have to contribute money to a firm that might go bankrupt?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid it is the Hon. Member who does not understand the proposal for a wage insurance scheme. I would be pleased to quote for the Hon. Member's edification from the Senate Committee recommendations in this area which stated:
The Wage Earners Protection Fund would be self-sustaining and maintained by monthly contributions from all employers in Canada, based on the number of employees. Contributions from such a large number of employers would result in modest amounts being paid per employee. The only exception to this universal rule would be that no contributions would be required from employers with fewer than six employees.
That was the recommendation of the Senate Committee, that it should in fact be funded by employers. I also suggest that the Hon. Member might want to read the report of the Landry Commission which again looked into this whole question very carefully and also recommended that the wage insurance scheme should in fact be funded by employers.
Therefore, the suggestion by the Hon. Member that workers would somehow have to contribute is not based upon any recommendation that has come from either the Senate or the Landry Commission. This would be a scheme financed by employers, as are all of the similar schemes in Europe.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, in the same vein, I would point out to the Hon. Member that one of the contributing causes to the increase in bankruptcies are employer costs of one kind or another. He is suggesting to the House that we should increase costs for employers which might, in turn, increase bankruptcies. I think that is predictable.
After 18 years of domination of this House by the NDP-Liberal alliance, is the Hon. Member signalling that there is a willingness on their part to reconsider spending priorities? Specifically, I am wondering if he believes there should be a public sector contribution to this wage scheme and whether he is willing to consider reducing the grants to Crown corporations such as Petro-Canada in order to have the money to make contributions to what I would consider more socially useful purposes which, in this case, would be the protection of wage earners in the country.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Undoubtedly, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) would like to reply to that question. He will have ample opportunity to make his position known and we will all have ample opportunity to do the same at committee stage. I
September 26, 1983

thought that we had an agreement to end the debate at this time and refer the Bill to the committee. With the indulgence of Hon. Members of the House, I suggest that we do that at this time.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, 1 think the Hon. Member's point is well taken. He has accurately stated what the agreement is. If the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) will defer answering the question posed to him until a later time, I suggest that this Bill be referred to committee.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, that was in fact the understanding and certainly I will comment on the coalition between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party on this Bill on another occasion. We are prepared to see the Bill go to committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
Bankruptcy Act


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 1 p.m., pursuant to an order of the House made on Tuesday, September 20, 1983, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 1 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

September 26, 1983


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
of
THE RIGHT HON. MARGARET THATCHER Prime Minister of Britain
to
Both Houses of Parliament in the
HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER, OTTAWA on
Monday, September 26, 1983
The Right Hon. Prime Minister was welcomed by the Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, and thanked by the Hon. Jean Marchand, Speaker of the Senate and the Hon. Jeanne Sauve, Speaker of the House of Commons.
[ Translation]
Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Speaker of the House of Commons):: May I call this session to order?
Prime Minister, it is a great honour for us to have you address this joint session of the Senate and the House of Commons. I would ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister to introduce our distinguished guest.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Madam Speaker of the House of Commons, Madam Prime Minister and Mr. Thatcher, Hon. Members of the Senate and House of Commons, rarely in the history of the Parliament of Canada have its Members issued an invitation to a visitor to address a joint session of the Senate and the House of Commons. Never have we had a more welcome and distinguished visitor than the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Right Hon. Margaret Thatcher.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Her visit honours this institution and all of us. It calls to mind the two separate threads which have gone into the weaving of the relationship of our two countries in modern times. I am referring to Great Britain's role in the evolution of Canada as an independent parliamentary democracy, and to the growth of a partnership as strong friends and allies.
Centuries of British parliamentary achievement have fundamentally influenced the quality of Canadian life and liberty. We owe an eternal debt to those whose monumental struggles ended in victories for the British common people, victories which redounded to the advantage of Canadians with much less effort.
One need only recall that when representative government first appeared in Nova Scotia in 1758, and responsible selfgovernment there in 1848, it was as a direct result of parliamentary freedoms won with great difficulty by the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster. Thus it was that the doctrines of parliamentary supremacy and independence took root in eastern Canada and spread across the land, and now constitute the unspoken first statement of every speech in this Parliament and in our provincial legislatures.
The symbols and the reality of Britain's influence upon the Parliament of Canada are everywhere around us. They include the rights and privileges of Members, the very design of this Chamber and the fact, as you know, Madam Speaker, that your chair was a gift to this institution from the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
It is most appropriate to pay public tribute in this place to Prime Minister Thatcher for the crucial role she played in the final achievement of Canada's complete constitutional independence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The people of Canada owe her a very heavy debt of gratitude. We presented her with an extremely difficult problem, a political and diplomatic minefield. But despite an avalanche of contrary advice from Canadian and British sources, she stood resolute in her determination that Westminster would do what this Parliament requested. Thus did she demonstrate her deep and constant respect for the Parliament of Canada as the legitimate voice of the people of Canada.
In a spirit of generosity, understanding and true friendship, she cleared the agenda at Westminster and made sure that Canada's Constitution Act passed through all legislative stages with dispatch. To the long list of the Fathers of Confederation, Madam Speaker, we must certainly now add the name of one Mother.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The respect and admiration enjoyed by Prime Minister Thatcher in Canada and the rest of the world are essentially due to the strength of character and leadership she has shown in the course of governing her country and in conducting international affairs.
Beyond party or ideological differences, she is universally recognized as a leader whose courage and integrity are equalled only by the strength of her convictions.
September 26, 1983

Forty-two years ago, her famous predecessor, Sir Winston Churchill, spoke in this House words that inspired Canada and the free world in wartime. Today, now we are about to listen to Prime Minister Thatcher, the real challenge is to inspire the world to support the cause of peace. This, together with the need to guarantee economic recovery, is the most formidable challenge of our time. The external and defence policies of East and West will either lead us to a durable peace or a devastating war. There is no alternative.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been the basis on which successive governments in this country have built our defence policy.
The performance of Canada and of the Atlantic Alliance as a whole has proved beyond a doubt that NATO is a sound, united and extremely effective organization, and Canada is proud to have been one of the founding members, together with Great Britain. Thanks to NATO, Europe has enjoyed 34 years of peace. Indeed, this organization offers the West the best guarantees for avoiding a terrible war and creating a durable peace.
This morning, Prime Minister Thatcher and 1 discussed ways of utilizing this force and solidarity, not only to safeguard our present security but also to increase future security through arms reduction.
Confident in our strength and in the enduring ties of friendship we have created in war and peacetime, we must find the energy and the courage to work even harder at reducing tensions in the world and thus diminish the threat of nuclear war that haunts our nations. There is no other alternative.
Madam Prime Minister, at the Williamsburg Summit, you and I declared, together with our colleagues, and I quote: "We undertake to devote all our political resources to reducing the threat of war. Our vision is that of a world from which the spectre of war will have disappeared for all mankind, and we are determined to see this objective become a reality."
Today, this vision seems even less attainable than it was three months ago. The threat of a nuclear holocaust which hovers over the entire world has taken increasingly frightening forms. Our nations are therefore demanding that we, their governments and leaders, honour our commitment to the cause of peace.
As far as I am concerned, no personal enterprise and no priority other than the pursuit of peace is important enough to take up all my time and energy.
Today, more than ever before in the history of mankind, the survival of our species depends on the courage and wisdom of nations and their leaders.
At such a time, the peoples of the NATO countries expect more than familiar nostrums from their leaders. They demand vision, resolve and greatness of spirit. It is at such a time, such a time of critical global challenges, that our most distinguished
guest has honoured us with her presence. Madam Speaker, I am pleased and proud to present to the Parliament of Canada the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Right Hon. Margaret Thatcher.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Margaret Thatcher (Prime Minister of Great Britain):: Madam Speaker, Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Prime Minister, Hon. Members of the Senate, Members of the House of Commons:

On this First day of my visit to Canada, it is a great honour for me to speak to you, and especially to do so in this historic Chamber.
Madam Speaker, you and my host, the Prime Minister, are both members of the Francophone community that has contributed so much towards making Canada the great country it has become today.

Half your title, Madam Speaker, has a familiar ring. If the other half does not, that is because Canada has set a trend of emancipation in Speakers which we have now established with Prime Ministers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: The last time we met was when, as Minister of Science and Technology in Canada, you came to see me as Minister of Education and Science in Britain. That was 11 years ago. Who would have predicted then that together we would achieve this double first?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: I know that some of your parliamentary practices differ from ours. Question time is clearly a different experience for the Prime Minister of Canada if, as I believe, he can pass any question he likes to another Minister for answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: That must keep the Cabinet up to the mark. My colleagues do not even have to be in the Chamber. Last year in the British Parliament we had Canada very much on our mind and, I heard, vice versa.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Blaine Allen Thacker: You referred to this very generously, Prime Minister. And I am proud that my administration was so closely associated with a successful outcome to the process of patriation of the Canadian Constitution. Together we have successfully stored our last piece of colonial furniture in the museum of history.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 26, 1983


Blaine Allen Thacker: A constitutional link has, quite properly, been severed. The effect of that is not to weaken but to strengthen our common heritage. We can look freely to the future. For there will be much for Canada and Britain to do together. We are linked in so many important ways. We believe in the same high and honourable ideals. We stand ready to defend our free and independent way of life. We agree on the great purposes which we must pursue in the wider world.
If I may say something about each of these three things, first I will speak about our common ideals. Madam Speaker, people of my generation lived through a period when the fundamental values of western civilization were questioned. The doubters sought to portray them as moribund. They claimed to find more vigorous, more progressive ideas in the communist world. Constantly seeking utopia, they fastened on one false creed after another, avoiding always that least fashionable solution, the reassertion of traditional values.
We have been told that the West has no ideology, that Britain, in a famous phrase, has lost an empire and failed to find a role, that the young lack a sense of purpose and the old cannot provide them with one.
Madam Speaker, it is not true. The ideals which our two countries share are the answer to all the doubters. For centuries we have striven first to win, then to preserve, that freedom and justice without which life has neither dignity nor meaning.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: We have learned by experience that the only political system which protects and perpetuates these values is parliamentary democracy. It does so because it allows thought and expression to flower and because the good sense of a mature people is brought to bear on the excesses of governments and of individuals.
These are not the panaceas of political theorists. They are ideas that have worked. Overwhelmingly, our electorates wish to preserve them. Wherever people have been free to choose, they have chosen the path of freedom. The crowded island of Britain and the wide open spaces of Canada are traditional havens for refugees from political persecution and for those seeking a new start in a land of liberty. The number of Canadians from central Europe bear witness to Canada's generosity toward the oppressed.
The western democracies are not short of ideals. We have values and a way of life which are the envy of those who have never known them. I wonder whether we take them too much for granted, for the preservation of freedom and justice needs constant unremitting effort. As Goethe wrote in "Faust":
He only earns his freedom and existence who daily conquers them anew.
There is a battle of ideas to be won, a battle in which we are better equipped than our adversaries, for our ideas are better. The propaganda campaign to sap the morale of the democracies is relentless. We must meet it by puncturing each spurious argument and by destroying every myth that emerges. We must constantly proclaim our ideals, to our own people at home, to young countries that have yet to choose, to those who
live in the shadow of tyranny. It is time for freedom to take the offensive.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: Canada and Britain, Madam Speaker, share not only common ideals but also, as you have said, Prime Minister, the will and capacity to defend them. At home we recall with gratitude the valour and sacrifice of Canadian troops in two world wars; we remember their achievements and their courage with thanksgiving and admiration. We stood together. We prevailed.
Last year, during the Falklands' crisis, Canada was staunch in her support. We were deeply grateful for your resolve to uphold the rule of law, for the good wishes and encouragement which we received from so many individual Canadians, for the wonderful generosity you showed to our wounded servicemen, widows and families in your many contributions to the South Atlantic Fund.
Canada realized, as we did, that there was a fundamental principle at stake, with application far wider than the South Atlantic-that aggression must never be allowed to pay.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: It did not. And today I thank you for helping to ensure that it did not. Democracies by their nature long for peace, for a world free from conflict and threats. But the reality is that our way of life is threatened. As fellow members of NATO our clear duty is to assess that threat accurately and to ensure that we are able, if necessary, to resist it.
The threat is not one of superior ideas. We have nothing to fear from the bankrupt ideology of the Soviet Union. The combination of political repression and economic failure is plain for all the world to see. The threat comes from the proclaimed goal of Soviet communism to spread its system throughout the world, from the fact that the Soviet Union is engaged in a remorseless military build-up going far beyond the needs of defence, and from the evidence that that country is prepared to advance its aim by the use of force or by the threat of force beyond its borders, as in East Germany in 1953, in Hungary in 1956, in Czechoslovakia in 1968, and recently in Afghanistan and in Poland. More widely, it is seeking by proxy to further its aims in Africa, in the Middle East, in Asia and in Central America.
For anyone who doubted the nature of the Soviet system, its willingness to resort to force careless of the human consequences, the shooting down of the Korean airliner has come as a most terrible and tragic reminder. Our policy must be based on a clear understanding of the people we are dealing with and the system they have shaped. Otherwise, we shall get it wrong. That system was founded and sustained by force. It is structured to resist all political change. We have to live with it not as we would wish it to be but as it is. The task of members of NATO is to ensure that our way of life is never compromised.
That means that we must be strong, strong in capacity- there must never be an imbalance in any range of armament
September 26, 1983

that leads to the conclusion that aggression against us might succeed-and strong in will-the other side must never be tempted to believe that it could win a war against the West. We in NATO threaten no one. We come together not to attack others but to defend our own. We shall engage in the battle of ideas. We intend freedom and justice to conquer. Yes, we do have a creed and we wish others to share it. But it is no part of our policy to impose our beliefs by force or the threat of force. That, Madam Speaker, is the great distinction. And that is where the facile comparisons which we sometimes hear made between the two superpowers founder. There is no comparison between the United States, that great citadel of freedom and justice, and the Soviet Union.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: The United States long possessed overwhelming military superiority over its rival. History will show that no country in that position has ever used power so responsibly. Democracy itself curbs the irresponsible use of power. But, when democracy is absent, when an unfettered executive lives in isolation from the free world and from most of its own people, when this is combined with enormous military strength, there is the real danger to peace.
But, Madam Speaker, we must constantly seek ways of making the world a better and a safer place. The task of reaching genuine agreements on arms control and disarmament is long and painstaking. Nevertheless we must persevere in the hope that we can secure reductions which are balanced and can be verified. Then our defence would still be secure but at a lower level of armaments and expenditure.
In this task in which Canada and Britain are honestly engaged with our NATO allies, we are constantly faced with misleading Soviet propaganda. In the last year or two we have seen a massive attempt to bend the will of western governments by working on the minds of our electorates with bogus arguments. In country after country that attempt has failed. Yet the propaganda continues. Every few weeks there is a further statement from Moscow designed to give an appearance of flexibility. But so far, when these public statements are checked at the negotiating table-the real test of truth- flexibility disappears.
The question, Madam Speaker, is: are the current generation of Soviet leaders ready to negotiate as earnestly as NATO to make the world a safer place? Or, are they so much the prisoners of their system and their history, so wedded to military might that they are unable to rise to the opportunity? Even now, as the moment for Cruise and Pershing deployment in Europe draws near, it is in Moscow's power to ensure, by accepting the zero option, that not a single missile of this kind is put in place. Otherwise, to restore the balance on which our security depends, deployment will begin at the end of this year. Our nerve is being tested. To falter now would be fatal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: But that is not the end of the story. NATO has made other radical proposals for reducing the number of these weapons. We await a serious Soviet response. Now, and for as far as we can see, it must be plain to Moscow that the
western democracies will not be seduced by propaganda and will not be cowed by threats.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: Our desire for disarmament is profound. But it is matched by the unshakeable resolve that our way of life shall be secure.
In the wider world there are other great tasks for Canada and Britain in the years to come. Our shared values and traditions and the close and living links between us promise continued co-operation for our own benefit and the benefit of others.
Those living links are strong. Tens of thousands of British families have close relatives in Canada. Around a million British and Canadian visitors cross the Atlantic each year. There are Canadian assets in Britain of over a billion dollars, and Britain is the second largest investor in Canada. Canada has provided a host of distinguished names in British public life and commerce. It has sometimes seemed that half our press is run by Canadians and the other half by Australians.
I head a Government which is deeply interested in Canada. We are both open societies with a world vision born of a special historical experience. The keen interest Canada has taken in the problems of the Third World and the United Nations is proof of a nation with wide horizons.
One of the most valuable legacies of the Empire to Britain has been a world-wide network of interests and of human links so that we could not, even if we wished, become an inwardlooking nation preoccupied with our own problems.
At home Britain is changing. Five years ago there was a widespread feeling that our problems were insoluble. That was before we tackled them so vigorously. Now, there is a spreading sense of realism. People are beginning to lose their fear of change. British industry is more confident, more efficient and more productive. The new technologies are flourishing. Jobs have been created in industries which did not exist ten years ago. We have reason to hope that our inventive genius will increasingly be turned to industrial profit. With greater robustness, vigour and enterprise in our society we shall be an even stronger friend and ally.
As you reminded us, Prime Minister, it is over 40 years since another British Prime Minister-and I do not have to tell you which one-stood here and spoke about a chicken which refused to have its neck wrung. I am happy to report that that same chicken is alive and well and as resolved as ever to preserve inviolate that selfsame area of its anatomy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: In 1983 we are better able than we were to work with you to pursue our common aims in the wider world. As founder members of the Commonwealth we have a special opportunity to join with that unique gathering of nations to preserve and extend the heritage of ideals which are the essence of the Commonwealth-freedom based on the rule of
27478

September 26, 1983
law, always under assault somewhere, even in the Commonwealth, but essential to the survival of the civilized world.
As members of the economic Summit, to which you referred, Mr. Prime Minister, Canada and Britain again share a distinctive responsibility to apply the energy and experience of the world's most advanced and successful economies to the serious economic and financial problems which face so many countries, to preserve and extend the world's free trading system, to bring to the developing countries aid, advice and help as they tackle their own formidable difficulties.
As founder members of the United Nations-that organization which has so often disappointed expectation but without which the world would be a worse place-we shall both continue to take a special interest in world security, and in peacekeeping and the work of its specialized agencies.
You on this side of the Atlantic, we in Europe, each have our own special relationships. Just as we rejoice in and welcome the strength of the friendship between Canada and the United States, so we ask you to see the vital importance of the European Community. The process of making a community causes problems not just to its members but to its friends like Canada, and some of its policies have led to sharp disputes. But the Community has an enormous contribution to make to the maintenance of international free trade and to the promotion of our common ideals. In a dangerous world it is a vital area of democracy and stability which Britain is firmly committed to maintain and extend.
Madam Speaker, Canada and Britain seek a better, safer, freer and more prosperous world. We do so because we are protagonists of the timeless values of freedom and justice, because we are both great western democracies, because we are the privileged beneficiaries of a political, social and economic system which is the best man has ever devised and which has incomparably more to offer to the human spirit than the false ideologies of the unfree world.
But let us then proclaim that truth together. Let us tell the world that freedom is on the march. The democracies have the duty to lead. We are strong in belief. We glory in our freedom. We hear the voices of the oppressed and seek for them the justice and the liberty which are our own.
Should future generations have cause to remember us, let it be not only because we helped to stop the spread of tyranny, but also because we left the human race one step closer to its greatest hope-that one day men the world over shall be free.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean Marchand (Speaker of the Senate):: Prime Minister Thatcher, Prime Minister Trudeau, Madam Speaker, when you were first elected Prime Minister of Great Britain, I was very impressed. A mighty, powerful country like Great Britain electing a woman as Prime Minister is something which is quite new. However, I was much more impressed when you were re-elected.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: After watching you on television this morning, after reading an interview which you gave to a Toronto
newspaper, and after listening to your words this afternoon, I understand why your are Prime Minister of Great Britain.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: If I were a woman sitting in this Parliament, I would be very optimistic about my future because you know how closely we follow the British tradition.
Thank you for coming to our country and our Parliament. Thank you for your enlightening address and the wisdom and warmth contained therein. I am confident that your words will not quickly fade from the minds of all here assembled. I hope that others during your continuing visit will have even a brief opportunity to share our appreciation of your experience and the depth of your personality.

We have not forgotten that Great Britain is the world power that made it possible for us to achieve autonomy and subsequently full independence without bloodshed and without suffering the aftermath of forced or violent secession.
Some people believe that the latest step taken has isolated us once and for all from your great country. They are wrong. The heritage we have received from your country, and I am thinking of the parliamentary and legal system, and our social and even our cultural heritage, is among the values we cherish most and which are an integral part of our national fabric.
Few nations can wear the mantle of mother country as comfortably as yours. It has nurtured this nation through more than two centuries of infancy, often painful adolescence and maturity. If Canada has reached adulthood, it is because it has been given its lead by an understanding, not suffocating, parent. Even our minorities will be hard pressed to point to another nation, another system of government, which grants so much freedom to progress, freedom to dissent, and freedom to be unique.
There is no doubt in my mind that there will always be a special relationship between our two countries notwithstanding their distance and their necessary differences.
[ Translation]
On behalf of the Senate of Canada, I wish to thank you, Right Hon. Lady, for accepting the invitation extended by our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and I hope that you will remember your visit here as one of the high points of your distinguished political career.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Prime Minister, in expressing the appreciation of Members of the House of Commons and myself for the wisdom and eloquence of your words, I feel compelled to go beyond the traditional dictums in order to reflect with greater accuracy the depth of our admiration. We are greatly honoured by your presence here today, Prime Minister, and hope that our expressions of gratitude and
September 26, 1983

esteem will convey to you in some small way the warmth and sincerity of our sentiments.
You have personified, Madam Prime Minister, as I sensed very strongly when I first met you, the ideal of the rigorous, dedicated, and resolute leader. In your determination to further the collective wellbeing of those you represent, you have demonstrated only the highest degree of commitment, conviction and tenacity in the face of all adversity. You have established a standard of leadership which no doubt serves as an inspiration and example to leaders of the democratic world.

History has created strong ties between Great Britain and Canada, and although various constitutional changes may have modified the nature of those ties, they have not weakened them. With you, we have learned about democracy and tolerance. Witness our institutions, which bear the imprint of the age-old wisdom of your own, which were the result of experience and not merely a philosophical creation. It has given them a pragmatic quality that is particularly suited to moderating the enthusiasm of inexperience. Our law, for instance, attuned to custom and usage, has in the course of time been able to adapt to the conditions created by our constantly evolving political, economic and social life.
It is part of our debt to your country, and we wish to emphasize that, since the traditions that were brought here by
the two founding peoples are mutually enriching. Together with the values of our native peoples and those of our immigrants, they have created a very special attitude, philosophy and way of life. It is a heritage to which your country has contributed very generously, a heritage we cherish and of which we are proud.

We have learned many lessons from what you have told us today, Prime Minister, and we are reassured that your country is determined to safeguard the peace of all citizens who live in fear of the menaces which are upon us. It could not be otherwise since your country remains a beacon and a fortress of moral values in a world plagued by uncertainties. We stand here today with a consciousness heightened by the experiences of the past several decades, acutely aware of the need for a continued spirit of complicity among the free nations of the planet in their concern over the world's precarious balance of power.
As the prominent leader of one of the greatest of these nations, Prime Minister, with the utmost respect and the warmest affection and gratitude, we welcome you today and thank you for having addressed us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The session is now adjourned.

Tuesday, September 27, 1983