1985-03-28

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, March 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-27, an Act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday I was pointing out the severe limitations of Bill C-27. It deals with rather trivial matters and puts the important matters of equality, for which women have been struggling for the last number of years, into a discussion paper to be considered again, as if we need continually to discuss whether equality is a good thing or whether we want it. I pointed out that groups such as the Charter of Rights Educational Fund have proposed much more serious measures for achieving equality for Canadian women.
I also pointed out the real problems in the legislation and some of the hidden and systemic forms of discrimination which appear, for example, in the provisions for pregnancy. As opposed to being outright sex discrimination it has the effect of being discriminatory on the basis of sex.
The discussion paper which the Minister brought forward has a very hostile tone toward women. For example, in the area of maternity benefits the discussion paper notes that the Supreme Court of Canada found a distinction on the basis of pregnancy not to be a distinction on the basis of sex for purposes of the Bill of Rights. That is the famous pregnant person case, the Bliss case. But the discussion paper does not admit that. It does not mention the fact that the Department of Justice appealed the case against Stella Bliss when she won the case in a lower court. The discussion paper notes, I suspect reluctantly, that it would not be possible to appeal such a decision on the new wording of Section 15 because it is broader. It points out that this whole matter will be reopened before the courts.
Why is Section 15 more broadly defined than the old wording under the Bill of Rights? It is because of cases such as the Bliss case which made women insist on a better wording. The discussion paper notes that the primary purpose for pregnancy leave, the 15-week period, is social adjustment. In fact, that is a misnomer. The primary purpose is recuperation after the pregnancy and the delivery, and child care. The Department of Justice does not deal with real people who are raising children.
The discussion paper asks if the male parent should be permitted to receive benefits for part of the allowed time. It asks if the couple should be allowed to choose who will take the parental leave. The obvious answer to that question is, yes. That has previously been proposed. I proposed that when the House was amending other discriminatory provisions in the Unemployment Insurance Act a couple of years ago. Both parents should be involved in parental leave. Obviously, only the mother can take advantage of the maternity benefits section, but when it concerns child care, both parents should be able to take part. It is time we realized that in a lot of cases both parents want to take part, and they should be allowed to do so.
[ Translation]
The issue of combat roles for women in the Armed Forces is more complex. It is a fact that women play a major role in creating and protecting life, but it is also true that our Armed Forces are using the exclusion of women from combat roles to exclude them from high ranking positions. This rule excludes women from our peace-keeping forces. They are not even allowed to work in the kitchen for our Forces in Cyprus. For many women, the army is a career, and this rule is a barrier to their professional advancement.

The paper discusses women in the Armed Forces, and I think it does so quite stupidly. Nowhere is it admitted that the reason for excluding women from combat roles is the reason for excluding them from career opportunities. Rather silly statements are made about national security. For example, a potential enemy may view a mixed force as being less capable of dealing with an invasion. I would ask the Department of Justice to name the enemy who is going to invade Canada because there are women in the Armed Forces. It is absolutely preposterous. The paper raises the problem of female prisoners, yet females as civilians are indeed the victims of all kinds of violence in war. They have participated in wars. This problem has been faced before.
The discussion paper also indicated that the cost of making trades available to women may be prohibitive. I wonder if it is

March 28, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
more prohibitive than providing new uniforms to the Armed Forces. So many of the casualties in war are civilian. They include women, men and children. So the notion of keeping women out of the Armed Forces in peacetime, when jobs could be provided for women, seems to be unreasonable.
Only very near the end of the discussion do we reach the nitty-gritty. The exclusion of women from combat related roles prevents their promotion. The discussion paper asks, "Can some alternative method be found to provide that opportunity?" That question does not need to be asked. Of course, some alternative way should be found. If it is decided that they should be excluded, obviously, it is only justice that other means be found to give them opportunities for promotion.
This Section ends with a threat. It is in the driest possible language but it is a threat. I quote from page 33:
A concomitant question is whether equal access in peace time means equal liability for compulsory combat duty in war.
What the discussion paper is saying to Canadian women is, "If you want jobs in the army, you are going to be in for a lot of trouble so perhaps you should not be seeking equality because you are really going to get it". It does not raise the real problem, that women are the child bearers and, for the most part, the child rearers. That does not even get discussed and that might be a good reason for keeping women out of combat roles. Both men and women are child rearers and army life is not very good on families. That problem is not addressed.
The very significant question of women wanting to be in combat roles because of their involvement in the peace movement is another matter which is simply excluded, although, frankly, I do not see that there is a contradiction with respect to an army which is going to be engaged in conventional defence measures and in peace-keeping roles. I would note that women are excluded even from peace-keeping roles in the Canadian army, jobs which require alertness, tact and diplomacy rather than physical strength, and I believe this is something where women's abilities could be very well used.
The discussion paper notes with respect to the Canada Elections Act that there is a form of discrimination in that spouses of Armed Forces electors are denied the opportunity to choose a place of residence for voting. It does not raise similar problems for spouses of civilian employees engaged abroad. It seems to me very reasonable, when a family moves, that the spouse and any adult children should have the opportunity to vote. The family unity is important, and other members of the family, apart from the bread-winner, should not be denied their opportunity to vote. Yet this is a form of discrimination which the paper does not even recognize.
Family allowance is one of the most scandalous discussion areas in the discussion paper. It refers to two-parent families and whether the family allowance is paid to the "female parent". Again, we do not hear of mothers or fathers; it is the "female parent." This betrays an enormous amount of ignorance as to how hard the woman's movement fought to have
the role of mothers recognized so that they would get the family allowance, because overwhelmingly it is the women, the mothers, who are doing the work of raising the children. Let me quote from page 33 of this very foolish discussion paper:
The assumption behind this sex-based distinction appears to be that female parents are the primary care givers.
Appears to be? The Department of Justice does not know who looks after the children.


Mr. Boudria:: Where has it been?


Lynn McDonald: Where, indeed, has it been?
This, therefore, excludes males from control over Family Allowance money unless they have custody of the children.
Poor fathers are being excluded. This is absolutely preposterous. In many families the family allowance cheque is the only money to which the mother of the family has direct access and we know that women have access to very little money. Full-time workers who are women receive only 60 per cent of what male full-time workers receive. On average women are only earning half as much as men. Yet the Department of Justice wants to take more money away from women, the small amount in the family allowance cheque, and see that it goes to the main bread-winner of the family. Let me quote again from page 33:
Both parents have an obligation in law to care for and support their children, and payment to the female parent disregards the sharing of this obligation.
The Department of Justice cannot distinguish between a legal obligation, which indeed is there, and reality. In fact, overwhelmingly the women do the child care work and deserve to get the family allowance. They should not have to fight for it.
We know that 10 per cent of Canadian wives are beaten in any one year, according to statistics gathered in a recent survey. Should these women have to negotiate to get the family allowance cheque? These are women who are at home raising their children and who are economically dependent on their husbands. I quote from Page 33 of the paper again:
Should the state take the responsibility of selecting one of the two parents on an arbitrary basis when there are undoubtedly other selection mechanisms available?
It is not arbitrary. Women in reality, in real life, are doing this work, and the Department of Justice does not know it because it is incompetent and should not have been writing this paper. People who know something about how Canadians really live ought to have been writing the paper.
Let me give another example of the stupidity in this paper. In the Criminal Code it is an offence for a male to have sexual intercourse with a female under 14 not his wife. That is statutory rape. It is not an offence, this discussion paper points out, for a woman to have sexual intercourse with a male under
14.	What a preposterous problem to raise. How many boys under the age of 14 have become pregnant or received venereal disease as a result of the activities of Canadian women? This is absolutely outrageous. There is a physical difference between
March 28, 1985

men and women and boys and girls, and girls under 14 do need this kind of protection. The Badgley report pointed that out when it was published last August.
It is absolutely outrageous to see this totally arbitrary notion of equality. Yet when we come to the real problems that women are actually suffering, the real inequalities, these people are not there protesting or coming up with constructive alternatives. They are quite complacent about all the economic problems, such as women earning only half the income that men do, the fact that they have very little economic independence. They do not address any of the issues of women's pensions, women as homemakers being excluded from the Canada Pension Plan which results in their being poor in their old age because they do not have adequate means of support.
All these issues have been brought before the House. We have been lobbying year after year. But they have only been looked at as a matter of principle-whether we should be allowing women equal pensions; this is a matter to be discussed. Well, it is time we stopped discussing these matters. It is time that the Government took a principled stand and brought in legislation on all these issues.
Canadian women will, of course, continue to lobby on these issues. They are not going to quit. But I think it is very unfortunate that they have again to come before a committee to plead their case for equality. I remember the time I was President of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women lobbying for equality at the time of the Charter fight. We won that fight. We hoped the Charter would really mean something, that it would have some guts to it and that women would not have to continue to go to court and again lobby time after time after time. But the Government is obviously very reluctant to bring in concrete measures.
The Minister of Justice's remarks yesterday in the House were shameful. And his approval of equality is as reluctant as it could be consistent with his position as Minister of Justice. It is very clear that women are going to get justice and equality in only the smallest possible measure. It probably means that women are going to have to go to the courts to fight for equality on measures which should have been brought in by way of legislation. A responsible Government would have legislated and not forced women to take the trouble, time and effort to plead their case in court. The fight will continue on these issues, I assure you of that, Mr. Speaker. I only regret that the Government is not leading the way with constructive, useful and fair legislation for Canadian women.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments? Resuming debate.


Mr. Roger Clinch (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, as this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on a Bill in this House of Commons, may I seek the indulgence of the Chair for a few moments to talk a bit about the county I represent, Gloucester in northeastern New Brunswick.
Statute Law Amendment Act

If we were to look for a region in Canada that reflects the Canadian mosaic, the riding of Gloucester would do that perfectly, Mr. Speaker. Everyone has heard of the Acadian peninsula, located in the heart of the riding. Towns and villages such as Caraquet, Shippegan, Tracadie and Lameque depend mainly on the sea as their source of income, and the people in these communities are among the hardest working individuals I have ever met, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (M20)

In the summer the whole region is a paradise for tourists. [Translation]
The Village acadien and the Caraquet Acadian Festival are very well known, as well as the Centre marin and the Shippegan Fisheries Festival.

In the region of the urban centre of Bathurst the hospitality and the festival during the summer months which reflects that hospitality will attract thousands of tourists who can visit some of the finest beaches on the East Coast of Canada. Along the coast of the beautiful Bay of Chaleur, nestled between the Gaspe Peninsula and the Town of Grande Anse, are the small coastal localities which include Clifton, Stonehaven, Janeville, New Bandon and Salmon Beach. The urban centre of the riding is Bathurst, the city in which I was born, and I am very proud to say my family still lives there. Bathurst is the economic centre of the northeast of New Brunswick. The major private employer in the riding is Noranda whose Brunswick mine is one of the largest lead-zinc deposits in the world. [Translation]
The forestry industry also plays a very important role in the region's economy, thanks to Consolidated Bathurst Limited, which has one of its operations in Bathurst.

Fishing, mining, forestry and the peat industry are the natural resources which initiate much of the economic stability of Gloucester. However, the greatest of its natural resources is its people. With both founding groups, Anglophone and Francophone, living harmoniously, Mr. Speaker, we can truly say that Gloucester county is an example to New Brunswickers and all of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent in this House all groups and individuals in the riding of Gloucester. I greatly appreciate their support and confidence, and I want to give them the assurance that throughout my term as a Member of Parliament, their needs will always be uppermost in my mind. [English]
Bill C-27, which provides for amendments to over 50 statutes to ensure Charter consistency, results from an extensive review of federal laws carried out by the Department of

March 28, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
Justice. There are a number of other Government initiatives also under way to amend other laws which might conflict with the Charter. In the past Canadians have become increasingly concerned with the protection of rights and freedoms. It is for this reason that I think it is very important that the people of Canada work together to ensure that the Charter forms an integral part of our laws.
A major part of this endeavour is the discussion paper on equality issues. It is a great honour for me, as a new Member of Parliament, to have been appointed to the House of Commons subcommittee on Justice and Legal Affairs which will be reviewing and discussing equality issues in this great nation. Equality is a fundamental goal in Canadian life. The Government is committee to eliminating any discrimination in legislation and policies that could prevent Canadians from moving toward equality. The discussion paper is a step toward attainment of that goal.
The Government considers it most important that we have the widest possible consultation with the people of Canada. This committee can and should be used on a platform by all concerned groups to tell parliamentarians how they want our laws to be changed. Before making firm proposals the Government needs to know the views of Canadians on all the issues.
Ours is a free and democratic society as described in Section 1 of the Charter. There must be an opportunity to advise on the way the equality rights of Section 15 are applied. It is important that we raise the broad issues on which policy decisions, once made, will have an impact on many statutes in this country. Section 15 reinforces the responsibility that governments have to shape laws, policies and programs to the goal of equality. But I submit that equality cannot be achieved by government alone. Individuals and groups must promote this equality through their dealings with each other.
[ Translation]
Subcommittee consideration of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 15 will give the people of Canada an opportunity to have their say and express their views in connection with the practical implementation of those basic rights and freedoms, including equality before and under the law, equal protection and equal benefit of the law. Inequality may derive from the law itself as well as from the way it is administered.

This is the first initiative, to ensure that federal laws are in conformity with the Charter.
The task of reviewing federal statutes is an enormous one and issues can be missed. As courts interpret provisions of the Charter in specific cases, changes may be necessary in federal laws that are under review.
The issues raised in the discussion paper involve difficult legal policy choices where the views of reasonable peoples may differ. It is not clear that these provisions are contrary to the
Charter. To assist the Government and make the appropriate policy choices, public consultation is essential.
No doubt some equality measures will be dealt with in the same manner as other Charter rights as they come up and the courts make decisions on issues presented to them, but I think it is understood that protecting human rights in law is not something that can be done once and for all.

To the extent that our laws deal with equality, we want to know what kind of experiences people have had with them. Many of these questions have already been studied, but few solutions were proposed, a situation we hope to remedy.
This process is the best assurance that changes will reflect more than the views of public officials or the opinions of politicians. This House committee will listen to representations from every region of Canada.

There are many topics which will be open for discussion with Canadians. Among those distinctive areas where people may be experiencing some inequality are age, sex, race, citizenship, marital and family status, to name a few.
Age-based distinctions are common not only in our society but throughout the world. The rationale for many of these distinctions originates in the earlier times and in different societies. Most age distinctions are made with respect to youth and the elderly in Canada. Hence, we have an age of majority and the age for mandatory retirement. As such, age distinction in Canadian society must be re-examined to determine if they are justifiable in today's society. There are other statutes that contain age distinctions and I know that these will also be considered by the House.
Section 28 of the Charter stipulates that Charter rights are guaranteed equally to men and women. Any distinctions made on the basis of sex must be examined carefully to determine if they result in adverse consequences which cannot be justified.
Mental and physical disability are enumerated grounds in Section 15 of the Charter. In recent years Canadian society has become more aware of and concerned about the treatment of disabled persons. The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on grounds of physical or mental disability. It is entirely possible that an assessment of reasonable limits under the Charter will consider factors similar to those used under human rights legislation.
Human rights legislation in all jurisdictions in Canada identify race as a prohibited ground of discrimination. However, Section 25 states that the guarantees in the Charter of certain rights and freedoms-
-shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada-

Section 15 applies as well to the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act. Two basic questions come to mind concerning
March 28, 1985

citizenship: first, the requirements an applicant must meet to become a citizen and, second, the obligations inherent in the status of citizen-and this will certainly be the focus of discussions.

Although marital status is not an enumerated ground under Section 15 of the Charter, every human rights code in Canada prohibits discrimination on the basis of marital status at least with respect to employment. Some of the areas of distinction that may be of concern will include equality rights in relationship to income tax, old age security, remarriage and immigration.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be interpreted in the light of what Canadians expect from their society. I am certain that deep feelings will be aroused by some of the questions which will be asked and some of the answers that will be sought.
The Government has the responsibility for making laws and policies. However, individual Canadians have a fundamental role in this process. So I invite all Canadians to take advantage of the opportunity to voice their opinions. It is a forum which reflects the heart of the Charter, giving Canadians the power to help shape the laws that they want and need.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Roger Clinch: Today, governments must face the challenge of providing leadership in the continuing struggle to achieve equality in this country. While the courts will play a significant role in the protection of rights, it is the responsibility of the governments of this country, along with all citizens, to promote the goal of equality. If equality is not to remain merely an abstract principle, the guarantees in Section 15 must be seen as a motivating force for governments to act.
Multiculturalism has become a recognized principle in our society and any definition of equality must encompass this reality.
[ Translation]
We have to make sure that equality as advocated means something; no one should be denied opportunities for reasons which have nothing to do with his or her abilities.

The parliamentary committee represents an opportunity for Canadians to put forward their equality claims in a forum where they can contribute to legislative change. This committee offers Canadians a chance to help legislators make changes they want consistent with the Charter. By ensuring the availability of this forum, government policy choices will be made with the confidence that all claims have been heard and all claims have been assessed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments?
Statute Law Amendment Act
We shall now resume debate. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Clinch) on his maiden speech today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: I am sure I speak for all Hon. Members when I say that we certainly hope the Member for Gloucester will participate on a daily basis in speeches, questioning the Government and ensuring that this Government always acts in the best interests of the constituents of the riding of Gloucester, because we know they are counting on him to use those good words on their behalf. We will be here to remind the Hon. Member that he must do that now that he has made his maiden speech.
We are dealing with a very important issue. As all Members know, it is almost four years since we started discussing it. We have passed the time for consultation. This is now the time for action. I believe that all representation has been made. I am sure the people who came to speak to the committee a number of years ago were not under the impression that they would have to do their work twice, that they would have to repeat everything again through a second series of consultations with this Government.
I must take some objection to some of the words the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) used yesterday. He accused a number of Hon. Members yesterday of not being here. To use his own words, he said: "There are no members of the rat pack in the House".


Mr. Kaplan:: Shame.


Don Boudria: I am not the one who will say today that there are no members of the dense pack in this House. I will leave it at that. However, when we are discussing the Charter of Rights, one would not think that the Minister of Justice would be absent from this House for five minutes.


Mr. Nunziata:: He left right after his speech.


Don Boudria: I cannot say that he left right after his speech yesterday, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure he would want to be here for the rest of the deliberations on this very important issue. In the event the Minister does not show up, we hope that this House will be blessed with the presence of a number of Cabinet Ministers who will participate in this debate and listen to what Hon. Members have to say. Unfortunately, at the present time there is only one such Cabinet Minister in the House.


Mr. Cadieux:: Where is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner)?


Don Boudria: The changes we have seen in this legislation are purely cosmetic. We are talking about amending 50 pieces of legislation. I think that is getting carried away a little. For

March 28, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
one, I do not consider that putting in the word "spouse" for "husband" and "wife" is a major change. It is purely cosmetic. The same is true when it comes to replacing the words "son" and "daughter" with "child". I hardly consider those changes very substantial when it concerns equality of people.
I think we should seize this opportunity in debating this very important issue to remind the Government of some of the commitments it has made toward equality. I think we should remind the Government of the promises it made in terms of equality for women.


Mr. Taylor:: Which of you is making the speech.


Don Boudria: I await anxiously the participation in this debate of the Hon. Member who is heckling me from across the way. I am sure he will recall the meaningful commitments of the Government toward establishing equality. Equality is not achieved simply by replacing one word with another in a document, saying that everything else is too controversial and that one has to return to the drawing-board for more input. That is not leadership; that does not advance equality. There will not be equality for women until we change the situation whereby women on average make 60 per cent of the salaries of men. That is first and foremost. I, along with other Members in the House today, have children. In fact, I have a daughter, and I will never accept the notion, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you would not either, that she is worth only 60 per cent of someone else's son. That is not good enough for me and I am sure it is not good enough for all Hon. Members. Equality has to manifest itself in a way where there is financial equality, and many things will evolve from that equality.
I listened to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) when she spoke about the family allowance issue. That is an important issue because if we remove from women the only money they have in many cases, we will not achieve a step toward equality. We will go one step backward, and that is not progress. We have to start by achieving financial equality. At that point, if it ever happens, perhaps we will realize that the law is unfair because family allowance cheques are always made out in the names of women. Once financial equality has been achieved, perhaps that would be a proper subject to raise. We need not worry about it this week or next week because at the pace we are going now, financial equality will not be achieved in the near future.
The other day the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) indicated very eloquently in the House that the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), the lead Ministry in terms of equality for women within the Government, was satisfied, pleased, proud and so on, to have a 1 per cent increase in the number of women participating within his own Department. That Department is supposed to set an example for all other Departments. In fact, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East calculated that it would take until the year 2025 to achieve equality within that Department, the Department which is supposed to act as a catalyst for other Departments. That is dismal. It does not coincide with some of the Tory promises
during the election campaign last summer, promises in terms of fairness and equality. I should like to read a few of them to you, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure you will recall having heard some of them.


John V. Nunziata: And making some of them.


Don Boudria: No, no, our Speaker is non-partisan. One promise was to work with the provinces to achieve complete pension reform which would guarantee all Canadian men and women fair and adequate pensions for their retirement years. For many years the federal Government tried to convince provincial Governments to include the child rearing drop-out provision in the Canada Pension Plan so that women could leave the workforce for a number of years without affecting their level of pension. That is not to say that the provision meant that women had to contribute while they were off work; it merely asked that they not be penalized for the years they were removed from the workforce for the purpose of child rearing.
Who was against this provision and fought the federal Government for years and years? It was the Conservative Premier of the Province of Ontario. Even after all other provinces wanted to end the present structure and opt for the child rearing drop-out provision, Ontario refused. The provinces must be in accord before changes are made to the Canada Pension Plan. I am sure the House is aware that the CPP does not have a Quebec component. Therefore Ontario represents greater than a third of the population of the country and has an effective veto over changes to that plan. It used that veto for years to stop the child rearing drop-out provision from coming into effect. That is a dismal effort in terms of equality.
Only recently have we seen a last minute, deathbed repentance on the part of the Conservative Government of Ontario which now claims to be ready for this particular change. It is taking a long time to reach this point, and women have been penalized because of the actions of the Government of Ontario which refused the change. It refused this change because it had borrowed extensively from the pension fund and did not want to add benefits in that it would have to repay some of the funds it owed. In order not to repay, it told the women of Ontario that they could not get the increase in benefits they deserved which the rest of the country and the federal Government wanted to give them. That is the sad record of the CPP.
I should like to continue with some of the Tory promises in terms of achieving equality, particularly for women. Government Members promised to make the federal Public Service a model to be followed in regard to equality of women in the workplace. I have already enumerated what the Minister of Labour is advocating. I do not read in this particular promise that the Government would act as a catalyst for the private sector from the year 2025 and on. This was not advocated during their campaign. Another promise was to implement an effective affirmative action program with adequate control, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms within the federal Public Service, its agents and Crown corporations. They have
March 28, 1985

not exactly lived up to that one either. The effort has been pretty poor.
Another promise was to hold an economic summit to establish national objectives. It may have been held, but I do not think it has been successful. Also it was promised that at the conference the question of barriers to women's economic equality would be a top priority. People watching the television last weekend and listening to what the government had to say on various issues discovered that this was not a priority by any stretch of the imagination.
In order to achieve equality, we must start by offering the financial equality to which I referred earlier. As well, we listened to a discussion of the issue of spousal abuse. Of course, spousal abuse is a euphemism for wife battering. As we know, in about 95 per cent of the cases the victim is the female and the aggressor is the male.
While a Member of the Ontario Legislature, I had the opportunity of serving on a parliamentary committee which looked into this very important issue. It is indeed a sad one. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood raised this issue. She indicated that one in 10 women were beaten regularly by their male spouses. That is quite true, but I would like to add to that. The operative word here is "regularly". The real figure is even worse than the one we heard referred to a little earlier. The prospect is actually sadder than some of us would think it is and that is unfortunate.
Perhaps we must remind ourselves very frequently of the important issue of spousal abuse. The issue of financial equality to which I referred a while ago is closely tied to that issue. It is not tied into the fact that the wife is the victim but it is tied into the fact that the wife is the victim regularly. Many times a woman is in a situation which is almost inescapable, as we learned while sitting on the parliamentary committee. There are many occasions on which women leave their households but because of financial pressures and all kinds of other pressures, they must return to places where they are being battered because there does not seem to be any other alternative offered.
There are a variety of other issues as well which I do not wish to deal with any deeper at this particular point in time. Wife beating is nevertheless just another way of describing that general malaise that will not correct itself until we begin by having financial equality for women. We start with financial equality and then we will worry about the other issues. It is only through financial equality that we will begin to accomplish anything.
I heard the Hon. Member for Gloucester say that the equality rights of the Charter at the present time do not refer to marital status. Of course, as we know, the list in Section 15 of the Charter of Rights is not exhaustive. In other words, it describes the protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination, but it is not an exhaustive list. I am sure all of us here in the House today and all Canadians want to end any discrimination in terms of marital status as well.
Statute Law Amendment Act
I would like to speak very briefly about age discrimination because I think it is an increasingly important issue. I know that a few of us here are losing a few hairs or are getting a little grey on top. I think it is about time that we started to worry increasingly about that particular topic. The baby boom generation is getting older and older. This issue has always been an important one but the numbers are so significantly larger now that the retirement age legislation that now exists is not only discriminatory but very soon will be totally impractical.
When looking at some of the so-called major amendments to these 50 pieces of legislation, we see that the Pilotage Act has been amended by deleting the age factor in the calculation of intervals between examinations. In other words, the frequency of medical examinations will not increase with age. However, we see no reference in the amendments to changing the mandatory retirement age of 65. If we are going to amend that piece of legislation in reference to age, why amend only part of it and not the other? It would seem to me that the most discriminatory thing of all is the fact that compulsory retirement age remains 65.

Mr. Speaker, Government is facing difficult decisions with this Bill-no one will deny that. However, the Government was elected to make difficult decisions, and a review and referral of the question to a parliamentary committee is unacceptable. I do not really have anything against the amendments as proposed, but I must point out that they are cosmetic rather than of any real substance. We do intend to support the Bill, but we would like to see amendments that go much farther than the present ones, so that Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will become effective as soon as possible, to protect the rights of Canadians.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member did not have a chance to talk about the consultation process, in the little time available to him to discuss the Bill's shortcomings. I would like to put a question to the Hon. Member, who is well aware of this Government's tendency to launch consultation projects. What does the Hon. Member think about the consultation being proposed, in the absence of any decision by the Government to act responsibly with respect to equality issues?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, personnally, I think the time for consultation is over and has been for quite some time. Canadians have appeared before the parliamentary committee in the past, so there has already been consultation. I fail to see what we would accomplish today by having Canadians take part in the debate and voice their claims again in order to obtain their rights. In drafting the text, Mr. Speaker, we already agreed that these were rights and not privileges.
If we ask them to take part in another round of consultations and to make representations, are we not in fact saying that these rights are not rights but privileges, Mr. Speaker? I think this is entirely unacceptable, and I would like to add, and

March 28, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
I am sure my colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) is aware of this, that the Government is entirely mistaken, Mr. Speaker, and especially the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), when he informed Hon. Members yesterday that the previous Government, the Liberal Government, had done no work at all on this question. Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, Cabinet documents are not available to the new Minister, so he is in no position to accuse Members of the previous Government of having failed to work on this question. He does not know. In any case, the Minister does not know what the previous Government did, but we can see for ourselves that the Minister has done nothing at all.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, when the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) was a Member of the Ontario Legislature, he fought very hard day in and day out for equality rights for women, visible minorities, the aged and the disadvantaged in our society. I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that, as part of the constitutional compromise made in 1982 resulting in the entrenchment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution Act, it was agreed that Section 15 of the Charter would be delayed for three years in order to give the provincial Governments and the federal Government an opportunity to conduct extensive audits of their respective legislation. It was delayed in order to give the provincial Governments and the federal Government an opportunity to bring those laws into conformity and compliance with Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was a member of the Ontario Legislature. As I have indicated, he fought very hard for minority rights. He is aware that the Government of Ontario has done precious little to bring its laws into conformity with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and specifically Section 15. All the Government of Ontario did was produce a 400-page document to articulate the controversial issues. The Government of Ontario has failed miserably in implementing changes in provincial laws which would ensure compliance and full equality in provincial legislation.
My question to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is: Does he believe that the Government of Ontario has proceeded quickly enough to implement the necessary changes in Ontario laws to ensure full compliance with Section 15 of the Charter?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, indeed, that is an excellent question. I am sure we all agree that the provinces played a major role in this. But I think the provinces should have seized the opportunity to reassert their commitment toward minorities, women and all people who are disadvantaged, financially or otherwise, and those who are discriminated against. I know that equality has been a low priority for the Government of Ontario. Of course, it published and distributed a very extensive document, in a manner which was not dissimilar to what the federal Government is doing now. The matter is a hot potato. It raises certain controversies. So information was distributed to inform the people of the important issues and the Government waited to see what would happen. It requires a bit more than that if we are going to look into the fundamental rights and freedoms of people.
We measure how civilized a society is by how well it treats its minorities and disadvantaged people, not by how strong the people are. In all societies there are strong people, whether it is or it is not a civilized society. What makes the so-called civilized societies different is the factor of how well the minorities are treated. We must be willing to give the minorities the priority which they deserve and we must be willing to make difficult decisions. They may be decisions on affirmative action.
We have witnessed the reluctance of the provincial Government of Ontario to deal with that issue. Affirmative action programs in Ontario have been delayed and delayed, and nothing has been done by the provincial Government. It has only provided years and years of indecision. I think the best way to summarize the policies of the Government of Ontario is that the best decision is indecision.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: One last question. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on his last answer. Concerning Bill C-27, an Act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the table of contents does not include the Official Languages Act, and I am wondering whether the Hon. Member might give us his impression or view as to why the Government did not deem it appropriate to list the Official Languages Act as being vital to the minority groups he mentioned? As everyone knows, the language issue is important in Canada, and a controversial subject in many regions. I should like to ask him if, in his opinion, there is a major reason why the Government avoided or forgot about including the Official Languages Act in Bill C-27.


Don Boudria: First, Mr. Speaker, may I commend the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for all the work he has done with respect to the official languages. I see some Members on the other side who have a somewhat different reaction about this. Even Conservative Members will acknowledge the hard work done in the field of official languages by the former chairman of the Committee on Official Languages Policy and Programs. If Conservative back-benchers are not satisfied, they can join the debate.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say briefly that the primacy of the official languages must be upheld, of course. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier made that point on many occa-
March 28, 1985

sions in a Private Member's Public Bill introduced in the House, and I would have hoped that the Government would have jumped on that opportunity to reaffirm its policy on this matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) on debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, if the applause keeps up I will not have time to speak.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Redway: I can tell that I am very popular when I rise in this House!
It is a pleasure to address a few remarks to Bill C-27 which, as many Hon. Members have indicated, is an Act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Bill C-27 has been described as an omnibus Bill. It amends over 50 separate pieces of legislation. In preparing this legislation, the Government reviewed in excess of 1,100 separate statutes in an attempt to bring them into line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In particular, the Government attempted to bring those statutes into line with the Charter prior to April 17 of this year. Of course, that date is very significant.
Some Hon. Members have previously referred to the significance of that date. I would like to remind Hon. Members of the significance of the equality section, Section 15(1), which reads as follows:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
That is a very important section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It is interesting to note that there is another section of the Charter which limited the time in which Section 15(1) would come into effect. That is Section 32(2) which reads as follows:
Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.
The Constitution Act of Canada and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force by proclamation on April 17, 1982. Three years from that date, which is a few short days from now, Section 15(1) of the Act will finally come into force and be part of the law of this country. I have been shocked in the past, Mr. Speaker, to find that, notwithstanding my belief and understanding that this was not only part of the basic rights and freedoms of this country from time immemorial, but part of the rights recognized around the world as basic rights and freedoms, the courts of this country really did not recognize these rights and, frankly, I suspect do not recognize these rights at this present time, and will not recognize them until April 17 of this year.
Statute Law Amendment Act
As a lawyer practising law a year or two ago in Metropolitan Toronto, I had the occasion to raise this point in a case in court involving a matter where I felt very strongly that the accused party had been discriminated against. I referred to the common law of the Province of Ontario. I referred to the Charter of Rights and, in particular, to Section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights. I was shocked, quite frankly, when the judge pointed out to me that, according to Section 32(2) of the Charter, in fact this section does not come into effect until April 17, 1985. So it is not in effect even at this time.
I always thought, as I indicated, Mr. Speaker, that these rights which are enunciated here were part of the basic rights and freedoms of this country, that they had been part of the basic rights and freedoms which evolved from the British common law which is in force in this country, apart from the Province of Quebec. I believed these rights were in force as a result of importation, perhaps one might say, from other countries such as the United States and France with their Bill of Rights, and that it was imported into this country certainly by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights of which we are signing members. I thought it was in force in this country through the Bill of Rights which a former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, introduced into this House and which was passed into law. I always thought that, as a result of that long chain of events, this was and always had been part of the rights and freedoms of every Canadian. But that is not so. Mr. Speaker, and it is still not so today and will not be so until April 17 of this year.
I am particularly delighted, therefore, notwithstanding that I do not usually like to see the days of my life zip by, that we are coming up to that date so that at long last all Canadians will have these rights and freedoms which are set out in Section 15(1), the right that every individual is equal before and under the law.
Some Hon. Members of this House have indicated that they have many concerns about this Bill. One concern is that the Bill does not go far enough, that it does not take into account all of the positions put forward in the past by many different groups and organizations. They have concerns that the special committee, which will be headed by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) and represented by Hon. Members on all sides of this House, and the hearings which it is going to hold, is merely a duplication of things which have happened in the past.
I was interested to note, Mr. Speaker, some of the comments which Hon. Members have made in that regard and the points to which they have directed their attention. In particular, I note that a good deal of attention has been paid to the question of the equality rights of women. That is a very important and significant area which obviously must be addressed. But it seems to me that Hon. Members of the Opposition have overlooked the fact that it was but a week or two ago that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) rose in this House and announced some very important and significant improvements and strides as far as women's rights

March 28, 1985

Statute Law Amendment Act
in this country are concerned. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that that announcement had to do not only with the rights of women but also took into account the rights of visible minorities, the disabled and native people. It provided for equality of opportunity for all of those groups in hiring, training, promotion and in pay and provided that this new policy which was announced by the Minister would apply to the federal Public Service, to federal Crown Corporations, to all industries which are regulated by the federal Government and to all businesses doing business and having contracts with the federal Government worth over $200,000. That took into account and affected some one million employees in this country.
So it is not as if nothing has been done. It is not as if this Bill is the only initiative which the Government is taking with respect to the question of equality rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This Bill is only one of many initiatives the Government is taking and has been taking. Another initiative in which I have been involved in particular is Bill C-18 which amends the Criminal Code. This Bill has been part of extensive hearings by the Standing Committee of this House on Justice and Legal Affairs for a number of months and represents a great many amendments to the Criminal Code. In particular, the committee deals with the question of writs of assistance. For some reason or other, although that Bill was introduced in the House prior to the Christmas recess, we are still dealing with it. Obviously, there were great numbers of people who were interested in making submissions to the committee on that point. I think that in itself is a good indication that people across this country want to be heard and consulted. They do not want to consider that they have already been consulted on these issues; they want their voice heard whenever a subject of this sort is raised. I am sure that they are going to come out in large numbers to meet the special committee dealing with this subject. I am sure they are going to have some very important things to say and that their words will be heeded. I am also sure there will be recommendations forthcoming from that committee which will be helpful to this House in formulating the proper types of amendments to the legislation which will finally deal with these subjects, hopefully once and for all.
Another point which many Hon. Members of the Opposition have raised has to do with age discrimination and the whole question of the compulsory retirement age. That is also a very significant and important aspect and one which is certainly not clear cut. I do not believe any Hon. Members of this House would really suggest that there is a clear-cut answer which everyone in this country would rally to and support right at this present time.
I remember personally, Mr. Speaker, a few short years ago, as the mayor of a major municipality in this country, dealing with this issue with a member of our own fire department. He was a man who came up to retirement age not only under the terms of a pension plan but under the terms of a collective agreement with the firefighters' association. He wanted to carry on beyond the mandatory retirement age but was opposed in that wish by the trade union of which he had long
been a member. That was quite understandable. The union had legitimate reasons for opposing this man carrying on beyond the mandatory retirement age.
On the other hand, all of us know good and legitimate reasons why people should carry on beyond those now mandatory retirement ages. The question is not clear cut, Mr. Speaker. There are strong arguments on both sides. That is a question with which, I am sure, the special committee will be dealing and will have many submissions on.
There are a vast array of other issues as well. If one looks at the number of subjects which are being dealt with by the special committee in its consultations, one finds it involves a vast array of subjects other than the very limited ones which have been raised by Hon. Members of the Oppsition to date. For example, the question of disability as it applies to the Armed Forces; immigration; voting; unemployment insurance; the question of sexual orientation; citizenship and whether rights can be restricted to Canadian citizens or should apply to all Canadian residents.
That in particular is a very controversial subject. As recently as this past weekend I had people in my own constituency suggesting to me that we should be restricting old age security payments to citizens of this country. It is items such as this which are certainly not clear cut and need a complete public airing. That is what the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is going to be dealing with and I am sure we are all going to benefit by it.
Having said all that, I want to reiterate that this is not the only piece of legislation the Government has introduced so far dealing with the subject of rights and freedoms, and it will not be the last. We have this Bill, C-27. Then there is Bill C-18. There is already an amendment to the Indian Act which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) has introduced. There will be amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, just to name a very few, which will have an impact on this whole issue.
The most important thing of all is the fact that we will on April 17 finally have those equality rights enshrined in the laws of this country, rights that we do not have at the present time. The general principles will be enshrined and we may want to go beyond those general principles. We may want to extend those rights even further. I think that is really what the members of the Opposition are talking about. They are not talking about bringing things into line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; they are really talking about possibly going beyond the base limit that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides. I think those are the things that we are going to be dealing with in the near future when the subcommittee reports, and they will be very important issues.
Having said all that, I think all of us as Canadians should be looking forward with great anticipation and rejoicing to the dawning of April 17, 1985 when finally, once and for all, we have these equality rights enshrined in the law of this land.

tfy
:;tej

March 28, 1985


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano).


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) and it has to do with mobility. It has been said-

On the mobility question, especially in the construction industry in Quebec, we have quite a problem. I had a case in my riding where a young Canadian from British Columbia moved to Quebec. He had to follow his wife because she was transferred to Montreal. He is a pipeline welder and he found a job but unfortunately he could not get a permit to work. Can the Hon. Member comment on what Bill C-27 does concerning mobility rights throughout this country?


Alan Redway: Certainly mobility rights are very significant and the Charter of Rights speaks to that issue. Regardless of the diversity, regardless of the fact that there are many different regions, this is one country. We all have different points of view and different perspectives based on our geographical location and perhaps our cultural origins, but at the same time it is one country and everyone, regardless of how proud they are of their own region or their own ethnic and cultural background, is enormously proud of the fact that they are Canadians. To me that means any Canadian should be able to work in any part of this country.
At the same time we should not only look at the question of working in different parts of the country, but the economic and commercial life of this country should also be open and equally available to all. Certainly that is what the Charter of Rights is all about and I hope we will not see this sort of thing in the future. I hope that from now on we will have a country where people can move from region to region to work, and where people can truly be proud to be Canadians in every part of the country.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the views of the Hon. Member about whether he feels this legislation is an adequate response by the Government to the obligation it has to review our laws and bring them into compliance with the Charter. At page 6 of the discussion paper put out by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) he makes an interesting concession. He says that Section 15 reinforces the responsibility that governments have to shape laws, policies and programs to the goal of equality. But then we have this pathetically short statute which deals mostly with questions of grammar and semantics and very little with rights.


Mr. Boyer:: Read the rest of the sentence.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The rest of the sentence says that the Government alone cannot achieve equality.


Patrick Boyer: Right on.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is the Government's opinion, but I am emphasizing the admission by the Government that it has the
Statute Law Amendment Act
responsibility to shape laws, policies and programs to the goal of equality, as well as to show some leadership.
Is the Hon. Member satisfied with the leadership that is shown to other governments by this measly piece of legislation which the Government has put before us? Why does he not think that the Government had a responsibility to deal with all the other areas where it is so obvious that changes are required to bring laws into compliance with the Charter? Why is the buck being passed to a consultation process and a parliamentary committee when the duties of the Government are recognized so clearly in this sentence of this document?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the "measly little Bill" that the Hon. Member refers to is 111 pages long. While I have been here admittedly a short time, I cannot remember another Bill introduced in the House which was 111 pages long. That is not to say that the Bill contains all of the amendments and changes in legislation that the Hon. Member might like to see; but as I explained in my earlier remarks, this is only one of a number of initiatives the Government is taking and has taken in order to bring the laws of this country into line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
For instance, the Hon. Member well knows that Bill C-18 deals with the rights of citizens. He is a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and knows full well that that is one of the issues being dealt with in that particular Bill. He knows as well, I am sure, because he was here in the House, that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has announced that policy relating to the rights of women.
I referred to the impact of that particular policy and those new regulations, but one of the things I neglected to comment on was the fact that involved in that was putting in place a procedure whereby the federal Public Service and the Government are sitting down to bring forward a policy-hopefully we will have an interim report by the end of June-to provide for equal pay for work of equal value in the Public Service for women, minorities, the disabled and native groups. That to my mind is a great step forward and something I am sure the Hon. Member supports and wants to see.
What disturbs me, of course, is that the Hon. Member and the Government he was part of had a long, long time to bring forward legislation of that sort. They had 16 years rather than six months to do it in. For some reason the Hon. Member and the former Government did not do that. Now, for an unexplained reason, he is being highly critical of the initiatives of our Government in those respects. I hope the Hon. Member will look at these things and give credit where credit is due. We tried to do that in the past whenever his Government brought forward good initiatives. I am sure the Hon. Member will do the same for us.


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, April 17, 1982 was certainly a landmark date in terms of the proclamation of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Toward that

March 28, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
end hundreds, perhaps thousands, of minority groups and individuals came to Ottawa, at great expense, to make their views known to the Government. Hundreds and thousands of other individuals wrote to the Government on the various issues that this Bill addresses. The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) indicated that he has met with a number of individuals and groups in his constituency.
1 would like to follow up on the earlier question that was asked of him and ask what he can tell those minority interest groups that are once again being asked to come before another committee. Perhaps on April 17, 1982 they thought that they were given a special privilege which others did not have and that some social equality was being undertaken. They assumed that on the proclamation date of April 17, 1982 that would come to be. What can he tell those groups when they are now invited by the Government to come back to repeat the same story they told the Government and Parliament only three years ago? How can we justify calling those groups in again when we heard that message loud and clear the first time?
Mir. Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to answer that question. I believe the consultations which occurred previously were directed specifically to the general principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those principles were not brought into effect, as far as equality rights are concerned, as of April 17, 1982; they will only come into effect on April 17, 1985. On April 17, 1985 you, I and all Members of the House will be able to tell those groups that at long last they do have the rights and freedoms on which they made their positions known in 1981 and 1982. Those rights will finally come to fruition.
At that time they were dealing with the general principles which I had always felt we had in our law. However, apparently we do not and will not until April 17 of this year. They came to make their views known on those general principles. At the same time, no doubt, they made known their views on particular issues and items of concern to them. Now, within the framework of a general principle that guarantees equality for all, they will have the right to put forward those views and have them shaped within that context and finally dealt with. Hopefully, they will all come away from the round of consultations which is about to commence very pleased and content that this is the country which we always thought it to be, a country where equality reigns and a country that we can all be very proud of.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-27, an Act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was fortunate enough to have been a member of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons when Canada's Constitution was before it. At that time groups of handicapped persons appeared before that committee to argue for inclusion of their rights and for exclusion of discriminatory practices that had gone on in this country for very many years. I also sat as a member of the Justice Committee which was finally able to convince the then
Government to include prohibitions of discrimination against disabled individuals on all grounds whereas previously the only exclusion had been in the area of employment.
I was also a member of the special House of Commons Committee on the Disabled and Handicapped which produced a report entitled Obstacles which was tabled in the House. That report was highly praised by Members on all sides of the House and by disabled groups and individuals across the country. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this report has become something of a bible in terms of issues affecting the disabled community in countries across the world. I mention that for a number of reasons. In Bill C-27 the Government missed a golden opportunity finally to do something that would be of great benefit to the disabled and handicapped community in the country.
Other speakers have addressed issues of equality with respect to women's issues and others. I do not want to repeat those arguments except to say that I am in agreement with much of what has been said. In so far as the disabled are concerned, the Government not only missed an opportunity but appeared to be avoiding accepting any responsibility in this area.
I listened with great interest to the comments of my good friend, the Member for York East (Mr. Redway). I was associated with him before on the Board of Governors of Centennial College in Scarborough and know him very well. He was extolling the virtues of this particular piece of legislation, saying that magically on April 17 every Canadian will be in a position to enjoy every right that previously had been denied to them under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am not as convinced as he apparently is.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, discrimination is a very subtle thing which is very difficult to prove. Simply by saying certain things in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms without having enforceable regulations to accompany them will not magically end the discrimination in several weeks' time when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms comes into full force and effect. I predict that it will not come into full force and effect until there have been many, many court challenges under the provisions of that charter. It will be a very expensive proposition for many groups which simply do not have the financial resources to press the case before the courts.
I express disappointment, not only on the contents of the Bill but also on the discussion paper which was tabled several weeks ago by the Minister of Justice entitled Equality Issues in Federal Law. When I took a look at the discussion points that were put forward by the Department of Justice with respect to disabilities, I found the terminology and language used in those sections to be quite offensive. Throughout the points that it raises, the Justice Department continues to perpetuate the myth that a disabled or handicapped person is somehow ill or sick. The Minister of Justice would be well advised to ask his officials in the Department to obtain some copies of the Obstacles report. I would be happy to send them a copy.
March 28, 1985

The emphasis of that report was to dispel the myth that a person with a disability or a handicap is somehow suffering from an illness. Those people are not ill, they are simply disabled. They are whole in every other respect. However, the thrust of the points made by the Department of Justice in this paper is that they are ill or sick. I find that offensive and it displays a mentality that exists not only in some parts of the Government but in the Canadian public and people elsewhere. We must dispel that myth in order to come to grips with our collective discrimination against people who have a disability.
I would have been impressed if the Minister of Justice had said that in order to enforce any rights under the Charter it is necessary to have public funding. Disabled groups simply do not have the funding that is necessary to enable them to press cases before the court finally to determine what their rights are. There is a real need for such funding, which in fact was apparently recognized by the Conservative Party during the last election campaign. During the campaign the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped circulated a questionnaire to every candidate and each Party. Several weeks ago COPOH circulated the response to those questionnaires to all Members of the House.
One of the questions asked of the Government when it was the Official Opposition was if it would support the provision of that kind of defence fund to those organizations and individuals in order to press their cases before the courts. The Conservatives gave the assurance that they would do so but only to organizations concerned with issues which the Government considered to be of national importance.
Organizations do not necessarily reflect the views of individual disabled Canadians at the community level. Surely if the Government still intends to provide those necessary funds for disabled organizations, it should also consider implementing our recommendations in the Obstacles report. Disabled people are quite capable of looking after their own interests.
Why does the Government not consider making funds available to COPOH and other consumer self-help organizations for them to use as advocates on behalf of disabled individuals? We made that recommendation in the Obstacles report. That committee, which was made up of Members from all sides of the House, was totally non-partisan and I hope that anything I am saying now is not construed as being partisan because that is not my intention. I believe that this particular issue, above all, is one that is non-partisan and one which every Member of the House can agree with.
1 do not stand here to say that the NDP is the only Party and 1 am the only Member who cares about disabled individuals because I know that that is not the case. For instance, I know that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crosbie) was quite concerned and interested in the committee's report with respect to disabilities affecting the native population. Their difficulties are entirely different from those facing disabled individuals living in urban communities. In northern communities, for example, the fact that
Statute Law Amendment Act
there are no roads makes it extremely difficult to be mobile in a wheelchair. Transportation costs make it very expensive to own or repair a wheelchair in the north, and when one considers that disabled people are at the low end of the income scale, it becomes virtually impossible for that individual to have the kind of mobility that such a device makes available to them. I know that the Minister is aware of these problems facing native peoples and wants to address them.
The assumptions made in the discussion paper entitled Equality Issues in Federal Law are unfortunate. There is a bald statement that individuals who are disabled may not be suited to be employed in Canada's Armed Forces. I see absolutely no reason why an individual who is confined to a wheelchair could not be employed by the Armed Forces in the communications area. No one even argues that a person in a wheelchair should be on the front line in an infantry troop, but we must open our minds and stop assuming that a disabled person has every opportunity closed to them. Surely a better approach would be to consider how best we can assist a disabled person to fit into an employment field rather than putting up other barriers, preventing adequate employment opportunities for him and saying that his disability makes him unemployable in certain categories. I would ask the Department of Justice to reconsider its approach to developing legislation to assist disabled individuals.
With respect to immigration, we heard many witnesses before the Committee on the Disabled and Handicapped. We heard about reuniting families from around the world. Our Government could set an example for other governments in the world by asking if it is fair to continue to deny a family the right to reunite simply because a child whom they were forced to leave in the country from which they emigrated happens to be developmentally handicapped. I suggest that is not fair at all. The argument used for preventing their reunion is that the child is developmentally handicapped-commonly referred to as mentally retarded-and the child would be a burden on the state in terms of health costs. That is the argument which is made. It helps to cement the myth that persons who are developmentally handicapped are somehow mentally ill. They are not, they are mentally disabled.
A young child who was developmentally handicapped appeared before the committee in Vancouver. He made the point that he deeply resented being forced to be represented by the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded. In fact, he wrote his presentation himself; it was one of the best papers presented to the committee. A member of the committee said: "If you don't like being referred to as being mentally retarded, what else would you like to be called?" The child said: "Simply because 1 have an IQ of 60 does not mean to say that I am stupid. Members of Parliament might be stupid but I ain't". The person who asked the question deserved that answer.
In the early stages of the committee hearings we had problems understanding the difficulties faced by these people.

March 28, 1985
Statute Law Amendment Act
By the end of the hearings we certainly had a greater and much deeper degree of understanding about what it meant to be disabled in society. If one is not personally involved, one cannot fully understand some of the difficulties of disabled persons because one does not have the disability.
There are several other points I could make, but I do not have much time left. Some of the bodies which make regulations affecting disabled individuals could be forced under pending legislation to start becoming much more sensitive to the needs of various groups. For example, the CRTC makes regulations covering such things as telephones. It has yet to deal in a forthright way with employed individuals who are hard of hearing and who are denied access to telephones because those systems are not compatible with hearing aids. That is an area upon which the Government could move quickly so that the telephones of people with hearing problems could be made compatible and they would be able to maintain employment. Surely the Government could pass legislation which would require that to take place. It is a very simple device. I am no great supporter of Bell Canada, but in this case it is being a very responsible corporate citizen. Bell Canada has made its telephones fully accessible to deaf and hard of hearing people. However, foreign importers of telephones refuse to do that. Surely the Government has a responsibility to tell those importers that if they want to import telephones into Canada they have to be accessible to individuals who require hearing aids in order to function fully in society.
The last point I should like to make would not cost the Government a red cent, not a dime. It should finally do what organizations representing the disabled have been calling for over the last two years. It should establish a subcommittee on disabilities and handicaps of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, for example. These organizations and disabled individuals must have a forum in which to bring their concerns before people who are making decisions on their behalf; in other words, legislators.
I welcome this travelling committee. I think it is a great idea. It will fill a void. It will allow the Government to hear the real concerns of those individuals. I have no qualms about it. In fact, I wish I was a member of the committee. However, the one productive thing which the House could do quickly would be to establish a subcommittee on disabilities and handicaps under the House of Commons Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. It would go a long way toward allowing people who need a voice to be heard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Hon. Member a question. I listened this morning to Hon. Members praising the fact that certain things were changing. They indicated that persons should have mobility rights, the right to work in any part of the country, and not to be discriminated against because of where they live.
The Hon. Member is familiar with the high unemployment areas of Canada. He has visited northern and rural areas. Very
shortly the summer student employment program will start. Because of Section 15 of the Charter, on Monday of this week the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) sent a telex to all Manpower offices in Canada removing the residency requirement as it related to potential employees on summer student employment projects. She indicated that it was no longer a requirement for a student to be resident in a community or an area to which the job related or for which referrals went out. The Hon. Member knows that when grants are given to communities in high unemployment areas, they expect students in the community to work on the grants. In fact, there would be absolute war in some communities where normally jobs are not available if students from major metropolitan areas with available jobs were hired to work in those communities.


Mr. McDermid:: It works the opposite way.


George Baker: I will deal with that Hon. Member this afternoon when the Minister makes her statement on the energy pricing agreement. Does the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) agree with the telex the Minister sent on Monday? There are exceptions to the Charter in terms of affirmative action programs, and the Government approves money to create employment in a high unemployment area. Her telex indicated that this summer the residency requirement would no longer be in place and that Manpower offices would have to match jobs with students across the country by computer. Does the Hon. Member agree with that particular aspect of the Charter?


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the telegram to which the Hon. Member referred. However, as a general principle, I think the community is better able to determine its own priorities by itself.
My concern in terms of employment opportunities does not centre on the summer student employment program. It concerns a number of areas affecting disabled persons. We cannot isolate unemployment and only say that it is the major problem of the disabled community. Of course it is, in that without a job one cannot become a whole person. However, each one of their problems is synonymous with the other. We cannot talk about providing a person with decent and adequate employment without providing them with an education or access to an education. We cannot talk about education and employment without talking about access to transportation, to get them from home and to the job. We cannot talk about adequate employment without talking about deinstitutionalization, getting people into the community and supporting them. All those matters are intertwined. May I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.
March 28, 1985



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday evening, March 14, a tragedy of an unspeakable nature occurred in my constituency. A 19-year-old student by the name of Emmanuel Tavares was shot to death in an attempted holdup while tending to his family's convenience store during the dinner hour. He was described as the type of kid every man would like to have as a son. His father said that he went to school and helped the family. He did not have a girlfriend, only his books; indeed, three or four books were open in front of him at the time of the shooting.
He was a former member of the Sun Youth Organization where he played football and baseball. He was six feet two inches tall, and weighed 250 pounds. He always volunteered to help out if needed, it was said.
At his funeral the parish priest stated that it was in the hands of young people to do something about it; not to waste his life but to make it into something positive and to do something to prevent this kind of tragedy from ever happening again. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) has a private Member's Bill on gun control on the Order Paper, a Bill which will be debated soon. I would hope that Members of the House will allow it to proceed to committee so that we can study the additional steps that may be taken to see that this young man did not die in vain.



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal to prohibit logging on Meares Island until the issue of Indian rights has been addressed is certainly cause for celebration. We can all be happy that some of the oldest, largest stands of cedar in the world, some more than 1,500 years old, are to be saved, at least temporarily, and hopefully permanently, from the mechanized death and destruction of clear cutting that MacMillan Bloedel had in mind.
We can be happy that on the eve of a constitutional conference to determine the nature and shape of the treaty and aboriginal rights of Indian people, a Canadian court has seen fit to make such a decision out of respect for the need to
address the issue of Indian rights. The rights of Indian people are realities which Governments and corporations should not, and in this case now cannot, ignore.
Let us hope that the day comes when Indian people do not have to go to court in order to have their rights respected, and let us hope that the provincial Government in British Columbia will finally see the wisdom of taking their rights seriously and will get down to working out a resource policy that takes Indian rights into account, as well as taking into account the need for protecting ecologically invaluable areas like Meares Island. While it is at it, the British Columbia Government should also declare its support for the proposal to create national marine and terrestrial parks in South Moresby.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Yesterday, at Sainte-Scholastique, Mr. Speaker, we experienced emotionally charged moments when, at 2.20 p.m., after 16 years of struggles, the expropriated landowners of Mirabel signed an agreement protocol to settle one of the many despicable confrontations sparked by the previous administration.
Mr. Speaker, barely six months went by since our Government promised to reach a humanitarian settlement concerning what is widely labelled as a white elephant and a monumental error on the part of the Liberal Government.
No matter what our colleagues in the Opposition may say, consultation and a humane approach to the problems experienced by those people have led to progress in and the impending settlement of this case. Whatever the views of the handful of former Government Members who survived the onslaught, the approach advocated by our Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney-dialogue and consultation-has given and will give results.
When the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) signed this historic agreement yesterday, he proved that our Government is on the right track by being open with the people.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my constituents of Argenteuil-Papineau, and more particularly to my constituents of Mirabel, that the experience I had yesterday was as exciting as the evening of September 4, 1984.

March 28, 1985



GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, we have all read and heard of the many horror stories with regard to government waste and inefficient use of taxpayers' funds. Such waste amounts to the millions of dollars. I know that all of us here in the House are concerned. I know that taxpayers across the country are concerned. Therefore I am seeking the assistance of all Hon. Members of the House in supporting a motion that I am having drafted at the present time and will be placing on the Order Paper, a motion which will allow the federal Government to install, from coast to coast, a hotline to a special department or agency in Ottawa that would take complaints or suggestions on government waste as Canadians see and observe it firsthand.
It is my firm conviction that, in this way, taxpayers can be encouraged to protect their investment in the federal Government of Canada, their tax dollars, by observing what is happening in the hinterlands of this great country of ours. It is also my contention that federal government employees would be encouraged to use the hotline to report government waste as they observe it within the Departments-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



THE PRIME MINISTER


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I share the sentiment of the many Canadians who expressed shock and dismay when they realized that Her Excellency the Governor General, Madame Jeanne Sauve, would not participate in ceremonies surrounding the visit of the President of the United States.
It has been alleged that Mr. Reagan's visit was a working visit, not an official visit from a head of State, but the welcoming ceremonies for the American President definitely made it look otherwise. What every Canadian ought to know, Mr. Speaker, is that our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), cheap, self-centred and jealous, was afraid that the media and the TV cameras would focus coverage on a great lady, our Governor General, Madame Jeanne Sauve, Indeed, I am convinced that such a cheap behaviour will be the downfall of the Prime Minister and gradually undermine his evident hopes of being a great statesman one day.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, as of April 1 of this year Canadian workers who, through no fault of their own will lose their jobs, will be dealt yet another economic blow. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has decreed that severance and vacation pay will now be used to reduce UIC payouts to the workers. Clearly this step is an outright theft of the equity that these workers have built up over their work life.
In the community of Ear Falls, the corporate sector, with the blessing of the Government, has closed a mine, thus putting hundreds out of work. Some of these workers were laid off before the decision to which I referred was made, and are therefore able to retain their profits from their work. Others who are to be laid off after April 1 will lose their equity.
In the community of Atikokan, construction of the hydro project is winding down and the workers there will lose their vacation benefits in order to prop up the Unemployment Insurance Fund.
The citizens of Canada do not accept this regressive attack on workers and their families, as evidenced by the petitions we have tabled over the last number of days. Many of those who have been laid off in Ear Falls and Atikokan will not find jobs easily. They do need the full benefit of UIC, payments as well as their savings throught vacation and severance pay. On behalf of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry), and myself, I call on the Conservative Government to rescind this regressive decision.



CHARTER OF RIGHTS


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people have now recognized how confidently and methodically the Government is working to restore economic and social health to our country. Our recovery is a reality, because Canadians are sure that effort and enterprise will be fairly rewarded, and because the rules of the game are being upheld by the Government in a just, consistent, and reliable way. The process of renewal, as well as the everyday life of our country, are conducted on the basis of certain principles enumerated within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have risen to speak because I believe our Charter has a serious flaw.
Within any system that relies on incentive, investment, and enterprise, something important is missing when there is no guarantee of the right to private property. We are fortunate enough to live in a stable country where this right is not overtly threatened; we all exercise it more or less freely. But each day, more and more rules, regulations, legislation, and by-laws hamper the activities that should be protected by this liberty which is traditionally defined as a fundamental right,
March 28, 1985

and as such must be positively protected. Only by including it in the Constitution will this liberty take its place beside other basic freedoms.
Let us take a progressive step by instituting the right for all Canadians to purchase or acquire property in full knowledge that this liberty has the approval and protection of our Charter. To ignore the protection of private property is to disregard one of the greatest assurances of freedom and prosperity our country enjoys today.

[ Translation]



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS THE NEW FEDERALISM

Ms. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take advantage of this opportuniry to salute our new Canadian federalism, the components of which were clear for all to see last month during the First Ministers' Conference in Regina. As a Member of this House, I had the privilege of attending the Conference as an observer. I am proud to be part of a Government that speaks with one voice, a Government that favours change within the Canadian federal system and which has taken the right approach and the appropriate means to get along with the provincial governments. This new strategy has already born fruit.
Whether we are talking about the agreement with Quebec on tourism and industrial development, worth $1.6 billion, or the agreement with Nova Scotia worth $200 million or the important agreement signed on February 11 of this year with the Province of Newfoundland-the Atlantic Accord-there has already been a visible change in the area of federal-provincial relations.
Mr. Speaker, for years the Liberals refused to sign agreements that did not fit in with their centralist approach. Since the Progressive Conservative Government came to power, Canadians have seen a new openness on the part of their Government in Ottawa. They are also seeing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but her time has expired. The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of this House to a fundamental question that today is affecting 70,000 pork producers in Canada. Two
weeks ago, the Prime Minister and the President of the United States were drinking champagne together, but today the champagne has turned sour for 70,000 pork producers in Canada. Since this morning, the markets have been panicking, not only in Toronto but also in Montreal, and pork producers . . . and I see the Parliamentary Secretary who should be listening instead of shouting. The Parliamentary Secretary ought to realize that hog producers in Quebec and across Canada are on the brink of bankruptcy as a result of a unilateral decision made by the U.S. Government, and that unless drastic steps are taken today to save Canada's pork industry, it will be the Government's fault, for smiling and talking instead of making tangible gains. When it comes to taking action, the American Government thinks nothing of imposing a special tax on Canadian products.
Mr. Speaker, I predict that today, the price of pork will drop by more than 10 per cent, and within the next few days, there is going to be a major crisis for which the Members opposite will be responsible, if they neglect to react when Americans are up to dirty tricks against Canada.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a historic occasion, and I say historic because at long last people who bear the scars of sixteen years of unrelenting struggles can now look forward to a better future. I am referring, of course, to the expropriated landowners of Mirabel.
I want to congratulate the Minister of Public Works, the Hon. Roch La Salle, who in five months-yes, only five months-has shown that goodwill, fairness and justice could pave the way for a most humanitarian agreement.
It was simply a matter of sitting down and discussing so as to hear and understand one another. And the trademark of our Government and of our leader, the Right Hon. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, is a policy of dialogue, consultation, compassion and humanism.
Unlike the previous administration which was unable to settle this case, the Progressive Conservative Government did proceed with diligence and efficiency, finally closing the book on this contentious issue which had lasted long enough.

March 28, 1985
Oral Questions



REFUGEES


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in Canada there are over 12,000 people who are waiting to have their status as refugees determined by the Government. Over 2,000 of those people are awaiting a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which will decide whether they have the right to an oral hearing that, until now, has been denied to them. All observers who have studied the matter agree that those people have that right. Thousands more may enter into the same danger.
I call on the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), first, to publish the report by Rabbi Plaut, which has been due for many months. She should cease the delaying of that publication. Second, I would ask that the Supreme Court decision be put before the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, if and when it is published, and that the committee be asked to recommend action on the matter of oral hearings at once.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister told me yesterday that the Deputy Prime Minister failed to inform the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs about the American invitation to take part in the research on star wars because Luxembourg is in a different time zone from Ottawa, and because-using the Prime Minister's words-"not everything is instantaneous".
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister were there no telephones in Luxembourg? Did the Deputy Prime Minister not know how to dial long distance? Or, did the Deputy Prime Minister deliberately want to let his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, look ridiculous?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at two things. One is that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition did not welcome me back.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The second thing is that he would embark on splitting five and ten-minute hairs in time zones, rather than address the more important and substantial political and strategic dimensions of what we were discussing in Luxembourg with NATO Defence Ministers.
The Prime Minister was quite right. The time zone was one factor. I think the other factor which has been mentioned is that of telephone security. The Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I that we have no mission in Luxembourg, and that the discussions which take place within the four walls of the conference centre on matters of this nature are NATO secrets. The fact of the matter is that, as soon as I learned that the substance and/or text of the letter, which I received very late in the afternoon, was indeed public in North America, the text of that letter was communicated over open telephone lines to the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: At an ungodly hour of the morning.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, at an ungodly hour of the morning, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs advises me. It was ungodly at this end, but not ungodly at the other end.


NOTIFICATION OF SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to the Deputy Prime Minister for not welcoming him back. The question I would ask him is: did Joe welcome him back?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The time zone reference is really a reference from the Prime Minister, but I wanted to get on the same linkage as the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us the famous comedy duo of Canadian politics.
The Government is turning the conduct of foreign policy into a Broadway farce. Knowing, as the Deputy Prime Minister did, that star wars is uppermost in the minds of Canadians, why did he so arrange the communication between himself and the Secretary of State for External Affairs so as to leave his colleague in the dark? Does he not know that simple dialling of the telephone would have cost the Canadian Government only $4.50 to let his colleague know what was happening?


Erik Nielsen: The right hon. gentleman might believe in that kind of abbreviated form of communication, but that certainly is not my style. I spent a good deal longer than that on the telephone with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and can assure the right hon. gentleman that the text of that letter was conveyed to him at the earliest, proper, and available opportunity.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: I bet you did.
March 28, 1985


Erik Nielsen: But I am still really waiting for questions of substance on the real issues involved here to be asked by a responsible Opposition.


John Napier Turner: We ask those questions of substance in the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister.


MINISTER'S FORTHCOMING VISIT TO U.S.S.R.
John Napier Turner: The
Secretary of State for External Affairs, as the Deputy Prime Minister knows, is going off on a visit to the Soviet Union with a few of his own colleagues. That ought to be a classic visit. May I ask that the Deputy Prime Minister, if anything changes in the picture of the defence posture of our country while the Secretary of State for External Affairs is away, would he be good enough to telephone his colleague in Moscow? I have here a booklet called Canadian Representatives Abroad, and the telephone number of our embassy in Moscow is 241-9155. Would the Deputy Prime Minister please keep his colleague informed so as to avoid future embarrassment of this kind for the Government of our country?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, not only will I continue to do that but, where appropriate, if the right hon. gentleman will leave me his telephone number, I will telephone him as well.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. There are reports that today in Tokyo the Japanese Department of International Trade and Industry announced that, as part of a new arrangement with the United States, it had agreed to increase the export of Japanese cars to that country by 24 per cent. Would the Minister tell us if the Government has agreed, or will it agree, to the same arrangement with Canada with respect to the export of Japanese cars to our country? Or is it going to speak up on behalf of Canadian workers and tell Japan that the quotas must remain, unless and until Japan makes commitments to ensure for Canada a fair share of Canadian content in Japanese cars, particularly with respect to a fair share of North American investment by Japan in Canada in jobs and production? Will the Government speak for Canada in that way?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, if I may respond to the Hon. Member, I can tell him he is quite correct in referring to the statement which has been made in Tokyo. The Government of Canada will have an announcement with respect to this matter
Oral Questions
tomorrow. I can once again assure the Hon. Member that we will take his representations into account.


TRADE ARRANGEMENTS INQUIRY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister not tell us right now what is going to happen on March 31 ? Is the Government going to allow a sudden flooding of the Canadian market by Japanese cars after that date, threatening the loss of 20,000 jobs? If the Government is ready to make an announcement, will it make it now and show it is able to do something for the Canadian people, particularly the Canadian workers?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would have expected that the Hon. Member would have liked us to have taken his representation into account before we make an announcement. The announcement will be made tomorrow.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it goes back to the substance of star wars. Surely the Minister realizes that research inevitably leads to development and deployment. He has only to look, for example, at the MX missile and many others, on both sides. Therefore, pursuit of star wars will mean abandoning deterrence, threatening the ABM Treaty and diverting money and resources to an armed race in space. Acknowledging all that, as I am sure the Minister will, why will he not say, no, now, to star wars?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not share the assumptions of the Hon. Member, nor do any of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty organization which she now wants to join.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, if Canada would take a little initiative within the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, perhaps I would look at it, but not as long as we behave as the Tories and Liberals behave. Denmark is the only country which has any spine.


JOB CREATION FACTOR
Pauline Jewett: Since the Minister seems to be having difficulty addressing the substance of the star wars proposal, may I turn to the remark of the Prime Minister about it being such a great job creator? Does the Minister frankly believe that work on military research and production creates more jobs per dollar than work in socially productive and consumer oriented activities?

March 28, 1985
Oral Questions
If not-and the evidence shows that it does not create more jobs-why is the Government pursuing star wars as a great job creator? Why is it following this totally fallacious and morally corrupt line?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, to summarize what has been said on thousands-on several occasions in the House of Commons-


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: That's better.
my meetings with Mr. Gromyko, and I will bring back what I learn to the Hon. Member and to other Hon. Members in the House.

* *


AGREEMENT WITH WESTERN PROVINCES
Charles Joseph Clark: It seems like thousands. We accept the view that when the Soviet Union is involved in research relating to what could broadly be called its "strategic defence initiative", it is prudent for our side, for the NATO alliance, to be involved in research of that kind.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: So much for escalation.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is point number one. Second, as we have indicated before in the House of Commons, the interpretation of the ABM Treaty is an interpretation which allows research. That is all that Canada has approved. Third, as the Hon. Member will know, we have now received an inviation to consider taking part in that research. That is consistent with the ABM Treaty. Any research in which Canada might be involved also means jobs for Canadians. We would not turn it aside because it meant jobs for Canadians.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy and concerns the recently signed oil pricing agreement with the western provinces. In view of the fact that this document has far reaching effects on the people of the Province of Ontario, and in view of the Government's professed commitment to consultation with the provinces, will the Minister tell this House why the leader of the largest oil-consuming province in the country, the Premier of Ontario, was not consulted on the details of this agreement, as he has stated himself?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member that I will be making a statement, after Question Period, on the western accord.


U.S.S.R. POSITION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs not agree that the Soviets do not want to get engaged in a race in space?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Wendele Shields: Take off the red glasses.


Pauline Jewett: Hon. Members simply do not know the facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: It has had a moratorium-and the Minister knows this-on the development of ASAP weapons. It has had a moratorium on the development of ASAPs. The United States has not. It wants space weapons on the agenda-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, does the Hon. Member have a question?


Pauline Jewett: If they would settle down.
I am asking the Minister if he will not, in his talks in the Soviet Union with Mr. Gromyko, pursue this question-which his colleagues doubt-about the Soviet desires in relation to outer space, and bring back that knowledge and information to his colleagues and to this House?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, of course I will pursue that question in


FINANCE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance. Could the Minister give Canadian consumers, especially those in Ontario, the assurance that they will be spared an increase of as much as 23 cents a gallon in the price of gas, in the Budget that, by sheer coincidence, is to be tabled a few days after the provincial election in Ontario? Can the Minister give us that assurance?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Minister of Energy will be addressing most of these questions in her statement after Question Period, and I think it will be quite clear to the Member opposite that the effect of this energy agreement will not be an increase for the consumer.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minis-
March 28, 1985

ter. In spite of some rather euphoric press reports, the federal Government is not proposing to entrench the right of aboriginal peoples to self-government except where such rights are defined by agreement with the provinces. There is no commitment to a time-frame or agenda in order to reach any such agreement. Again, aboriginal people will have to bargain from a position of weakness. If no agreement is reached, they will have to start all over from scratch. Is the Government prepared to recognize explicitly the right of aboriginal peoples to self-government, and will it alter the federal proposal to do so?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is probably aware, we have had two preparatory meetings at the ministerial level with aboriginal groups and Ministers from all provinces. They have been very, very good discussions. The federal proposal as it was at that stage was distributed at that time, and I can assure the Hon. Member that the meeting next week on April 2 or April 3 will be very productive for the rights of Indian people.


FEDERAL ROLE
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The question has not been asked, but I would-


Some Hon. Members:: You're telling us!


James Douglas Manly: The question has not been answered.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You were right the first time.


James Douglas Manly: The previous question was not answered, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he is aware that the Province of British Columbia was not even represented at yesterday's meeting? Is the Government prepared to use some of its authority and moral suasion to deal with the recalcitrant provinces and ensure that they get on board on the whole question of entrenching aboriginal rights? Or is it simply going to work for the lowest common denominator of what the recalcitrant provinces are willing to accept?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I think the track record of this Government in bringing consensus to all parts of the country, involving all provinces, shows that it has the ability to do so at the conference next week.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As he knows, the
Oral Questions
National Council on Welfare released a study yesterday which shows that some four million Canadians live below the poverty line. Those poor in our society realize that your spending priorities are for 20 per cent pay increases for your political hack appointees-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: -some 54 per cent increases in the salaries of your chiefs of staff, but the poor in our country-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Speaker is not a hack. Order.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: -but the poor in our country want to know, Mr. Speaker, where do the problems of the poor rank in your list of spending priorities?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that it is not only the intention of this Government but I think of every Canadian to see the economy improve in order that poverty can be reduced. I think that is a given, and that is a political priority of this Party, of the Minister of Finance, indeed of all of us. The major impact on poverty would be from getting the economy turned around, creating more jobs and creating economic wealth.


CONSEQUENCES OF OIL AGREEMENT WITH WESTERN PROVINCES
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister therefore give a guarantee to this House that in the May 20 Budget the poor in our society are going to be protected from that oil energy agreement just signed with western Canada?


Jack Wendele Shields: That is why you are sitting where you are now.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will tell the Hon. Member that, first of all, getting an oil agreement with the provinces is going to help the country create the very jobs I spoke about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: What about the poor?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The second point I would make is that we lost jobs because of their National Energy Program, which hurt the poor. Surely he knows enough about social policy to know that you cannot have such an artificial economy as they tried to create, which hurt the poor more than anything else.

March 28, 1985
Oral Questions


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and has to do with star wars. In view of the fact that there is confusion, not only here but in the U.S. and in Europe, with respect to this research and its horrendous implications, would the Deputy Prime Minister be prepared to submit the issue of Canada's entry into a research agreement with the United States to the appropriate House committee so that parliamentarians would have some very significant input into the Government's ultimate decision?


Erik Nielsen: Well, consistent with our desire, unlike the previous Government, to see matters of significant import such as this one obtain the fullest possible public discussion, of course we would want to generate House input, and the input of the standing committee and others. But in the final analysis it is the committee itself which will have to make that kind of request, rather than us imposing an agenda on the committee. Certainly if such a request is received, it will be given every consideration.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I thank the Hon. Minister for his answer. I have to assume that if a committee did request a House order he would not oppose it. I assume that is the substance of his answer.


CANADIAN SUPPORT
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief supplementary. The Prime Minister has been quoted as saying that a majority of Canadians are supportive of the SDI concept. I would like to know what evidence the Government has to support that assertion, and would it please table it?


Erik Nielsen: To answer the first part of the question first, if the committee comes to the conclusion that it wishes to examine this or any other current matter in the public domain and before Parliament, we would expect to receive a request from the committee when it is considering what kind of reference it wishes to have. It would be at that point that we could give the matter attention. I would suggest that the logical point to start would be in the committee itself, in the steering committee.
With respect to the larger question of support or non-support for the specific research program of SDI, we are well aware that there are significant political and strategic implications to the research program which, in all probability, certainly judging from the questions from the Official Opposition and from what I have read, really have not gone to the core of the issue. It would seem to me to be most important for Members to be conducting that kind of dialogue in committee rather than in the House of Commons.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue who is responsible for the Post Office. As the Minister is aware, because of questions put to him previously, there are persons in Canada Post who are indicating there will not be additional mail carriers hired. I look to the Minister for the assurance that this will not be the case, so that all Canadians are treated equally and growth areas in Canada will be provided an "essential service", as it is labelled by Treasury Board.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Did
you ever notice, Mr. Speaker, that if you really want to get a tough question you have to go to this side of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: I know that Members on all sides of the House share the Hon. Member's priority for providing the best possible service to postal customers. Obviously there is a trade-off which the Post Office has to make at a time when a massive deficit is being run. The Post Office will be coming before the parliamentary committee to defend its Estimates. At that time perhaps the Hon. Member, and others, could raise these matters and give the Post Office their guidance on where the priorities should lie.
There is some allocation in the Budget this year for increased service to households, as well.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General, and it concerns the Richard Hatfield affair.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: Hon. Members wanted a tough question, and I am going to give them a tough question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: Canadians are still waiting for answers. They are waiting for the internal RCMP investigation into the Hatfield affair. On Tuesday of this week we learned that this internal report is substantially complete. However, we were shocked to learn that Premier Hatfield was not personally interviewed in the course of the investigation.
In view of the very serious allegations made by Premier Hatfield concerning the conduct of the RCMP, accusing the RCMP of being a party to a conspiracy to overthrow him and his Government, would the Solicitor General not agree that it
March 28, 1985

is absolutely imperative that the RCMP personally interview Premier Hatfield to determine whether there is any substance to those most serious allegations, and to clear the good name of the RCMP?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, and that is supposed to be a tough question? I would hope the Hon. Member would not expect me to undermine public confidence in the Commissioner of the RCMP by directing him on what he should or should not do in terms of this particular internal review.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General undermined public confidence in our criminal justice system. His conduct continues to be disgraceful and deplorable in this matter.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS TO RCMP
John V. Nunziata: Will the Solicitor General immediately instruct the RCMP to investigate Premier Hatfield's allegations fully? Will he instruct the RCMP to interview Premier Hatfield personally?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Member, who continues to demonstrate that his reach concerning this issue far exceeds his grasp of it, the answer is no.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


TRUST COMPANIES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Could we have some order, Mr. Speaker? My question is in relation to Pioneer Trust which the Government allowed to collapse a few weeks ago. I have in my hand a letter from a retired Saskatchewan farmer who informs me that he put all of his assets into two guaranteed income averaging certificates, one for a six year term and one for a seven year term. He did so with no hesitation, knowing that he could be fully insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation for those particular deposits.
Is the Minister aware that this retired farmer, and perhaps hundreds like him, will not be reimbursed for one single cent of their savings because they were not informed by Pioneer Trust that the CDIC only insures investments of this kind for five years? If she is aware of that, can she tell us what assistance she will give to this retired farmer, and hundreds of ordinary Canadians like him, who have lost their entire savings because of what Pioneer Trust did?
Oral Questions


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, no one is more concerned about the people who save money in this country than I am, and that includes retired farmers. I am aware of the situation that the Hon. Member raises. I have looked at the legislation and discussed it with my officials. I have informed him, time and again, that I am in constant conversation with officials in Saskatchewan. The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation legislation is clear, but I am still discussing the situation with the Province of Saskatchewan.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I do not want sympathy. I want action from the Minister across the way.


TIME LIMIT ON INSURANCE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I had a chance to talk to this farmer on the telephone yesterday. He told me that his application for these two guaranteed income averaging certificates have a standard CDIC stamp on them saying that his investment was insured. They are stamped "insured".
The Minister responsible says she has looked into the case. Can she inform the House why Pioneer Trust was allowed to ignore the CDIC by-law which states that member institutions must clearly refer to the five-year limit guarantee for investments of this kind? Why was it allowed to do that? Can she also tell the House very clearly whether or not she will compensate these innocent victims of Pioneer Trust?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have informed the Member before that I am looking into this matter with the Province of Saskatchewan and with the officials of my Department. I would also like to point out that one of the first things I did after taking office was to appoint a committee to study the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and its operations. I share the concern of the Hon. Member for people like his constituent.


OLYMPICS
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. It is with regard to the Winter Olympics which will be held in Calgary in 1988. The Chairman of that committee stated that it will not cost taxpayers 1 cent. Can the Minister assure the House that this will be true?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that there will be no deficit financing of the games because there will not be a deficit. As the Chairman of the Olympic Organization Committee, Mr. Frank King, said: "We will only spend $1 Billion if we raise $1 billion and invest it in the games". I applaud that attitude, because bigger and better games are going to be beneficial for Calgary and Canada, and will leave

March 28, 1985
Oral Questions
a tremendous incentive and legacy for our youth, and amateur athletics as a whole.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. A federal government position paper dated March 26 seems to indicate that the Government may be ready to advocate the recognition of aboriginal self-government and entrench it in our Constitution. However, like so many government documents, it is not clear at all. It hedges and fudges quite a bit.
I would like the Minister to clarify this for us. Is the Government of Canada going to advocate, at the First Ministers' Conference, that the right to aboriginal self-government be entrenched in the Constitution as an inherent right? Or, do all these ifs, ands, and buts in the document mean that all we are going to do is transfer to aboriginal people some administrative duties and responsibilities? If that is all it means, we do not need a constitutional conference.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as I think the Hon. Member is aware, according to the papers the document he has is a "leaked" document. Since it is a "leaked" document by definition, it is fair for me to say that I probably do not know what it is. If I knew what it was, it would not be "leaked". I am not sure exactly what the Hon. Member is saying since I do not have a copy of the document he has in his hand.
With regard to the question about self-government, I think the Hon. Member would be the first to insist that the discussion ought to occur and the information ought to flow between the Government, the provinces, and the aboriginal people. We will do it at the appropriate time.


FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. Unless we will have a recognition of the inherent right of aboriginal people to self-government, and unless the provinces are prepared to go along with such a progressive position as may be in this document, then all we will have next Tuesday and Wednesday is another public relations exercise, which the Tories are so good at.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member won't mind if I remind him that the previous conferences in 1983 and 1984 were run by his Party and, by all standards, they were lacking in success.
I can assure him that on April 2 and April 3, if he would give us a little hope and charity, he will find some success which his own Party was unable to deliver.


UNITED STATES ACTION AGAINST CANADIAN PORK EXPORTS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. He will remember that a week and one-half ago there was much bally-hoo about the new relationship between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States and between the Government of Canada and the administration in the United States. I understood the import of that to be that Canadians were going to benefit from this brand new and cozy relationship. Why, then, are the Minister's friends in the administration in the United States shafting our hog producers?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: I must apologize, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear the Hon. Member's question. I thought it was directed to the Minister of International Trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It was.


John Wise: However, I would like to utilize this opportunity to respond to the question.


Mr. Riis:: You have no idea what the question is but you will say something anyway.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is a little difficult for the Chair to accept that a Minister can respond to a question which he did not hear. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, on a supplementary question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


IMPACT ON CANADA
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, but I asked the original question of the Minister for International Trade. He does not seem to understand that it is his responsibility. Therefore I will also ask him how many Canadians will be sacrificed before the Minister and the Government understand that the new relationship works in only one direction, in favour of the United States of America and against the Canadian best interest?
March 28, 1985


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I am now certain that I heard enough of the last question to know that indeed the Hon. Member was absolutely wrong, because it really points out the need for closer co-operation and, indeed, further meetings with the President and the United States, to resolve these problems in the future. There is no question about that at all.
The Hon. Member must remember that this is a situation that started in 1984. I believe we should take some satisfaction in the fact that the President of the United States indicated that on his return to the United States he would do everything possible to eliminate these situations from taking place in the future.


AGRICULTURE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister says that the American President went back to the United States and did what he could. He can thank the President for unilaterally slapping on a tax of 5.3 cents per pound. If that is the kind of help this Government wants from the President of the United States, Canadian farmers are not likely to forget it.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have barely managed to sleep off their Irish coffee when we get a tax of 5.3 cents per pound. The Minister of Agriculture must be aware of the fact that since this morning, the markets are in a panic, the price of pork has dropped nearly 10 cents and millions of dollars worth of orders have been cancelled. What has the Minister done this morning to deal with a crisis that is going to ruin the pork producing industry?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I think we should recognize that this question was raised yesterday outside the House and I responded to it yesterday. I indicated that I am extremely disappointed that this action was taken by the United States Government. However, it should be noted that it is a preliminary action and, of course, we will not know the final outcome until June or July.
We should also recognize that there are some very legitimate reasons why fairly substantial volumes of pork are moving to the United States, to the extent of approximately 20 per cent of our domestic production. Most will realize that the major contributing factor is that there is a substantial difference in the dollar. There are lower labour costs in U.S. plants, and American slaughter operations can buy the types of hogs from Canadian sources that their market requires.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Minister that his answer is not worth a pig's squeal to producers in Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, during his visit, President Reagan told the Prime Minister he was as close as his telephone. Has the Minister of Agriculture approached the Prime Minister to ask him to call President Reagan immediately before the entire agricultural industry is flat on its back?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member and, indeed, his opposition colleague, continue to ignore the obvious facts in this case. This action began in 1984 and the Hon. Member should recognize that, indeed, the lines of communication are always open and they are utilized at every possible opportunity when we think it will be in the best interests of domestic producers. I can assure the Hon. Member that we intend to utilize every line of communication to resolve this problem positively, in favour of Canada's pork producers.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, if he could return to his seat.
Yesterday, Bell Helicopter announced there will be a one-year delay in production start-up at its plant in Mirabel. When the Minister met with the directors of the company, did he mention the fact that the company president announced he would be hiring only 600 people instead of delivering 2,100 jobs as promised?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I think this unfortunate misunderstanding that has occurred with respect to the number of jobs comes partly from the rather inaccurate advertising that the previous Government put out concerning this particular development.
The job expectation of 3,000 jobs or 2,000 jobs that is generally referred to is over a fairly long timeframe. The number of jobs that are being specifically talked about today and committed to are for a shorter timeframe and not dissimilar to the original announcement that was made at the time the Bell helicopter deal was originally entered into.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister has acknowledged that there

March 28, 1985
Petitions
is confusion, that the project has been delayed a year, and that the company itself has made varying statements with respect to how much it is putting up, will the Minister support a public inquiry at this stage to get to the bottom of this whole set of confused facts and relationships?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member will not contribute to the confusion to which he is referring. The fact is that this project is proceeding. With respect to the time delays, it is not that unusual to have some time delays in a high technology deal. The management has assured me that it is as committed today as it was then to put up the money that was originally anticipated. In short, if the Hon. Members and others will be patient, I believe that this may well be one of the more successful endeavours that Canada has helped sponsor.


HOUSING
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. A large number of my constituents are very concerned about the mortgages on their homes. What will the Minister of Finance do about the high interest rates which these young people are having to face?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I waited throughout Question Period for a question concerning interest rates. I am sure Hon. Members will be very pleased to know that the Bank of Canada rate is down over a half of one per cent this week.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is on top of the half of one per cent of last week, or over one per cent in two weeks. As I said to the House about four weeks ago, by the end of this month I expected that interest rates would come down, and I am very pleased to report that they have.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of two, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, March 27, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and by the Hon. Member for Rich-mond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, what House business does my hon. friend propose for the coming week?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members will know, after a rigorous session we are looking forward to a recess so that we will be able to return to our constituencies for Easter, commencing on April 3. We have pieces of legislation of some importance with which we should like to deal prior to that time.
Full and active discussions took place yesterday and today. Correspondence has been exchanged among the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party. As well, there have been discussions among House Leaders concerning the business for the balance of today and tomorrow.
On the basis of an agreement on the part of all Parties, it is my proposal to introduce legislation for first reading at the appropriate time today. It is a Bill with respect to the Canadian Commercial Bank. With unanimous consent, we could move to second reading of that legislation immediately upon Orders of the Day being called. The understanding of the Parties is that we would complete second reading consideration in all respects this afternoon.
The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part), who was supposed to bring forward a motion under Private Members' Hour has graciously agreed to postpone consideration of his motion, which would mean that we would have that hour for consideration of this legislation on second reading.
Tomorrow the House could revert again to this piece of legislation and consider it at all remaining stages, including Committee of the Whole consideration, to allow a full discussion of the Bill.
As part of this arrangement the New Democratic Party brought forward the suggestion, which is supported by the Official Opposition, that after the Bill has been passed and Royal Assent given, I bring forward a reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. We hope Royal Assent will be obtained at the end of the day tomorrow, as the other place will have an opportunity to preconsider the legislation. After full consultation and approval on the part of both Opposition House Leaders, I will bring forward this reference concerning the matters leading up to this legislation and indeed the legislation itself. This will provide Hon. Members with an opportunity to consider the circumstances leading up to the legislation which will be brought forward for consideration today. In brief, that is what I propose for today and tomorrow.
As far as business for next week is concerned, there are a number of items which I will have to wait until tomorrow to discuss with Opposition House Leaders and with Hon. Mem-
March 28, 1985

bers in general. We do have the Bill which we were considering this morning. Indeed, other pieces of legislation may come forward at the beginning of the week. I will discuss the matter with Opposition House Leaders and announce tomorrow the business for next week.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition would like to see the House expedite consideration of the Bill dealing with the rescue of the Canadian Commercial Bank. We are certainly willing to have the Bill go through all stages by the close of business of the House on Friday. However, I should like to suggest and have it confirmed that second reading start at five o'clock in lieu of Private Members' Hour. We know that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has a statement to make on motions today. It is of some importance, and there will be replies to it by Opposition spokesmen and questions. This might take us very close to Private Members' Hour anyway. Certainly we are ready to undertake that second reading be completed today. We would like most of tomorrow to be devoted to Committee of the Whole stage.
With respect to the terms of reference of a motion dealing with the circumstances leading up to this Bill to the appropriate committee for study, I should like to consult with my hon. friend on some changes in the terms of reference which will make them more acceptable to the Official Opposition.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I know that this is not the time when you will be seeking the necessary unanimous consent to allow the House to proceed with second reading, but I want to indicate that the House Leaders of the Government and of the Official Opposition and I discussed the possibility of proceeding in the way the Government House Leader indicated today.
I want to make it clear that our agreement to proceed today is in recognition of the potential for an even greater disaster in the banking community. It is not an acceptance of this particular method of handling these kinds of unfortunate circumstances. We do not agree that the Government has acted appropriately but, since this is the action to be taken, it should be taken swiftly.
The terms of reference to allow the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to go into the details of the conditions and circumstances which led up to the near collapse of the Canadian Commercial Bank are an integral part of our agreement to proceed expeditiously with the passage of the Bill. I believe, as do my colleagues, that it is vitally important at this point to review very seriously what occurred within the Canadian Commercial Bank and the banking community at that point. Otherwise the same kinds of circumstances could easily occur again.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the comments which have been made, there is a consensus to proceed on a reasonable basis. While I would not use the exclamatory phrases of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) with respect to this particular legislation, I want to
Western Accord
make quite clear that the Minister of State for Finance has been very forthcoming on this matter and in fact has always wanted to have it discussed fully on the floor of the House of Commons. She has been very receptive and has instructed me to say to the House that we are very much in favour of having the matter referred to committee for the fullest and most responsible discussion in the national good. That is the attitude with which we all enter the matter. We appreciate the responsible way in which the House Leaders of the Official Opposition and the NDP are approaching this important issue.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I have the honour to place on the Table in both official languages a Memorandum of Intent regarding the Canadian Commercial Bank. Since two parties to the agreement will be signing the document today, I am tabling an unsigned copy.


TABLING OF WESTERN ACCORD
[Stage Direction]
Hon.	Pat	Carney	(Minister	of	Energy,	Mines	and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, I would like to table under the provisions of Standing Order 46(2) a copy of the Western Accord in both official languages, and I will be making a statement under Statements by Ministers.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATEMENT ON WESTERN ACCORD REACHED WITH ALBERTA, SASKATCHEWAN AND BRITISH COLUMBIA
[Stage Direction]
Hon.	Pat	Carney	(Minister	of	Energy,	Mines	and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to announce today a new energy policy for Canadians, the Western Accord, a comprehensive agreement between the Government of Canada and the Governments of the oil and gas producing provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
Like the Atlantic Accord which the Government signed with Newfoundland and Labrador only six weeks ago, the Western Accord marks a milestone in our country's history. The Atlantic Accord gave Newfoundland and Labrador equality within Confederation by allowing the offshore resources to be treated
[Stage Direction]
March 28, 1985
Western Accord
as if they were on land in the interests of a strong and united Canada. The Western Accord maintains the spirit of Confederation by ending discrimination against the western provinces, discrimination imposed in a cruel and arbitrary fashion by the Liberal Government's national energy policy.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Both Accords are aimed at ensuring energy security for all Canadians by encouraging the development of our vital energy resources. Both Accords are aimed at creating jobs for unemployed Canadians in all regions of Canada. Energy means growth, investment, unity and opportunity for all Canadians. Energy can be used to unify Canada, not divide it.
If rigs are working on the offshore, then plants are operating in Ontario and shipyards are working in Quebec and B.C. When oil sands plants and upgraders are being built in Alberta and Saskatchewan, jobs are created across Canada. Energy truly can be developed as an engine of growth, of national conciliation and of economic renewal.
The days of federal-provincial acrimony and confrontation that marked the last decade are over. The Western Accord hammered out between myself and my western colleagues over the past few months and which was finalized this week in Vancouver contains three fundamental concepts which we believe will strengthen this country's petroleum industry. The first concept is deregulation of crude oil pricing in Canada; the second is the complete overhaul of our natural gas pricing and marketing system; and the third deals with the severe problems of our current oil and gas fiscal regime, a fiscal regime that has shackled our petroleum industry and forced consumers to pay artificially high prices.
Let me deal with the deregulation of crude oil. Since the national energy policy was imposed in October, 1980 Canadians have suffered from a bureaucratic nightmare, a nightmare which has frightened away foreign investment, boosted prices at the pumps, and discouraged those who wanted to go out and find new sources of oil and gas. Those days are over too. Beginning on June 1, 1985 we will let buyers be buyers and sellers be sellers. In other words, under deregulation the market will decide what crude oil prices will be.
I want to stress, however, that Canadians will be protected from the volatility of international markets and, in the event of serious disturbances, the federal Government will take steps to protect Canadian consumers. The same will be true for crude oil exports. To protect the national interest, the federal Government can restrict exports as required. If Canada's energy security was threatened, we would act, and act decisively.
There will be significant changes for our domestic natural gas industry as well. A universally accepted premise between myself and my western colleagues was the need to have a more flexible and market-oriented natural gas pricing system that is fair to consumers and producers alike. Implementing this system, however, in the interim, will take some time because there are outstanding contracts in force. We have agreed to maintain the Alberta border price of natural gas at its present
level pending the introduction of a new domestic gas pricing regime which will be in place by next November. Furthermore, we have formed a joint task force to work closely with the industry to develop this new system.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, we have agreed to change fundamentally the fiscal regime, a regime that has discouraged investment and threatened Canada's energy security. Today, in keeping with the Conservative campaign promises, I am announcing the beginning of the end of the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: The PGRT, which taxes revenues and not profits, is hated by western Canadians and will be cut in half in two and a half years and eliminated totally the year after. We are also abolishing five other charges and taxes, including the Petroleum Compensation Charge and the Canadian Ownership Special Charge which is paid by consumers.
The end of the PGRT will mean that ambitious projects like Venture and Hibernia, the Alberta oil sands plants, the Beaufort wells, and the Vancouver Island pipelines of this country will be able to attract the massive amounts of new capital needed to develop them and thus ensure energy security for Canadians. The elimination of the PGRT will mean reinvestment on a large scale in Canada. Canadian security of supply demands it. And under the terms of the Western Accord, the federal and producing Governments expect such reinvestment will occur. To ensure that it does, we will be monitoring the industry's performance very carefully to ensure that the industry's historic high level of investment is enhanced.
In addition, there will be no PGRT applied on new projects and new production, effective April 1. This will encourage immediate construction of new plants and increased exploration and development of new energy resources. This will increase activity in all oil and gas regions of Canada.
We have also taken steps to ensure that smaller Canadian companies will be given the opportunity to participate in the development of our oil and gas resources by enabling companies in a non-taxpaying position, mostly Canadian, to take advantage of PGRT deductions that will put them on an equal footing with foreign-owned companies.
As we have promised, Mr. Speaker, we will phase out the Petroleum Incentives Program as well, but I can assure this House that any commitments already made under the program will be honoured by the federal Government. This will ensure stability in offshore and Beaufort exploration and development. Furthermore, PIP will be replaced by a tax-based incentive regime that discriminates against no one but will encourage the development of new, high-risk projects. The Government of Canada will consult with Newfoundland and Labrador, with Nova Scotia and with the Territorial Governments on appropriate incentives.
Under the terms of the Western Accord, the provinces agree to flow through to the industry all benefits arising from oil deregulation, federal tax relief and any savings from the
March 28, 1985

elimination of provincial incentives associated with the termination of the federal Petroleum Incentives Program.
These are only some of the highlights of the Agreement I signed with my western counterparts. Throughout our discussions our overwhelming desire was to create the kind of climate in Canada that will stimulate investment, end discrimination and create the economic growth needed to put Canadians back to work in the interests of a strong and united Canada. We have reached an agreement that will unify and benefit all parts of our diverse nation. We now look to the industry for the reinvestment of new revenue that will create jobs and ensure adequate future oil supply to ensure Canada's energy security.
With the Western Accord, we are encouraging oil and gas companies to do what they know best, to find and develop new sources of energy for future generations and to create jobs and economic opportunities for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I agree with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) in that an agreement between the federal Government and the western provinces is preferable, not only in the interests of the economy of western Canada but in the interests of the economy of Canada as a whole. I sincerely hope that this Agreement will provide the jobs that the Minister claims it will. But we should not have an agreement for the sake of having an agreement. In that regard, I cannot agree with the Accord which was signed by the Minister and the three western provinces.
The Minister said that deregulation in the market will decide what crude oil prices will be. Undoubtedly that will mean increased oil prices for the consumer.


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I would ask Members opposite if they can remember a time when the oil companies rolled back prices in any situation unless they absolutely had to. It will not mean lower prices for consumers.
The Minister's statement said that Canadians would be protected against volubility in international markets and that the Government would take steps to ensure that. What steps will the Government take? It could be a very serious situation if problems arise in the Middle East and oil prices escalate very quickly. We need to know exactly what the Government is prepared to do. If it is going to give any kind of meaningful compensation to Canadians it will have to be a financial commitment. We want to know from the Government what it is prepared to do.
What will the Government do to pay for what it has accomplished? It will put an additional tax on the consumer. Where will that come from? At the present time the multinational oil companies account for 60 per cent of old oil. In fact, with the deregulation of oil prices they will receive a tremen-
Western Accord
dous windfall profit. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was asked earlier what the Government would do to protect the consumer in that regard. He said that the answer would be provided in the Minister's statement. Well, it was not provided in the Minister's statement.
What will the Government do with respect to natural gas? We have no answers on that subject, other than that we will not get an answer until next November. Certainly we will not get an answer until after the Ontario election. Obviously, it means increased natural gas prices for people in Canada.
The Government said that it would do away with the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax in the next 3.5 years. The Government has said that without the PGRT projects like Venture and Hibernia will be able to soar and develop. How will they develop when the Government has taken away the grants under the Petroleum Incentives Program? Chief executive officers in the energy sector have been asked what the taking away of PIP will mean to Venture and Hibernia. They said that essentially it could mean the end of both projects and that all the action in the energy sector would move to western Canada. Certainly I do not disagree with increased energy involvement in western Canada, but it will mean a very serious situation in eastern Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Yes, it will. We do not have answers from the Government as to what will replace this very important program. I say to the Minister of Finance that it is important. We need answers. Both of those projects are at a very critical stage. We can have the Atlantic Accord and all the agreements in the world, but unless the fiscal regime is in place we cannot convince the energy sector to invest in eastern Canada.
What will happen? We do not know what will happen until we get the answers from the Government. What will happen in Newfoundland? Conceivably, Hibernia could not go ahead, or it could be postponed indefinitely. That would be a tremendous travesty for eastern Canada, which is already suffering tremendous unemployment.
The Government said that it would consult with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Why did it not consult with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia before it reached the energy agreement with western Canada? It would only have been a courtesy to do that, because they too are energy-producing provinces.
What about the Petroleum Compensation Charge? The Minister of Finance in his statement of November 8, and yesterday in the House, said that the Petroleum Compensation Charge would be phased out. He also said last November that he hoped to get $1.2 billion of the Petroleum Compensation Charge back at the negotiating table. That was completely ruled out at the outset of the negotiations. There will be no compensation from this agreement to pay back the moneys which are owing in that account.
What about Canadianization? The Minister said that all companies would be put on an equal footing. What is wrong with giving a little edge to Canadian companies? What is

March 28, 1985
Western Accord
wrong with improving and increasing Canadianization in the energy sector?


Some Hon. Members:: Nothing.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: That is what we want to see. There is no commitment in this document on this very important question.


Some Hon. Members:: Yes, there is.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: It is a very vital factor.
We know that the PGRT will be done away with. That was one of the Government's commitments. But what will that mean? Where do we go from here? What did we get from the Province of Alberta? Nothing. We did not get any reduction in royalties whatsoever. It is a one-way street. Alberta would not even consider a reduction in the royalties. Alberta will increase the Heritage Fund. I would not mind if a little of that money went to the Province of Alberta. There is great unemployment in Alberta and it has food lines, but the Heritage Fund stays in the bank. Increasing the Heritage Fund will not help the people of Alberta in the short term. Certainly it will not help the economy of this country. Premier Lougheed has said that he is saving the fund for a rainy day. Well, we not only have a rainy day, we have an economic monsoon.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Unless there is a commitment by the Province of Alberta to roll back their input-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, the Hon. Member is entitled to make his statement with the same respect which was given the Minister.


Mr. Malone:: But he's talking about Alberta!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Alberta is part of Canada and we are very proud of it, but it is putting $5 billion into the Heritage Fund each year.
This country needs economic activity. We cannot balkanize this country. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that this agreement would deal with balkanizing the country, but it does not. The consumers have yet to hear how this agreement will help the people of Canada. They have yet to hear how these amounts will be compensated. They have yet to hear that this will not be put on their backs for repayment.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Opposition critic for the Liberal Party for his fine comments. I would also like to thank the Minister for providing me with a copy of her remarks before she made her statement.
With this oil deal, the federal deficit is no longer a problem when it comes to giving money away to the oil companies. It is only a problem when it is a question of giving money away to ordinary Canadians. There is a double standard. If I was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), I would be ashamed. I would also be concerned about giving away the store. The Minister of Finance in the end will have to deal with the
deficit and he has given away one of the major taxes of federal revenue.
On November 8, 1984, social programs were cut because of the need to cut the growth in the deficit. Today we have a situation where the oil companies virtually get the whole store, and all the cut-backs in federal revenue flow directly through the oil companies. There is even a guarantee in the Agreement that the provinces will let the revenue flow through the oil companies. When it comes to these oil companies, Mr. Speaker, on the pretext of federal-provincial co-operation, on which we all agree, four Conservative Energy Ministers become literally patsies for the industry, giving away the whole store. There is $2.5 billion going to the oil companies ultimately from that PGRT. The PGRT was a tough tax. It has certain constitutional problems. I agree with Premier Lougheed about that. It was really like a royalty and royalties belong to the province. But it did collect revenue for the federal Government from an industry which is not used to paying taxes. Once this revenue based system is changed to a profit based system, these companies find all sorts of write-offs and never pay any taxes.
The federal Government will have to make up that money somewhere. Where will it make it up? You guessed it, Mr. Speaker, it is ultimately going to be made up by the Canadian consumer. Perhaps it will be made up at the gas pumps. There is a speculation today that it will be made up with a tax which will amount to 5 cents a litre. The Conservatives are famous for putting up prices at the gas pumps. They have a history of that. They even lost an election over that, and they still have not learned.
The Government might do it another way. It might do it by some other kinds of taxes, but we will have to wait until the federal Budget to see. We go to world prices, the oil companies get the money and the consumer gets the rhetoric.
The Government is going to monitor the situation. But that is not going to make any difference. The Government already monitors it. There is the Petroleum Monitoring Agency. There is nothing in this deal, Mr. Speaker, to show that when this money goes to the oil companies, it is going to be reinvested in Canada. As a matter of fact, when we go to world price, what will happen is that old oil-that is oil which was found before 1974-will go up in price somewhere between $4 and $7 a barrel. New oil, which is oil found after 1974 and would include Hibernia, offshore oil, and so on, would go down in price I believe about $3 to about $6 a barrel. If it goes down in price, who are the winners and the losers? The winners are the people who own the old oil and, by and large, they are the multinational oil companies, Shell, Gulf, Imperial and so on. They will make over $300 million as a windfall and there is no mention in here of any windfall profits tax. There is no way of recouping that money. Who will be the losers? The losers will be the Canadian companies which own that new oil.
I believe it is an irresponsible deal, and it is not even a "deal", because the Government gave away all its ace cards
March 28, 1985

before it got into the negotiations. In the famous red barn speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in July, just before the federal election was called, he said, "We will eliminate the PGRT". So the Minister went there virtually without any ace card against a very tough negotiating team from Alberta.
The phrases in the Minister's speech, such as "The engine of economic growth" and so on, really worry me. These are the phrases we heard said by the Canadian Petroleum Association to the Energy Committee of the House of Commons in the early 1980s. I heard these phrases day in and day out from big oil companies. The Minister, a patsy for the oil industry, has bought it hook, line and sinker.
Where is the Government going to make up the lost revenue, Mr. Speaker? The Government distributes its own figures and I will quote from them. The petroleum revenue sharing in 1984 resulted in $22 billion in revenues and $3.8 billion was to go to the federal Government. This is the sharing of the pie. They are now giving away a substantial chunk of that revenue in the PGRT. Where is it going to be made up? There is talk of jobs being created. Yes, there are some jobs created in Alberta and Alberta needs those jobs, but I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the petroleum Monitoring Agency reports that for the first six months of 1984, as compared to the first six months of 1983, the oil industry profits in Canada increased by 40 per cent. That is up by $1.7 billion for the whole industry. Capital expenditures for the same time went down by 5 per cent. Thus, with respect to the recent increase in gas prices, there is no justification for giving the industry more money. As far as the return on investment, we cannot believe that propaganda. John Halliwell, the respected B.C. economist, said in a report recently that in fact the oil industry was making 50 per cent more in return on investment than other types of Canadian industry. And the Government is buying its line. Hon. Members should read the comments of the Ontario Deputy Minister of Energy, Duncan Allen. He said in January, and I quote:
"The engine of growth (oil industry) grabs a whole lot of money from consumers in the form of a significant withdrawal of purchasing power in Ontario and has very limited offsetting effects in terms of jobs, purchasing, employment and investment-on balance, it's negative except (for) Alberta", Allen said.
In fact, he said, diverting money and resources to the petroleum industry is a poor investment in terms of job-creation. For every $1 million invested in the petroleum industry only 15 permanent jobs are created for Canadians. He went on to say that there will be a loss of 60,000 jobs if we go to world prices in Ontario.
I want to ask the Minister, and I will do so later, whether she has consulted with Frank Miller and asked him whether he agrees with his own Deputy Minister of Energy in Ontario. The Minister of Energy in Manitoba has said that going to world prices will cost 1,500 jobs in Manitoba and a lot more across the country, which the federal Government is not calculating. He said that if world prices are necessary, there must be trade-offs. We want to find out what the trade-offs
Western Accord
are which will help the other parts of the country and what will help the consumer.
We want to find out as well what will happen with natural gas. This is a partial deal. The real guts of the dispute between Alberta and Ontario will be in the pricing of natural gas. What the Government has done here is simply to put off the deal on natural gas. We want to find out if the Government will be prepared to commit itself to ensuring that in the future the export price of gas will never fall below what Canadians have to pay for gas. We will find that out when the real deal comes through.
There are lots of things I can say about the Agreement. First, there is a new book on the National Energy Program. I was here when this program was put through. There are a lot of problems with the National Energy Program. There were bureaucratic programs as only the Liberals could have with their grants and back-ins and so on. But the fact is that we need the National Energy Program for Canada. We cannot buy all the rhetoric of the oil companies. We have to give a fair deal to both the producers and the consumers. And this is not a fair deal for the consumer or the general public. This is giving away all the revenues, giving away all the store to the oil companies, largely the multinational oil companies. In spite of all the rhetoric from all sides of the House, the key question will be what will be the world price. That will decide whether the industry really goes. But now we are at the mercy, I feel, of some very false world prices, such as that of OPEC. But we will just have to wait and see. Meanwhile, I will have some particular questions for the Minister.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to view in great detail the contents of the Agreement the Minister has signed, but perhaps for Hon. Members of the House she would be kind enough to explain what the Government of Canada will lose in terms of revenue as a result of reducing the PGRT, particularly in fiscal years 1985-86 and 1986-87.
My other two questions have to do with the Petroleum Incentives Program. The Minister in her statement alluded to the fact that any existing agreements which are in place she will honour, and I respect her for that. However, is the Minister saying to the Province of Nova Scotia, in terms of replacing the Petroleum Incentives Program with a tax based incentive, that there will not be any way in which there will be any grants forthcoming to the province? Is she eliminating entirely the prospect of a grant as well as a tax based incentive for, say, provinces in Atlantic Canada? It is very important that that still remain as part of the negotiating process.
My third and final question-it is important, notwithstanding your desire to expedite the questioning-is whether the Minister can indicate to us what if anything the producing provinces have given to the oil and gas industry with regard to reducing their royalties? Did the Minister specifically ask that their royalties be reduced? If so, was she successful in getting any of those royalties reduced?
3472

March 28, 1985
Western Accord


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, clearly the Hon. Member has not had an opportunity to read the Western Accord.


David Charles Dingwall: I just got it.


Pat Carney: I have endeavoured to make copies available to Members, and they will be available afterwards. However, it gives me an opportunity to say that the whole purpose of the Western Accord was to create jobs which were lost under the National Energy Program. He is speaking for the Party that drove 250,000 jobs out of western Canada.


David Charles Dingwall: Try not to be yourself. Be nice for a change, and answer the question.


Pat Carney: Obviously the Hon. Member does not wish to have an answer. If he would like an answer, I will continue.


David Charles Dingwall: Let's have an answer.


Pat Carney: The estimates of the number of jobs created in the package before us range from 100,000 to 300,000. That is the whole purpose of the Agreement. Energy is the one sector where you do get job creation quite quickly. That was the record of the industry before the NEP was brought in.
To answer the Hon. Member's question, the whole package was designed to maximize the economic opportunities and create jobs with minimum impact on the fiscal framework of this Government in the early years. Therefore, the loss of revenue in the first two years will range annually between $300 million and $500 million. We anticipate, in consultation with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), that that amount will be more than exceeded by the increased revenues resulting from people being back to work and increased corporate taxes.
I would like to make the point that one of the Member's colleagues said that the industry does not pay taxes. In fact, it pays about $2.6 billion a year in taxes. We expect to get back more than we lose from the PGRT in those critical first years until we can start bringing down the deficit with which his Government saddled the Canadian people.
As to his comments about PIP grants, no Hon. Member from Nova Scotia could do more harm to his own province than to suggest that we are going to terminate PIP grants. We have told Nova Scotia, the Premier of Nova Scotia, the Minister of Energy of Nova Scotia, we have told everyone in the Maritimes except possibly the Hon. Member, that we will honour all commitments under PIP. Every single exploration agreement in place will be honoured. That will cost this Government about $3 billion in the next two or three years. We have done that, as I said in my speech, to provide stability for those companies that are out there drilling. We have enhanced their position by the extra incentives I have announced today.
As to the producing provinces and their royalties, may I point out that unlike his Party, this Party respects the Constitution of Canada. That Constitution makes it very clear that royalties are the prerogative of the provinces. What we have from the provinces is a commitment that all the benefits will
flow to the industry, and then again the industry must reinvest the money. That will require the provinces to make what adjustments are necessary. Let me point out that Saskatchewan has already introduced a highly successful royalty holiday which has increased drilling and exploration in the province. So what we will both get out of it is increased economic activity, more jobs for Canadians, and increased revenues flowing back to the provinces and the federal Treasury.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have just one question for the Minister. On page 5 of her statement she refers to the end of the PGRT and the fact that it will mean that ambitious projects like the Vancouver Island pipeline will be able to attract the massive amounts of new capital needed to develop them. Earlier this week in Nanaimo the Premier of British Columbia was saying that the province is prepared to go ahead with building that pipeline if the federal Government commits itself to supporting the project and providing a guaranteed capital grant. Does this mean that the federal Government is abandoning its financial support by way of a grant or some other financial contribution to the province to enable this pipeline to be built, or is she leaving it now to the private sector and the ordinary financial markets?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, no.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I realize that royalties are a provincial matter, but I ask this quite sincerely because I think it is an important question. The Minister realizes that the royalties levied by the provinces in western Canada are a concern to the industry. I realize she has no power over the industry to reduce royalties, but surely the question came up and surely the Minister will agree that the royalties are too expensive. Has she any commitment from Alberta to bring down these royalties now that they have obtained what they are looking for, the abandonment of the PGRT?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained that the issue of royalties is not something for the federal Government to pursue. I am sure the Government of Alberta will make whatever adjustments are required at the initiative of the industry. I do not have to take on the provincial Governments, as his Party did, on the issue of royalties. The industry is certainly prepared to do that. What I have done is to ensure that the provinces do not move in to any fiscal room left by the federal Government. The promise is to pass all benefits right through the provincial Treasuries into the industry and then into reinvestment in jobs, and that is a commitment that all three provinces made.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, according to the Dow Jones service, world oil demand seems to have revived during 1984 but it may be heading for a new slump. Given that oil prices seem to be going down and that PIP grants are going to be phased out, will the Minister tell me whether she will be apologizing to Premier Brian Peckford for setting him adrift now that there are no real incentives to develop Hibernia? Hibernia will be delayed. Or in lieu of an apology to him, will she offer anything concrete to Newfoundlanders to get Hib-
March 28, 1985

ernia developed? The Minister has reduced the price of oil and she is phasing out PIP grants.


Mr. Mazankowski:: You were wrong in 1980 and you are just as wrong today.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the Party to which the Hon. Member belongs supported the NEP, which was based on the scenario that oil prices were going to go sky high.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We never supported the NEP. You know that.


Pat Carney: He says he did not support the NEP. We can give him his speeches.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Look at the vote.


Pat Carney: If he wants to worry about Hibernia, I can assure him I have just got commitments from some of the major players in Hibernia to commit $800 million a year of reinvestment into those offshore resources. I am meeting with them all the time to get more commitments. All of these companies with a big stake, including Petro-Canada, in the development of Hibernia and Venture have told me that by removing the PGRT and improving their cash flow we will enable them to increase the investment into the offshore resources in the Beaufort and conventional fields.
May I point out that the reinvestment ratio of this industry before the NEP was 110 per cent of its cash flow a year. It fell to 65 per cent after the NEP. We are providing them the room to get back up to the 110 per cent reinvestment rate because that creates jobs for Canadians right across the country.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, when I asked a question of the Minister earlier this afternoon she replied that the answer would be in her speech. My question was with regard to the pricing of gasoline in Ontario. I will repeat the question for the Minister, and perhaps now she can answer it.
This document has far-reaching effects on the consumers of the Province of Ontario. Many people are of the opinion that this will increase gasoline prices by as much as 23 cents a gallon, gouging Ontario consumers. Has the Minister consulted with the Premier of Ontario about the details of this Agreement? He claims that she has not. Is she also prepared to tell us why she has not consulted? Of course, the Government prides itself on the consultation process. What assurances can the Minister give Ontario consumers that they will not be taken for a ride immediately after the Ontario election is out of the way and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) can perpetrate his attack on the people of Ontario by increasing taxes on gasoline?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am truly not sure whether that is one question or a rag-bag of allegations. However, with your indulgence, I will attempt to deal with the points raised.
The Hon. Member suggested that oil deregulation was set for June 1 because of the election. This shows, if I may be
Western Accord
permitted to say so, the Member's ignorance of this industry. 1 have repeatedly said that the industry needs 60 days or more to adjust from a highly administered system to a free market. Our agreement was to run out on March 31, and June 1 is the appropriate date. It has nothing to do with the Ontario election.
The Hon. Member also raises the question of increased gasoline prices. I fail to understand how a toughly negotiated Agreement, which took six months to negotiate and is aimed at deregulating prices to reflect market forces, could possibly increase gasoline prices. We are going to world prices. We are almost there now. If the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell) is right that by creating a market environment prices will continue to decline, obviously that provides the environment for gasoline prices to decline. They certainly are not going to increase in a declining market.
I have repeatedly made the point that governments do not set gasoline prices. In the past, Governments have set wellhead prices. We are going to create the environment for market forces to operate with buyers and sellers involved. If prices go down, then product prices should go down. If the provinces want to increase taxes, that is out of our hands.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I want to give the Minister the opportunity to respond to some falsehoods we are hearing from the opposite side and to have her underscore a number of points she has made. Prior to putting the direct question to her, I would like to share with the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not the time for statements. This is specifically the time for questions to the Minister about her statement. Does the Member have a question for the Minister about her statement as opposed to one about questions from the other side?


Peter Elzinga: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister underscore once again, for the benefit of the Opposition, the impact that this will have on job creation in Canada?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can do that. I can also make the point that since we are removing the Canadian ownership charge, there will be a downward impact on June 1 on natural gas prices. When a tax comes off, prices tend to go down.
With regard to job creation, I would like to outline some of the benefits which could occur. As I said, the Economic Council of Canada has suggested that 100,000 jobs will be created. Other independent agencies, such as Chase, etcetera, consider that 300,000 jobs may occur. We know that we lost jobs under the NEP and we have every expectation that jobs will be increased. We have already started in that direction through the measures taken in the November 8 statement which increased benefits to the small producers. We expect jobs to occur right across the country.


Mr. Speaker:: I will deal with this now because we are going to run out of time. I have a feeling that the House wants to ask a lot of questions on this matter.


An Hon. Member:: Ask for unanimous consent.

March 28, 1985
Western Accord


Mr. Speaker:: It does not even take unanimous consent. It is within the Speaker's judgment. While I would normally end the question period in about two or three minutes, given the general sense of agreement in the House about other matters, and given the number of people who are rising, without setting a precedent, I will try to hear as many people as I can. I will probably go as long as-


Pat Carney: I have other commitments.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister is indicating that she cannot stay any longer.


Don Boudria: She is afraid to answer the questions.


Mr. Speaker:: In fairness to everyone concerned, normally we would have taken questions as long as the sum of the statement. It will end the question period at four o'clock. If people are quick, we can get two or three more questions in. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that the duchess of energy will soon be reigning over an impoverished kingdom. It appears to me that she is selling out the consumers of Canada and the federal Treasury.
My question is very simple and straightforward. As I understand it, over a two-year period the federal Treasury could lose up to $1 billion as a result of this negotiated Agreement which was just announced. How does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) propose to replenish the lost money? Does the Minister intend to increase taxes? If so, can she advise the House in very simple terms what that will mean to a consumer in Ontario?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I should explain that I have a commitment at four o'clock based on the normal rules of the House. In response to the Hon. Member, I suggest that if I am a duchess, he is an emperor without clothes. If I have a poverty-stricken kingdom, you can be assured that I inherited it from that Government when it was in power.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: I will stay as long as it takes to explain to Hon. Members that when you go to market-regulated prices and deregulation, you create an environment for prices to go down, particularly in this kind of market. If market prices go up, prices will go up too.
With regard to natural gas, we are removing the Canadian ownership charge which that Government imposed on Canadian consumers. When you remove a tax, it is usual that price decreases occur. There is no reason to believe that gasoline prices will go up when we move to deregulation.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have two brief questions. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has indicated that he is battling hard against the deficit. He wants to bring it down. How can forgoing the raising of a number of billions of dollars of tax revenue from the energy sector assist the Minister of
Finance in reducing the deficit? Is it not reasonable to conclude that if we forgo the collection of a significant amount of tax dollars that are now being raised, we will have to raise taxes somewhere else in order to bring down the deficit?
What guarantees are there in the Agreement that will assure Canadian users of natural gas that they will not be asked to pay more for the product than is being asked of those who purchase the same Canadian product in the United States?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the first question with regard to the impact on the deficit. I have explained that the whole thrust of the Western Accord was to remove a discriminatory tax on the industry. We have faith that it will create jobs because that is the historic performance of the industry. When you create jobs, you do not have to pay unemployment insurance, you collect increased personal income tax, and you have economic activity. If you doubt that logic, look what happened to the western provinces after the taxes were levied and after the NEP was imposed. British Columbia and Alberta have the highest unemployment rates in Canada next to Newfoundland, which is a cost to the Treasury.
With respect to the question about natural gas prices, this Western Accord does not deal with export prices of natural gas. I can only assure the Member, as I have in the past, that Canadians will always pay less for their natural gas than their American neighbours.


Ian Deans: That is not happening now.


John Horton McDermid: Yes, it is.


Pat Carney: It is not contained in the Western Accord, and I would suggest that if the Hon. Member has questions beyond the Western Accord, I will be here for Question Period tomorrow and I will be prepared to take more questions.


Mr. Speaker:: That would appear to be the end of that.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate your sensitivity in the way that the question period has been conducted but I would like to point out to the House, for instance, that the Official Opposition did not have one Member in the House who represents one of the three signing provinces. That is a difficulty which is created by the rhythm of the situation when that region of the country is so dominated by government Members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I point out to the Member that the Chair indicated it was prepared to let the question period continue.
March 28, 1985


POINT OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the presentation of petitions, I have read the Standing Orders, particularly Standing Order 18 with regard to the Routine Proceedings of the House. Nowhere do I find in Standing Order 18 any mention of when petitions ought to be placed before the House of Commons.
However, I have read Beauchesne as well as Standing Order 71(2) which states:
(2) Any Member desiring to present a petition in his or her place in the House must do so during Routine Proceedings and before Introduction of Bills.
As I mentioned to you in a briefing session yesterday, the purpose of my point of order is that we all know that petitions are rather short and expeditious and Members can rise and present them very quickly. It does not take up too much time of the House.


Mr. Dick:: You are taking up time now.


David Charles Dingwall: Perhaps the Hon. Member would be kind enough to extend the courtesy of allowing me to make my point of order. If he disagrees, he can rise in his place and, with his usual persuasive candour, dispute what I have to say. Perhaps he would have the courtesy to wait.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Why don't you get to the point then?


David Charles Dingwall: Perhaps the Hon. Member will have the courtesy to listen.


Carlo Rossi: Okay, blabber-mouth.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You have taken three minutes already.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suspect that the Member has a serious point of order and I would like to hear it.


David Charles Dingwall: I am glad that you have ruled in my favour, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to the time when petitions are presented during routine business, it would seem to me that probably it would be in the best interest of the House for them to be called before Statements by Ministers.
Today, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) made a very important statement and there were Hon. Members here to participate. However, other Members who wished to present petitions have had to wait for an hour or an hour and a half before getting to that fairly routine piece of business of presenting their petitions.
Would the Chair say if there was a ruling by a previous Speaker or by yourself as to why petitions are called after Statements by Ministers in the routine business?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member raised this matter with me privately. 1 must advise the Hon. Member and the House that I have not completed my investigation. Certainly, no ruling has
Petitions
been made by myself, and while I am awaiting further information, it is my understanding that the rule regarding petitions, according to Standing Order 71(2), has been interpreted in the past to mean that they are to come exactly and immediately before Introduction of Bills. For example, that is why the Order Paper and our instructions to the Chair show that place.
I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern. I will certainly gather further information. Since there appears to be a question of interpretation, I will be more than happy to discuss that matter with the House Leaders.


David Charles Dingwall: In terms of clarification, there is mention of petitions in the Standing Orders but there is no mention of petitions in the Orders of the Day. Is there a special reason for that?


Mr. Speaker:: It is not in the printed Order Paper because it is not in the Standing Orders. However, if the Hon. Member looks at the Projected Order of Business that is sent to Members, he will find petitions listed, because that is our practice. It is listed between Statements by Ministers and Introduction of Bills.
I repeat that as far as I know, and without being definite, that is a question of tradition, not of the rules.
As I indicated, I will be more than happy to get further information and discuss it with the House Leaders because I take it that at least one Member is concerned about the order in which petitions are placed in the daily routine of business.


PETITIONS
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition, signed by many concerned constituents of the riding of London East, regarding the oversight and omission of property rights in the Charter. It is my pleasure to present this petition today on their behalf.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of some of my constituents in the riding of Sarnia-Lambton who are concerned about the proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. They ask that more emphasis be placed on job creation and not on a restructuring of the Unemployment Insurance Act.

March 28, 1985
Order Paper Questions AERONAUTICS ACT


Donald Frank Mazankowski: for leave to introduce Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Barbara Jean McDougall: for leave to introduce Bill C-37, an Act respecting provision of financial assistance to the Canadian Commercial Bank.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? By unanimous consent, later this day?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 146 and 182.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Is the Department of National Defence planning to purchase missiles for the F-18 fighter aircraft and, if so (a) which type (b) at what unit cost?
2.	How many missiles of each type will the Department purchase?


Mr. Robert Wenman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) Yes, two types, the short range AIM-9M (Sidewinder) and the medium range AIM-7M (Sparrow), (b) Unit cost of the AIM-9M is $77,280 U.S. Unit cost of the AIM-7M is $227,653 U.S.
2. An initial suit of 72 AIM-7M and 148 AIM-9M air-to-air missiles were purchased from CF-18 project funds. To partially satisfy NATO and NORAD ammunition stockpiling criteria, follow-on orders for 416 AIM-9M and 408 AIM-7M missiles have been placed with the USN as Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases. These FMS cases also include spares, support and training equipment, maintenance training, publications and management fees. This missile procurement was approved by Treasury Board for $245,461 M. Deliveries will be from 1986 through 1989.
Additional air-to-air missiles will be required to fully satisfy NATO and NORAD ammunition stockpiling criteria. This additional follow-on missile procurement project is in competition with other DND capital projects for funding.


Mr. Stackhouse: How many persons are employed in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: There are 18,611. (This includes RCMP members and public servants).


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, I have over 200 specific questions on the Order Paper concerning the Hatfield and MacKay affair. When might I start receiving some answers to those questions?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, over half of the questions on the Order Paper are from this gentleman, and he will be getting answers soon.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Speaker:: Before we introduce the Bill I want to establish for the record, that there is unanimous consent for the
March 28, 1985

waiving of Private Members' Hour today and for continuing this matter through that time?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I understood that according to the agreement reached by the Parties, and my Parliamentary House Leader mentioned this earlier, we would start second reading at 5 p.m. I have the impression there is a misunderstanding. However, since our critic is in the House, we could start before then. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that the plan was to start at 5 p.m.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions. I tried to clarify the matter by discussions with the Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition and with the House Leader of the New Democratic Party. It was certainly the impression that we would proceed with this order of business as the first item of business. The purpose was to give the maximum time for debate. We do not intend on this side of the House to do anything further as far as debating the matter is concerned except for putting up the Minister who will introduce the Bill. We can, therefore, allow the Opposition maximum time for debate.
1 appreciate very much the co-operation of the Official Opposition in that if we proceed now this will allow maximum time for Members, particularly in the Opposition, to participate in this debate so we can have second reading concluded this afternoon and, if necessary, have the appropriate vote. Tomorrow there will be a full opportunity to proceed clause by clause in Committee of the Whole.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, even though I said that we wanted to start at five o'clock, and I heard no objection, our critic is here ready to listen to the Minister and ready to respond on behalf of our Party. We are quite ready to start at this time under the circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: I should say to both House Leaders that I sensed from the interjections at the time that some further conversation might have been necessary. At this moment I take it we have agreement to begin debate on this Bill and to waive, through unanimous consent, the holding of a Private Member's Hour today, and that this matter shall be debated until six o'clock if necessary? Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Barbara Jean McDougall: that Bill C-37, an Act respecting the provision of financial assistance to the Canadian Commercial Bank, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for allowing the expeditious reading of this legislation.
Canadian Commercial Bank
The history of our financial sector, as we all know, is one of the most stable and secure financial industries in the world. The fact, however, does not alter the need for swift action at this time.
The federal Government shares with the provinces a deep appreciation of the important contribution to regional economic development that is made by a viable western-based financial enterprise. That is why we have taken the opportunity to participate in the plan to restructure the Canadian Commercial Bank's debt. The restructuring was proposed by the management of the Bank, and in consultation with the Government of Alberta, we examined the possibilities and the deal was negotiated with the other parties.
The Government faced a number of options. The federal Government's decision to support any financial institution cannot be taken lightly. We must consider borrowers involved and the effects a failure might have on them. In this case, for instance, an agency agreement was not the most desirable option since a private sector group, in consultation with the Alberta and federal Governments, came forward with a sound support package to restructure the Bank's balance sheet. The liquidation of the Bank would have resulted in the calling of many term loans to western Canadian businesses, which might have threatened their survival. And this, Mr. Speaker, was not in the interest of the Bank's depositors and borrowers.
Our concern as the federal Government must also extend beyond western Canada. We want to make sure that a ripple in the financial system does not spread from coast to coast and beyond, to overseas markets. The Government must also be concerned with the effect a failure might have on the stability, security and confidence of the entire financial system.
By addressing the present matter quickly, we are guarding against a potential erosion of confidence in our financial system both at home and abroad. This decisive action is evidence that our financial institutions are safe for depositors. The Government intends to ensure that the high degree of respect our financial institutions have earned in foreign capital markets is maintained. I appreciate, of course, that there is every reason for the House to be fully aware of the situation that has led to the tabling of this Bill. Indeed, the matter must be clearly explained so that Canadians understand that this is an isolated incident, due to very particular circumstances, an incident that poses no threat to the integrity of our banking system. That is why I am expanding today upon the information already contained in my remarks to the House, in the press release and in the questions I have already answered.
The Canadian Commercial Bank is a regionally based bank, specializing in loans to small and medium-size businesses in western Canada, particularly in the energy service and real estate sectors. As we all know, these sectors suffered severely during the recent recession and they have not proved as resilient as other sectors during the recovery. The importance of the Bank to the western economy is evident from the fact that 70 per cent, or $1.1 billion, of the Bank's domestic loans are made to businesses located in that region.

March 28, 1985
Canadian Commercial Bank
If I may take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) on her successful Western Accord, it will re-emphasize our judgment that the Canadian Commercial Bank has a viable future in serving Canada. As a result of her efforts, we know that business and real estate in western Canada will once more have a bright future.
Record high interest rates and the recession of 1981-82 created severe difficulties for many of the CCB's borrowers. The result was an erosion of the performance of the Bank's loan portfolio and the values of the underlying security. The financial condition of the Bank deteriorated further as a result of falling real estate values in western Canada. The Office of the Inspector General of Banks was aware that the Bank's financial position had been weakening gradually, and believed these problems could be contained as the recovery in western Canada gained momentum since the economic situation, though difficult, was stabilizing.
In 1981 the Bank diversified and expanded into the American market, including an investment in a California bank. Recent oil price declines caught the Canadian Commercial Bank's clients in the U.S. energy service sector in a serious cost-revenue squeeze. This severely impaired their ability to meet their loan obligations. Because drilling activity in the U.S. has been particularly hard hit, the surplus of used oil drilling machinery further added to the Bank's losses. The Bank expects to suffer losses of $85 million on its U.S. portfolio valued at $115 million.
The CCB demonstrated a highly responsible attitude in trying to expand its regional base and diversify its areas of operation and spread its risks. Unfortunately, a substantial portion of its portfolio remained in the U.S. energy-related loans. In this regard, I want to emphasize, CCB is different from other western based banks in Canada which have very limited exposure in the U.S. energy service sector.
Because of the magnitude of the problems, current management of the Canadian Commercial Bank recognized that they could not continue to ensure a viable banking operation and they contacted the Office of the Inspector General of Banks on March 14. The situation was such that the deterioration in the Bank's loan portfolio could result in its being unable to meet its obligations to depositors and creditors.
The Inspector General conducted an analysis of the CCB's position, including an on-site re-evaluation of the loan portfolio. It was determined that a support package in the amount of $255 million would be sufficient to ensure the continuing operation of the Bank. In monitoring the situation, the Inspector General of Banks noted recent strengthening of the management and the board of directors. He noted the encouraging signs that remedial action was under way.
The Bank had begun efforts to diversify its loan portfolio and the locations of its operations. In addition, the Bank has worked hard to expand funding sources so that a smaller percentage of its liabilities were in the form of highly liquid money market bought deposits. The markets apparently viewed these efforts as beginning to produce beneficial results.
In fact, the Bank was successful in raising $95 million in new capital since mid-198 3.
It was determined that with the support package the current financial situation could be remedied and the Bank could continue to play a positive role in our western economy. Therefore, it was appropriate to allow management the opportunity to continue efforts to work things out to the best advantage of its borrowers and depositors.
The Canadian Commercial Bank also approached the Province of Alberta. At an early stage that Government expressed a willingness to support the CCB. The willingness of Alberta to participate in financial assistance to the Bank is a clear indication of the importance of this institution to regional economic development.
This concern is shared by the Government of British Columbia which is also participating in the restructuring package, along with the federal Government, the CDIC and six chartered banks. Private insitutions have also recognized that their self-interest lay in protecting and preserving the integrity of the confidence in our financial system. After extensive discussions concerning the form of the support package, they agreed to participate in co-operation with the provincial and federal Governments in assisting CCB.
As I stated earlier, we examined every possible option concerning the future of the Bank. The support package negotiated between the private sector and two levels of Government was the best option. There is a very large private sector participation in this support package. In addition, we have a partnership with the Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. Therefore, we were prepared to facilitate this solution.
I should like to discuss with the House the Bill and the agreement which was reached between the support group and the CCB. The Bill sets out the terms under which the federal Government is requesting the necessary funds to participate in the financial restructuring of the CCB. We believe that the package, as a whole, will allow the CCB to remain on a sound and healthy footing. Under the agreement, members of the support group will participate in a portfolio of loans made by CCB. In total, the support group has agreed to advance $255 million for this purpose. The Government of Canada is to advance $60 million. The Government of Alberta will participate with an additional $60 million. The six chartered banks will also provide $60 million, and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, which is funded by its member institutions, will contibute $75 million.
Paragraph 2(a) of the Bill enables the Government to acquire its participation certificates as set out in the agreement. Once the participation in the loan portfolio has been sold, the Bank will then be able to reduce its loan loss provisions by a corresponding amount.
The agreement provides that while in force, CCB will pay members of the support group, excluding the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, 50 per cent of pre-tax income until
"s

March 28, 1985

members of the support group are reimbursed. When other members of the support group have been reimbursed, the Bank will pay CD1C annually, in quarterly instalments, 50 per cent of pre-tax income until CDIC's participation in the restructuring package has been eliminated.
CDIC's involvement stems from the knowledge that if the Bank had been allowed to fail, the pay-outs in insured deposits could have exceeded its contribution to the support package. In that case the funds would not have been recoverable. Consequently, this approach represented the most cost effective manner of dealing with the present situation.
Although the funds the support group members are advancing do not carry a rate of interest, the agreement reached between the support group members and CCB provides for the issuance of warrants which give holders the right to purchase common shares of CCB. These warrants will expire 10 years after members of the support group have been reimbursed. The agreement has been structured so that these warrants will not be exercised until the bank has been restored to financial health and is once again a profitable operation. These warrants serve two purposes. First, they should yield a return to the members of the support group for participating in the restructuring package. Second, the execution of these warrants will result in a significant dilution of existing shareholders' equity in the Bank.
Paragraph 2(b) of the Bill enables the Government to acquire, hold or dispose of transferrable rights or warrants to purchase common shares in CCB so that the agreement can be implemented.
In an ancilliary agreement, the Governments of Canada, Alberta and British Columbia agreed to purchase $39 million of the Bank's outstanding debentures. This was necessitated because the support group required the debenture holders to forgo payments of principal and interest during the term of the support package. Since this agreement was not forthcoming, the three Governments co-operated in purchasing the outstanding debentures and waiving payments on them.
Paragraph 2(c) of the Bill establishes the federal Government's right to acquire, hold or dispose of bank debentures issued by CCB in accordance with this agreement.
Paragraph 2(d) establishes the federal Government's right to enter into any agreement or arrangement necessary or incidental to any activity referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c).
I should also like to mention that the Canadian Commercial Bank has agreed to co-operate fully with the Inspector General of Banks who will communicate with members of the support group concerning the ongoing monitoring of the bank. Some Hon. Members have asked why we did not act in a similar manner with the Pioneer Trust Company. I can only repeat what I have already told the House, namely, that Pioneer Trust had been searching for an infusion of capital for some time. It had been unable to find additional capital in the private sector without the assistance of the Government of Saskatchewan. That Government came to the conclusion that
Canadian Commercial Bank
it could not participate in an infusion of equity into Pioneer, and the management of Pioneer voluntarily closed its doors. The hard fact is that in the case of Pioneer Trust a joint federal-provincial-private sector package was not possible. In this case it was the opinion of the provinces, the private sector and the federal Government that a viable operation could be maintained, and we were therefore prepared to assist in the financial restructuring of the Bank.
In addressing the House I want to make clear that swift action is in the best interests of the Canadian financial system and, by extension, all Canadians. The Government's action is also in recognition of the particular needs of western Canada and the many small and medium-sized companies whose loans are held by the Canadian Commercial Bank. The Government believes that the speed with which a four-party agreement was reached-an agreement between two provincial Governments, the private sector, CDIC and the federal Government-is a significant achievement in co-operation. It is also an indication of the serious attitude which all parties have taken in the matter.
The consequences of not acting with all due haste would be to create uncertainties concerning the stability of our financial institutions among the international financial markets. In addition, Canadian businesses in the western provinces, both those which have dealings with CCB and those which do not, would be unsure of their financing until such time as this matter was dealt with in the House. A loss of confidence in our financial system would lead to downward pressures on the international value of our dollar. As Members of the House are well aware, this could put upward pressure on interest rates at a time when we are all united in the belief that lower interest rates would be beneficial to our economic renewal.
I am sure all Hon. Members will agree with the need to share with the provincial Governments in protecting the economies of the western provinces. This is why I am asking for all-Party approval and passage of the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition agreed to suspend other business of the House in order to expedite the Government's Bill authorizing financial assistance to the Canadian Commercial Bank because we recognized the importance of preserving confidence in our banks and our financial institutions. We recognize that this Bank's situation had reached crisis proportions, that it was necessary to take prompt action to deal with the situation and that it would be in the public interest to facilitate that action.
In response to a question put in the House the other day, the Minister had stressed that the Government was concerned about the shareholders of the Bank and indeed, when one looks at the list of shareholders, one sees that that is a very understandable concern. The shareholders include the Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec or the Quebec Provincial pension fund, the Great-West Life Assurance Co., the Canadi-

March 28, 1985
Canadian Commercial Bank
an National Railway Pension Fund, North West Trust Co., the Alberta Teachers' Retirement Fund, the Alberta Government Telephone Employees' Pension and Death Benefit Fund, the Air Canada Pension Trust Fund and the Manitoba Teachers' Retirement Fund.
Obviously those interests had to be protected and in fact, under this arrangement, the shareholders will take substantial losses. There will be a considerable dilution of their funds, but obviously it is still a better situation for them than failure of the Bank. I note that under the Memorandum of Agreement, the shareholders are required to approve the arrangement that is made.
Having said that, I do not wish to imply that oiir agreement to go ahead with the Bill today and tomorrow means that we approve of the way the Government has handled the entire matter. Let us understand what we have agreed to here and just how it departs from usual procedure. It is not unusual for the House to agree to pass a Bill through all stages in one or two days, particularly if there is a clear imperative to do so. In this case, however, we are dealing not only with a Bill but with a Memorandum of Agreement which was tabled only this afternoon.
The Bill contains the bare bones of the rescue operation announced by the Minister earlier this week. However, according to our rules, we can only debate what is contained within the Bill. The Memorandum of Agreement which was tabled only one hour ago contains the bulk of the information pertaining to the rescue operation, so even if the Chair allows considerable latitude in questioning during Committee of the Whole, we will still end by passing this Bill without having had a full opportunity to debate the contents of the Memorandum of Agreement.
Our opportunity to examine carefully what it involved in the Memorandum of Agreement and the entire history of the Government's actions over a period of a year or more since the Bank has been known to be in difficulty will come after the Bill is passed, when the Memorandum of Agreement will be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Although we will have an opportunity to get answers to the questions Members have been raising in the House this week, some of those answers will come after the fact. That is not a satisfactory way of proceeding, but we agreed to it because of the importance of maintaining faith and confidence in our financial institutions and because of the need to give some answers and some order and predictability to those pension-fund managers and their many anxious clients.
When Conservative Members were in opposition, they opposed vigorously all attempts at bail-outs. Those of us who were here will remember some very bitter debates in the House and very firm statements were made indicating that a troubled industry should get itself out of its trouble and not have taxpayers' money spent on it. In this case, a bank, of course, is in a particularly sensitive situation as compared to a manufacturing industry, and this is why we will not throw Conservative
Members' fine words back at them. However, we do have some questions to ask.
Regional banks have not had an unlimited success rate in Canada, but on two previous occasions when two regional banks were in difficulty, they were absorbed by larger, established eastern banks. The assets of this particular Bank are, I believe, less than 2 per cent of the assets of the entire banking industry, and one naturally questions why the banks are not putting more into this support package. The banks are contributing $60 million, the Government of Canada is contributing $60 million, and the Alberta Government is contributing $60 million. It is totally unprecedented for the Government to rescue a bank in this country; the banks have always done it themselves. We would like to know more about the history of this matter and we must hope that this decision has not been made because the Alberta Government did not wish to see its assets controlled by an eastern bank.
The amount of public money that is going into rescuing this Bank is very substantial. It is being put in interest free and it may be a very long time coming back. The terms of the agreement require that up to 50 per cent of pre-tax income is required to go into paying off the debts, if I understand correctly, and the question must be asked whether or not this is a reasonable expectation. Will a bank that is already in difficulty have the kind of cash flow that will permit it to make those payments or will we be waiting for a very long time to get that money back?
We have heard different statements in the House about the dates on which the Government became aware of the fact that the Bank was in difficulty. The first date that was given us was in March, just a couple of weeks ago, and I gather that that was the date on which the Inspector General of Banks indicated that the situation needed immediate action. Later, in response to a question, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said that the Inspector General of Banks had consulted with him last September. I understand that some of the American regulatory authorities have been in touch with the Minister of Finance because of their concerns about Northlands Bank in California, a bank which is connected to the Canadian Commercial Bank.
Hopefully, before we pass this Bill tomorrow and if not, although less desirably, during the course of the Finance Committee hearings, we would like to know exactly what the sequence of events was and how seriously attempts were made to get the banks themselves to rescue this particular Bank before this amount of public money was committed. The Minister, in all of her statements, has rightly emphasized the bad effects on the economy if uncertainty were left hanging regarding this Bank. We have already seen some of the results. We have seen the shares in the Bank drop. We have seen also, when the rescue was announced, slight measures of security taken. No one would want to leave this matter hanging for very long as the effects on our dollar and many other Canadian financial transactions would be undesirable.
We all agree that the Bank had to be rescued, but our concern is whether, before the Government provided that
March 28, 1985

amount of tax money, serious efforts were made to have the banks rescue this Bank as they have done in the past for other regional banks.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to correct something that the Hon. Member said. The name of the California bank is the Westlands Bank. The Northland Bank is a separate institution and it has nothing to do with the Canadian Commercial Bank.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if I said Northlands that was a mistake on my part and I thank the Hon. Minister for pointing it out to me.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bour-gault)-Public Works-Expropriation of land at Mirabel- Government position; The Hon. Member for Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Human Rights-Program to assist legal actions- Government position; and the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Unemployment Insurance-Severance pay measures, (b) Purpose and treatment of severance pay.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-37, an Act respecting the provision of financial assistance to the Canadian Commercial Bank, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having an opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-37, an Act respecting the provision of financial assistance to the Canadian Commercial Bank.
Certainly I listened carefully when the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) indicated that this was a very
Canadian Commercial Bank
uneasy time for the financial community of Canada. People outside Canada are looking at the situation very carefully and, of course, people within Canada are very deeply concerned about what has happened to the Canadian Commercial Bank and the steps which have been taken today.
Because of the rather shell-shocked financial community, and the jitteriness therein, we have agreed to co-operate fully with the Government in resolving quickly this financial situation and in moving quickly to get this Bill through all stages within a matter of hours. It is almost unprecedented behaviour in the House and I appreciate the co-operation of all Members in seeing this through to completion.
One of the reasons on which we were quite prepared to co-operate was the willingness of the Minister of State for Finance to provide a reference to the House which will enable the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to investigate the situation which led to the collapse. It will allow the members of that committee to bring in witnesses in an attempt to unravel the rather questionable behaviour of a number of very key players, both within the financial community and some who are more closely associated with the Government. It is because of that assurance that we will do everything possible to move this legislation through the House of Commons and on to the other place as quickly as possible.
I think it is important for us to recognize that we are talking about the tenth largest Bank in Canada and a rescue mission, or a bail-out, of almost $250 million. The taxpayers of Canada are being asked to bail out the tenth largest Bank in Canada. The Minister spoke very eloquently and laid out very carefully the reasons for this Bill, but she did not make reference to the fact that it is a bail-out. We are asking the people of Canada, through their federal and provincial taxes, to provide millions and millions of dollars for a total bail-out package of nearly $250 million.
Under the circumstances, perhaps this is the correct action. In terms of the co-operation of a number of players within the banking community, provincial Governments and the Canada Insurance Deposit Corporation, it was the appropriate action. If we consider the depositors and the borrowers of this Bank, and, of course, the investors of the bank, it was an important step to take in terms of image and of maintaining and developing confidence in the Canadian financial system.
For years and years we have prided ourselves on our banking system. We have heard Mr. Frazee, Mr. Mulholland, Mr. McIntosh and Governor Bouey speak of the stable, strong and secure Canadian banking system. It is not unlike the Swiss system. People the world over have heard of it and they have seen it in action. Indeed, people realize that we do have a stable and secure banking system. That is why I found a comment which Governor Bouey made peculiar.
Mr. Rosenberg of trust company fame, who is a rather infamous financial pirate and a shadowy individual in terms of dealings in the financial markets of this country and others, had a very close personal and business relationship with the Chief Executive Officer and President of the Bank which we are discussing today. Because of that personal relationship,

March 28, 1985
Canadian Commercial Bank
and some of the rather questionable financial dealings between those two individuals, the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank found it appropriate to resign. A stir went out across the country. It moved the central banker of Canada, Governor Bouey, to pick up the telephone and call The Globe and Mail on January 25, 1983, when this whole business was beginning to unravel. At that time he said that the Canadian Commercial Bank was a solvent and profitable bank. There was nothing to worry about. Governor Bouey was looking into the situation and there was nothing to worry about. Therefore, I think it is important that we, as Members of the House of Commons, recognize that Governor Bouey, with his statement in the national newspaper, sent out a very clear signal to Canadians and foreign investors, saying that everything was secure, firm and okay with the Bank. That was not the case. Certainly, it is not the case today. This Bill is required because that Bank was not in a solvent situation, and because it made some imprudent loans. It brings into question some of the comments that Mr. Bouey has made regarding the solvency of that financial institution.
I think it is fair to say that the individuals whom I have mentioned, with all due respect-Mr. Frazee, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Mulholland and many other chief executive officers of Canada's banks-and, in one way or another, all 73 of those chief executive officers, have said that they believe in free enterprise and that they are free enterprisers. I have heard many of them pounding away on the podium and saying that they are free enterprisers and that they believe in the marketplace and the reality of the market-place. They believe in that for everyone except for themselves. The bankers of this country know, and I suspect the people who are involved in the banking industry and the financial industry know as well, that if they get into trouble the whole system is there to bail them out. The Government of Canada, their colleagues and the provincial Governments will bail them out. In other words, there is no risk in that particular business if you are a major banker.
There is an up side to that, there is no question. But those free enterprisers must keep that in mind the next time they stand up and say that they believe in free enterprise and the realities of the market-place. Those who are proficient and successful-great. Those who are not will go down the tube, unless they are bankers. That is what this legislation says. Banks do not have to worry about the market-place and the free enterprise system in which we operate.
1 believe there are a great number of questions we have to ask ourselves. The Conservatives have introduced this legislation. They say there are tough times for farmers and ranchers. The realities of the market-place are going to result in tens of thousands of them having financial difficulties and hundreds going bankrupt. The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) nods his head. He knows full well what the ranchers and farmers in his constituency are experiencing. We are reminded regularly that in the small business community there are winners and losers. Hundreds and hundreds of small
businesses go under each year. That is the reality of the market-place. Hundreds and hundreds of home owners have lost their homes. There is no bail-out for the small businesses of the country, for the farmers, the fishermen or the ranchers. The banks get the bail-outs under this particular administration.
The new Conservative reality is that no one else is going to be assisted. Domtar in Quebec is not going to be assisted. Maislin is not going to be assisted. The former Government was soundly criticized time and time again for that kind of behaviour, but now when the time comes that a bank is in difficulty, the Conservatives fall all over themselves to ensure there is minimum damage.
The problems began, as I said earlier, back in January of 1983 and when Mr. Howard Eaton, the then Chairman and President of the Canadian Commercial Bank, resigned because of his personal business relationship with Leonard Rosenberg of the Toronto trust company collapsing fame. Mr. Rosenberg wrote a letter to the Bank the previous year, in 1982, and said that his aim was to take over 100 per cent of the shares of this Bank. This was in writing, Mr. Speaker, to a bank official. He eventually only got 33 per cent of the Bank's shares, but the Bank Act of Canada places limits on ownership to any one individual or corporation of a maximum of 10 per cent. The Bank Act says that no single individual or corporation is allowed to own more than 10 per cent of a bank, yet Mr. Rosenberg managed to accumulate 33 per cent, and his eventual goal was to get 100 per cent. The question is, where was the Inspector General of Banks while all this was going on? I am not going to criticize the Inspector General of Banks. I think it is only fair to point out that with 73 chartered banks in this country, and at a time when the financial community has never been so turbulent and the banking system so complex and changing-


An Hon. Member:: So exciting.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -so exciting-and I thank my colleague for providing me with that term-the Inspector General of Banks has only eight field officers to keep an eye on what is going on with the 73 banks. Some of those banks are the largest and the most profitable in the world. Some are pretty small, of course, but when one considers that the Inspector General of Banks, with very limited power and a handful of employees, is expected to keep on top of all the goings on in the banking system in Canada, one can see that it is an impossibility.
I believe this Bill before us today indicates very clearly that the Inspector General of Banks has simply found it impossible to keep on top of this whole situation. He obviously needs more authority and more staff to carry out his responsibilities. I suspect that it is about time the Inspector General of Banks looked at the health of the lenders, in this case the Canadian Commercial Bank, but he should also take a look at some of the major borrowers.
There is no question, when one considers who the borrowers were in this particular Bank-as the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) has amply pointed out in her
March 28, 1985

presentation-that there were serious problems. There was real need for concern. They were the western oil and gas industry and western real estate. Why did the Inspector General of Banks not tell the Bank that it had better diversify, that to have all its assets limited to those two sectors is not prudent lending practice? That is not the way a first-class bank ought to operate. Perhaps someone like Roland Frazee should be brought in to advise him at this particular time. He is an individual who appears to be running a very successful bank. But even for a layman, Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the areas in which that Bank was involved opened up all kinds of question which the Inspector General of Banks should have been flagging.
After all, we do know that many months ago the Inspector General of Banks indicate to the Minister of Finance that there was some problem out there, that the Bank was having some difficulties. I suspect that many Hon. Members of Parliament knew that. I myself was informed months ago by many individuals that that particular western Bank was experiencing financial difficulties, that it was experiencing some real problems. The Bank then goes out and purchases the Westlin Bank in California. When we see how unhealthy that particular bank was, Mr. Speaker, we have to scratch our heads at the wisdom of that particular move. What was behind that, Mr. Speaker? Why would a troubled bank go out and buy another troubled bank unless there was some rather incestuous financial behaviour going on at this particular time?


Arnold John Malone: Or it was sound.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Or, as the Hon. Member for Crowfoot says, it was sound. But when you buy a bank which is not particularly solvent, which is having all sorts of loan difficulties, I doubt if that is going to be a wise investment. That is the kind of question which our inquiry, through the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, must examine. We must ask those kinds of questions.
I do want to say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that we will reluctantly, I suppose, co-operate with the Government on this particular Bill in order to settle the dust out there in the financial community and to bring stability back. But there are many unanswered questions. My colleagues have specific questions they will want to raise. Tomorrow we will have a chance to go through this Bill clause by clause. We will be asking at that time some very penetrating questions. During the inquiry conducted by the Finance Committee we will have also a chance to find out just what is behind this. What does it tell us about our banking system? What does it tell us about Governor Bouey and his role as the central banker in maintaining stability in our banking community? What does it tell us about the Inspector General of Banks and his ability to oversee this very complex and dynamic financial community?
It is a pleasure to have a chance to offer a few comments and I look forward to a speedy finalization of this Bill.
Canadian Commercial Bank


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the economic summit must have been successful beyond the fondest imaginings of any of us when we have the spokesman for the New Democratic Party recommending Mr. Frazee in the capacity of consultant.
The Minister of State has already explained to the House the important considerations which led to the decision of the federal Government to participate in a support package for the Canadian Commercial Bank. I would like to add my comments to those of the Minister because I am deeply concerned that the Hon. Members appreciate the significance of the CCB to the western economy. Although the federal Government must take a larger perspective in such important matters, there is no issue which can be closer to the heart of any Member of Parliament than the interests of his constituency and his constituents.
My constituents, I am sure, would share my appreciation for the federal Government's concern and the plan of action placed before us today. Like the Governments of British Columbia and Alberta, the national Government has recognized the important contribution to regional economic development which can be made by a viable western based bank. I believe Hon. Members are aware that the economic setback suffered in the West, particularly in Alberta and British Columbia, was severe. But the hard fact is that the recession did not end in late 1982 in Alberta and British Columbia as it did, on average, across Canada. And the losses suffered in the recession in terms of growth and jobs have not yet been made up in those provinces as they have been in the country as a whole.
Let me illustrate with some figures showing the impact on jobs. In Alberta, total unemployment increased from 41,000 at the beginning of the recession in August, 1981 to 127,000 at the official end of the recession in November, 1982. Fifteen months after the official end of the recession, unemployment stands at 143,000, even higher than during the recession. The unemployment situation in British Columbia was worse to begin with. There were 83,000 unemployed. By the official end of the recession, this had increased to 198,000, and as of last month there were 215,000 unemployed.
In terms of job creation, Alberta lost 48,000 jobs during the recession and an additional 8,000 jobs since that time. B.C. has gained back some of the jobs it lost during the recession, but still shares with Alberta and New Brunswick the sad disctinction of having fewer jobs now than at the beginning of the recession in August of 1981, almost four years ago.
The impact has been devastating not only for people looking for jobs but for business people as well. Business failures in 1984 rose above 1983 levels in both Alberta and British Columbia. I am sure I do not have to remind Hon. Members that the small- and medium-sized business community has been the single largest creator of jobs in our economy. This is the sector on which the Government is most clearly depending to continue to provide the jobs Canadians need.

March 28, 1985
Canadian Commercial Bank
Alberta has suffered an exodus of population which has further damaged the business climate. The impact has been particularly evident in the housing market. Amidst all of this economic difficulty, it is not surprising that we should be called upon to adopt some special measures to protect the financial and economic climate of the West.
The extent of the Bank's exposure to the economic conditions in western Canada has been discussed already in this House. Let me add some statistical evidence to illustrate the depth of the Bank's involvement in the regional economy. The importance of the Canadian commercial Bank to the western economy is evident from the fact that 70 per cent, or $1.1 billion, of the its domestic loans are to businesses located in that region. As we are all aware, the previous Government's policies were not well received in the energy sector. We also know that the western economy suffered severely during the recent recession. Although it has not rebounded as quickly as we would have hoped, there is reason to be optimistic, and that reason is reinforced and enhanced by the statement today of the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
However, we cannot sit back and hope that all will instantly be well. We must rely on all possible avenues of self-help and co-operation from the private sector, provincial Governments, and of course the federal Government. The difficulties experienced by many of the CCB's borrowers resulted in an erosion in the performance of the Bank's loan portfolio and the values of the underlying security. The Government had already been monitoring the Bank's financial position before the most recent and severe difficulties. To that point, although it had been weakening gradually, it was thought that the problems could be improved upon by the Bank itself as economic conditions improved in western Canada. It was thought that the situation generally was stabilizing. The Bank had initiated efforts to diversify its loan portfolio and the locations of its operations, including the investment in the California bank. The recent oil price decline caught the CCB's clients in the U.S. energy service sector in a serious cost-price squeeze. Their ability to meet their obligations was severely impaired. Because of the especially difficult situation for drilling activity in the U.S., the surplus of used oil equipment further added to the Bank's losses. The Bank expects to suffer losses of $85 million on its U.S. portfolio valued at $115 million.
I would mention to Hon. Members that a recent Wall Street Journal article estimates that since December 1, 1984, 1,000 drilling rigs in the U.S. have become or will become idle. This contrasts with the situation in Alberta where activity has increased somewhat, and can be expected to further expand, given the recent oil price agreement reached between the provincial and federal Governments. In fact, as the Minister of State (Mr. McLean) has already explained, the Bank has been demonstrating a responsible approach in trying to expand its regional base and diversify its areas of operation and spread its risks. The Bank had begun efforts to diversify its loan portfolio and the locations of its operations. In addition, it worked hard to expand funding sources so that a smaller percentage of its liabilities were in the form of highly liquid money market
deposits. The markets apparently viewed these efforts as beginning to produce beneficial results, and the Bank raised $95 million in new capital since mid-1983.
The support package is expected to remedy the Bank's current situation and allow it to continue to play a positive role in our western economy. That is why the two provincial Governments were willing to participate in the support package in the very early stages. That is also why the private institutions have taken a role. That is why the federal Government is asking the House for its support in agreeing to federal participation. Hon. Members are already aware that the CCB is a regionally based Bank and specializes in loans to small and medium-sized businesses in western Canada. The average loan is in the area of $3 million. The liquidation of the Bank would have resulted in the calling of many term loans to western Canadian businesses which might have threatened their survival.
I have already mentioned the role of the small- and medium-sized business community in job creation. When a business closes, it represents more than a blotch on the bank's record. It represents more than another statistic for StatsCan. It represents a human tragedy. It represents the hopes and deams of the owner or owners, the employees, shareholders and all their families. The local, in this case western, economy suffers as a consequence.
I have painted a sad picture of what happened to the western economy in recent years, Mr. Speaker. What is equally important in terms of this legislation is the outlook for the future, and that is where the picture brightens a great deal. In Alberta particularly, but all across the West, the prospects are once again improving. I do not need to tell you how important the new energy agreement is going to be in that regard. It will be fundamental to the recovery of the western economy, inasmuch as a recovery can ever be achieved from the maladies of rape and pillage. The basic strength is there. The spirit is there, particularly the entrepreneurial spirit that helped build the western economy and has helped it to weather some heavy storms over the years.
A recent report by the Conference Board of Canada states that after three years of output contraction, Alberta's economy is poised for renewed growth in 1985. The report went on to mention a forecast of a 2.1 per cent increase in production, and it reports that oil and gas exploration and production are also forecast to gain more ground this year. Even the troubled manufacturing sector and the trade and finance sector are beginning to show signs of recovery, and further progress is expected in 1985.
Noting that British Columbia suffered an extremely severe recession in 1982, the Conference Board report says that last year services began to improve and coal production surged. In 1985, the westernmost province is forecast to enjoy a year of stronger growth as major industries at last move forward in unison. The West is on the way back. The Bill before us today will help ensure a strong recovery and new growth spearheaded by rising business investment in the future of the West.
March 28, 1985

The Canadian Commercial Bank has played an important role in supporting the development of the West since coming into existence. The support package that the Minister has provided will ensure that the Bank can continue to play its influential role in development and growth. Because it is important for the House to be aware of the Government's actions, and the need for these actions, I appreciate the swiftness with which the details have been provided. It is equally important for individual Canadians and businesses to recognize that the situation is an isolated incident based on very particular circumstances. The situation does not represent a threat to the integrity of our banking system, although if it is not addressed now, it could play a disruptive role in the economic recovery and future development of the western economy. By taking quick action in the present circumstances, the governments and the private sector are helping maintain the confidence of those businesses which have loans with the CCB and indeed of other small-and medium-sized businesses in the West.
It is also important to note that the agreement will not impair the ability of the Bank to meet its obligation to its creditors. The funds will not be repaid until the Bank's profitability has been restored. We believe that the package as a whole will allow the CCB to remain on a sound and positive footing. The federal Government's confidence in the Bank's future is obvious. We have every expectation that the taxpayers' monies will be recouped and that these efforts will enhance the economic stability of an important region and sector of our economy.
This Government does not throw good money after bad, Mr. Speaker. This Government supports regional development to ensure investment and growth in our future. I am convinced that the measures presented to the House represent that kind of investment. Our investment will protect, not only an important financial institution and the businesses depending on it, but it will pay off in the future for the people of the West and the people of Canada.
Although the funds the support group members are advancing do not carry a rate of interest, the agreement reached between support group members and the CCB provides for the issuance of warrants which give the holders the right to purchase common shares of the CCB. The agreement has been structured so that these warrants will not be exercised until the Bank has been restored to financial health and is once again a profitable operation.
I believe that the quick response time in this matter and the co-operation exhibited by two provincial Governments, the private sector, CDIC, and this House, is a significant achievement in co-operation. It is also an important indication of the need for serious attention and action.
I would like to express my total support for the Government's decision. It is an especially important proposal in view of the economic problems that have beset the two most western
Canadian Commercial Bank
provinces and the need to support their economic development, which has begun, and also their future.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing like a convert if one is to be a really convincing supporter. I am amazed that the Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) has such a short memory. When the former Government brought forth legislation to help Chrysler out of a difficult financial position, we heard all kinds of Tory Members of Parliament telling us how bad, difficult and wicked the Liberals were.
I now hear the Member saying that this is a viable Bank in western Canada. He says it is a regional bank that is important. I support that. I think he is right. However, does the Member realize that the same Canadian Commercial Bank was told some months ago by the Inspector General of Banks that it should diversify? In his remarks he mentioned that it did diversify. Yes, it diversified in California to the tune of $90 million in oil rigs. Is there a national energy program in California? No, Mr. Speaker. Why did they not do so well down there? The Member was talking about rape and pillage in Canada. Will the Member get his act together?
We in eastern Canada are always accused of not understanding that a problem in Canada is a Canadian problem and that if Chrysler had not been helped by the Government and the taxpayers of the country it would not be where it is today. Domtar is asking for support from the Government and is not getting it. Will the Member please tell me now how he rationalizes that and how converts can be so convincing? Will the Member please explain how he reconciles his position with this last act of his Government?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where to begin. I suppose I could fall back on a new Member's cop-out and say that I entered the House as a tabula rasa but-


Ms. Copps:: You still are one.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I am being inscribed upon in a most abrasive fashion, Mr. Speaker. I did my share, I bought a Chrysler. I wonder if the Hon. Member would care to defend the record of the Maislin bail-out? That one was a bit putrescent, in my opinion. To get to the point, a bank is a bank is a bank.


Some Hon. Members:: And a Tory is a Tory is a Tory.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Amen to that.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. I am really amazed. Here is a group of Conservatives who have all consistently said that we must get government out of business, that government has no place in the boardrooms of the nation. Yet one of their corporate friends, a bank, is experiencing difficulty and they all run in to offer the taxpayers' money in interest-free loans.
How does the Hon. Member reconcile that philosophical principle which the Conservatives have been trumpeting across the country? Is it not time for us to get a window on the banking system and to take the Bank over and run it as a Canadian controlled and owned bank?

March 28, 1985
Canadian Commercial Bank


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, a reference was made a moment ago to movies. The name of the movie is Ordinary People.


John R. Rodriguez: That's not an answer.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) comes from a part of the country that is experiencing a great deal of economic difficulty. Many businesses in his community would have failed and some in the critical sectors may still be failing. There are no bail-outs for them. Small- and medium-sized businesses are on their own. How can the Member stand in his place today and say that he supports this and that it is the right thing to bail out a bank? You will not bail out small business but you bail out banks. How does the Hon. Member explain that to his constituents?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered that question with my reference to "Ordinary People". As the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) has said so well, we are striving to protect the depositors and borrowers of this Bank in whatever way we can.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Hon. Member to define for me what free enterprise means. Hon. Members opposite continually speak of free enterprise and of getting government off the backs of business. They now seem to be whistling a different tune with respect to this particular matter. Would the Hon. Member define succinctly what it means to have a free enterprise system?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, probably the best description is that free enterprise is the opposite of what has become known in this nation as liberalism.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go on at length, but I know the Hon. Member recognizes that for a bank this is a rather unique operation in that it does not deal with ordinary people in the sense that other banks do. It is not the kind of place where you drop by, cash your cheque, deposit $10, and take a look at your pass book to see how things work. Even so, ordinary people who have deposits of under $60,000 would have been covered by the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation, as all other people are. The shareholders are to receive nothing for the better part of the next 10 years, or maybe longer. Their stocks have gone from a value of in excess of the $20 to virtually nothing at the moment. They are not marketable.
The people who will derive the most benefit from the consolidation process that has taken place are in fact the other banks which have $150 million in deposit with the Canadian Commercial Bank. Does it not strike him as reasonable to conclude that it was not ordinary people who were protected and that the Government, at the behest of the Bank, bailed out the banks?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the protection was for those small businesses, which were the borrowers of the Canadian
Commercial Bank, their families and the ordinary people who depend upon them. As the Minister said, the protection was for the depositors first, for the borrowers second and, in the last resort, for the shareholders.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has made many glib statements about the wonderful job the Government is doing in bailing out the Canadian Commercial Bank. In the Canadian Commercial Bank's Annual Report for 1984, the Member will no doubt be aware that one of the problems it was citing with respect to the loss per common share of 22 cents was high interest rates.
Would he tell us what the Government is doing specifically with respect to the current abhorrent spread between the cost of borrowing money and interest yield? What is his Government doing about the spread?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) answered that question today. The drop in interest rates itself is starting to close that unfortunately large gap.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Resuming debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a few words on this special Bill about "Barbara's big bank". I believe this is rather extraordinary legislation.
It raises in my mind, the minds of many of my constituents in Saskatchewan and, of course, many people in Alberta, the possibility of a double standard with respect to how depositors are treated in the case of the Canadian Commercial Bank and how they are being treated in the case of Pioneer Trust. I want to use the Minister herself as reference. Yesterday she said, according to the Ottawa Citizen:
But McDougall told the Commons the banking system or Canadian Commercial's shareholders were government's last priorities in agreeing to the bailout scheme.
'We didn't move to save the bank. We moved to save the borrowers and depositors of that bank,' she said.
Of course she agrees. The main purpose was to save the depositors and the borrowers who had invested in the Canadian Commercial Bank.
I simply ask that if we can do that as a Parliament for the depositors and investors in the Canadian Commercial Bank, why do we not do the same thing for the people who invested their money in Pioneer Trust? I know that many Members opposite agree with me, from conservations that we have had. Since we have set this kind of precedent, this Parliament must find a way to ensure that ordinary Canadians in Alberta and Saskatchewan are not discriminated against. I would like to see some support from Members of the Conservative Party because I am sure most of them agree with me.
I want to spend a few minutes putting on the record exactly what I mean. During Question Period today, I mentioned that I had a letter from a Saskatchewan farmer. I have his permission to use his name. His name is R. S. Schwartz from Englefeld, Saskatchewan. He wrote the following letter:
March 28, 1985

I had to quit farming to allow my sons to fully take over, and put my sales from wheat into Guaranteed Income Averaging Certificates in Pioneer Trust Company for six and seven years respectively, so that I would have a monthly income until I get my Old Age Pension.
The two applications for these certificates which I signed in good faith in this company bear the seal of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, which covered my deposits. Furthermore, they do not state that there is a guaranteed limit of only five years.
My friend from Hamilton said that, as we all know, people, are insured up to $60,000. That is not the case for some investments. I quote from the letter:
To date I have not received any communication from anyone concerning my investments in Pioneer Trust: 1 have only heard from the media, and repeatedly seemed to be assured that deposits under $60,000 were insured and would be fully paid.
By Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. He goes on to
say:
On March 1st I asked at their office (now B.C. Bank) in Saskatoon for the return of my investment and was informed that my policies were not insured. I received a form for proof of claim which I sent with photocopies of my certificates to Touche Ross Co. in Regina. I still have had no communication from anyone.
For your information, Pioneer Management (a branch of Pioneer Trust) held a supper meeting in Englefeld on March 12th assuring the people that they are financially sound and expanding. I was not invited!
If this is the case, I feel they should be compelled to finance the obligations of Pioneer Trust.
I urge you to demand that Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation be made to do this, or that it be made to honor its guaranteed insurance to me, regardless of the five-year limit, to which I never did sign.
Yours truly R. S. Schwartz
I had an opportunity to speak with him on the telephone yesterday. He told me that when he made his application for these two certificates-one for six years and one for seven years-the standard CDIC stamp was on those certificates saying that he would be fully insured. He was never told by Pioneer Trust that he would not be insured. He has invested less than $60,000.
I believe he sold his wheat in this case and, as Members are aware, farmers do not have a company pension plan. Small business people do not have a company pension plan. Therefore, they sell their business or farm and put the money into an RRSP or income averaging annuity to act as the pension income. This person was informed that that would be the case.
I believe the Minister when she says that her first priority is for those depositors and investors in the Canadian Commercial Bank. She says that the Government must rescue ordinary Canadians and do something for them. I have been told that the money in the Canadian Commercial Bank includes funds from the Manitoba Teachers' Pension Fund.
If we are going to pass legislation for them, why should we not do the same thing for a retired farmer in Saskatchewan or a businessman in Alberta who have put their entire life savings into the Pioneer Trust Company?
Let me tell you more about people who invest in Pioneer Trust. The City of Regina has $1 million in Pioneer Trust.
Canadian Commercial Bank


An Hon. Member:: Tell us all about the widows and orphans.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do not think that it is a laughing matter, Mr. Speaker. The City of Regina has $1 million in Pioneer Trust. The Province of Saskatchewan, which has a Conservative Government, has $4 million in Pioneer Trust. Many schoolboards have money in Pioneer Trust. There are many farmers who have money in Pioneer Trust. I have given one example today, and I had a second call from a farmer in my riding to which I could refer if I had time.
There are architects and contractors who have money in Pioneer Trust. Sask Sports is a sponsor of recreation and culture in our province. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is very familiar with that organization. It has money in the Pioneer Trust. Another depositor is a hospital which is run by an order of nuns in the City of Estevan. These are people who have invested in Pioneer Trust. Of course, they were upset with the collapse of Pioneer, but they are even more upset when they see the double standard by which the Government bails out a bank but not the depositors who have money in Pioneer Trust.
There is an elected official in my riding in the City of Melville. I understand that he has more than $60,000 deposited for less than five years. He is assured that he will get back at least $60,000. He told me on the telephone yesterday that he has no word whatsoever from CDIC. He said that other people who will be getting $60,000 have had no word whatsoever from CDIC. Of course, they are not insured for anything over $60,000. Anything over $60,000 is not insured. What has made this man angry is that he sees us bailing out the Canadian Commercial Bank and its depositors. He sees them called ordinary Canadians. He sees that their assets are important to the Parliament of this land, and he says, "What about mine?" Those are the words of an elected official in Melville, which is a very important city in my riding.
Pioneer Trust has not informed a lot of people when they were putting money in the trust company that their funds may not be insured for more than five years. Yesterday I decided to do an experiment here in Ottawa. I had one of my staff go to Canada Permanent Trust on Metcalfe Street. My staff member, Michele Charbonneau, went into Canada Permanent and inquired about annuities, bonds, certificates, and things of that sort. She asked the woman at the Permanent whether she would be insured for more than five years as she might want to invest for six or seven years. The woman said, "Of course, no problem whatsoever". Miss Charbonneau pulled out the brochure from CDIC and showed the five-year limit on certain kinds of investments. The woman said, "That must not be true". She went to check with her boss and came back a few minutes later with a red face, very embarrassed, and said, "It is true. There is a five-year limit for insurance".
I wonder whether a lot of trust companies in Canada are ignoring the by-laws of CDIC which say that customers should be told that their savings may only be insured for some five years. Because of that I want to make an appeal to the

March 28, 1985
Canadian Commercial Bank
Minister. In the House she said again today that Pioneer Trust was not going to be viable, that it closed its doors in a voluntary way, that there was no private nor provincial government assistance in terms of arranging a bail-out and things of that sort. I am not arguing here for corporate welfare. My concern is about the ordinary depositors. The Minister said in the House on Tuesday:
Mr. Speaker, I might point out that many financial institutions, including the Canadian Commercial Bank, also have municipal depositors, hospitals, and other ordinary Canadians as depositors and borrowers, as did Pioneer Trust. I might also point out, in the case of Pioneer Trust, that management voluntarily closed the doors after spending a considerable amount of time trying to find capital which they could not find.
She goes on to repeat those kinds of arguments.
I also have here a letter containing many pages that she wrote to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), explaining the whole thing. The Minister may be right, in terms of the inefficiency of Pioneer Trust, that it had to close its doors, that it was not viable, that the provincial Government was not interested in putting up enough money to try to keep Pioneer Trust viable, that there was no private sector solution and all those kinds of things. That still does not answer the problem, Mr. Speaker, of my farmer in Englefeld the elected official in the City of Melville, and of all kinds of other people who have put money into Pioneer Trust. We must find a solution for those folks. That is my case. If we are going to pass this Bill, if we are going to bail out the Canadian Commercial Bank, if we are going to help certain depositors and certain investors in a financial organization like a bank, then why can we not do it for a trust company?
There is something I could not help but note in the opening remarks of the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDou-gall), I think she is trying to do the best job she can, but she said that the reason for bailing out the Bank was that we had to have confidence in the financial system. She used the words "financial system". To me the financial system is not just the banks but the trust companies as well. She nods in agreement. If she agrees that we are not only talking about banks in terms of financial confidence in Canada, why can we not have, when we have this very hurried legislation concerning this Bank, some other legislation by which the federal Government would provide assistance to depositors and investors in Pioneer Trust?
We seem to have an agreement that there is an unfairness, an injustice and inequity in that the financial system includes not only the banks but also trust companies. If so, then perhaps we should send this legislation back to the drawing board for a few hours or a couple of days in order to solve that problem as well.
There is another thing. The Minister said, and I agree 100 per cent with this, that she wanted to make the system safe for depositors. Of course we want to make it safe for depositors, but that has not been the case for Pioneer Trust. If we are going to make the banking system safe for depositors, then let us make the trust company system safe for depositors as well.
I have the brochure here from CDIC. The regulations and rules are here. It is spelled out, for example, that there are
cases where you can get a five-year guarantee. It is right here in the brochures that are put out. Obviously some trust companies ignore the rules with their clients and customers.
As I said before-the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) just got up and the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) is here-we know our problems well. We know that for many farmers their life savings are their farms. They put their savings in a trust company or in a bank, and that is all they have. What does this man from Englefeld have now unless this Parliament comes to the rescue? Pioneer Trust has let him down. In my opinion it is not CDIC. Perhaps we need to change the legislation concerning CDIC as well. That is for the future. I think this Parliament must come to the rescue.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are considering a Bill that is nothing less than a welfare handout for the Canadian Commercial Bank, at a time when we need help for the average Canadian. I met five farmers from Ontario 45 or 60 minutes ago and one of them told me that in his neighbourhood, along a road two and a half miles long with maybe eight or nine farms, all the farms except one are now up for sale, because of the many financial problems facing farmers today. Farmers, fishermen, and small- and medium-sized businesses all have a lot of financial problems. Canadians should be able to contract loans at a reasonable rate of interest, and if we can do something for the Canadian Commercial Bank, Mr. Speaker, we should be able to do something for the average Canadian as well.


Ian Deans: league that I hope that is what we are trying to achieve here today.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I agree that perhaps we should rewrite the law. I think it has to be done. We are dealing in an emergency circumstance with a wrong which must be righted for many ordinary folk who put their life savings into Pioneer Trust. Pioneer Trust may not be the last trust company which goes broke. It has happened before. There are many innocent victims out there who feel that the federal Parliament and the federal Government should put up a certain percentage of their losses because they were not told by Pioneer Trust that their savings were not insured.


Ian Deans: They were cheated; they were almost lied to.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They were almost lied to; they were cheated. It may have been inadvertent but certainly it was the case.
I referred to the letter of Mr. Schwartz of Englefeld because he told me on the telephone that on his application for the two certificates was the standard stamp of CDIC indicating that he would be insured. If that is the case then we are dealing with something which is very misleading, and Parliament should come to the rescue.
If the Minister is afraid of legal action, I suspect that just by opening the door to help the depositors and investors in the Canadian Commercial Bank, she may have legal cases on her hands in any event. I encourage her to come forward quickly with some special and justified assistance to these innocent victims of the system.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this Bill, I want to make the basic point that if a vote is called on it, we in the Official Opposition will likely be voting in support of the Bill. However, if we do so, it does not mean that we agree in any way with the manner in which the Government has handled this Canadian Commercial Bank problem. It does not mean that we believe that the Government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), have carried out adequately and properly their responsibilities in this regard. They have a lot of explaining to do, and they have done very little so far.
After all, it is on record that as far back as September 14, the Inspector General of Banks came to the Minister and gave a clear warning of the problems this Bank already had and the problems which would be building up if nothing was done at that point.
If we vote in support of this Bill at second reading, it does not mean that we believe the Government has necessarily come up with the best package or the best way to deal with the Canadian Commercial Bank situation. We would be supporting this Bill because we believe it should go to Committee of the Whole for detailed study. It is only through giving the Bill second reading, approval in principle, that it can go to Committee of the Whole, and it is in Committee of the Whole that
Canadian Commercial Bank
we can put our questions on the floor of the House to the Minister, questions concerning what led up to the situation requiring the bail-out of the Canadian Commercial Bank and how the Government carried out, or more likely failed to carry out, its responsibilities in this important matter.
If there is a vote at second reading, it is likely that we will be supporting the sending of the Bill to Committee of the Whole and voting for it because that is the only way to get it to Committee of the Whole. If there is a vote, we would be voting for the Bill for another reason, because we believe there is a proper and legitimate place for government to play a role in assisting the private sector to develop and move forward. Frankly, without this kind of involvement, there would be no private sector in Canada or in the United States or in the western world today. If there had not been government involvement and support, in fact to rescue the private sector, it would have foundered completely during the Great Depression of the thirties and it would have come close to that in other recessions since that time.
This involvement of government in support of the private sector in some cases could mean reinforcing strength and building upon strength, as we believe is the case with respect to Domtar in Windsor, Quebec. In that situation the Government, to its shame and detriment so far, at least, has refused to respond in the proper fashion. In other cases the involvement of government in support of the private sector could mean helping companies in difficulty to have the opportunity to restructure, to modernize, to become more competitive and therefore successful, as was the case with the Chrysler Corporation, not only in Canada but in the United States. In fact, if we had not intervened in respect of Chrysler in Canada, the parent company would have foundered. Without the assistance of the Government of Canada it would not have qualified for the assistance voted by the United States Congress in that American legislation required involvement by other players. That was not there until the Government of Canada came forward.
Sometimes the involvement of government in support of the private sector when it comes to a company in difficulty works, as was the case with Chrysler. There are other cases where unfortunately it does not work. However, one has to be willing to recognize that there are chances to be taken. The Government is certainly willing to take a chance in the Canadian Commercial Bank case. The story has not yet been played out. Many hope that this bail-out-and let us call it what it is- will work, but we do not know for sure what will happen. Sometimes the Government has to take a chance. Sometimes that chance turns out well and sometimes it does not. However, one has to recognize that there are legitimate cases for involvement of government in the private sector to work with and to support a company to survive, not only in the interests of the company but of its workers and the community that depends upon it. This basic principle can apply to a financial institution. The Government argues that this is a proper case for government involvement to save a financial institution.

March 28, 1985
Canadian Commercial Bank
If we vote for this Bill at second reading, it is because we believe in the principle I have outlined, that there is a proper case for governments to intervene in support of the private sector. However, we reject the hypocrisy and that double standard of the Conservative Party now that it is in government.
Before September 4, Conservative Members spent months and years saying that this basic principle was wrong and that the efforts the Liberals made in support of individual firms, the workers and the communities depending upon them, were wrong and should not be made. Suddenly, now that they are in office, they discover that the principle is not such a bad idea after all, at least when it comes to bailing out a bank. Let us have on record what the Conservatives are doing here. They are exhibiting another example of hypocrisy and double standard. While there may well be a case for supporting this Bill, let us recognize that in presenting it the Conservative Government is admitting that all the things it said about similar activities by the Liberal Governmnent in past years were wrong and invalid. We will be reminding the Government of its action of bailing out the Canadian Commercial Bank when other cases arise for which we think federal support and involvement in the private sector is justified and worth-while. An example of this is the case of Domtar.
I would like to conclude by saying that in supporting this Bill, as we may well do on second reading, I give the Government clear warning that we are not giving it carte blanche to find the money needed for the bail-out of this Bank by taking it away from any government program and activity it wishes. There are a great many programs and activities we on behalf of the Canadian people consider worth-while. I fear that the Government will find this money at the expense of worth-while programs and the interests of individual Canadians and their families. We will press the Government very hard to make sure that that does not happen.
The Government has acted with swift generosity to bail out the Canadian Commercial Bank. It argues that there are good reasons for it to do so and that it is in the over-all public interest. The Government may have a point, but there are many other areas which should legitimately be included when it comes to government action in support of individual companies and businesses. There are thousands of farmers in severe financial difficulty but the Government never intervened and has no intention of intervening as swiftly as it has intervened for this Bank, nor has it intervened to provide the same kind of support for thousands of small businesses across the country. Let that be on the record and let it also be on the record not only that the validity of the principle in which we as Liberals believe of government involvement in support of the private sector is being confirmed by the Government but that the Government has shown hypocrisy in rejecting that principle in the past and suddenly discovering it when it comes to a bail-out of this interesting little Bank, the Canadian Commercial Bank.
Having said all of this, I wish to say again that there are reasons why, if there is a vote, we may well support this Bill on second reading. However, I hope that the Government and certainly the Canadian people will bear in mind what I have said about the lessons provided to the Government and all of us here by the Canadian Commercial Bank situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a few comments on the record.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Very few.


John R. Rodriguez: They will be very succinct, clear and specific because I believe that this is a moment of truth for the Tory Government.
The Bill that has been presented this afternoon is not a bail-out of the Bank; it is a coverup for the ineptitude and incompetence of the Government. This Bank is a federally constituted Bank and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of a federal statute, the Bank Act. We even have a big bogyman, an Inspector General of Banks.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Barbara is a bogyman?


John R. Rodriguez: No, no. The Government knew since September that this Bank was in some trouble. On principle, we socialists have no problem with public ownership. However, I think this Government is a phoney. All I have heard from government Members about Canadair, de Havilland, Air Canada and CNR is that the public sector cannot run a business properly and that it always puts businesses in the hole. Here we have the proponents of free enterprise and of a free market system, but what are they forced into doing? This afternoon, in the closing hours of a rainy Thursday afternoon in Ottawa, they are sneaking in a Bill and sucking in the Liberals. It is not difficult to suck in Liberals, and the Government knows it.
If we are going to put up $60 million interest free, it seems to me that it is only fair that we should get some equity for it.
I have heard the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) say that he is looking for buyers for de Havilland and Canadair. While he is looking for buyers to get rid of what he calls failures, we have equity in those corporations. What equity are we going to be getting from bailing out this Bank? All we are doing is saving the face of the Minister.


Arnold John Malone: And what a face to save.


John R. Rodriguez: Well, it is not a bad face to save, but is it worth $60 million?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Surely it can be said that this was the face that launched a bank.
The second point I wish to make is that in this moment of truth, the Government is establishing a new principle. The new
March 28, 1985

principle that is being established here this afternoon is that this is an interventionist Government which is prepared to intervene in the market-place. I am glad that that is being put on the record today. In fact, it is in the interest of letting the Government put this on the record that I will take my seat.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. Does he not realize that this Bill would not be proceeding now without the full agreement of the House Leader on his behalf and that of his Party? I hope he will not talk about sneaking this Bill into the House. Second, does he not realize that when speaking of the Government as being an interventionist Government, he is giving intervention a very bad name?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, yes, we wanted the Bill to come before the House and we wanted it to come before the House for a reason. We want to see a vote and we want the Tories and the Liberals to vote together for this interventionist Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is the following one. Mrs. McDougall, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-37, an Act respecting the provision of financial assistance to the Canadian Commercial Bank, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour, please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed, please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been made.

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on March 22 of this year, I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) a question in the House concerning the court challenge program and I asked him what the Government's position was on extending this program to Section 15 of the Constitution.
The program was created in 1978 to provide financial assistance for individuals seeking court decisions that would

March 28, 1985
Adjournment Debate
help clarify language rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The House will recall that it covers Sections 93 and 133 of the Act of 1867, Section 23 of the Manitoba Act and, since 1982, Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the section that deals with language rights.
Since 1978, fourteen cases have been accepted under the program and subsidies totalling $580,000 were granted. This year, an additional $60,000 was transferred to the $200,000 already granted by Treasury Board, bringing this year's budget to $260,000.
Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members will recall that I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) about this program some time ago, and I reminded him that the court challenges program was due to expire on March 31, which means in three days. There will be no more money and thus no program. Interestingly, the expiry date of March 31 is rather symbolic, because on the 17th, in two weeks, we will have here in Canada a Charter of Rights recognizing Section 15 that deals with fundamental rights and which, I think, should make it possible for Canadians to challenge the interpretation of the Charter before the courts.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleagues that during the election campaign, the Progressive Conservative Party fully supported the court challenges program to assist legal actions. This was clear from their comments. In a letter sent to the Federation des francophones hors Quebec, the Prime Minister or rather the Leader of the Conservative party gave his unconditional support to the program. He said that his Government would continue to support and strengthen the program.
In a question put to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) on March 20, the Minister was asked whether the Government was looking into the possibility of expanding the program. Before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, on March 20, the Minister of Justice said, and I quote:
The question is whether the court challenges program should be extended beyond language rights. Those rights are covered in Section 133 and Section 23 of the Manitoba Act and Article 23 of the Charter of Rights. He asked whether we are to go forward and expand the financing of the court actions and appeals where the Government is on one side arguing one thing, and financing someone on the other side who is arguing the direct opposite. He asked how far this was to go. How far do the Canadian people want it to go? Who is to decide which are the worthy cases and which are not? If we are going to do this, should the money be given to some independent organization?

Mr. Speaker, I then asked myself: Is the Government seriously considering tranferring the program to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Ligue des droits de 1'homme or the Canadian Foundation for Human Rights, or is it thinking
of transferring the program to the Canadian Bar Association which might be interested in administering this program which, I feel, is essential if we are to develop a just and fair society?
Mr. Speaker, in recent months we have been told that certain provinces, and especially the Western provinces, were a little embarrassed by the program because residents of these provinces were using a federal program and receiving federal money to challenge before the courts certain interpretations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or of Sections 133 and 93 of the Act of 1867.

I would just like to say that personally I feel the Government must come to this House soon and satisfy Canadians that indeed it has a vehicle, a program, some system in place which gives Canadians a means of getting support in order to go before the courts to clarify and obtain decisions from the courts.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to evoke a passage from a letter from the Prime Minister to the Federation des Francophones hors Quebec, and I quote:
We shall maintain the present program to assist legal actions, which helps individuals and groups seeking to obtain a decision by the courts on litigious points relating to language rights in terms of the Constitution of 1867 and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We shall be consulting with members of minority groups and other interested parties to ensure that the program is efficient and effective.
I hope the Government has consulted, I hope the Government is going to act and I hope the Government is going to announce this evening that the program will not expire on March 31 and that on April 1, we will have a sound and generous program that will help minorities to defend their rights before Canadian courts.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, whenever Canadians manage to go two or three weeks without arguing about something, the Opposition does not waste a second and tries to find a situation or an opportunity to raise some kind of problem.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the court challenges program is to obtain court rulings on the precise extent of linguistic rights guaranteed under our Constitution. That is why the Government gives financial assistance to pay for legal costs in cases deemed to be important. Naturally, the State has to be careful every time it intervenes in that field. Quite obviously, if the Government is to pay court costs for people who may at times take proceedings against the State, there has to be a limit, otherwise it would not make sense.
This program was established in 1978 as one of the initiatives taken by the Government to promote national unity. It may come as a surprise to hear me say that the previous Government may at one time or another have done something
March 28, 1985

to promote national unity. But at the time, such steps have been taken to defend the rights of linguistic minorities. The program was renewed in 1979. At first, it applied only in cases of legal proceedings under Sections 33 and 193 of the Constitution Act of 1867, and under Section 23 of the Manitoba Act, because at the time those were the only provisions under which the official languages had constitutional guarantees. Section 93 protects denominational schools, whereas Section 133 of the Constitution Act of 1867 and Section 23 of the Manitoba Act uphold the right to use English and French in the Parliament of Canada, in the various legislative assemblies, the National Assembly of Quebec and the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, as well as in the courts of both instances.

Since December 1982 when the court challenges program was updated, eight cases have been approved for financial assistance, the details of which have been provided to the Hon. Member on a previous occasion. As mentioned previously in the House by the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean), there is an ongoing discussion between the Department of Justice and the Department of the Secretary of State in order to study the various options open to the Government with repsect to the court challenges program. The question of the continuity of the court-

-and I conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that we intend to make every effort in coming days and weeks, and you may rest assured that the Secretary of State will take position so that the rights of minorities will be upheld throughout Canada.


PUBLIC WORKS-EXPROPRIATION OF LAND AT MIRABEL- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, on March 3, 1985, I put a question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) concerning the proposal submitted by this Government to the expropriated Mirabel landowners, because all my constituents of Argenteuil-Papineau are directly concerned with this issue.
Mr. Speaker, on the day following the signature of a Memorandum of Agreement between the CIAC and this Government on the rectifying of that gigantic blunder, it seems most important to me that this House should be cognizant of this comprehensive proposal, in view of the astronomical costs to the public treasury of maintaining and managing those lands, namely some $50 million a year. Located some 45 minutes away from Montreal, in between the four major centres of Saint-Jerome, Saint-Eustache, Sainte-Therese and Lachute, the prime farmlands of Mirabel, comprising over 2,500 UTH, had shaped its people to the image of a prosperity.
Progress, however, had decided that in this area favoured by nature, agriculture should give way to something else. The
Adjournment Debate
mere mention of that progress now puts the whole people on edge. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in 1969, with one stroke of a pen this Government decision put an end to those 150 years of tradition and brought the whole Mirabel area back to the year 1867 by degrading its residents and landowners down to the level of tenants. Canada's biggest expropriation operation, second only to the one that dispossessed the Indians, brought havoc in the lives of approximately 10,000 people living in twelve villages or fourteen municipalities, covering an area as wide as the lie Jesus. It does not happen every day that 97,000 acres of land suddenly change hands.
And the new owner was not easy to get along with. In sixteen years, he changed faces and policies a number of times. There were seven successive directors, delegated by the Federal Government to manage the land and the people in the Mirabel reserve.
One such director stated he had no authority to make decisions. Another acted in a more high-handed way. What one allowed, the next one forbade. Leave given by one director was not valid in the eyes of another. At times there were written permissions, at other times oral permissions, or benevolent silence with indications to proceed as before.
Mr. Speaker, it is in such a climate of confusion and insecurity that my constituents in Mirabel have had to survive, waiting for the situation to clear up and become normal again. It is not easy to live in expectancy during sixteen long years.
Mr. Speaker, the Mirabel tragedy is that the area has ceased to live and progress for fifteen years. During all those years, a prosperous and promising area was literally sacrificed to the ambition of an incompetent and hard-nosed Government. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the displacement of 10,000 persons and especially the social disruption of 97,000 acres present a situation almost identical to that of the displaced persons in Europe following the Second World War, or to the deportation of the Acadians.
The impact of such a social upheaval cannot be assessed, especially in such an economically and demographically integrated area.
Mr. Speaker, in Quebec farming communities, economic and social life is, to a great extent, related to agricultural activities. The land is set aside for agricultural use and the village is the focus of services and business; it is also the preferred setting for retirement or for those who do not earn their living directly through farming.
Like everywhere else, the villages acquired the services and businesses they needed. The village of Sainte-Scholastique, because of its geographical location, had become a major agricultural centre for other villages. The presence of two doctors, two notaries, one pharmacist, four grocery stores, three hardware stores and a farm equipment dealer shows how important this centre was in 1969. The structure of these parishes based on networks of near neighbours, relatives,

March 28, 1985
Adjournment Debate
friends, services and mutual assistance was destroyed by the upheaval which followed this mass expropriation. People became strangers in their own neighbourhood.
Fences were no longer repaired and buildings were left to rot because people understood that any action might mean rent increase.
What about the municipal representatives who had to live with federal interference in municipal affairs during all those years? This municipality has fallen into a state of collapse and it will have to be untiring in its efforts to give back Mirabel the prosperity which was expected following the construction of the airport.
In 1976, half of the people had left, and in 1979, a survey showed that, among the 2,130 families residing in the area at the time of the expropriation, only 250 families of farmers or their sons and about 250 families of residents or businessmen were still there. Torn between their deep social roots and their need for stability, the residents and businessmen or their children, who feel less bound by their investment than the farmers, now account for only 20 per cent of the residential population of the area, while 90 per cent of those expropriated or their children who were still farming in the area in 1979 are still there.
Another survey published in 1983 depicts the situation as follows: number of farms expropriated in 1969, 858; number of residences occupied in 1969, 788, and in 1983, 555; number of residences destroyed, 233; number of barns occupied in 1969, 731, and in 1983, 455; number of barns destroyed, 276; number of farmers in 1969, 788, and in 1983, 251; number of businesses in 1969, 146, and in 1983, 98; number of residences in 1969, 1045, and in 1983, 816.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, the whole population of the Argenteuil-Papineau constituency, and especially my constituents in Mirabel felt a great deal of emotion yesterday at the announcement of the agreement arrived at by my Government, which succeeded in solving this issue after only six months through consultation and dialogue. Can the Minister tell the House the terms of this historical agreement?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity to answer the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault) and I also wish to congratulate her on the interest she has shown in this case since she was elected on September 4. Mr. Speaker, before elaborating on the main recommendations of the agreement proposed yesterday by the two parties and jointly signed by them, that is, by the Canada Lands Company (Mirabel) Limited and the CIAC-the expropriated farmers-I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to join the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau in saying that for a long time, I found it very sad that the Government had failed to act responsibly with respect to the surplus property around the Mirabel project-christened Mirabel sixteen years ago. In this lovely setting, even lovelier in the past, I was very moved to see how much these people had suffered as a result of expropriation, and especially their disappointment in the previous Government's failure to take any action, especially since we managed to reach a settlement in less than five months. I remember I had a very special interest in this question, being well acquainted with the farming milieu and with rural ridings. Yesterday, I had the privilege of attending the gathering that took place at Mirabel and giving these people the assurance of my support for a proposal that was negotiated in less than five months. I also wish to pay tribute to my Director General, Mr. Hardy, who replaced the board of directors of the company shortly after September 4, and who did a tremendous job, and also to those people who led the struggle to get back their land, and I would like to mention, of course, Mrs. Rita Lafond, Mr. Jean-Paul Raymond and Mr. Andre Bouvette who were very important to this cause, and all those who were members of the board of directors or the administration of CIAC.
It is therefore clear, Mr. Speaker, that we have safeguarded this great principle I have always defended: first refusal goes to the expropriated farmer, and otherwise, the land will be sold back to the tenants. Still, a number of measures will be taken to help expropriated owners get and buy their land back; tenants will be looked after as well since anyone who, for valid reasons, does not want to buy back the property will not be asked to vacate the premises before two years, and in no instance will the rent go up before two years.
The importance and relevance of agricultural development has been the subject of discussion, of course, and it was pointed out that those lands were, if I may put it that way, good examples of prime agricultural soil. We made sure of that in the general agreement which I will submit to my Cabinet colleagues for official signature within a few weeks. All those people have been told that we will cooperate with the Quebec Government to promote agricultural recovery.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention the excellent cooperation I got from the Minister of Agriculture of Quebec throughout this major consultation, because those are indeed prime agricultural lands. Mr. Speaker, we may have reached this equitable, reasonable and humanitarian settlement, in any case I think we did our best to be fair, but it remains quite clear that we will never be able to compensate for the harm done to those people, and I am very sorry about that. I do not find any satisfaction in the fact that I cannot be held responsible. Unfortunately, I was witness to everything those people had to put up with, but I am pleased that at last we have found a solution which I think will be accepted by my Cabinet colleagues within a few weeks. Again it will be with great pleasure that I will go back to Mirabel shortly with the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau to present them with an official signature on behalf of the Canadian Government.
March 28, 1985


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-SEVERANCE PAY MEASURES. (B) PURPOSE AND TREATMENT OF SEVERANCE PAY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my comments this evening relate to a question I asked of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) on March 8. At that time I asked whether she was prepared to postpone the implementation of the severance pay provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act whereby it was provided that severance pay must first be used up before unemployment insurance benefits could be paid.
That was announced on November 8 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Originally it was supposed to come into effect on December 31, 1984. That announcement was made without one iota of consultation. The decision to use severance pay in calculating unemployment insurance benefits was a decision made unilaterally by the Government, I think specifically by the Minister of Finance. I think the Minister of Employment and Immigration had very little to do with it and that the Minister of Finance announced it without any consultation.
That is one of the problems with the particular program. We on this side of the House believe that there should have been consultation, and the Government says it believes in consultation and consensus. Yet, no consultation was undertaken by the Government, by the Minister of Finance or by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. She did not consult with the organized trade union movement because, if she had, it would have raised all sorts of problems with the implementation of such a provision.
As a result of the announcement on November 8, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and back-bench Tories were inundated with protests from various groups and individuals across the country. As a result, the Minister acceded to extending the implementation of the provision until April 1, 1985.
There was a second problem with that particular announcement. No impact studies were made. The announcement was made without any study of the group or the people who would be impacted by such a decision. In fact, no studies were conducted to discover the effects of such a provision on unemployed people. If they had done such studies, they would have found out that severance pay was a lump sum amount of money paid to an employee when an employer gives him the golden handshake and says "Goodbye, your services are no longer required". Many Canadians who find themselves in that unfortunate predicament often take their lump sum payment and roll it into an RRSP to help them in their retirement years. This Government believes in self-reliance. In this particular circumstance when folks are being retired by their employers and are being told that they are no longer needed they are not in fact being allowed to look after their retirement years.
Adjournment Debate
Also they could have found out that persons who are laid off and receive severance pay immediately attempt to find work. They use their severance pay as a form of mobility; they use the money to move around. Maybe they have to leave their communities to look for work. In fact Employment and Immigration Centre mobility programs do not provide grants for unemployed people, so the severance pay becomes a very important form of income for them while they go out and look for work. Now the Government is saying that severance pay must be used for day to day living before they can collect unemployment insurance. It is cruel, it is unjust and it is unfair.
Once again we call upon the Government to postpone, or, in fact, to cancel the whole idea until it has conducted the proper consultation and studies. Then it can bring something to the House, and we will see whether we can support it at that time.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, it is a question of equity.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act regulations were announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in November last. Those amendments will ensure that all payments drawn from a job are dealt with in the same way under the unemployment insurance system. It seems normal to us. The government considers such a policy as normal. According to the comments of my colleague from Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), I should have been swamped with requests. It may be that my constituents have lost my address, but as far as 1 know I have not received a single request from people affected by such a measure. I may have received more in his constituency but for my part, I did not receive any. I wanted to make that correction.
Under the present regulations, Mr. Speaker, the salary drawn by an individual for a part-time jobs is taken in consideration in the computation of unemployment benefits. This is considered a normal practice. It is possible for that individual to look at the same time for a full-time job. Such an amount must be deducted. The benefits are reduced accordingly. However, an individual who draws severance pay or an annuity can receive a second income when applying for unemployment insurance benefits. The proposed amendments are then aimed at putting an end to such unfair treatment. It is quite obvious. The individual can even find a job a few weeks or months later and draw some additional income which would be unfair compared with other Canadians generally.
For the sake of equity and to allow the individuals concerned to adjust to the amendments, some provisions have been passed so that any decision made under the former regulations will be upheld. The regulation concerning the allowance for paid holiday and the severance pay will come into force in a few days, on March 31. All claims submitted

March 28, 1985
Adjournment Debate
prior to that date will be treated under the previous regulations, up to the end of the validity period of such claims. In the case of claims submitted after March 31st, 1985, vacation pay and severance pay will be treated as any other form of earned income at the time of determining the entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits. This measure is considered as being fair by the Government.

There is maybe an exception. A transitional provision means that any severance payment made under a collective agreement or special work force reduction agreement in force prior
to December 31, 1984, will also be treated under the regulation.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that this measure is fair and reasonable, and the Government has no intention of changing its views.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 29, 1985