1985-12-18

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's "Yes we are, no we aren't" game on the selling of our cultural industries to the United States is beginning to wear a bit thin with the arts community and with the public in general. Every day the situation is becoming more and more Alice in Wonderlandish or, as Alice herself would say, it gets "curiouser and curiouser".
Earlier this winter leading members of the arts community met with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and were disappointed by his determination not to exclude Canada's culture from free trade talks with the U.S. Then the new head of the Canada Council in a speech in Toronto supported free trade pointing out all of the potential advantages to us. He told us: "We were going to get it, like it or not".
A few weeks ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), cosily ensconced in the bosum of Time magazine in Chicago, denied everything. That night the idea of giving up on our unique cultural identity to the U.S. was unthinkable. Now the U.S. Ambassador has put our cultural industries firmly back on the free trade table. So what is it, Mr. Speaker? What is the policy? Why all the evasion in the House of Commons? Why not set the policy down for all to see?
One of Lewis Carroll's characters fits the Government's actions so well at this time. "Contrariwise", said Tweedledee, "If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic". Tweedledee must have been a very good Conservative, Mr. Speaker.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a very serious matter that 1 want to bring to the attention of the House in a way that I hope will lead to action.
While in Winnipeg last weekend a number of Indian women brought to my attention the recent edition of Hustler magazine. It contains an eight page pictorial which is degrading and exploitive of Indian women. It portrays an Indian woman being raped and sexually abused. It identifies this woman as a squaw and a redskin, words which have very strong negative connotations.
This House would surely not approve of such images for circulation. Yet this is the same issue of Hustler magazine from which customs officials pulled 12 pages because they degraded women. Why do the same standards not apply to Indian women? If you can pull the pages that apply to women in general, why not pull pages that exploit Indian women?
Customs officials managed to stop a pinball machine from coming into this country because it had a degrading portrayal of Indian women on the pinball machine. Why not apply the same standards to Hustler magazine?
I have sent a copy of this magazine to the Minister responsible. I want some action. I would like to see him pull the magazine from the shelves. I want him to review his policies and procedures to ensure this does not happen again. Indian women will no longer stand for this kind of degradation and exploitation.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Pursuant to the May 7
statement to the House, I would like again to draw to the attention of all Members of Parliament the incessant, unjustifiable, and brutal violations of human rights taking place in Poland.
Friday, December 13, marked the fourth anniversary of the 1981 Soviet imposition of martial law upon the Polish people. Since that date, their ongoing oppression has taken many forms, from the denial of even the most fundamental of freedoms to beatings, imprisonment, torture, and even murder.
Given Canada's abhorrence of such conduct and its historic and international reputation as a champion of human rights, it

December 18, 1985
is absolutely imperative that we do all within our power to ensure that the plight of the Polish people is constantly kept alive in world opinion.
Therefore, I urge the Government of Canada, through efforts at the United Nations and direct representations to both the Polish and Soviet governments, to let it be known that Canadians will tolerate nothing less than complete compliance with the Helsinki Accords, the cessation of Soviet intervention, and the full restoration of the democratic will of the people of Poland.
Let Poland be Poland, governed by its own people.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, in the last weeks the House and the nation have heard the unwarranted attack on the meat inspection service of Canada. This attack was violent and short-lived as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), veterinarians, and agricultural associations rose to the defence of the meat inspection service, a service unsurpassed by any in the world.
Indirectly there was also an attack on the producers of buffalo meat that will cause long-term damage. It also damaged still another business, the beefalo business, like that of Manfred Kettler of Ashton, who has a very small farming operation. Until now Mr. Kettler could sell this meat from the cross between buffalo and cattle at a premium because of the superior quality of that meat. His current orders have been cancelled.
Yesterday we heard the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) praising his backbenchers and criticizing government backbenchers. On this side we speak when we have facts and can contribute to good government. I cannot believe the right hon. gentleman could praise his backbenchers who, in this case, were ignorant of the topics they discussed and did not care who suffered long-term hurt in their uninformed scramble for short-term political gain.


NATIVE PEOPLES
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, at a press conference which I attended last week, the National Association of Native Friendship Centres officially released their urban research study on alcohol, drug, and solvent abuse. This excellent study documents serious health needs of native people in our cities, which are not being adequately met at the present time with any of our existing programs.
In 1982 the federal Government established the National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program to assist native
communities in their efforts to combat the problem of substance abuse. This is an excellent program and it has had a good measure of success. However, as the Association's study shows, significant needs exist as well among native people who live in urban areas, and the Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program does not provide the help and counselling services needed by the native friendship centres to combat this problem.
Earlier this year the Minister expressed the Government's commitment to the Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program and gave his assurance that the funding needed to carry out this important work would be provided. In fact he called it a "growing program", and in this context I ask the Minister seriously to consider expanding the resources of this program so that it will include the needs of native people who live in the urban environment.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the Government says it values the family. It would like us to believe its promise to deliver more help to the poor. Government members mouth the rhetoric of equality for women. However, actions speak louder than promises.
The reality is that the Government is intentionally taking support away from families raising children while giving away literally hundreds of thousands, in fact millions if not billions of dollars to the wealthy, the privileged, and the corporate. Erosion of the family allowance is but one part of the over-all strategy which will continually widen the gap between rich and poor. It sacrifices children for deficit reduction and reduces the one program which recognizes the child rearing work of women.
Tories feel smug because they are sure they have pulled the wool over the eyes of ordinary Canadians relying on the common myth that universal social programs give money to the wealthy. Bill C-70 exposes that myth. The deindexation of the family allowance takes its heaviest toll on the poor. Families with incomes under $10,000 will contribute 14 per cent of the money saved by this program while families with incomes over $80,000 will contribute a paltry 1 per cent.
Canadians know the Government has chosen to attack the most vulnerable group in society: women and children. They have watched as the Government has made a mockery of consultation, but Canadians have not been fooled.
December 18, 1985


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, following three consecutive days of bargaining last week, an agreement on the 1985 tobacco crop was reached between the Ontario flue-cured tobacco growers and the four major tobacco manufacturers. The agreement came after the Ontario Government failed to intervene and the federal Agriculture Minister took the extraordinary step, far beyond his statutory obligation, of mediating the negotiations personally.
The Minister's decisive role will result in the tobacco markets opening as early as possible in January. This is certainly good Christmas news for the Ontario tobacco-producing industry. In fact the producers were able to win a contract for 1985 of $320 million, representing a revenue increase of 10 per cent over the 1984 contract.
I was particularly pleased to see that all parties involved in the negotiations were reasonable and co-operative within the forum provided by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). It is certainly a significant accomplishment that such a resolution, which came through the Minister's efforts, should be reached after ten days of negotiations considering the previous nine months of unsuccessful bargaining between the producers and manufacturers.
Many of my constituents from Oxford as well as concerned parties from surrounding constituencies have been calling to voice their appreciation of the Minister for the role he played. I take this opportunity to put this appreciation on the record as it certainly comes from the grassroots of the tobacco-producing industry in Ontario.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, have I got good news for you. Today the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development report gave Canada excellent marks for economic recovery and continued progress. The Government can be justly proud of the measures it has taken to bring about a brighter future for all Canadians. The report indicated that Canada has registered several notable successes, including the highest growth rate in GNP since 1976. Our Gross National Product is one of the best among the organization's 24-member countries.
What are the prophets of doom and gloom on the Liberal and Socialist benches doing? They cannot take good news. They will not give credit where credit is due. Tell me, Mr. Speaker, do you ever hear the Liberals or the NDP tell Canadians about the 416,000 new jobs, or the continued low inflation, or the declining interest rates? No. Why should they? It is good news and, God knows, they are not used to it.
Oral Questions
We have record high housing starts, increased business investment, and the stock market is booming. That all means jobs and growth.
We are the first Government to make an effort to reduce the deficit. The OECD recognized this, but not the Liberals or the NDP. This Government has made the right decisions. Even though the Liberals and the NDP will not admit it, we know the rest of the world knows it.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF AMBASSADOR CLAYTON YEUTTER, U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Mr. Speaker:: May I bring to the attention of Members of the House the presence in our gallery today of Ambassador Clayton Yeutter of the United States of America whose position is equivalent to that of our Minister for International Trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I am constrained to put my questions to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister likes to play very close to his brief and cite Hansard in response to any question he can. 1 would like him to refer to Hansard of yesterday which quite clearly sets out that the President of the Treasury Board flatly contradicts those statements found in the prospectus to prospective purchasers with relation to the prospective financial state of de Havilland in the next two or three years. There is a flat contradiction there. Since the exchange in the House yesterday, has the Government reviewed the contradiction which exists between the statement of the Minister and the prospectus? If the Government has not so reviewed the matter, will it refer the whole issue to the Ontario Securities Commission so that the prospectus can be analyzed?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the numbers which were referred to in the House yesterday dealt with projections which were made just about one year ago, or slightly more than one year ago. They were revised by de Havilland themselves-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 18, 1985
Oral Questions


Robert René de Cotret: The numbers were revised. I tell all Members that at that time we expected to have a loss for de Havilland of some $65 million in 1985 and a loss of roughly $14 million in 1986. Today the facts show that in 1985 the loss is expected to be $83 million and the projected loss for next year is expected to be $50 million, which is what I have said in this House all along. That just shows the extent to which long-term projections which are made in advance with respect to this particular industry can be somewhat off. That is all.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO AUDITOR GENERAL
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister is so far off the mark here that he owes an explanation to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The figures which he has again recited before Your Honour flatly contradict the figures which appear in a prospectus which was circulated to prospective purchasers of de Havilland. Either the Minister is misrepresenting the facts or the prospectus misrepresents the facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I would again ask that the Deputy Prime Minister refer this whole matter to the Auditor General, who has a role to audit the CD1C, or refer it to the appropriate federal or provincial authorities in order to get some reconciliation here.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I object strongly to the allegations made by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert René de Cotret: We never misrepresented the facts.


Ms. Copps:: You did so.


Robert René de Cotret: We had a very reputable firm make an objective analysis of the facts as it saw them at that time more than 12 months ago.


An Hon. Member:: You misled the House.


Robert René de Cotret: That was not a mispresentation. In this House I have reaffirmed time and time again the numbers which I am affirming today. That is not a misrepresentation in any way, shape, or form. There is no reason to question the integrity of honest Canadian firms which are doing work objectively for this Government or any other Government.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It's your integrity we are questioning.


Some Hon. Members:: Shush.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister suggesting that this prospectus was not used by the investment bankers concerned to invite offers for the purchase of de Havilland and that it was not used with Boeing and other prospective purchasers? If that is what he is saying, then let's have it.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I say this to the Deputy Prime Minister. Because of the confusion and contradictions we find here, will the Minister not allow this whole matter to come before a parliamentary committee within the 90 days permitted for the conclusion of the sale so that Parliament can have all the requisite documents and so that Parliament can summon the Minister and the investment bankers to find out how these figures were arrived at?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the point is very simple-


Mr. Gauthier:: Yes or no?


Robert René de Cotret: We made all the information available to all of the potential bidders throughout the process. At the beginning we made the information talked about by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition available to all of the potential bidders at that time. Throughout the process, when the forecast changed-and forecasts do change-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Ministers also.


John Napier Turner: Show us those other documents.


Robert René de Cotret: A former Minister of Finance should know that forecasts change every once in a while. He has had that experience.


An Hon. Member:: He was in the film industry, wasn't he?


Robert René de Cotret: We have made all the information available as the event unfolded-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Change the Minister.


Robert René de Cotret: -and no prospective bidder was prevented from access to that kind of information at any point in the process.


WORLD PRODUCT MANDATE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the President of the Treasury Board. One of the terms he has particularly bragged about is the world product mandate he has guaranteed for de Havilland for its
December 18, 1985

products. Why, in that case, does the perspective offer to purchasers the advantage of being able to make de Havilland planes in other countries and not exclusively in our country?


Robert René de Cotret: have tried to explain-


An Hon. Member:: You never did.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You didn't succeed.


Robert René de Cotret: -to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. 1 obviously did not get my message across.


John Napier Turner: Nor to the country you haven't got your message across.


Robert René de Cotret: But I've tried to explain to him what a world product mandate is.


An Hon. Member:: Do it again.


Mr. Rossi:: Open up and come clean.


Robert René de Cotret: Let me try again.


An Hon. Member:: The Leader of the Opposition is very slow.


Robert René de Cotret: A world product mandate means that the product lines which are currently under production at de Havilland in Canada will be kept in Canada; that the technology which is used in producing those product lines will be retained in Canada; and that the Canadian firm, de Havilland, will have the only mandate to sell those aircraft, and the technology embodied in those aircraft, across the world. That is a world product mandate. That's clear.


Ian Deans: How is that different from what it has now?


FOREIGN PRODUCTION-MINISTERIAL APPROVAL
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, it says in the information statement put out by the Minister-undated- "No foreign production will be allowed without the approval of the Minister". Now why is foreign production contemplated at all?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Boeing is getting all of this technology for free. It has been written off. Why does the agreement not say clearly that no foreign production of this equipment, which Boeing gets for nothing and for which the Canadian people have paid nearly $1 billion, will be done outside of Canada, period? Why isn't that the deal?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, apart from the preamble, which contained in itself a number of assertions and questions, let me say first that the book value of de Havilland is less than $150 million at the time of which we are speaking.
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: Says who?


Robert René de Cotret: Second-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The land is there.


Robert René de Cotret: No, no, don't get on the land question. The land value is minimal compared to the book value of the corporation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert René de Cotret: Second-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Peanuts.


Mr. Chretien:: I'll pay you two bucks for it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Peanuts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Let's make a deal, Robert. We can sign the deal right now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is perfectly clear that the answer is not wanted. And it is becoming clearer.


An Hon. Member:: He's out to lunch.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Still.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the Minister want to finish his answer?


Robert René de Cotret: The land value is immaterial to this question. It's part of the deal. And, quite honestly, when we talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars which were poured into the corporation, I think, Mr. Speaker, it is totally misleading to suggest that the money went exclusively to finance technology. The money went largely to finance operating losses. Canadians have paid over $800 million over the last several years to maintain that company and are scheduled to pay another $200 million in the coming year. We now have the most successful company in the world in this field willing to give its management, technological and R and D expertise to support the employment and growth of this company.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

December 18, 1985
Oral Questions

The existing refinery facilities are essential to Quebec, according to several experts. Since Ultramar would close down the Gulf refinery in Montreal if its takeover bid is approved, has the Minister recommended that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion intervene to prevent a takeover that would result in the loss of 490 jobs?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: The Director responsible for enforcement of the Combines Investigation Act and for examining this transaction reached the conclusion that competition had been restricted owing to the elimination of one competitor, and he was therefore making his comments in his official capacity and transmitting them to the authorities and to the Minister responsible for Investment Canada, for subsequent decision by the Government.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTERVENE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am asking for a clear statement of Government policy. The newly elected Government of the Province of Quebec indicates that it disapproves of the takeover bid by Ultramar because it will result in a loss of jobs. As well, there will be a reduction in competition in Quebec which will result in increased consumer costs if this deal is proceeded with. Since we do not want either increased costs to consumers or a loss of jobs, will the federal Government do its job and make sure this takeover bid is not proceeded with?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the Government and the Minister responsible for Investment Canada to consider all the points he has to take into account in order to make a decision. Competition is only one aspect of this issue. The Minister responsible will look into the other points which should be considered and he will give us his decision later on.


PROTECTION OF JOBS IN MONTREAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, pricing is one thing and we need competition here. That is very clear from studies with which the Minister is very familiar. I am also concerned about the job situation. There was another takeover bid which would guarantee that those jobs stay in the Province of Quebec. We would thereby protect jobs and the consumer. Therefore, I repeat, will the Government take the appropriate action and encourage the bid which would keep the jobs in Montreal instead of the bid which would lose them?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, following recommendations by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the
Ultramar-Gulf case is now under review by Investment Canada. As soon as the review is over, that information will be released.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Earlier he said that forecasts change. The Government forecast on the bank bail-out cost us $1 billion.
The de Havilland prospectus states that there is a worldwide potential to sell around 300 Dash-8 aircraft by 1994, and that the company is operating on the basis of that estimate. Will the Minister admit that the royalties he has bragged about are just window-dressing? They are not real because the royalties start at 400 units and the prospectus estimates sales of only 300 units by 1994.


Robert René de Cotret: Again, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is making reference to a document produced well over a year ago.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: That is your problem.


Robert René de Cotret: 1 have not bragged-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Show us the documents.


Robert René de Cotret: Yes, I have bragged. 1 bragged about one thing and I am not at all ashamed to brag about it again. This deal will create more investment, more jobs, and more job security for the employees of de Havilland than they had under Crown ownership. That is the important thing. I will brag about that as long as you want.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said earlier that the forecast has changed and that higher losses are projected. Is he now telling us that the forecast has changed again and that higher sales are projected? It is clear that the de Havilland deal is unravelling before our eyes every day.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Berger: Has the Government not learned from the bank fiasco that it acts in haste at the peril of the Canadian taxpayer? Will he not submit the sale to a full parliamentary review prior to closing?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 18, 1985


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last of the three questions is no. I have made that very clear before. The answer is absolutely no.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Arrogant.


Robert René de Cotret: In answer to the first question as to whether the forecast is changing; yes, it is changing. With regard to whether the 400 is changing; yes, it is changing. It is changing because over that period of time we have identified and been able to negotiate, with a world class producer, a deal that will accelerate the whole process, open new markets, and create new jobs and new investment. Yes, that will accelerate what we had in that prospectus and, hopefully, lead to a more stable employment situation in the whole industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TAX RULING INQUIRY
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the President of the Treasury Board. I say to him that if this deal could stand public scrutiny he would have sent it to a parliamentary committee three weeks ago.
Will the Minister confirm that the Boeing deal is now held up pending a tax ruling and that the Government and Boeing are seeking a tax ruling that will allow Boeing to take tax losses of de Havilland and, in some obscure way, apply them to the leasing of de Havilland planes to Canadian consumers? Where is that covered in the Income Tax Act?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member's question, the deal is not being held up in any way by any tax ruling.


MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister then explain the comments he made in his initial press conference indicating that Boeing was going to be prevented from applying some of these tax losses in some directions and allowed to apply them in other directions, both of which provisions are not covered under the Corporations Tax Act? Can he explain that? Has the Cabinet made a special promise to Boeing that it can get special treatment on the tax losses of de Havilland worth $400 million?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first of all, there is no special $400 million tax concession.


Mr. Foster:: How much?


Robert René de Cotret: Second, Mr. Speaker, Cabinet has not been asked to make a decision in this matter. Third, a tax ruling is being sought by Boeing and de Havilland, as we have outlined from the beginning, that limits, as I have mentioned in the House before, the potential of using the tax loss carry-forward
Oral Questions
for the good of the sale of de Havilland products in Canada. That is proceeding. It is not holding up the agreement. It is not holding up any legal procedures or the signing of any documents. It is going along in the normal way and will not cost anywhere close to the $400 million which the Member suggests.


Michael Morris Cassidy: How much will it cost?


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses. The Montreal East Survival Committee, the Official Opposition, the Premier of Quebec and the Director of Combines Investigations are asking the Government to block the transaction between Gulf and Ultramar.
My question is as follows: Now that we know the truth, could the Minister inform the House whether the Government is prepared to take immediate action to oppose the transaction between Gulf and Ultramar, in order to save 450 jobs and protect consumers in Quebec?


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I can inform the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie that we have shown our concern for the people in his area who work in the petrochemical industry at Gulf in Montreal. We met with them this week. In fact, he was there. All aspects of the case were discussed and assessed, and we listened to what these people had to say.
After ordering an investigation, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has now submitted the results to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who is responsible for Investment Canada. The case will be reviewed, and as soon as an answer is forthcoming it will be made public.


INQUIRY IF MINISTER IS WILLING TO RECOMMEND TRANSACTION BE NULLIFIED
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Are Ministers appointed to make decisions or does this Government leave it all up to their officials? The Minister attended the meeting on Monday, where representatives told him that the refinery would be closing down this Friday if no decision was made by then. Is the Minister prepared to assume his political responsibilities and recommend that the takeover bid be cancelled, in order to keep this refinery open in Montreal East? Is the Minister capable of assuming his responsibilities?

December 18, 1985
Oral Questions


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed how the Hon. Member asks his questions and the arrogance with which he is trying to politicize this debate. Mr. Speaker, the Government has shown its concern for workers in Montreal as it has elsewhere. We have created 416,000 new jobs in the last twelve months. What does he have to say to the people in Montreal about that-83,000 in Quebec alone? We are doing something about it.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RECOMMEND TRANSACTION BE BLOCKED
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs concerning Ultramar and Gulf's Montreal East refinery. Is the Minister now prepared to make a recommendation to the Minister responsible for Investment Canada aimed at blocking the deal between Ultramar and Gulf Canada and keeping the 490 jobs in Montreal East? Is he now prepared to make that recommendation?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question a moment ago. The Minister responsible for Investment Canada must take a number of factors into consideration, including competition. On that basis, the Director of Investigation under the Combines Investigation Act submitted a report to the effect that the competition factor was negative. There are other points to clear up, however, and the Minister will weigh the pros and cons before announcing his decision at the appropriate time.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but I have no idea how Investment Canada officials will react. All I want to know is whether the Minister himself is now prepared to recommend that the Montreal deal be blocked so as to save the 490 jobs.


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss for words: the answer was clear and precise, but they do not want to understand. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has stated quite clearly that he has ordered an inquiry. The facts are there and he submitted them to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who is responsible for Investment Canada. The matter is under review and we will make an announcement in due time. That is clear.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO U.S. NEGOTIATOR ON CULTURAL MATTERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister for International Trade a question about a current report by the Canadian Press which attributes to Ambassador Clayton Yeutter, the chief negotiator in the free trade negotiations with Canada, the following statement. He said that if the two countries start limiting the scope of negotiations before they even begin, they could be "shooting ourselves in the foot". He said that as important as cultural matters may be to Canada, he hopes they do not overwhelm important economic issues and that the term "culture" should be defined in such a way as to leave it on the negotiating table. Does the Minister agree with that statement?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I advise the right hon. gentleman that the Prime Minister laid that to rest in Chicago. It has been repeated here in the House many times that our cultural sovereignty is not on the table. Our cultural identity is not on the table and it is not at risk in these discussions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON CULTURAL SOVEREIGNTY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, how does the Minister reconcile his statement made just now in the House with what he is reported by Canadian Press to have said in response to Mr. Yeutter? It reads:
Kelleher reiterated that the Government does not plan to do anything to hurt cultural sovereignty, but said at this point it will not take any specific cultural industries off the negotiating table.
How does he reconcile that statement with the Prime Minister's Chicago statement?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to reconcile. We have said in the House many times that we are not taking specific cultural industries off the table.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Francis Kelleher: But we have said quite clearly that nothing that we will do will impair our cultural sovereignty or our cultural integrity. We intend to stand by that now and during the discussions. You have no concerns whatsoever in that area.
December 18, 1985


TINNED TUNA-DETENTION OF CANS PACKED IN 1984
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that it was recently reported that Star-Kist is now in the process of recalling another 19,000 tins of tuna from the shelves, or has recently done so, and in view of the fact that a government official has said that this action follows recommendations by the Department of Health and Welfare which resulted from consumer complaints, will the Minister confirm that has indeed happened?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I, along with my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, announced today the detention of two lots of 6.5 ounce cans of chunk light tuna packed in water. I have the lot numbers here. They were canned on June 30, 1984, and July 11, 1984.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. McDermid:: Who was the Prime Minister then?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Crosbie:: Tuna Turner.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Who was the Prime Minister then?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PLACEMENT ON STORE SHELVES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Whether it is bad Conservative tuna or bad Liberal tuna, it seems to me that the Canadian people are getting tired of this kind of action. Will the Minister tell the House how this tuna got on the shelf? Does he anticipate that there will be further recalls of bad tuna, whether Liberal or Conservative tuna?


Mr. Beatty:: The Liberals are singing a different tuna now.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the Hon. Member, to the House and the public generally, that it is intolerable that fish products or food products that are rancid and do not meet the standards that 1 believe society demands are either placed on our shelves or can be purchased by Canadians. That is the basis on which the Government is operating and that is why these two lots have been put in detention. Obviously the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and myself will take every step we can, through our officials and our Departments and through the power of the Government, to make sure that those principles are not violated.


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


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Yesterday's Supreme Court decisions on the O'Malley and Bhinder cases were welcomed in part because they affirm the concept that unintentional or systemic discrimination falls clearly within the Ontario Human Rights Code. However, the Court's decision with respect to an employer's obligation to provide reasonable accommodation leaves unclear the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and could be devastating to thousands of disabled people who require reasonable accommodation in the workplace.
Will the Minister, in accordance with the recommendations of the Obstacles Report and recommendation 80 of the Equality for All Report, put forward on an urgent basis amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to ensure that employers will continue to be expected to make reasonable accommodations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is very long.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is the first serious and intelligent question that has been asked in the House today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: It is not likely to be the best answer.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am delighted that at least one Member of the House has a serious and intelligent question to ask, the answer to which is, Mr. Chairman-Mr. Speaker-Your Reverence-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, it is under consideration and I think the hon. lady will welcome the action we take when we take it, but I cannot reveal the nature of that action right now.

[ Translation]


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses. He just informed us that the facts are there and that everything is crystal clear. I want to ask the Minister how he can reconcile his statement with the statement made by his colleague of Consumer and Corporate Affairs yesterday, who said that contrary to what the industry is saying, the refineries were not able to refine enough petroleum to meet the demand in Quebec, and the two statements of his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who said in the House, and 1

December 18, 1985
Oral Questions
quote: "Mr. Speaker, the decision to shut down the refinery was made because of surplus capacity." How can he reconcile these two approaches coming from the same Government?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my hon. friend that the comments attributed to me were actually made by the Director of Combines Investigations, following a study of this takeover bid. Those were not my words but his own comments, made from an entirely neutral and independent position.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the Minister was speaking on behalf of the Director yesterday when he held his press conference. I would ask the Minister: Does he agree with these remarks, yes or no?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, in answering this question yesterday I said that any negative impact on competition that in turn would have a detrimental effect on the consumer was a matter of great concern to me.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Again it deals with his decision to act unilaterally with regard to transfer payments to the provinces. Does the Minister not agree with what he said in the House on March 23, 1982, as reported at page 15758 of Hansard:
This is not time for confrontation and it is no time for unilateral action.
In other words, this is a matter which should be negotiated with the provinces rather than the federal Government imposing it upon the provinces.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me take the Hon. Member back to the basic reason why we have taken this decision. I think it is set out very clearly, if he wants to read the front page of today's Globe and Mail. We are trying to get the economy moving better and the OECD report says that the economy's performance is doing very, very well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If we can continue in this direction we will be better able to afford these programs. An OECD economist went on to say that, in an unusual practice, the report did not include a chapter of recommendations to policy makers because there were very few recommendations
they could make. We were doing everything right. That is what we will continue to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EFFECT ON MEDICAL CARE COSTS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my concern is not that he can read the Globe but that he can live up to the statement he made in the House when he was in opposition.
Will the Minister not admit that by imposing artificial limits on the amount by which transfer payments will increase he is ignoring the fact that it is known that the cost of medicare services will go up by more than he is promising the provinces?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think that the numbers that the Hon. Member has referred to are artificial. In fact 1 would say to him that the increase in the GNP of 4.5 per cent this year is not artificial. The reduction in interest rates by 3 percentage points is not artificial. The increase in investment spending of 11 per cent is not artificial. The increase in housing starts of 25 per cent is not artificial. The real drop in the deficit this year is not artificial.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Carlo Rossi: Bank failures are not artificial.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last Friday, December 13, President Reagan signed an historic public debt statute amendment, whereby the United States must achieve a balanced budget by 1991. Even though this amendment excludes the cost of servicing the debt, it is a major step forward. Given the size of our debt, my question is:


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you.


Bill Attewell: Will we take an initiative such as this one, which I strongly endorse? If so, when will we be doing it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking a very pertinent question. In fact, what we have been doing by our actions is moving in the direction which the Gramm-Rudman Bill has proposed. This year the level of government spending, exclusive of interest costs and transfer payments to individuals and persons, will be
December 18, 1985

absolutely flat. A year ago, under the previous administration, it increased by 10.8 per cent. We will continue in that direction. As we continue in that direction, we will be able to get the deficit under better control.
I forgot one statistic in my last answer. Three hundred-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns patronage. We are fast approaching the anniversary of last year's orgy of political patronage, wherein 150 faithful of the Tories were appointed to the public trough. Will the Deputy Prime Minister, here and now, commit himself to not appointing anyone during the Christmas break, so as to permit the Parliament of Canada to be fully apprised of the political appointments of the Government, in the spirit of reform announced by his Leader last September 9? Yes, or no?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am almost tempted to say what break, but I won't.


Mr. Prud'homme:: You are right; we will be here next week.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: However, I would like to say to the Hon. Member seriously that, as he knows and as his House Leader will have told him, it is my intention to table amendments to the Standing Orders in respect of the reform package which was brought in by the very distinguished Committee on House Reform. Included in that package, the Hon. Member will also know, is the whole question of the opportunity for standing committees to review Order in Council appointments. This is a progressive step taken by the Government. I invite the Hon. Member and his Party to allow these particular improvements to our policies and procedures to be passed quickly-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Let's discuss them first.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -so that we can get on with the job early next year.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that is not what I asked. Let me give the Government House Leader another chance.


INQUIRY IF POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS WILL BE MADE DURING HOLIDAY SEASON
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister confirm today, here and now, that his Government will not indulge in an orgy of partisan appointments during the holidays, safely hidden from the Press Gallery and Opposition Members? Yes or no?
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


REMOVAL OF CANNED TUNA FROM STORE SHELVES-REASON FOR INSPECTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Just a few minutes ago he pointed out that the tuna which is now being removed from the shelves was canned in the middle of the summer, I believe he said, of 1984. He will recall that that is approximately the same period that the other very bad tuna was canned; within two months of the tuna which was removed from the shelves in September. I would just like the Minister to clarify it. Could he tell us why this tuna is now being removed from the shelves, and could he produce for the House the inspection reports which were done at the time?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think the first comments of the Leader of the NDP are not accurate. The second point I should like to make is that the tuna in question, which was canned at the time the former Government was in charge-


An Hon. Member:: That is when John Tuna was Prime Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Tiny Tuna Turner.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What I want to say to the hon. gentleman is that, when he was Prime Minister, this tuna in question was never inspected by his inspectors.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


John Napier Turner: We were in the middle of an election campaign.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The point that I make, coming back to the question-


John Napier Turner: What is the point? Was it brought to the attention of the Minister?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Coming back to the question of the Leader of the NDP, there was a consumer complaint last week, and immediately both Fisheries and Health and Welfare checked the lot numbers, and that is why there was a news release.


PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, just so that Canadian do not run into this every two or three months with tuna products, is there any conceivable reason, in the

December 18, 1985
Oral Questions
judgment of the Minister, that Canadians should have any apprehension during the Christmas period or beyond about purchasing any other can of tuna in the country?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, both Fisheries and the Health Protection Branch of Health and Welfare are checking the stock of the company in question. I want to assure the Hon. Member that the work is ongoing and the monitoring is ongoing. I can assure both him and consumers that, to the best of our knowledge, with all the details we have and all the work we are doing, both the inspection system and our monitoring are fulfilling the exact requirements which he has mentioned.


CHILDREN
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. This week he announced some important new measures in respect of missing children across Canada. One of those is the convening of a national conference on missing children. Can the Solicitor General indicate when this conference might be held? I say the sooner the better, because missing children are a problem in every urban centre across Canada, and I think action should be taken as quickly as possible.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can. I think it would be appropriate for me to start by paying tribute to the Hon. Member for Halifax West for his efforts on behalf of missing children.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: We will be convening the conference early in the new year, as early as possible. Perhaps the best Christmas present which the Government can give to parents across the country is the assurance that everything we can possibly do to protect their children will be done just as quickly as possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Are the CN shops in Moncton up for sale?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, not that I am aware of.


REPORTED VISIT BY GENERAL ELECTRIC OFFICIALS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister explain, then, why there was a secret visit by officials from General Electric to the CN shops on the weekend? Furthermore, could he give us the assurance that there is no secret agenda in relation to the CN shops in Moncton?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of a so-called secret visit. I will certainly check with CN to see whether there is any validity to the statement which has been made, and report back to the Hon. Member.


USE OF PRINCE RUPERT GRAIN TERMINAL NO. 1
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. As he knows, Prince Rupert Grain Terminal No. 1 has been moth-balled for almost a year. The Government of Alberta contracted Price Waterhouse to evaluate profitable ways of operating the facility. They have completed that report and have concluded that the facility can reasonably and profitably ship 500,000 tonnes per year of feed pellets. Will the Minister take some steps-the elevator has been closed almost the whole year-to see it reopened since it can be operated profitably with available feedstocks?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest of the Hon. Member. I hope he is doing his part to try to find an alternative use for PRG No. 1 as well. A number of parties have expressed an interest in the utilization of this facility. I have acted as a facilitator, to try to get the members of the consortium and the interested parties together. We will continue to be working in that regard because it is our desire to see the facility remain open and operational.


POSSIBLE STORAGE OF ORE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short supplementary question. As the Minister knows, PRG is now stripping grain terminal No. 1; it is taking off the dryer and moving it. As he also knows, there is a proposal to move various kinds of processed ore through the facility. Can he assure the House, first, that the facility will reopen using feedstocks and, second, if ore is to be stored there, that it will not hamper the operation and viability of that facility for grain and feed products?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that it would be a requirement of the facility to have a dryer for the movement of ore through it.
December 18, 1985


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honor to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of 13, presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, December 17, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Certain petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duples-sis), the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson), the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a notice of a desire to raise a point of order from the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski).


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to an exchange that took place in the House yesterday as reported on page 9523 of Hansard in the upper left hand corner. There is a statement attributed to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) that I believe is not only unparliamentary but also quite unworthy of the Hon. Member, a Member for whom I have a great deal of respect. 1 am sure he would want to check the record and make the appropriate withdrawal.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am checking Hansard now. I never said it was deliberate, did I? I would not want to call my friend a liar, I would never do that. I retract the statement if I gave that impression.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: On a point of order.



CORRECTION OF REPLY GIVEN DURING QUESTION PERIOD

André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, I trust this is the right time to raise this matter. First of all, I want to apologize for having misled one of my hon. friends this afternoon, namely the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), and I wish to withdraw what I said: I mentioned 81,000 jobs for Quebec instead of 130,000.
Committee Reports



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Transport in the two official languages.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether you are aware that that report is a report of the Conservative members of that committee only. It is not signed by members of the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member rising on a point of order to attest that the committee report is being improperly tabled or is he simply making a statement on a point of order?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I was just asking whether you were aware of the fact.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that questions to the Speaker are out of order.


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point out that that is a report of the Conservative members of the committee and not of members of the Liberal Party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no point of order on which to rise.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I asked to be heard, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Blaikie:: It was not a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) have a separate point of order he wishes to raise?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a separate point of order which absolutely obliterates any pretentious point of order on the opposite side. The report is a duly presented committee report by unanimous vote. If the heat in the kitchen is too much-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe I have a point of order in this case.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) indicated that it was a unanimous report of the committee. The Member said clearly it was a unanimous

December 18, 1985
Petitions
report of the committee. 1 want to point out that that is quite untrue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. None of these have been proper points of order and I think all of the Members involved know it.


PETITIONS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition today signed by more than 50 residents of Schreiber, Ontario. These petitioners condemn the decision of CP Rail to cancel the rail passes of CP pensioners who retired prior to 1978. These pensioners, family and friends ask that Parliament help them in their fight for their rights since they are not represented at any collective bargaining table.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions for the House today. The first one is from British Columbia, of course. The petitioners are concerned about the effect that deindexation on family allowance will have on them and their families. They are particularly concerned that the cut-backs will take $600 million a year away from their children by 1990.
The second petition is from Ontario. These petitioners are also concerned about the need for this House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and to rescind the unfair increases that have been brought in since the Conservatives were elected.
The third petition is from Nova Scotia. Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotians are very concerned about getting full indexation of family allowances, again because so many hundreds of millions of dollars will be taken away from children by 1990.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present, both are identical. One is from residents of various centres in British Columbia and the other one is from various centres in Nova Scotia. All of the petitioners state that the deindexation of universal family allowance is an unfair attack on women and families. They further state that this attack will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that other tax increases in the May Budget will place an unfair burden on low and middle-income earners.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions today. One is from a number of residents in my own constituency of New Westminster-Coquitlam and a very large number of petitioners from Surrey-White
Rock-North Delta, humbly begging us not to allow any deindexation to take place in family allowances.
The second petition is a similar petition from a number of petitioners in New Brunswick.
The third is from a number of petitioners in the Province of Quebec also requesting that there be no deindexation in family allowances.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my petition is from constituents in my riding of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador who are calling upon Parliament to petition the Government to rescind the order that will come in on January 1 whereby pension income will be considered as income for unemployment insurance purposes. This will have a great impact on a lot of middle-aged workers who want to take early retirement and cannot do so.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: I have four or five petitions here, Mr. Speaker, representing the views of residents from my constituency, the towns of Young, Watrous, Semans, Govan, Nocomis and Lockwood. They point out that the family allowance deindexation will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that even the poorest families will be worse off by these changes. They, therefore, request the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance program and to rescind the unfair tax increases that were proposed.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, Liberal Members have been amazed lately at the constant representations made by citizens of the City of Moncton who are terrorized by the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Could I just have the petition, please?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I have a petition to present today on behalf of residents of Moncton who want to bring to the Government's attention the constant rumours that are striking fear into the hearts and souls of the people of Moncton regarding lay-offs from the CN shops in Moncton and they petition that the Minister make a clear and unequivocal statement indicating that the future of the shops in Moncton will be sound.
I have a second petition from the people of Moncton. Several hundred residents of that community petition the Government to make an unequivocal, clear statement regarding the future of CN's operations in Moncton to ensure that the 1200 jobs that are at stake there shall be stabilized and the people of Moncton will be able to sleep at night and enjoy
December 18, 1985

Christmas because at this point, they have not received a clear statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of people from the constituency of St. Albert including people from the communities of Leask, Shelbrook, Mont Nebo and Canwood. The undersigned humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first two deal with the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Range at Nanoose Bay. The first petition points out that the test range causes environmental damage to Nanoose Bay and adjacent areas and that it is of doubtful economic value. It calls upon the Government not to renew the agreement between Canada and the United States authorizing the joint maintenance and use of the said test range and to bring to an end all weapons testing at the said test range.
The second petition also deals with the Nanoose Bay test range and calls for a full public inquiry before the agreement is renegotiated and signed.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from a number of residents of British Columbia and concerns the deindexing of the family allowance, pointing out that this constitutes an unfair attack upon families and especially upon single-parent mothers, that the deindexing is being balanced by tax giveaways to large corporations and calling on the Government to rescind the deindexing and the unfair tax increases.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition from Canadian residents at the Centre Marie-Salome in Quebec, who are opposed to deindexation of family allowances and to the unfair increases in sales tax, excise tax and income tax, and who humbly pray that full indexation of family allowances be reinstated and unfair tax increases be revoked.

I also have a petition from people from a number of places in Ontario including Brantford, Waterford, Simcoe, Turkey Point, Port Dover, as well as people from British Columbia including Vancouver, Richmond and White Rock, pointing out that the reduction of the effective buying power of the family
Petitions
allowance along with the new taxes on low-income houses will hurt low-income families severely and they request that the Government rescind the tax increases and stop the deindexation of the family allowance.


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today on two separate topics. The first petition is on behalf of the women's coalition asking the Government to withdraw Bill C-70.


Robert Pennock: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have to present is from a group of individuals who reside on Timothy Court, a new street in my constituency of Etobicoke North, and they call upon the Government through Canada Post to provide door-to-door mail delivery given that this street is located in a well established area in the riding and is not a new subdivision.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is from the residents of the City of Moncton, New Brunswick, who are protesting very loudly and clearly regarding the lay-offs that have taken place at the CN main shops in Moncton. These residents are appalled by the lack of attention and concern the Government is giving that area-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is perfectly reasonable to read the prayer. It is the preamble and the whole speech surrounding it that is out of order.


David Charles Dingwall: Oh, you consider that to be a preamble, Mr. Speaker? I was considering it to be a fact.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the Hon. Member would like to complete the reading of his petition.


David Charles Dingwall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They request that the Government bring an end to the constant rumours that strike fear into the minds and hearts of employees and citizens of our communities by taking appropriate action to ensure that there will be no further downsizing or closure of the CN main shops in Moncton, New Brunswick.
My second petition is from additional residents of the City of Moncton who, like the previous petitioners, are appalled with regard to the closure-
Mr. Speaker, do you have a problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Please. I recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Deans).


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order.

December 18, 1985
Petitions


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


David Charles Dingwall: I respectfully request to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


David Charles Dingwall: I respectfully request to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Andre:: You haven't shown respect for anything.


David Charles Dingwall: Oh, shut your mouth.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. What is the point of order of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I thought you were motioning to me and that is why I asked the question as I did. You have a habit of motioning to Hon. Members and I was trying to interpret what the motion meant and that is why I was asking the question.


Mr. Speaker:: That's right. I do not think I need to say that there was not a point of order there.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 have three petitions from the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway to present. The petitioners pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and to rescind the unfair tax increases. I would like to table those petitions on behalf of my constituents.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a series of petitions on behalf of Canadians across the country who are asking the Government to move back on its deindexation plans for family allowances and to return to the promise that was made to them during the election campaign. I have petitions from Windsor West, from Saskatoon East, from Mississauga, from Mississauga South and from Saskatoon East.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a number of petitions from residents in the ridings of Moncton and Westmorland-Kent, in New Brunswick.
The first petition contains 400 names and the second probably 500 names. These people are very concerned about the present situation at the CN shops in Moncton.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have two more petitions from residents in my riding of Westmorland-Kent, namely from Haute-Abujagane, Shediac, and Robichaud, who are asking the Government to apply full indexation to family allowances.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a few petitions I would like to present to the House this afternoon.
The first, from the Ontario Vankleek Hill area in my riding, concerns Bill C-70 and the petitioners ask the Government to withdraw the Bill.
The second comes from the riding of Montreal-Sainte-Marie which is so ably represented in the House, and asks for the same thing.
This one comes from the beautiful riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Another one from the riding of Hull-Aylmer. One from the riding of Louis-Hebert, and one from the riding of Western Arctic in the Northwest Territories.
All these petitioners urge the Government to withdraw Bill C-70.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, hundreds of residents of my riding also signed a petition asking that nothing be changed in the current situation concerning family allowances. They strongly denounce the Government's intention to deindex family allowances. Those hundreds of people reside in my riding, more specifically in Richmond, Windsor, Brompton, Bishopton, Stoke, Saint-Denis, Asbestos and Disraeli. I have the honour to present their petition to the House.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present today. The first one is from British Columbia. It protests the accelerating cut-backs in child benefits which are projected to reach $600 million annually by the year 1990, on top of sales tax increases, excise tax increases and income tax increases. The petitioners consider this to be unfair. They state that it places an extraordinary burden on middle and low income households. The petition is signed by residents of Delta, Surrey, Richmond, Burnaby and Vancouver.
The second petition I have is a petition which asks Parliament to restore full indexation to the family allowance and child tax credit. It is signed by residents of York-Sunbury in New Brunswick.
December 18, 1985



Mr. Speaker, my third petition, which protests against de-indexation of family allowances and the Government's public retrenchment from the child tax credit, which constitutes an unfair attack against-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it this is another petition on exactly the same subject. The Hon. Member merely need say that and where it is from.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, there is some emphasis here on the status of women and the petition is from Montreal.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition criticizes the hand-outs made in the Budget of last May, such as the $500,000 tax-free capital gains exemption, greater RRSP deductions-


Mr. Speaker:: What is the petition, please? Perhaps 1 should say this once clearly. The Hon. Member should make a brief summary of the subject clearly indicating what the petitioners are asking for, that is, the prayer, and perhaps where it comes from. That is it. I should take very little time. Otherwise it becomes difficult for the House, which is the whole purpose of my attempts to get Hon. Members to be brief with the summaries of their petitions, and that is the only reason.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I will attempt to follow briefly through this particular petition. It attacks and asks for changes in the budget hand-outs with respect to tax-free capital gains, greater RRSP deductions for high income recipients, the $9 billion in hand-outs to the oil companies and the $1 billion bail-out to the banks. It comes from such towns as Woodstock, London, Ingersoll, Norwich and my former hometown of Tavistock.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from my constituents in the riding of Ottawa Centre and other parts of Ottawa who protest the deindexation of the universal family allowance. They term this move an unfair attack on women and families with children, especially single parent mothers. The petitioners tell the House that even the poorest families will be worse off by 1990. They pray the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and rescind the unfair tax increases.
Petitions


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from a group of residents of the province of Quebec, who are also asking that Bill C-70 be withdrawn and full indexation of family allowances maintained.

Mr. Speaker, in total, I have some 350 signatures on a number of petitions which come from many places in Ontario, Quebec, the maritime provinces and western Canada. The petitioners share in the strong objections which have been registered in the House for many months with respect to the deindexing of the family allowance.
Mr. Speaker, 17 are from the town of St. Marys in Ontario, and approximately 50 are from the Province of Quebec, in particularly from Charlesbourg in the City of Quebec. A number are from Jerseyville and Stoney Creek in the Hamilton area. A number are from Vancouver, including Richmond. These petitioners also object to the deindexing of the family allowance. A number of the petitioners are from Halifax, Enfield, Emsdale and other parts of the Province of Nova Scotia.
A number are from the riding of my friend-


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the Hon. Member is saying he has several more petitions.


Michael Morris Cassidy: From Winnipeg.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 thank the Hon. Member.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have some additional petitions which I hope to be able to table, causing as little vexation as possible to Your Honour. All of these petitions express a concern which, if disregarded by the Government, will impel a new wave of resentment, if not hostility, toward the present Government-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Incorrect in order.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: -and its Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
The first of these comes from British Columbia. It is signed by several citizens of Canada who are exercising their ancient and undoubted right to petition this House. They humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate the full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.
I have another petition which Your Honour will notice is pink and, therefore, in substance, different. It is from New Brunswick and it is signed by a number of people who are exercising their right to petition the Government for a change in policy. They refer to the extraordinary sums of money
9574

December 18, 1985
Petitions
which have been accorded the wealthy and huge corporations while at the same time taking funds from the pockets of the poor, of women and of children at the expense of the family. They ask that the indexation of the universal family allowance be retained and that tax measures-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it the Hon. Member has petitions on one subject, that is, the family allowance?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, I think the Hon. Member knows he can be more brief than he has been.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I will attempt, in so far as it is possible to do so, while at the same reflecting with some precision what the concerns of these signatories are-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Harvie Andre: You are supposed to sit down when the Speaker stands up.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has the right to present the prayer and make a very brief summary. If he wants to read Beauchesne's on this-and perhaps all Members would be helped if they read it-he should. Therefore, I will recognize him to speak for a few seconds longer.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: These people from Ontario humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I have another set of signatures from petitioners in Manitoba who petition the House to reinstate full indexation of the family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege today to present four petitions. Because the contents are substantially similar, with your permission, perhaps 1 might present three of these petitions together, thus avoiding being contentious, tendentious, circumlocutory or gratuitous.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edmund Parry: I would say, by way of preamble, that these petitions are on the same topic as the petitions presented by the Hon. Members for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) and Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock). They humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.
The fourth petition-

-Mr. Speaker, is signed by residents of Montreal who are asking to have full indexation of family allowances reinstated and unfair tax increases revoked.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour today to present once again a number of petitions from different parts in Canada on the whole question of family allowance. The first one is from Edmonton, Alberta. It calls for a fully indexed family allowance. It asks the House of Commons to rescind unfair tax increases.
The next petition is from British Columbia. The petitioners are very concerned as well about the impact that deindexing family allowances will have on families and calls for the full indexation of universal family allowance.
The next petition is from my own riding of Vancouver East, the Strathcona community, which is in Chinatown in Vancouver. It calls as well for fully indexed family allowances and the rescinding of unfair tax increases.
The next petition is from the Province of Saskatchewan. It has quite a number of names. It expresses concern as well about the impact that Bill C-70 will have on families and calls for fully indexed family allowances.



POINT OF ORDER


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I ask that for just one moment you hear what I have to say. It is with regard to the inappropriateness of the tabling of the final report of the Committee on Transport which was received by the House earlier today.
I contend that what is out of order is that the House should not have received the report today. The reason I give is that in the transcripts of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Transport, dated November 24, 1984 and November 29, 1984, on page 1-6, I believe-it is hard to follow the way it is printed-it says that the chairman be authorized to hold meetings to receive and authorize the printing of evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that four Members are present, one of whom must be the chairman or vice-chairman and one of whom must be a member of the Opposition. I contend that the committee violated that rule during the authorization for the printing of the report which has contained within it the printing of evidence. I contend as well that the committee, once having passed it, at no time did rescind that motion and, therefore, the committee was under an obligation to consider and to authorize the printing of the report only in a situation where there was one of the Opposition members present.
December 18, 1985

I contend further that that was not followed by the committee and, therefore, the report is at the moment improperly before the House of House of Commons.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the very useful point made by the House Leader of the New Democratic Party. I believe it is important that committees understand the seriousness of the terms of reference set out by the House when it makes an order referring a matter to committee. If a committee does not follow the order of reference to the letter, then, I respectfully submit, the entire final report of the committee is tainted and is not properly received by this House. Therefore, I think the report is, to say the very least, null and void.
I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that this House should go on record as being very concerned about the order of this House to the Committee on Transport not being followed and that it should be deemed that the report in question of the Committee on Transport is invalid.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I regret that I have to address this matter because I do not share the concerns expressed by the House Leaders of the Opposition.
The difficulty is, I believe, that while a question has been raised with respect to whether or not certain evidence has been received with the appropriate number of people or, at least, the correct identity of the Members who represented the Government and the Opposition, the conclusions drawn from the report itself are based upon the evidence which has been published. The difficulty with this matter is not one which is so fundamental as to affect the conclusions which have been drawn.
We have had an indication now that, certainly, members of the Opposition are not totally enthusiastic about the final conclusions of the majority of the committee. Having said that, though, 1 believe the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski) put his finger on it yesterday when he pointed out that one of the difficulties in hearing evidence, especially from people who have a very great interest in the topic and who often come many miles for the purpose of giving evidence, is that the attendance by members of the Opposition in some cases was not possible. Accordingly, the evidence was taken, the transcript is there, it is a matter of public record, and I do not think it causes this report to be fatal.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ian Deans: If I may, he is raising a false point. He didn't answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the fact that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is dealing, in the mind of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), with a point other than the point raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. However, I believe I am in a
Introduction of Bills
position to say to all Hon. Members that, first, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is raising a question of order with regard to the way the committee conducted its affairs internally. He knows, I think, that our practices are that that matter should be raised within the committee. Second, the Hon. Member claims that, as a result of that, it would be out of order for the House to receive the report. That clearly cannot be true. It clearly cannot be true that material which is in the report can make a report of a committee not receivable, because the House cannot know that until the report has been received. The House cannot read the report until the report has been received.
Therefore, our practice has been-at least as far as I remember-that when there is a question with regard to the admissibility or the orderliness of a committee's deliberation, that matter would normally be raised on a point of order-I am not saying anything about the quality of the point raised; I am simply dealing now with the timing, if I may-if and when a motion to concur in that committee report is put to the House. Therefore, I would refer the Hon. Member to the citation in Beauchesne's which says, if I may paraphrase briefly, that a committee's report may be found to be not in order-and I am not making any kind of comment or ruling with regard to the grounds which have been raised-even after the report has been received. The citation goes on to say that should that be the case, then a motion to concur would be ruled out of order. Therefore, I suggest to the Hon. Member that his point should be raised at a different time.


Ian Deans: I accept that. Thank you.



INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND GOODWILL DAY ACT


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-258, an Act respecting International Peace and Goodwill Day.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William John Vankoughnet: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to change the name of "Boxing Day", December 26, to "International Peace and Goodwill Day" in honour of Canada's commitment to world peace. December 26 follows the day we celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace so it is only fitting that we also mark the goal of international peace. There are no political boundaries when it comes to working toward peace, it is a goal we all share. I am proposing this change in name for this existing holiday in order to recognize the importance of our goal and to demonstrate Canada's commitment to world peace.
The naming of the International Peace and Goodwill Day will go one step further and show the world that Canadians are

December 18, 1985
Motions
committed to working toward world peace and maintaining the principles of goodwill.


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


Mr. Alan Redway (York East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-259, an Act to amend the Federal Court Act, the Northwest Territories Act, the Supreme Court Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Yukon Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is put forward in response to concerns raised during the last election campaign as well as by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in his statement to the House in September of this year. The purpose of the Bill is to establish a process for the parliamentary scrutiny of federal judicial appointments in order to reinforce the public trust that ail judicial appointments are of the highest calibre and that in making those appointments the Government is guided by the highest standards of conduct.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions
December 16, 1985-The Minister of Agriculture:
That, in relation to Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, one sitting day be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the said Bill and one further sitting day be allotted to the consideration of the Bill at the third reading stage; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of government business on the above-mentioned sitting days, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
['Agreed.']
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (2) of Standing Order 26, this Government Notice of Motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders at the next sitting of the House.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 400, 485 and 489.


Mr. Boudria: Was the booklet entitled "The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney-Canada's 18th Prime Minister", distributed by the Department of External Affairs and, if so, at what cost to the taxpayer, including photography, printing, publishing and any other associated costs?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The booklets were produced in conjunction with the PMO for international journalists attending the Quebec Summit and the Bonn Economic Summit, and for distribution to Canadian posts abroad. Production costs paid by the Department of External Affairs totalled $27,750. Distribution costs to the Department to date have been minimal.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Since its inception, what was the total advertising budget for the Canadian Jobs Strategy program and what amounts were allocated to (a) daily newspapers (b) weekly magazines (c) specialized publications and/or newsletters (d) radio and television (e) other communication devices such as posters, brochures, displays etc?
2.	Which advertising agencies are involved in the preparation of the advertising and who are the principals of these agencies?
3.	Is the print advertising prepared by the same agencies involved in developing the ads aimed at radio and television and, if not, which agencies are involved?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. The total advertising/communications budget for the Canadian Jobs Strategy is $8 million, allocated as
follows:
(a)	daily newspapers	
749,000(b)	weekly/monthly magazines	
595,000Note: advertising funds were also allocated to weekly newspapers, as follows.	515,000(c)	specialized publications and/or newsletters	
0(d)	radio and television	
3,291,000Sub-total (Advertising)	
5,150,000(e)	other communications devices, such as brochures, direct marketing toemployers, and exhibits	
2,850,000Grand total	
8,000,0002. The following advertising agencies are involved with the preparation of advertising:	Case Associates Advertising
Limited, Toronto, I'Academie Saint-Alexandre Ltee, Montreal, Dome Advertising of Regina and Saga Advertising, Halifax.
The principals of the agencies are:
Case Associates
John Sinclair	- President
Denis Case	- Chairman
Tim Pervin	- Vice president
December 18, 1985

L'Academie Saint-Aiexandre
Gilles Ellie Trop Pelequian Bernard Mouton
-	Chairman of the Board
-	President
-	Senior Vice President
Dome
Phil Kershaw	- Vice President, Creative Services
Spence Bozak	- President
Saga
Richard Emberley Richard Gill
-	President
-	Vice President
3. The national print and television ads were prepared by the national agencies (Case and 1'Academie Saint-Aiexandre). Regional print and radio were prepared by all four agencies involved.


Mr. Dingwall: Did Mr. Tom Forrestall, an artist from Nova Scotia, hold a showing in Europe between the summer of 1979 and February, 1980 and did the Government pay for his trip and, if so (a) what was the total cost to the taxpayers (b) were other artists from Nova Scotia advised (c) for what reason was he selected?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): The Department's records indicate no showings of Mr. Forrestall's work took place in Europe in the period between the summer of 1979 and February, 1980.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that, in keeping with my undertaking to do everything I can for the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), one of the those answers applies to a question of his. I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to ask the Parliamentary Secretary two things. First, why is the Government not answering Questions Nos. 486 and 487? Second, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw what he said yesterday, that it was I who caused the delay in answering those questions. That is found at page 9535 of Hansard, and it is not true.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Horton McDermid: That is a matter of opinion.
Order Paper Questions


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member knows that our practice is to allow Members to ask that some urgent consideration be given to a question which has been on the Order Paper for some time. However, the Hon. Member asks the Chair to accept a substantial extension of that practice when it is done every day on the same question, I suggest. I therefore suggest also that I am prepared simply to leave it at that for the moment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, although I appreciate the point you are making, you must appreciate how frustrating it is for some of us trying to get information from this Government. 1 have had Questions on the Order Paper since last February and May, important questions dealing with pensions. Now they are coming forward and saying they do not have time to answer the questions. We could be asking them every day and maybe if we did so orally they would answer. Who knows?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of Christmas and co-operation, 1 asked the Parliamentary Secretary a question two weeks ago about a series of questions dating back to last May concerning the First Ministers' conference on multicul-turalism. Two weeks ago he suggested that he would bring them to the attention of the Minister. Did he do so and when can we expect to have an answer from him or the Minister?


Don Boudria: These answers are unsatisfactory.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the House that 1 was left a whole desk-full of questions by David Smith and I am doing my best to work my way through them.


Sergio Marchi: Who is David Smith?


Philip Derek Lewis: However, 1 will look into the Hon. Member's question.


Mr. Speaker:: On a separate point of order, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 raise this matter with you personally because the answers given to me previously by the Parliamentary Secretary were not normal in the sense that you and I were both notified that the question would be answered that very day one month ago. We are not dealing with a regular situation where a Member routinely stands up to obtain that information.


Don Boudria: It is not a matter of opinion.


John Horton McDermid: Merry Christmas to you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the reason we could not answer that is that we were answering Question No. 400.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the-order, please.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that what we are doing now is recording the answers the Parliamentary Secretary brings forward and seeking consent of the House that the questions remain on the Order Paper.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Unanswered.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that the practice which has grown up of allowing Members to point out that there is some urgency was intended as a courtesy to Members,

December 18, 1985
Depositors Compensation
not to create a situation where there would be a debate about Questions on the Order Paper.


Don Boudria: He had it in his hand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that Motion No. 16 standing in my name dated November 25 be transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
That an humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the report presented to the Prime Minister pertaining to the drought in Western Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 22, consideration of Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 2 (Miss Nicholson (Trinity)) (p. 8737) and Motion No. 3 (Mr. Riis) (p. 8738).
Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak once again on this Bill. I would like to be able to thank Hon. Members of this House for a full and wide discussion on Bill C-79. However, this Bill was introduced on October 3 and the kind of questioning and debate we have had in this House has done nothing to assist
the depositors in these financial institutions. Therefore, I urge Members of the House at this stage to consider speedy passage of this Bill.
I am, I may say, very grateful to at least some members of the legislative committee which studied this Bill. There were members who questioned a number of witnesses on the significance of paying these depositors. There were also some members who chose to boycott that committee. They did not boycott someone who is part of the political process, the Minister or someone from this House who was speaking on the Bill. They chose to boycott the committee on a day when one of the most expert witnesses in this country came to speak to them and explain-


Miss Nicholson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 understood that what had been called was the amendment. Would you be kind enough to clarify for us whether the Minister is speaking to the amendment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: What is under debate now are Motions Nos. 2 and 3 which have been grouped for debate.


Aideen Nicholson: I assume you were listening and you heard the Minister talking about committees. It has not been considered customary to reflect in this House on committee proceedings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Minister will speak on Motions Nos. 2 and 3 grouped for debate in this House.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I am simply giving some background and explanation of why it is important that we consider the amendments and this motion immediately.
Because many Members of the House chose not to listen to the information made available in committee to Members of this House, it is important that we clarify one more time the reasons for compensating uninsured depositors and why the amendments are not the kind of thing we are looking for. This Bill has undergone the most exhaustive study, I believe, of any Bill which has ever been before this House. 1 have spoken in committee twice and once in the Senate committee, all of which was public. I have also spent a day before Mr. Justice Estey who, I think, will have many recommendations to make that will be useful to the Government and the House. It is very important in terms of our bank legislation that we appointed Mr. Justice Estey to examine this issue in full.
We introduced this Bill on October 3 to seek parliamentary authority to compensate the uninsured depositors of the Canadian Commercial Bank, the Northland Bank, and the Canadian Commercial Bank Mortgage Insurance Corporation, should that be necessary, for a number of reasons. I have tried to make these reasons clear before, but I think they bear repeating. Our decision to compensate the uninsured depositors was based on the unique and particular circumstances that these two banks reflect; the fact that they were local banks
December 18, 1985

started at the height of an optimistic period of economic growth, and the fact that the National Energy Program helped to bring about their demise. We weighed very carefully the impact on confidence in other financial institutions and on the economy if depositors in these two banks were to absorb their losses.
Depositors include municipal Governments, credit unions and labour unions. I am surprised at the disloyalty of members of the NDP to the labour unions which were very involved with these banks. Depositors also included religious organizations, charitable organizations, and cultural institutions representing thousands of individual Canadians as well as hundreds of small businesses. The municipalities involved have suffered terribly from the delay in the passage of this Bill. It is costing the City of Kanata, which is very near to this Parliament, $2,600 a day in lost interest while we sit around and deliberate on a Bill, the purpose and objective of which should be clear to everybody.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It's been sitting on the Order Paper for weeks.


Barbara Jean McDougall: In light of these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, compensation to these depositors was a most appropriate action and demonstrates the Government's sensitivity to the needs of the regions of the country, its municipalities, its individuals, farmers, small businesses, and people who saved their money and made a commitment to regional institutions and to Canada. By compensating these uninsured depositors the Government is acting to minimize the devastating impact on those savers and on that economy which this loss of savings would produce.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, compensation is not to be 100 cents on the dollar. The first payment will be made on Royal Assent being given to this Bill and the second will be delayed until April, 1986, and no interest will be paid after September 1, 1985. It is not the Government's intention to set a precedent in compensating uninsured depositors. I might say that that precedent was set when the Home Bank failed and the Liberal Government paid uninsured depositors in 1923.
Over the past weeks I have dealt at length with the concern over the need of the Opposition to know the names of those being compensated through this Bill. I have spoken, and I believe strongly, of the right of depositors to privacy, of the responsibility of the Government to protect this privacy, and of the necessity for the Government to abide by the laws which prohibit the publication of this information.
In the House last winter when we were talking about compensating the uninsured depositors of Pioneer Trust, which we were urged to do by the New Democratic Party, and which we did in limited circumstances because of our sensitivity to that situation, not one single member of the New Democratic Party raised the issue of the names of the uninsured depositors. The names of the uninsured depositors of the Home Bank were also never made public.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Home Bank?
Depositors Compensation


Barbara Jean McDougall: Those uninsured depositors were paid by that Party. The precedent was set in 1923. To violate the confidentiality of the Bank Act would, I believe very strongly, violate these responsibilities and imperil all depositors in the future.
I have tabled a detailed breakdown of the classification of uninsured depositors which should meet all reasonable requirements for information without violating this aspect of confidentiality. The public interest is not served by any further disclosure. Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the public interest would be violated by any further disclosure. I might say, as well, that after 40 years of total inaction the Government has taken a great many actions to improve the financial institution sector of our economy.
On November 27, 1985, we tabled Bill C-86 to increase premiums and reduce the deficit in the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. Through that Bill we increased the members of the board of directors by four. As well, Mr. Speaker, we tabled draft legislation on November 27 to give our regulators the power to issue cease and desist orders. It will give the Minister power to block mergers and acquisitions. It will give regulators the power to establish realistic market values on real estate held by financial institutions. We are proceeding with a private sector study of the Office of the Inspector General's mandate and operations, a study undertaken by Coopers and Lybrand. Through the inquiry by Mr. Justice Estey we have undertaken to detail all the facts leading to the failures of these banks and to come up with recommendations which will be very helpful, in fact instrumental, in the formulation of policy of banks in the future.
The former Government took no action in this area for many years. Despite the fact that it added 58 foreign banks in 1980 and revised the Bank Act to introduce regional banks to the country, it never once moved to increase the supervisory powers and capability of our inspectors to regulate our financial institutions properly. I think that the actions of the Opposition in delaying the passage of this Bill because the names have not been published is despicable and is not in the interest of Canadian people. I am very disappointed in the quality of the participation in this debate by the two opposition Parties. I urge the speedy passage of this legislation.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am really shocked and disgusted at the performance of the Minister.


John Napier Turner: And a Merry Christmas to you too.


Aideen Nicholson: How can the Minister come into the House and imply that the Opposition is holding up this legislation? I ask you to look at the facts. As the Minister said, she introduced the Bill on October 3. On October 10 the Bill was referred to a legislative committee. On October 28 the legislative committee had its first meeting. What was that enormous group of Conservative Members doing from October 10 to October 28?

December 18, 1985
Depositors Compensation
After the legislative committee finally met on October 28, the Bill was reported back to the House on November 7, That, surely, cannot be considered an extended examination. After being reported back to the House on November 7, the Bill sat on the Order Paper. The Government did nothing until November 22 when it brought it on late on a Friday afternoon for 14 minutes-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Fourteen lousy minutes.


Aideen Nicholson: -before Private Member's hour was called. Since November 22 it has not been called until today. Now the Minister has the effrontery to try to imply that we have extended this debate. This is the most outrageous thing I have heard in a very long time.


Sergio Marchi: The Minister is laughing.


Aideen Nicholson: Yes, it is all very funny to the Minister, but it is not funny to the taxpayers who are being asked to shell out money-


B. Keith Penner: That's right, and they are damned mad.


Aideen Nicholson: -to nameless, faceless individuals.
The amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, which is what this debate is supposed to be about, provides that the names of those who make application for reimbursement under the terms of Bill C-79 be published in the Public Accounts of Canada. This has been our position since the outset. Our Leader introduced an amendment to this effect at second reading of Bill C-79. I will also point out that the Government introduced closure while we were still debating that amendment. Therefore, we never had a full debate on second reading of this Bill either.
We have had a number of opportunities to elaborate on why we think it essential for taxpayers to know who will be benefiting from this $875 million expenditure. I will merely summarize these very briefly today. We have had no answers in the past, and with the Minister's ridiculous performance this afternoon, we certainly have not had an answer today.
The Bill is meant to pay off uninsured depositors in the Canadian Commercial Bank, the Northland Bank and the Canadian Commercial Bank Mortgage Investment Corporation, which also recently went into liquidation. The insured depositors, those whose deposits were less than $60,000, which is the limit on deposit insurance, have already been paid. Those who had a right to payment have been paid. This Bill provides for the so-called sophisticated investor with deposits over $60,000 in one institution, who would normally have no right to compensation, to receive ex gratia payments if they come forward and ask for it.
The Government wants Parliament to authorize ex gratia payments, to be paid with taxpayer's money to the tune of $865 million, but these people are to remain nameless and faceless. The taxpayer has a right to know. On October 4 the
Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) said that the public has a right to know how its tax dollars are spent, that public funds are at all times subject to the scrutiny of Parliament and that the whole purpose of this place is the management of taxpayers dollars. We on this side are in full agreement with that statement. We differ with the Government in that we feel that the principle must be applied consistently.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. 1 hestitate to intrude on the Hon. Member's statement because she has risen in a state of righteous indignation or unctuous indignation, I am not sure which. However, she quoted a figure of $865 million-I am not quite sure-was that the figure you quoted? You were out by $10 million.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is raising a point of debate.


Robert Hylton Brisco: It is a point of fact.


Carlo Rossi: Go back to sleep.


Aideen Nicholson: The figure in the Bill is $875 million.


Robert Hylton Brisco: You did not say that. You said $865 million.


Aideen Nicholson: This Bill deals with former clients of former banks in liquidation and now being dealt with under the Winding-up Act. It simply defeats logic how the Minister can claim that the provisions of the Bank Act regarding privacy for depositors for current clients apply to former depositors of a wound-up institution who are asking the Government for ex gratia payments. These people have to make a formal application to get the money. They will not get it automatically as a bank depositor, and once they begin that application process papers will begin floating throughout the Departments and their names will certainly become known sooner or later. What on earth can the Government possibly hope to gain by stifling information to which taxpayers have a right and which will become public eventually?
In fact, the Government does not have a legal or moral leg to stand on. It is in an untenable position which is at odds with the stated desire of the Government, which we share, to promote confidence in our financial system. Withholding information from those who have a right to it, from those who are footing the bill, is not conducive to confidence building. We hope that the Government, in the interest of building confidence and restoring its own credibility in the entire matter of bank failures, will approve this amendment.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the amendment in the Bill presently before the House. In her opening statements, the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) made several interesting observations. First, she claimed that the Opposition has prevented speedy passage of the Bill. That is not quite true because it is the Government, with an overwhelming number of Members in the House and control over the agenda of the House, that determines what is introduced for discussion in the House and in the committees. Surely, with all of its Members, if the
December 18, 1985

Government does not have the ability to pass legislation through the House it is because of its incompetence.
With respect to incompetence, every day that new information comes forward from the Estey inquiry we begin to realize how thoroughly incompetent the Government and its officials were in dealing with this whole matter.


John Napier Turner: Come on. The banks were screwed up.


Simon Leendert de Jong: It can best be described as a keystone cop operation. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, in his testimony, claims no responsibility whatsoever. He says that it is not his job to be able to look into the financial statements of these banks. In fact, he takes great credit in extending further financial support to the CCB on the very banking day prior to the Government pulling the plug. The Bank of Canada continued to provide further equity to the Canadian Commercial Bank on the Friday before the Government pulled the plug the following Monday.
When I asked the Governor of the Bank of Canada about this situation when he appeared before the committee, he said that it was not up to him to know whether or not a bank is solvent. He said: "We depend entirely upon the Inspector General of Banks".
However, what does the Inspector General of Banks tell the Estey Commission? He says that it is not his fault. He said that the Governor of the Bank of Canada has the power to know what is going on with the bank. The Inspector General of Banks told the Estey Commission that he could only rely on the outside auditor. What incompetence. It is amazing that the Government has not fired both of those top civil servants when they are juggling billions of dollars.
This is taking place at a time when the Government is attempting to reduce the deficit by deindexing pensions and the family allowance. It is increasing taxes on dog food so that even the blind have to pay more for the dog food they feed their seeing eye dogs. The Government is getting its nickels and dimes from every corner by hitting average Canadians including the poor and middle class. Yet it only requires a weekend to make a decision about billions of dollars.
What were the reasons behind this decision? The Minister told the Estey Commission that she did not know that the bank was running into trouble in California. Yet the Inspector General of Banks apparently had this information for months. Obviously he never saw fit to pass this vital information on to the Minister. I am amazed that the Minister allows this official to continue in his job. Why has he not been fired for that one display of incompetence?
The Government wants to move this legislation through the House because every day that the Estey Commission sits is a further embarrassment to the Government about this whole matter.


John Napier Turner: No way. You are going to learn the truth.
Depositors Compensation


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, would you ask the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) to shut up. If he has something to say he can rise in his place and give us a speech. If not, I would appreciate it if he would cease his cuckooing.
Was the Government that naive and the officials that stupid-if so, they should be fired-or did the Government and the officials know exactly what they were doing? They knew that the bail-out would not work. They knew that they were just pumping money into a hopeless situation. What would be the rationale for the Government to come forward with a bail-out package which bought this bank a few more months?
Perhaps the purpose behind the whole exercise or this whole facade was to give the banks, particularly the foreign banks, a few extra months to withdraw some of their deposits. Otherwise, instead of a hundred and some million dollars in uninsured deposits being on the books of the CCB, it would have been several hundred million dollars more. All the bail-out did was to provide foreign banks and some of our large commercial banks with an opportunity to lower slowly the amount of money which they had on deposit in CCB. Otherwise, instead of the Government coming to us today and asking for some $800 million to bail out the uninsured depositors, it would have been several hundred million dollars more. Perhaps that was the real intention behind that whole facade.
The amendments we introduced ask the Government to make public the names of the uninsured depositors-the people and the corporations to which the public will be giving hundreds of millions of dollars. I think it is a fair question to ask. It fits in with the whole notion that Parliament is supreme. We as a Parliament-and rightfully so-are the guardians of the public purse. The whole question of public accountability is involved here.
The Minister and the Government say that there are bank Acts and pieces of legislation which provide for the protection of the privacy of these bank depositors. This is not a normal situation. These are not just normal bank depositors. These are people who will be bailed out, 100 per cent on the dollar, for what they had on deposit. They are not just normal bank depositors. What is more important, the supremacy of Parliament or keeping hidden and secret the names of these depositors? The more the Government refuses to give us the information, the more suspicious we in the Opposition and Canadians right across the country become. What is the Government trying to hide? What is so secret about this list?
I, for one, would also like to see the list of all bad loans. Who were the people who really benefited from the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland? Who were the ones who took out loans and now have these assets and will not be paying back the full amount to the bank and eventually to the public of Canada? Who are the people who really benefited from the raids on the assets of the CCB?
There is a lot more to be learned about the CCB, about the bail-out, about what the Government did, about what the

December 18, 1985
Depositors Compensation
Government knew and did not know, about why it acted when it acted, and about why it did not act sooner. For the Government to blame us by saying that the Opposition has obstructed the Government in its attempt to move the legislation forward is nonsense. The Government has held it back so that in the end it could use closure. It does not want full public debate. It is embarrassed by this because it realizes that it will have to continue to increase the taxes on ordinary Canadians and continue to cut programs which benefit ordinary Canadians. Yet, at the same time, it Can find billions of dollars for the bail-out of the wealthy. It is shameful, and that is the reason the Government introduced closure. It does not want to see the whole question being debated in the House to a large extent.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-79 and the amendment. The purpose of this Bill is to promote a sense of confidence and fairness with respect to our financial institutions, and I think that is important.
The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) referred to incompetence. Well, after listening to a number of debates here in the House, I find that the incompetence reflected in the speeches of some Opposition Members goes beyond the mere fact of their being in the Opposition. I think we should remember that very often, Opposition Members have this bad habit of talking about anything at all except the subject before the House, and then they wonder why they don't have enough time.
In March 1985, Mr. Speaker, six major banks, three governments, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and even the Opposition agreed these two banks had to be helped. They agreed on a plan for restructuring the banks. Then in September, we had a problem. And now, they are against any incentive and any measure aimed at helping our Canadian financial system to maintain its stability and the credibility it has always had. The Opposition is against any measures we want to take in this respect.
They are asking us for a list of depositors. Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether Opposition Members would be very pleased if their bank accounts were made public. I would like them to answer that question. I wonder if they would like it if Canadians across this country could read in the papers that the Member for such and such a riding has or had so much money in his bank account. I feel it is a matter of privacy.
Second, the depositors also include unions. I am not sure the unions would be so happy to know the financial position of another union with whom they are more or less competing. There are charitable organizations to whom the same principle applies. There are savings banks and credit unions and municipal governments. We cannot ... and there are small- and medium-sized businesses. Does it make sense, Mr. Speaker, is it normal for me, as the owner of a small- or medium-sized
business who does not have an account with one of those who banks, to know that my competitor had a line of credit of so much and had so much money in the bank and so many deposit certificates? I think we should realize the implications of this request from the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Champlain (Mr. Champagne) made a very interesting discovery. He is a very hard worker, and at the library, he found that in 1925, under a Liberal federal Government, the Home Bank was in the same situation. A total of $5.5 million was paid to depositors, and I will leave it to my hon. friend from Champlain to explain to the Liberal Opposition that what we want now, for the purpose of improving and helping our Canadian financial institutions, is something that had already been done in the past under one of their own Governments.
It is rather strange because, perhaps unlike Members of the Opposition who must spend their weekends in Ottawa, 1 am lucky enough to travel throughout the beautiful riding of Trois-Rivieres every weekend when I can meet my constituents, discuss issues with them-


Jean-Claude Malépart: I also met them.


Pierre H. Vincent: You met them, yes, we know. Yes indeed, but strangely enough I met them afterwards and they were able to understand when I explained everything to them. Let us stick to the subject under consideration.
When the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie explains something, he does it in his own way, not the way it should be done.
So, Mr. Speaker, I get to meet my constituents on weekends and we talk about national issues such as the bank problem. Strange though it may seem, the people of the riding of Trois-Rivieres readily understand the Government's position on that and they agree. They understand that we must have a sound banking system if we want to keep our dollar strong, maintain low interest rates, and benefit from a national economy ten times as buoyant as it was a year and a half ago. As I say, they understand that we must help the depositors of the two western banks. Our national credibility is at stake, the people of the riding of Trois-Rivieres can appreciate that, and I am very proud of them.
They also understand that, when we refer to the cost of this measure, we say the gross cost to the Government will be $900 million. I did say "gross cost", Mr. Speaker, because the net cost will be less, perhaps half of that. We do not know yet because all the assets of the two banks have to be recouped first. Mr. Speaker, the residents of the riding of Trois-Rivieres can understand that.
You know, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate because some banks have incurred substantial losses since September. They incurred substantial losses, once again thanks to Opposition Members who have a way of scaring Canadians with situations
December 18, 1985

that may adversely affect Canada as a whole. I can tell you that I met with a few bank managers in the riding of Trois-Rivieres, and they were not at all impressed by the utterly negative approach of the Opposition. They have lost money because of all that, and I can tell you that Canadian voters, not just the people of Trois-Rivieres but voters across Canada will remember this in the next election, and especially people in the financial sector.
It is incredible: here we are in December, with people waiting to get 60 per cent of their money as soon as Bill C-79 is passed. Here we are in December, and they still don't know whether they are going to get their 60 per cent for Christmas or whether they are-


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mothers are waiting for family allowance payments, but that doesn't count!


Pierre H. Vincent: Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker! Do they know what they are doing in the Opposition? We are talking about Bill C-79 and he is going on about Bill C-70. Does that make sense? Come on, sir. Sit down if you want to have the floor. And by the way, the backbenches are in the back!
Mr. Speaker, we are going to proceed with Bill C-79. It is important for Canadians to remember that as well.


Jean-Claude Malépart: They certainly will!


Pierre H. Vincent: Indeed they will. If you had been here two minutes ago, sir, the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), you would have heard and understood what I just said. You were on the other side of the curtains, but you would have seen that Canadians are not very pleased with an Opposition which, instead of working in a positive way and helping our Canadian banking system and our financial institutions, is just trying to scare Canadians. They do not appreciate such tactics at all.
Mr. Speaker, I am of course opposed to the amendment, and I only hope the Opposition will realize there are people who need their 60 per cent, which they won't get until this Bill is passed, and I wish they would understand ... We cannot turn back the clock, Mr. Speaker. We must concentrate on building a better Canada, and systematic obstruction and being negative and never positive is not the way to go about it. Yes, we can build just the same, but it will be a lot harder. If only the Opposition would understand this, we would get somewhere.
That is all I had to say, and I hope they will understand.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the House that I am unalterably opposed to this Bill in its present form. That message has been made abundantly clear to me by my constituents by way of letter and by way of conversation. If it is necessary, Mr. Depositors Compensation
Speaker, to resist this Bill right through the Christmas period,
I am prepared to stay here and resist it.
The Bill is wrong in principle and it is wrong with what it does with the taxpayers' money. For a Government to make ex gratia payments, and in case Canadians do not know what that is, they are hand-outs to people we do not even know how much they are going to get under the name of confidentiality, which is just a nice way of talking about secrecy. It is totally unacceptable. My constituents will not accept it, and I will not accept it.


John Horton McDermid: What did you do on Pioneer Trust, Keith?


B. Keith Penner: This motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) and the motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper), are basically the same. They say that after the payments are made we should know who the depositors are who are receiving the money. 1 would say that of course we should. We should know beforehand who these people are. We should know now who is getting these payments.
If you want confidentiality and secrecy, that is your right as a citizen. If you do not want people to know how much money you are getting from the taxpayers or from the Treasury, you can remain secret but do not expect to get any money. Make up your mind. If you want a payment, let us know who you are and how much you are getting. If you want to keep it secret, if you want your business to be confidential, then no payment.


John Napier Turner: What a crock.


B. Keith Penner: Listen to my friend across the way. He is such a learned gentleman.
Let us look at what a group of people say who have looked into this question.
The Government of Ontario has been very concerned about the failure of trust companies, just as we have been concerned here about the failure of banks. We have not had any bank failures since the depression. Now we have had two in short order since the Government took office.


Mr. St. Germain:: You are the guys who caused it.


John Napier Turner: Be fair.


B. Keith Penner: Let me tell my friends opposite, if they are so concerned about these depositors, to take a close look at the Dupre Report commissioned by the Government of Ontario. They should take it into account.
Listen carefully to what the Dupre Report says. It states:
As a means to restore discipline to financial markets, large depositors should be made to take a beating and lose their money when banks and trust companies fail.
I go on to quote:
We believe that a situation which is tantamount to eliminating all risk in making of deposits is fundamentally unsound-

December 18, 1985
Depositors Compensation
It will inevitably breed a continuation of the unfortunate failures which have occurred.
The report does not even leave out those precious depositors about whom we have been talking in this House as a reason for passing this Bill, such as universities and municipalities. The report attacks depositors, such as universities, municipalities and school boards that had money in failed institutions. It says that the prevalence of these "presumably sophisticated depositors" among the claimants of ill-fated banks "is testimony to the fact that sophistication in deposit making consists in reaching for the highest possible return in blind indifference to the soundness of the institutions.
The report says that only depositors up to $20,000 should be insured and that those depositing larger amounts, up to $80,000, should only receive only partial payment.


John Horton McDermid: Shame.


B. Keith Penner: The Hon. Member opposite says shame. Surely to God it is not a shame to report on a document by a task force funded by the Ontario Government that has been deeply concerned about the failure of financial institutions. That is its recommendation.
My constituents concur with it. After all, the Government is reaching into their pockets and it is going to reach deeper into their pockets in the new year with the income tax increases that are coming out of the May 23 Budget. They resent it. People work hard for their money in the mines, in the bush and in the papermills or driving transport trucks, and now you are asking them to pay out to wealthy depositors, who are not known to us, unknown amounts of money. My constituents tell me to stand up and fight. That is what I am doing. 1 am fighting and I am objecting. Eight hundred and seventy-five dollars and maybe more will be paid out.
At the same time, in my constituency there is less money for direct job creation to municipalities to create jobs, to get projects done that would help those municipalities. Volunteer organizations are getting nothing. Consequently, there are thousands of people who will not be able to qualify this winter for unemployment insurance.
What will those people do, Mr. Speaker? They will be put on the welfare rolls of municipalities. Here is the Government opposite saying you have to pass this billion dollar Bill because it is concerned about poor municipalities. If it really cared about municipalities, the Government would be doing something about job creation for municipalities. This is the same Government that, when it took office, downgraded regional development programs. The Government does not believe in regional development programs. We have heard that from the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). He said for a long time that that is not a responsibility of government. I have heard him say many times that that is nothing but statism. He does not even know the history of Canada. This country was built on regional development policies. If we had not had those policies for a long period of time, we would not even have a nation.
The Government claims that we must pass this Bill because it is concerned about municipalities and credit unions that are losing large amounts of money every day. They wonder if we on this side do not have any concern and sympathy for them. If that is really the concern of Government members, let us bring in a Bill to deal exclusively with those who are in need from among those depositors. Let us determine need and then let us pay them.


John Horton McDermid: Who's going to determine that?


B. Keith Penner: We determine that by knowing who they are and by having the facts on the table. You people have forgotten that Parliament operates on the basis of facts and information. We cannot operate on the basis of secrecy with everything hidden. That is the way this Government is functioning.


John Horton McDermid: What happened to your belief in universality?


B. Keith Penner: Another reason why I will not support this Bill is because Parliament was misled by the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) who said that if we would support the bail-out, the Canadian Commercial Bank would be put back on its feet and the Government of Canada would get its money back. On the basis of that, we went along with the Minister. Things did not work out that way. The bank failed, another bank failed and now we have to bail out depositors who had deposits in excess of $60,000. These are well-to-do depositors. We are not talking about poor people here. We are talking about people who have deposits in excess of $60,000 and we are supposed to bail them out.
The truth is that the word "incompetency" must apply here. The Government got involved in the money market but it did not understand what it was doing. The House of Commons was misled, but perhaps it was not deliberate because the Minister, using the best information she had, was quite confident that the Canadian Commercial Bank would be viable. However, it failed. In the British parliamentary system, that would mean someone's resignation.
Perhaps the Minister of State for Finance is not the person who should resign because if the stories are true, she resisted strongly the bail-out package. I think those stories are probably true. I have spoken to the Minister and I regard her as being knowledgeable about these matters. She probably put up a good argument against it. However, she was overruled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Of course, we cannot call for the resignation of the Prime Minister but certainly the Minister of Finance is the one who ought to go because of this situation. Has there been any talk about resignation? No, none whatsoever.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: Hon. Members opposite applaud. They should keep applauding. I hope they have something to applaud about the next time they go to the people.
December 18, 1985

There is a concern over there for well-to-do depositors. There are a lot of well-to-do depositors but not a word has been said about those people who bought debentures or were shareholders in the bank. What do they get? There has been no concern for them at all. Among that group, there may be some small shareholders and there may be people who held debentures of modest size but there will be nothing at all for them.
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 would certainly improve the Bill a little bit after it is passed by this huge majority that imposed closure on this Bill at second reading even before an amendment introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) which also asked for more information was put. Before that amendment had been fully debated and before we turned to the main motion, the Government imposed closure. Motions Nos. 2 and 3 would in a very modest way improve the Bill. Certainly, after the money has been paid out, we expect to know who these people are but it would be much better to know now. Even better, knowing now the names, we could select those depositors who really deserve to get their money back. We could determine how many of them are wealthy and how much money is going to foreign banks with large deposits.
I totally object to this Bill. I am opposed to it. I am prepared to stay here and argue against it as long as possible. A great reformer once said: "Here I stand, I can do no other".


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to enter this debate. It is sad that the Government has moved closure on this Bill because this is a matter of very serious concern to Canadians. It is a matter of the utmost importance in terms of economic policy and a mater like this should be debated thoroughly and comprehensively. It is shameful that the Government has imposed closure on the legislation before the House today.
Government Members need to remind themselves that they presented themselves to the people as being a group of people who were competent in the area of economic policy but if there is one thing that the bank bail-out legislation demonstrates, it is the complete incompetence of the Government when it comes to economic matters. Government Members made a decision without knowing all of the facts and without making the necessary efforts to get all of the facts upon which to base the decision. That is an elementary procedure when making a decision of this magnitude.
Why did the Government not get all the facts before it made the decision? Government Members had the opportunity to do so. They could have taken the time to do so but they chose instead to fly by the seat of their pants in a manner that affects the economy and will now affect the pocketbook of every Canadian.
This action and the actions with regard to bank bail-outs in the past demonstrate that when it comes to economic matters, the reputation of Conservative Members is in tatters. They do not have the competence they claim.
Another approach to this legislation before the House is to deal with the policy of the Government to compensate unin-
Depositors Compensation
sured depositors with dollars that are worth 100 per cent of their value. If people were to know that when they deposit money in a bank, even if their deposits are uninsured, there is no risk involved, they will have less of a tendency to examine the health of the institution into which they are putting their money. I am thinking now of very large depositors like foreign banks and large Canadian banks. There will be less of a tendency to examine the health and worthiness of an institution into which they are putting their money. This in itself will encourage a repeat of the kind of experience we had with the Canadian Commercial Bank.
If there is one thing that stands out in this case, it is the fact that no one bothered to dig in and check the facts. No one bothered to check into the financial health of the Canadian Commercial Bank before it became a matter of public concern although I have spoken to financial analysts who have told me that rumours were circulating a year or two years before the bank collapsed that something was amiss with the bank. Yet no one in a responsible position and no one who is depositing large sums of money in this institution seemed to take the trouble to dig deep and examine the full facts regarding the health of this institution. That simply means that when it comes to banking institutions the type of action which the Government is proposing will encourage this kind of behaviour in the future.
Our amendment calls for a list of all depositors to which a payment will be made under this legislation. We ask for a list of all those people who had uninsured deposits with this bank, that is, deposits larger than $60,000. To be exact, the amount of money we are talking about in this Bill is $875 million. That is pretty close to $1 billion. Of course, this is one way to spend $1 billion of taxpayers' money. However, just to illustrate what $1 billion means, I would like to suggest a few other ways that these public funds could be spent in order to give some meaning to the figure which is contained in the legislation. This $1 billion could be used to build 21,667 non-profit housing units-21,667. By bailing out these uninsured depositors that is what we are giving up. The Government is simply unwilling to tell us who these people are. It is unwilling to make a list of the benefactors available to the public or to the House. We know that in terms of raw figures there was something in the order of $108 million invested by foreign banks in this institution. From Schedule A and B banks there was some $28 million and $39 million respectively.


John Horton McDermid: It is $112 million.


Cyril Keeper: My colleague across the way suggests the amount is $112 million. These are large sums of money.
We would like details with respect to whom this money will be paid, since the type of general information which we have suggests the money will be paid to large financial institutions. This raises the question: Is it better to give these uninsured depositors who may be large financial institutions and foreign banks this sum of money instead of building 21,667 non-profit

December 18, 1985
Depositors Compensation
housing units in the country? One can imagine the employment which would be created as a result of constructing 21,667 non-profit housing units at a time when we have very high unemployment. Rather, this amount of money is simply being thrown down the drain.
There are those who sit on the Conservative benches who may say that there are some individuals, even senior citizens, who may have had uninsured deposits in this bank. In considering this legislation we have proposed the establishment of a hardship fund to which people could apply for compensation if they can demonstrate that they will suffer severe hardship as a result of not being compensated for their uninsured deposits, that is, deposits over $60,000. We have made a proposal which would allow depositors to be treated in a humane way while protecting the public purse at the same time.
Again, to illustrate the magnitude of the amount of money about which we are talking today, $1 billion could be used to create 100,000 new day care spaces in the country-100,000. Mr. Speaker, I can see that you are indicating to me that I have two more minutes. 1 will wrap up in that time.
What we are asking of the Government is to make available to the public and to the House a list of all those depositors who will be bailed out as a result of the legislation which is before us. We want to know who will benefit from this legislation in order to find out why the Government insists on bailing out uninsured depositors at a time when these public dollars could be put to a much better use. It could be better used in the country if it were not paid to foreign banks and other large financial institutions.
If the Government has a case for helping ordinary Canadians by bailing out uninsured depositors, then let it make the names of all these people available to the House. In this way we will be able to see for ourselves whether or not the Government's claims are accurate. If there are some hardship cases, then let us establish a hardship fund for those who will be hurt and who ordinary Canadians would agree deserve to be compensated because of their particular circumstances.
We believe it is necessary for there to be more information made available to the public with regard to the legislation. We feel that the debate should continue and that the Government should really withdraw this legislation. However, as far as a first step is concerned, we would like to see the Government make a list of depositors available so that we can know exactly who will benefit from this legislation. This legislation provides nothing in terms of an economic sort to benefit the country. We seek an explanation from the Government as to why it is going headlong into spending this $1 billion which could be used more beneficially for ordinary Canadians. The Government could better use this money by providing non-profit housing and day care centres.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak briefly on Motions Nos. 2 and 3 to which I am opposed. In the next few minutes I hope to be able to explain to the House why I am opposed to these motions
and to reply to some of the wild statements which have been made by my hon. friends from Trinity, Winnipeg-North Centre, Cochrane-Superior and Regina East.


Simon Leendert de Jong: We will give you more than 10 minutes-you will need it!


John Horton McDermid: I hope I will receive unanimous consent in order to go beyond my 10 minutes. I would be more than happy to go into this matter.


Carlo Rossi: You will never get it!


John Horton McDermid: Before I reply to the statements made by Hon. Members opposite, I would like to point out that it was obviously a very hot day in the House of Commons on June 8, 1925. It was very warm indeed. The Speaker, as reported at page 3958 of Hansard, said:
Hon. Members are required to maintain the decorum of the House according to the rules. I would be sorry that in Canada we should make our politics in shirt sleeves.
Obviously, someone had their coat off that day when they should not have. On the same day the Liberal Government of the day introduced a motion in the House of Commons which reads as follows:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of the sum of five million four hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the purpose of paying to the several persons who were creditors of The Home Bank of Canada for money on deposit or in current account such proportionate part of the amounts for which they are determined to be creditors in the liquidation proceedings as the said sum will provide, and to authorize the Governor in Council to raise by way of loan such sum as may be required for the purpose of making the payment aforesaid.
On the same page of Hansard is an excerpt from the report of the committee which reads as follows:
Your committee consider that the facts brought out in the interim report submitted by Mr. Justice McKeown and the evidence therein referred to establish that the depositors of the Home Bank have a moral claim in equity for compensation by the country on account of any loss they may suffer by reason of the failure of the Home Bank.
This is a measure which was brought in by the Liberals. It is a precedent. At that time there was no hue and cry with respect to naming all the depositors.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Home Bank, is that your precedent? 1 don't believe it. Are you Rip van Winkle? Have you been asleep for 60 years? Has nothing changed in that time?


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) is, as usual, flying by the seat of his pants. If he wishes to enter into the debate, I suggest he wait until I finish my remarks and then get on his feet and shoot his mouth off. In the meantime, why does he not just sit there quietly, listen and make notes like I did when I had to listen to the diatribe which was presented by his colleagues in his caucus. I would respectfully ask him to do that. If he is going to sit there and yap away, then I will yield the floor to him, but I would like to have my time first, if he does not mind.
December 18, 1985


Carlo Rossi: You should have done the same thing before when our Member was speaking.


John Horton McDermid: I did-


Carlo Rossi: You were blabbering away.


John Horton McDermid: There is the Hon. Member who is never on his feet in the House of Commons. He always speaks from his seat, the honourable flat-foot from Montreal.
To get back to the subject at hand, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the Government has produced a list of some 25 groups which are receiving funding from this particular Bill. The accusation has been made today by a number of Hon. Members who spoke that this Government is trying to hide something.


Don Boudria: Of course it is.


John Horton McDermid: I deny that categorically for this reason-


Cyril Keeper: Because you are hiding something.


John Horton McDermid: -first we have asked Justice Estey to get to the bottom of the entire matter, to find out what went wrong with these particular banks. Justice Estey has the names of all of the depositors. There is no cover-up at all. I think that Hon. Members will admit the evidence which has been presented has been frank and I say to the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), who made these wild accusations-and I wrote them down-that we are being embarrassed by the study, not at all. We appointed Justice Estey and asked him to come in with a full report as to why that bank collapsed. We are not embarrassed by it at all.


Simon Leendert de Jong: You should be.


John Horton McDermid: 1 think the previous administration is going to feel the heat, I can tell you that, when the report comes out.


Simon Leendert de Jong: So is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).


John Horton McDermid: 1 am sure it will. But there is no way that we are being embarrassed because we want to find out why the bank failed in order to prevent that kind of thing from happening in Canada in the future. It is very important to us.
For some reason, the Opposition thinks that anyone who has $60,000 on deposit in a bank is a rich person, and I challenge that. I can think of many, many senior citizens who over the years have purchased homes, have paid off their homes, who sell their homes, have a nest egg, and who live off the interest on that nest egg. However, I can tell Hon. Members opposite that someone living off the interest on $100,000, and they are lucky if they can get 10 per cent today, only receives $10,000 a year. That is not wealthy by today's standards.
For some reason the Opposition want the list of every single depositor so that they can go on a witch-hunt and those Hon. Members can decide in their wisdom who should get reim-
Depositors Compensation
bursed and who should not. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) suggested that we Parliamentarians should decide who should get reimbursed and who should not.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The amendment which is standing in my name is exactly the same as the amendment standing in the name of the Member of the New Democratic Party. In each case, what the amendment provides is that the names of those who receive these ex gratia payments be published in the Public Accounts of Canada, in other words, that they be published after the event. Therefore when the Hon. Member speaks about going on a witch-hunt or doing an examination before the event-


John Horton McDermid: That is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker, for heaven's sake. She has already had her time on debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member may or may not have misunderstood but, nonetheless, it is a matter of debate. The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) has the floor.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member already had her 10 minutes. If she wants another 10 minutes, then she is going to have to move another amendment.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my understanding was that the debate was on the amendment, not on what someone perceives the amendment to be.


Don Boudria: That is a good point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair believes that the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown is in fact speaking on the amendment.


An Hon. Member:: As he always does.


John Horton McDermid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 try to be relevant at all times.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Then why don't you succeed?


John Horton McDermid: I would like to speak for a moment about the Hon. Member for Regina East who fought very hard that the depositors in Pioneer Trust be reimbursed. 1 never heard him once mention that they be listed. He never once mentioned in this House that we should produce a list of all of the depositors in Pioneer Trust who got reimbursed. Yet he stands here today and demands it for this situation. That is hypocritical in my book.
I have to give the Hon. Member full marks, however. He fought for those depositors in Pioneer Trust. But he never once demanded that those names be published. You know why, Mr. Speaker? It is because they were his constituents, that is why.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.

December 18, 1985
Depositors Compensation


Simon Leendert de Jong: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would allow a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That can only be done with unanimous consent. The Hon. Member is now on debate.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I only have 10 minutes. When I finish my speech, with the unanimous consent of the House, I would be happy to answer questions.
I would like to speak about the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior who thought that the report produced by the Ontario Government was a good idea, that we reduce the insurance for depositors to $20,000. He thinks that anyone who has more than $20,000 deposited in a bank is wealthy. That is just not the case today. There are many people who rely on those deposits for their livelihood and they are not wealthy at all. The Hon. Member was opposing higher taxes in his speech, and I can understand why he would oppose higher taxes, but it was the administration to which he pledged loyalty over the years which rang up these huge deficits which someone has to pay for and, like the commercial says: You can pay me now or pay me later. The Liberals ran their Government on the idea: "We can pay later. Those young people who are sitting up in the Gallery, let them pay for it, not us". That was their attitude. Yet the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior talks about higher taxes today. Well, I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there will be much higher taxes if the voluntary organizations and the municipalities which have moneys in these banks are not reimbursed. There would be higher taxes because of the hospitals which have money invested in these banks.
We never hear about the trade unions. Why do the trade unions not come out and tell us which trade unions have their money in the bank if they agree with their NDP brothers? Obviously, they are not admitting they had money in that bank at all. However, they had a fair amount in there.


Ian Deans: That is absolutely irrelevant like most of your speeches.


John Horton McDermid: The Government has been very forthcoming. To publish the list of names is entirely irrelevant to this Bill. Justice Estey is looking into the full operations of those banks and these motions which are in the names of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) are entirely irrelevant and should be defeated as soon as possible. The Liberals tell us we are holding up the operations of the House. If the Liberals think we are, then let us have a vote on it right now.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I intended to rise at the time of Tabling of Documents earlier today but due to mechanical difficulties I was not able to do so because the document was not finished being printed. I have consulted with my colleagues, the Opposition House Leaders, and I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the House to revert to the period for Tabling of Documents so that 1 could in fact table documents in my possession now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to revert to Tabling of Documents?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


B. Keith Penner: We co-operate on this side.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 1
appreciate very much the usual good co-operation from the Liberal and New Democratic Party opposition. You are absolutely wonderful.
Pursuant to Standing Order 47(2), I have the honour to lay upon the Table copies in both official languages of a document entitled "Proposed Amendment to the Standing Orders".



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits, as reported (without amendment) from a Legislative Committee; and Motion No. 2 (Miss Nicholson (Trinity)), (p. 8737) and Motion No. 3 (Mr. Riis), (p. 8738).
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, one certainly cannot let the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) sit down after the comments he made blaming the Opposition for possibly creating higher taxes. It is the bumbling of this Government which has caused higher taxes for the people of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: It does not take much to get them upset. They are on their way.


Don Boudria: There is not much there.
December 18, 1985


Leonard Donald Hopkins: One Hon. Member said this afternoon that some officials should have been fired. The people who should be fired over this issue are the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) in that order. They are the people who persuaded the people of Canada to put their money into these banks. There is no question but that the Government of Canada today and its members are handing out $875 million to people who they encouraged to put money in the bank. In asking the taxpayers of Canada to now pay the bill, the Cabinet is admitting they gave bad advice to the Canadian people and is now charging the bill for that bad advice to the Canadian people.
The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown said there would be higher taxes for hospitals and municipal Governments. Why? Because this Government persuaded the hospitals and municipalities to put their money into the Canadian Commercial Bank. The former Minister of Science and Technology does not have very much to offer. We have seen what he had to offer in the past and it is no greater today. I know he is much better speaking from the seat of his pants than he is from the soles of his feet.


Mr. Siddon:: Read The Globe and Mail this morning, Len. Best news in years.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I like the rapport in this new Government, the civility we see in this House. It is really outstanding. If they keep on going this way I am going to start sounding like the Hon. Jack Horner. He used to repeat himself three or four times in speeches for emphasis and I am going to have to repeat myself just to be heard over this crew. We want to get down to useful debate here, not the shouting going on across the way.


Mr. Fennell:: We are just trying to spur you on.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Members opposite want to pay people off but not give anyone the names.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Why?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Are they afraid that some of these people will turn out to be their friends? Of course they are their friends, wealthy friends, and they are making the people of Canada pay the bill for their mistakes. What could the Canadian public have done with this $875 million which this Bill represents? The people in those regions of Canada which have been attacked by this Government will be interested to know that this amount of money would pay for four years of Winter Works programs. That amount of money put into regional development would have been a tremendous benefit to those regions. However, we have a Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and a Government who do not believe in the regions of Canada. They believe in making urban areas bigger, big business bigger, and pay them off when they make mistakes. That is what those people over there believe. They always said they were going to support free
Depositors Compensation
enterprise in this country. You pay your money and take your chances.


Mrs. Sparrow:: You bet you do.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Tory Member says: "You bet you do". However, what do they do? They encourage people to invest their money and when they lose they say that is all right, we will ask the Canadian taxpayers to pay you off. That is precisely what is happening here today.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) would be interested in knowing that this $875 million would pay for his low-level air defence system. What does the Government do instead? It gives him a budget which has an annual increase less than the NATO requirement. The Government said all through the last election: Honour the commitment. Members opposite were going to increase real defence spending by 6 per cent. Today it is way below 3 per cent and if it keeps going that way it will be zero growth in defence spending this year. Let them try to explain that. It is because they are giving the money away to their friends.
The North Warning System was 90 per cent completed by the previous Government and 10 per cent or maybe even 5 per cent by this Government. It is interesting to note that the $875 million represented in this Bill would more than pay for Canada's share of the total defence system across northern Canada and down the east coast. There would also be enough left over for a major Winter Works program. That money would also have paid for the Government's ice-breaker. Members opposite announced they were going to build this icebreaker and send it through the Arctic. It is their $1-billion flagpole. They cannot find enough money to build it even though they have announced it in the House and they do not know who is going to operate it after it is built. What are they doing instead? Spending $875 million to bail out their friends who they persuaded to deposit the money in the CCB.
Let us look at another item which is very dear to my heart. I hope the Minister of Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) does not start shouting across the floor again.


Thomas Edward Siddon: He is not here.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The former Minister. The degraded and down-graded former Minister of Science and Technology.
What happened in the May 23 Budget? Some $170 million was removed from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and this was agreed to by the then Minister of Science and Technology. Do you realize that the amount of money the Government wants to give to its friends who invested in these banks is five times the amount of money the Government took out of AECL, plus the $70 million taken from the retained earnings of the company?


Thomas Edward Siddon: We are not taking it out.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Why did the Government start to destroy AECL in this way? The Government wanted to help pay off the national debt. The $70 million the Government took out of

December 18, 1985
Depositors Compensation
AECL's retained earnings was to be applied to the national debt.


John Horton McDermid: Whose money is that?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: What does the Minister of Finance say about that? He says the money we are paying out to bail out these bank depositors will be added to the national debt. We have a $1 billion addition and that is the way Tory arithmetic works. You take $70 million from here, put it over here to pay off the national debt and then bring in a Bill to the tune of $875 million to pay off uninsured depositors in these institutions, all of which will be added to the national debt.
I now want to follow up on the remarks by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). One of the speakers across the way tried to make fun of the Hon. Member for Trinity. I believe the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown had a few remarks to say about her. If any of those people across the floor who have spoken-


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the Hon. Member would not want to mislead the House. I did not make fun of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) or any other Hon. Member in this House.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: That is another nice little contribution by the Hon. Member.


John Horton McDermid: You know better.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: You did talk about her.


John Horton McDermid: I debated her points. I did not make fun of her.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Well, he was very upset about her points, okay. The Hon. Member mentioned that the Minister of State for Finance got up in the House and accused the Liberal Opposition and the NDP of holding up this Bill. In fact, as the Hon. Member for Trinity stated, this Bill came back into the House on November 7 at report stage. It then sat on the Order Paper for 20 days. Yet, the Government considered this to be an urgent matter. Then, on a Friday afternoon, with only 14 minutes left in the day's proceedings, the Government called this Bill. Therefore, there has been 14 minutes of debate at report stage since November 7. That is the responsibility of, and can be blamed on, the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn).
I suggest to the Minister of State for Finance that when she comes into the House and delivers a speech accusing the Opposition of holding up legislation, she had better get through to her own House Leader because it shows that there is not very much priority in his mind for this legislation.
We should say "Merry Christmas" to the people of Canada because they are paying a $875 million bill for the Government that was created by the confidence which was expressed in these banks by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance. They are the ones who
caused this problem, not the Opposition, and now they are making the Canadian public pay for it.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps appropriate we should be having a debate on this question just before Christmas, since before the average Canadian gets his presents, he first has to help pay the big banks, the big investment companies, and bankers outside Canada, and all this thanks to a Bill that gives $870 million to companies with deposits at the Northland Bank and the Canadian Commercial Bank.

We have already talked a bit about the Government coming up with this Bill at the last minute and saying that we had better rush it through since it has been delayed. The delays have come because the Government decided it would not bring this Bill forward. This Bill was very close to conclusion at report stage. There was only one amendment left to be considered. The Government cannot fool Canadians by saying that this has been delayed in the House. It has been delayed deliberately by the Government which now says that we have to get it passed.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that any government that uses the parliamentary procedures surrounding the collapse of the Home Bank in 1923 to justify its refusal to give information to the people of Canada in 1985 is surely grasping at straws. We should be talking about how to deal with Canadians today. We should be talking about the openness and accountability which was promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), his Cabinet, and his Party when they campaigned for office in the summer of 1984. Did we get openness? No. Did we get accountability? No. Are we being given the information we require to judge this particular deal? No. Do we know where the money we are paying out through this particular Bill is going? No. The reason for that is that the Government has chosen to pull a veil over this particular deal.
The Government has said that the Bank Act will not allow this because it must be private. This is not an ordinary transaction under the Bank Act. The privacy under the Bank Act is quite different with regard to this particular affair. If a company goes bankrupt the confidentiality with which it treats its creditors becomes public. If they are paid off they have to be disclosed and one knows who the creditors are and how much they will get. That is the situation here, Mr. Speaker. However, because of the Bank Act, that will not apply unless we pass legislation to make it apply.
I would have no problems with the confidentiality if the creditors of the two banks that have gone bust were simply taking their lumps. However, they are being reimbursed for every last penny because of the Government's decision to give them their money. Frankly, I and my party do not think it is justified. The "widows and orphans" argument that has been made by the Government does not hold water. My party suggested some time ago that if there was hardship among certain groups or individuals who had deposits in the two
December 18, 1985

banks in question, we should perhaps look at a hardship fund to compensate them. The Government said "No". It said, however, that we should look at the hardships that would be created if we do not proceed to reimburse every depositor. Hospitals, trade unions, and religious organizations have been cited as particular bodies which might suffer.
The total uninsured deposits in the two banks held by hospitals amounted to $4.7 million. Trade unions had $6 million on deposit and religious organizations had $7.5 million in the two banks. Adding in charities, which had $14 million; pension funds and ethnic groups, which together had less than $1 million; school boards, which had about $3 million; and unincorporated businesses, which together had about $5 million; we are still far short of $50 million. Adding in municipalities with populations of under 100,000 and school boards which had only $3 million on deposit, we come up with a total of less than $60 million in deposits of those for whom some special treatment might be justified as far as Parliament is concerned.
Did we pass a Bill which sought to recompense the particular groups which may have particular problems? No. We are handing out $875 million instead of $60 million. Where is the rest of the money going, Mr. Speaker? It is going to Schedule A banks which have just recorded profits of $37 million. It is going to Schedule B banks which are largely foreign controlled and had $46 million on deposit which is being repaid by the citizens of Canada through their taxes.
Many of my constituents, who are members of the Public Service, are going to suffer. Directives have been issued within the civil service saying to cut back on services, to find another 3 per cent, and to cut back on jobs within the Public Service of Canada. We are being directed to cut back on services to ordinary Canadians in order to pay off these large depositors. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, any government that takes from the poor and ordinary Canadians in order to give to large and wealthy organizations is not dealing fairly with the people of Canada in my opinion. The Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) seems to be upset about this. He used to work for the Conference Board.
Foreign banks have $ 113 million in deposits for which they are being recompensed. I cannot justify that and I do not know how the Government can. These are not widows and orphans. These are not poor individuals, Mr. Speaker. These are wealthy, foreign banks that happened to put some deposits into Canada because they thought they could make a bit of extra interest on their deposits. They took a normal commercial risk. The Government should allow them to get their share of the assets back from the banks that went bust. That is what happens with other bank failures and it seems to me that that is how they should be treated now.
The Government keeps saying that the economy of the country should be run more like a business. Therefore, for God's sake, let us apply that here with business people who were taking commercial risks. Trust companies are surely wealthy enough to absorb a loss of $8 million. However, they are being fully recompensed. Investment dealers lost $110
Depositors Compensation
million. Surely they and their clients are wealthy enough to take that loss. Large customers with uninsured deposits exceeding $.5 million, both corporations and individuals, had $19.5 million on deposit. They are being recompensed through the raising of taxes on ordinary Canadians and the cutting of services for ordinary Canadians. We are not even to find out who these individuals are who will benefit from these sacrifices of the ordinary taxpayers of Canada. Surely individuals and corporations with deposits exceeding $1 million are not hardship cases. Those individuals have deposits of about $88 million. They will be recompensed down to the last penny while ordinary Canadians must pay the price.
Recently I was visited by one of my constituents who had been in a commercial dispute with the Government of Canada. He was a small contractor and I think it is fair to say that he got rooked by the Government of Canada in a commercial dealing some seven or eight years ago. He was forced to sell his house. He was forced to practically liquidate his business. He has suffered financially for the last seven or eight years but has not been recompensed. He is only gradually getting back on his feet.


John Horton McDermid: That is the insensitivity of the Liberals.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Now he will have to help pay for these repayments to wealthy corporations and individuals who took commercial risks but are now being recompensed.
Let me say a word about what the Estey Commission is discovering. It is finding out that there was fault in almost every part of the system in terms of regulating those banks. The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) is nodding in the affirmative.


John Horton McDermid: We want to find out.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I think the Inspector General of Banks should have submitted his resignation rather than endure the limitations on staff which he faced. If he was dissatisfied he should have indicated that publicly. However, he accepted those limitations and all of us have suffered as a consequence.
The Bank of Canada was clearly at fault. The Finance Department should have known as well. Although the operations of those banks were well known, that information did not penetrate here in Canada. It has become clear that the Progressive Conservative Government did not realize until August that there was something deeply wrong, something rotten in the state of the Northland and Canadian Commercial banks.
Did the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) take the necessary steps to find out what was going on before putting that initial money into the banks? No. Did they take the necessary steps immediately after? No. Did they ask their officials to take those steps? No. They went along, like innocents to the slaughter. However, when the price had to be paid, rather than

December 18, 1985
Depositors Compensation
paying it themselves by resigning they are making the people of Canada pay $875 million for the rescue of these banks.
It is a billion dollars for the banks and a billion dollars for Dome. It is $600 million for Olympia & York, the Little Egypt Bump and we know that it is $400 million for the big Boeing bump which we heard about today. The Government is second to none when it comes to giving out money to large wealthy corporations and individuals in this country. It is about time that we began to look after ordinary Canadians and not just big corporations.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to pursue the representations made by the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) and my hon. friend from Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid).
I am surprised today at the opposition to Bill C-79 expressed by the Liberals in their representations. What is happening here? Have they already forgotten that the problems at our western banks, and I know it is rather ironic, were caused by the neglect and incompetence of our predecessors, who allowed 70 new banks to be created without appropriate legislation? A number of those banks experienced problems we are all familiar with, and now we have to provide a remedy and make up for the Liberals' neglect.
The Liberals got the whole country excited with their National Energy Program. They created a state of national euphoria. Everyone was excited, and everyone believed we would all get rich in no time. That is why businesses were set up with very shaky financing, that is they borrowed far more than they actually invested in the business. The banks became as liberal as the Government. They made too many loans, which caused a number of problems, and today some banks are having to cope with these problems and the Government as well.
That same Government had led businesses to do what is called inflation financing. This means that someone with a project could borrow money on the basis of the expected increase in monetary value of the project in subsequent years, and so he could borrow as much as 100 or 105 per cent of the amount he needed, thanks to the financial climate under the Liberal Government at the time.
Today, they question whether we acted responsibly in the matter of the western banks. Before commenting on our position, I would like to ask whether they recall their own involvement in recent years, when they were in power, when they were involved to the tune of $3.5 billion in certain businesses, especially since today, they are criticizing and asking us questions about our involvement in a crisis situation they themselves created. What did they do with Consolidated Computer? They spent $125 million in public funds. What did they do with CCM, the bicycle manufacturer? They spent $15 million in public funds and taxpayers' money. What did they do with Maislin? They spent $32 million in taxes. What did they do with Massey-Ferguson? They spent $125 million in
taxpayers' money. What did they do with the Havilland, the same de Havilland they are complaining about today, now that we have managed to find a solution and a way to turn the company around by attracting a major investor? During all that time they spent $900 million on de Havilland. What did they do with Canadair? They spent $2.1 billion, and this was before they doctored the accounts, before the Auditor General of Canada caught up with them and shed some light on their shady deals.
Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that they spent $3.5 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money on those few companies. That is how they managed to run up a $200 billion deficit while they were in office. I am sure you realize what a $200 billion deficit means, Mr. Speaker. It means that for every dollar of tax revenue in this year's budget we have to set 39 cents aside to pay the interests owing on the debts accrued as a result of the mismanagement of the economy by our Liberal predecessors.
So now we have to make do with a limited budget to meet urgent needs and cope with expenditures of $105 billion. We have earmarked $45 billion for social affairs and $25 billion to pay the interests accrued as a result of the mismanagement, the wastefulness and the incompetence of our predecessors. We have $35 billion left to run the other departments, Mr. Speaker.
Because we are responsible and want to maintain a climate of confidence, we decided to get involved in the banking operations of two Western Canada financial institutions. We decided to get a handle on the situation so that Canadians and foreigners alike would not lose confidence in our banking system. Why foreigners, Mr. Speaker? Foreign institutions had deposits of only $113 million in those two banks.
Since we know that the two banks account for 1 per cent of the net assets of Canadian banks, we can readily conclude that foreign financial institutions have deposits of at least $15 billion in Canadian banks. Had we not done anything, we could rightly have expected some of those foreign banks to withdraw their $15 billion. We must never forget that our banking system needs those $15 billion to be able to provide a steady cash flow for our small- and medium-sized busineses. That is one of the reasons why we had to intervene in banking operations.
It's a fact that we have received representations calling upon the House to protect a great many depositors such as municipalities, groups, trade unions, etc. It's another factor which the Government has taken into account. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we have the feeling that this is a truly national Government and that Canada is a country which extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That is the fact I wanted to emphasize. Hon. Members of the Liberal Party have forgotten that a few years ago, in the Province of Quebec, a number of banks were faced with serious problems. 1 refer to the "Caisses d'entraide
December 18, 1985

economique". When those credit unions experienced difficulties for which Quebecers had to pay, what did the Liberals do? They ignored the fact that Canada is a country that extends from Newfoundland to British Columbia. They let down the Quebec investors who had deposited their money in the "Caisses d'entraide economique", and they failed to take action. They did not understand the meaning of Canada. We, on the contrary, understand its meaning and we are aware that a number of Western Banks are experiencing difficulties. We are going to help them. This is a national concern.
Mr. Speaker, we are acting for the good of this country; we want to show our interest in all aspects of Canadian life. I suggest that the response is excellent, because we have created 416,000 new jobs in Canada, including 130,000 in the Province of Quebec. While the Liberals created 600 new jobs per month, we have created 9,000 new jobs per month. We have created more new jobs per month over the past 14 months than the Liberals did over the last 55 months of their administration. Which means that the Canadian people, businessmen, small- and medium-size businesses have faith in our administration, and that is why we took action concerning those two banks. The response is also excellent as far as interest rates are concerned. They have gone down by as much as 3.6 per cent since September 1984; there has been a reduction in inflation since 1984; the Gross National Product has increased since 1984. That is why I say that the Liberals are not in a position to criticize this Bill. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I should like to show you the front page of today's issue of The Globe and Mail which deals with organization and co-operation, as well as economic development. There is a very positive article about our administration. It is not even an editorial. It's on the front page of the newspaper. I suggest, therefore, that newspapers everywhere in this country are starting to recognize our competence and say: You are right. Stay the way you are, for we love you that way!


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in my place and to enter the debate on Bill C-79. Earlier in the debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent) said that at stake in the debate was the credibility of a nation. Well, he was wrong, 100 per cent. What is at stake in this debate is the credibility of the Conservative Government. I am surprised and shocked that the Hon. Member before me would indicate that somehow they had restored trust and faith in the banking system. If they have done anything, they have certainly distanced themselves from any trust or any faith which any banking institution will place in the confidence of this particular Government. The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that Canadians would not forget this debate. Indeed they will not, and they will not forget the position of the Conservative Government. In essence it is saying to Canadians and to the Official Opposition: "Sign this blank cheque to the tune of $875 million and just take our word for it; just sign on the dotted line and you will have no
Depositors Compensation
problems". We are not prepared to do that. We were not prepared to do that several months ago, and we are not prepared to do it now.
Back in February and March the Minister of State came before the House during second reading and said that it was the moral obligation of the opposition Parties to sign the blank cheque to nameless and faceless individuals. What kind of moral definition does she have? Where was the morality on March 25 when the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) rose in their places and said: "Don't worry about the bail-out because we know what we are doing"? Where was the morality of this Government which declined the repetitive request of the Official Opposition to send the entire matter to a parliamentary committee so that parliamentarians could delve into the situation and find out the answers which Canadians wanted? Where was the morality in that? Where was the morality during Question Period, when on a consistent and regular basis, questions would be thrown to the Government and it would simply say that it had appointed some kind of a commission and therefore could not answer any questions? What about that definition of morality? What about the morality of the Government several months ago when it was prepared to deindex the pensions of senior citizens for the reason that somehow it had to reduce the deficit? What were its excuses in the debate which ensued in the Chamber? They backtracked very quickly because they knew they were wrong then, and they know they are wrong now. Where was the morality in deindexing family allowances despite the promises and the commitments which the Prime Minister made from coast to coast? Where was the morality there?
What kind of hypocrisy are we dealing with when we have a Government which says on one hand "we cannot keep the family allowances cheques the way they used to be, we are changing them, we are lowering them because you too have to fight the deficit, you too have to help us", yet in a quick swoop it says that $1 billion for the bank bail-out is fine. Also it has the audacity to say that it is fine without providing the information required by Parliament and by Canadians. They are the ones who are footing the $875 million blind cheque. It is not the Conservative Government. It is not the banking industry. It is the Canadian people who are being asked to foot the bill. At the same time we have a Government which is not prepared to tell Canadians why they are paying that bill and to whom those moneys will be going.
We have heard a great deal about us somehow not being compassionate about the needy interest groups within that $875 million ambit. We told the Government several months ago-and we tell it again today-that if there were serious, needy situations, we were prepared to look at them on an individual basis.
We are asking the Government to grant Canadians an opportunity to know who will be receiving those moneys. It is not a special request. We are not asking for something that is

December 18, 1985
Depositors Compensation
impossible. Yet, Conservative back-benchers rise and say that the Liberals spent x dollars here and x dollars there. So they did, but they explained to Canadians what those moneys were for. They explained to Canadians their vision of the country. However, this Government is setting a very serious precedent when it cloaks itself in privacy, when it cloaks itself in hiding information from Parliament, and when it cloaks itself in closure. That is a very serious disease, indeed, a disease which must be eradicated as quickly as possible. In 1988 we will make certain that that disease will be eradicated once and for all.
We are not talking about the credibility of the nation. We are talking about the integrity and the credibility of this particular Government, a Government which was prepared to introduce a Budget and to tell earners between $15,000 and $25,000 that they would have to pay 36 per cent in taxes by 1990. On the other hand, it is telling individuals earning upwards of $200,000 that their part of the bill is only 2 per cent. Two per cent for the $200,000 earner and 36 per cent for the $15,000 to $25,000 earner. Is that justice? Is that fair? Is that some sense of morality? Then we have to sit in our places and accept the morality discussions of the Minister of State for Finance! Like heck we will, and Canadians will not stand for it either, Mr. Speaker.
What we are talking about is the integrity of the Government, an integrity slipping minute by minute, day by day, month by month. The Government simply cannot sit back. It cannot laugh and joke about these things because while it has an absolute majority, while it has 212-odd Members, it also has a responsibility to maintain the traditions that are part of this Chamber, traditions that would suggest the Government has an obligation while governing the country to govern it not only in a proper fashion, but to allow Canadians to understand how they are being governed and what they are being governed by. That is not happening in this Bill. That is not happening in the other seven Bills that have had closure imposed on them. It is not happening with the de Havilland case, Mr. Speaker.
We have the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) the back-benchers, the surfers, the hangers-on, the book-ends, all saying that it is such a great deal, but no one has ever seen the deal. They are all saying it is great for Canada. But do you know what, Mr. Speaker? Canada does not know what the deal is. Why is that? Because the Government knows what kind of a deal it has signed. The Government knows what kind of a giveaway it has enacted. The Conservatives know what kind of disservice they have done. They can read polls as well as we can. They know that 78 per cent of Canadians in a poll conducted by a Tory firm show that Canadians wanted de Havilland to remain Canadian, that there was something of a nationalistic pride and honor that went with de Havilland.
We can talk of de Havilland. We can talk of Bill C-79 and deindexation of seniors and family allowances, but the fact remains the same. People in Canada voted for a change. They
got disservice and were hoodwinked. The Government will not get away with it because 1987 and 1988 is just around the corner.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was a bit concerned that when the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) was talking about morality and integrity, he was talking over the heads of the Opposition. I became particularly concerned that he might have gone too far when he referred to the 212-odd Members on the other side but following that he substantiated the allegation.
Earlier we heard the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) state that the legislation before the House was intended to deal with a very particular and unique set of circumstances. That unique set of circumstances, of course, refers to bad management of the banks involved and the incompetence of the Government and the inadequacies of the banking regulatory system.
What we have before us is not only a bank bail-out Bill but if you give it careful consideration, I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would call it the bank enhancement Bill. What is involved is an expenditure of $875 million, very nearly a billion dollars, for the purpose of bailing out an anonymous collection of depositors in two failed banks. The money will be borrowed. Interest on the borrowings will be paid to the banks and the banks will, some at least, be saved from having to be bailed out later.
The amendment with which we are dealing this afternoon has a very simply purpose, a purpose with which I am sure the vast majority of Canadians would agree. Those uninsured depositors who are to benefit from these huge expenditures should be known to those who are going to pay for the bail-out. That is an extremely simple proposition to which the Government has replied in an exceedingly unsatisfactory way, saying first that it would vilate the Bank Act and the Privacy Act, ignoring that it is easy to amend legislation. As has been indicated earlier, we are talking about a closed bank and the power of the House to do with it what it will with respect to this legislation.
There are alternatives that were proposed by those of us on this side. Those include a hardship fund to deal with those cases for which it could be justified to return in part or in whole the deposits to be lost by the closing down of the bank. An alternative amendment would have been to allow an immediate pay-out by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation based on the estimate of the liquidation value of the bank's assets. Those very two reasonable propositions which were rejected in committee. We are left with the present proposal which would give a huge sum of money to uninsured depositors.
The Minister said that the New Democratic Party has ignored the small-business person. I do not know about the small-business people in the constituencies of the Conservative Members, but I know that there are an awful lot of small-business people who would know in advance that if they had made
December 18, 1985

an investment, comparable to a deposit, and if they were they to find themselves in losing circumstances subsequent to the risk that they would not find themselves bailed out by the Government. 1 would say that the Government to be consistent ought to introduce legislation immediately to ensure that every losing small-business person would be bailed out of their losses in the fashion that we propose to do here.
The Government says it is going to effect this bail-out because it is fair. We believe in fairness, Mr. Speaker. If it is fair to give $875 million to those who willingly took a risk, then it certainly would be fair to give money to those who need homes. It would be fair to give to those on the GIS who have inadequate income. It would be fair to build day-care centres for those who need them. It would be fair to provide jobs for those who do not have jobs. It would be fair to ensure that there would be more than enough money that every young person be guaranteed a university education or training and it would be cheaper to do that than the bail-out here.
If anyone were to advance the proposition that this kind of money be invested to ensure the education, training and jobs of young people, many of whom think they will never get jobs, the Government would say: "Oh, that is too much." The deficit would be important then because the Government has its friends. It has its ideology but it does not really have in its heart the sympathy those of us in the House of Commons ought to have for the people, too many of whom hurt too much and do not have the benefit of of being bailed out.


Mr. Pat Binns (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak on Motions Nos. 2 and 3 regarding Bill C-79. One might wonder why a Member from Prince Edward Island would want to take an interest in these motions and this Bill itself. There are two reasons and they are quite simple.
I grew up in western Canada. I know what happened to western Canada in the last number of years under the Liberal administration. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, as a former westerner something that all Canadians who know about the West know. That is that the former Government so savaged the western economy in its last years that it led not only to a total collapse of the energy and real estate sectors but it actually ruined the lives of thousands and thousands of western Canadians.
The National Energy Program stopped all new oil field development in western Canada. People who were employed in the energy sector were thrown into unemployment. They became dependent on the welfare system. They were degraded. Those who could get jobs had to move to other areas of the world where enlightened Governments-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, since there are many Members who want to speak, in a spirit of co-operation, I would like to
Depositors Compensation
move that the debate be extended until ten o'clock this evening if all the Members agree.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie (Mr. Male-part) who has asked for unanimous consent that the House continue sitting until ten o'clock tonight. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. We shall resume debate with the Hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Binns).


Patrick George Binns: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying only a moment ago, western Canadians who were thrown into unemployment because of things like the National Energy Program were forced, if they could get jobs, to get them out of the country. Friends of mine moved to places like Texas, Saudi Arabia and to areas of the world where enlightened Governments were encouraging energy developments in their own countries. However, that was not the case here in Canada. In fact, many Atlantic Canadians moved back east and waited for their chance to get even with the former Government which had put them out of a job. Of course, on September 4, 1984, those Atlantic Canadians and Canadians from across the country took the opportunity to turn the tables and put the Liberal Government of the day out of a job.
Some Hon. Members might ask what this has to do with the motion before us. It seems to me that it was not enough that the former Governemnt, along with the NDP, ruined the western economy. It seems now that they want to insult and embarrass the depositors who suffered through the financial crisis related to the bank failures.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 wonder if the Hon. Member would allow a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Binns) on debate.


Patrick George Binns: As I was beginning to say, our Party has said that enough is enough. We are committed to getting the West rolling again. That has begun with things like the Western Accord which has started to put western Canadians back to work. It has caused development to start to roll in the West. People are beginning to rebuild their lives.
Through this Bill, we now propose to help those westerners who would suffer financially without the Bill being passed. We believe that these people deserve not only to be compensated since the former Government caused many of their problems but that their confidentiality should be protected. If the depositors want to tell everyone their story, I think that is their right. However, we on this side of the House respect confidentiality. We respect the provisions of the Bank Act and the

December 18, 1985
Depositors Compensation
Access to Information Act regarding restrictions on the publication of such information.
I would not be surprised if some depositors would want to tell other Canadians what the former Government did to them and what these amendments would do to them. I think if they do, they will ensure that the remaining two Liberal seats in western Canada along with a lot of NDP seats will come our way next election.
I suggested that I had two reasons for speaking on this debate.


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Hon. Member should probably consider not only the remaining seats in western Canada but he should consider his own seat when he talks about those in Cardigan.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Binns).


Patrick George Binns: Those Hon. Members seem to be a little upset. I appreciate that. They have good reason to be upset.
The second reason I wanted to speak this afternoon is that this issue relates to having principles. When we talk about principles, we have to look at the nature of the depositors. The depositors were hospital commissions, small colleges, small-businessmen-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Hon. Member is happy paying out $857 million to unnamed foreign banks when there is not five cents for the potato farmers in Prince Edward Island. How can he justify that? It is totally irresponsible. Potato farmers are being paid 2.5 cents a pound and it costs them 4 cents to produce them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Order, please. On debate, the Hon. Member for Cardigan.


Patrick George Binns: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that over the last 15 months, the Government has taken care of the problems that have come along and that is why we are taking care of this particular problem. I am sure the potato growers will not be left behind.
I was saying that hospital commissions, small businesses, credit unions, religious organizations, charitable and ethnic organizations and many other organizations representing individual Canadians have been affected by what has happened because of the collapse of these two banks. As well, there are pensioners. I would think that many pensioners have saved money over the years and put that money in those banks so that they could pass it on to their children or their grandchildren.


Jean-Claude Malépart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has just said that depositors who had $60,000 or more-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I respectfully point out to the Hon. Member that this is a point of debate. 1 shall therefore ask the Hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Binns) to continue.


Patrick George Binns: As I was saying, I know that many of the depositors affected are senior citizens and, of course, these are people who worked all their lives and saved their money so that they could pass it on to their families and grandchildren. I think that is important.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps the Hon. Member would do the honourable thing and table for the Members of the House the names of those senior citizens of which he makes mention in his speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order. Could the Hon. Member continue on debate?


Patrick George Binns: Mr. Speaker, the point is that we are concerned about those senior citizens and about protecting their confidentiality. They deposited money in those institutions and want to be able to pass it on to their children and grandchildren. There is no reason why everyone has to know the details of the amounts of money they were able to save during their years of working.
I am not sure why opposition Members have persisted today in trying to determine who these individual Canadians are who have saved money and made deposits. Surely they are not doing it for the good of western Canada. I believe it is a good thing that this Party is committed to the principle of privacy. Let us maintain that principle and say that enough is enough for those people who have been subjected to the trauma of putting themselves together again after the western economy was ruined and after these banks and businesses have failed. They have been through enough.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. He will have some time left the next time this matter is debated in the House.
It being 6 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 19, 1985