1985-10-17

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. Lanthier:
That, in relation to 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, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of government business on the above-mentioned sitting day, 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.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek your advice. Is it appropriate for the Minister to move this motion without having another Minister second it? Is it appropriate, for example, for the Parliamentary Secretary to do that?


Mr. Speaker:: The practice is to have two Ministers move and second a motion when there are two Ministers in the House. There is nothing inappropriate about another Member seconding the motion.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words to begin this debate to underline a couple of points that Members can reaffirm while debating this motion.
Essentially, this motion concerns this second reading stage of the Bill with respect to reimbursement of uninsured depositors. This is not a time allocation to conclude the consideration of this legislation by any means. Indeed, at second reading we have had essentially a week of debate on the floor of the House of Commons. We are now at the stage in our procedures when the rules have reduced speeches to 10 minute interventions as opposed to the normal interventions of 20 minutes plus time for questions. Therefore, there has been a full and ample opportunity for Members to make known their positions on the principle of the Bill.
I only want to make a couple of points with respect to the matter of this legislation going forward to a committee. We have heard much about committee consideration of this legislation and related matters concerning banking in Canada. This is a specific proposal put forward by the Government of Canada with respect to reimbursement of uninsured depositors. At this point, after a full day of debate at second reading, the legislative committee will have an opportunity to examine the clauses of the Bill.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) has in fact provided and given an undertaking to provide the fullest information possible with respect to the nature of the payments that will be made. I believe she has already tabled a list of the various categories of persons and corporations that will be subject to this legislation and eligible to apply for reimbursement.
As Hon. Members will know and as the general public will understand, there are different stages for legislation proceeding through the House. One involves a discussion which I believe has taken place for a good and sufficient time on the floor of the House, concerning the principle of the Bill. We then move to the legislative committee where there is clause by clause consideration of that legislation by Members who are interested. They have then a full opportunity to examine the provisions of the Bill. Following that, there is what is known as the report stage, and ultimately third reading of the legislation on the floor of the House of Commons.
Nothing could be more reasonable than to provide a reasonable opportunity for debate on the floor of the House of Commons, to have this matter go forward for full consideration in the legislative committee, and then to have the Bill come back to the floor of the House of Commons.
I remind you that we have other items of legislation waiting to come to the floor of the House of Commons. These include the initiative of the Government with respect to employment equity which will, for the first time in Canadian history, move toward bringing a sense of equity in this country for such people as women and the disabled. The time in the House of Commons could be spent debating other important pieces of legislation such as the Canada Shipping Act, Canagrex and Bills arising from the Budget.
I believe that we have had a good debate and have heard the representations made by members of the Opposition. It is most certainly a fact that there has been ample opportunity for members of the Opposition in particular to put their point of view forward. The Government has demonstrated a sense of fairness by its action and it is time for us to move forward to the next step.

October 17, 1985
Time Allocation
1 suggest that this is an eminently sensible motion which I am sure will receive the support, if there is a vote at the end of this debate, of all Members of the House, including members of the Opposition.
O)


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Leader of the Government was serious about the comments he was making, but it is a dark day for the Canadian parliamentary system when we have before the House a Bill that will swallow nearly one billion dollars of taxpayers' money, and the House and its Members have only the few days they are allowed to take part in the debate. I think we can safely conclude this is a wholesale attack against parliamentary democracy, and it is shameful!
The Government is going to use its crushing majority to gag the Opposition and keep it from continuing debate on a Bill which, as I just said, will involve spending millions of dollars- in fact, nearly one billion dollars. This fiasco, which is going to cost Canadian taxpayers a lot of money, is due to the almost puerile incompetence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall) and, especially, of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), since he made the final decision last March which resulted in the fiasco we are seeing today.
With this motion of closure, parliamentarians are being forced to vote on a Bill without having the minimum of information they require.
As a result of this motion, the House of Commons will be asked to vote on a Bill that will reimburse all depositors with deposits of $60,000 or more at the Northland Bank or the Canadian Commercial Bank. And we will have to do that and ask taxpayers to pay for this Government fiasco, without having Judge Estey's report.
Mr. Speaker, in this House we have been asking and urging the Government to set up a parliamentary committee to investigate who was particularly responsible for this fiasco. This request was denied. The Government appointed Mr. Justice Estey to hold an inquiry and behold, we are being asked to vote on a Bill without even having received the report of the Commission of Inquiry chaired by Judge Estey.
Furthermore, we are being asked to approve a Bill, and the Government is choking off debate to force a vote, when we do not even know to whom these sums of money will be paid. Is it normal to ask the people's elected representatives to vote on Bill C-79, which will provide compensation to six people in Canada, six individuals, not companies, six people in Canada who are going to share the sum of $3.8 billion-


Mr. Bernier:: Give us their names!


Raymond Garneau: -that is exactly ... I don't know who said: Give us their names. Maybe that shining light, the Hon. Member for Beauce. Well, that is exactly what we want to know. It is up to you to name them, not us. You have the information.
Mr. Speaker, six people are going to share approximately three billion 700 million dollars, and Members are being asked to vote blindly? At the Northland Bank, Mr. Speaker, nine people in Canada are going to share four million 900 thousand dollars. Why? It is the Government's responsibility to inform Members who these people are. These are not the people who invest small amounts. These are people who know what they are doing and who have a million dollars? Why should we ask mothers and workers in factories in Sherbrooke to pay more taxes to reimburse these people, whose names we don't even know?
And so we are being gagged. We will have to vote on this Bill without getting any specific and official information tabled in this House on the Northland Bank. I dare my colleagues, I dare those who are going to raise both hands to kill the Northland Bank, to say whether they have had any official information on the Northland Bank. Do we know the amount of bad loans? Do we know what minimum reserves were necessary for this bank to continue its operations? We have none of this information, and yet we are being asked to vote in a couple of hours and are being obliged to do so as a result of this motion of closure, which is an outrage to our parliamentary democracy. In fact, the reason closure is being imposed today, putting an end to a debate that lasted only a few days, is to cover up the fact the Government's incompetence will cost taxpayers nearly one billion dollars.
Mr. Speaker, without this closure motion to put an end to the second reading debate on Bill C-79, the Opposition could have shown that the taxpayers will have to pay $1 billion because the Government, and especially the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance, waited three months, from March 25 to June 25, before appointing someone to investigate the value of the assets of the Canadian Commercial Bank. This morning, the Globe and Mail carried an interview with the president of the Royal Bank, who is also president of the Canadian Payments Association, and if I may, I would like to quote part of his comments:
Mr. Taylor said that on more than one or two occasions after the March 25 bail-out the chartered banks had conversations with either Finance Minister Michael Wilson or Minister of State for Finance Barbara McDougall, or both, requesting that a comprehensive audit of the CCB's entire loan portfolio be carried out.
"There were references and discussion about the fact that this inspection did not take place," Mr. Taylor said in noting that it was not until June 25 that a comprehensive examination of the CCB assets began.


V#


;
October 17, 1985



Mr. Speaker, the bankers had advised the Government. However, Mr. Hitchman was asked to prepare a report only on June 25. He got to work with two other people and presented a preliminary report less than a month later. What did this preliminary report say? It told the Minister that a task force should be appointed to administer the bank and make the major decisions because Mr. Hitchman had of course noted that the doubtful loan practices were being continued. What happened to the Hitchman preliminary report? It was put in a drawer and nothing was done about it. This shows the incompetence and the lack of concern of a Minister who spent part of the summer in Paris and who, on her return, wrote letters to the shareholders telling them that it was all right to keep their money in the bank. Those letters are dated August 9, 1985. On August 14, a report said that the bank was no longer viable, or rather this happened as early as August 12, but two days went by before the Minister read this report since, according to her, she saw it on August 14.
Mr. Speaker, this shows an unparalleled incompetence and lack of concern. Why is it that a Minister who authorized the selling of a few cans of tainted tuna has resigned, that another Minister who had problems with his electoral expenditures has resigned, while a Minister who will cost $1 billion to the Canadian taxpayers is still sitting comfortably in her seat, as is the Minister of Finance? In addition, we are being muzzled to prevent us from discussing this Bill and telling the Canadian people that the incompetence of the Government has not only killed the Canadian Commercial Bank, but also caused the Northland Bank to close its doors, its employees to lose their jobs and an important financial institution in Western Canada to disappear in spite of all the work that was done to establish regional banks in the West.
In an earlier speech, I had suggested a four-point plan to save the Northland Bank. If closure had not been imposed, we might have succeeded in convincing the Government to accept this plan. If need be, we would have attached a small blue card to the document and sent it to the Cabinet, as, apparently, such a card shows that a document has been checked by a Conservative. When it has not been checked by a Conservative, there is no little blue card. So, perhaps someone on the Conservative side could have been found and asked to put his little blue card on, and this might have saved the Northland Bank which did not deserve to close down. And certainly if it has come down to this, it is because of the Government's incompetence and indifference.
Mr. Speaker, in this matter-


Mrs.   Duplessis@: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis) on a point of order.


Mrs.   Duplessis@: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member refers to blue cards, this is irrelevant. I would ask him to stick to the rule of relevance.
Time Allocation


Raymond Garneau: Would the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis) be ready to use her little blue card, and give her OLC to the possibility for the Government to withdraw its closure motion in order to allow for a more detailed examination of the Northland Bank situation? Of course, she is only a backbencher. Maybe she does not know about the little blue cards. But Cabinet Ministers know about those little blue cards.
Mr. Speaker, in this legislation we see double standards being used. The foreign banks are reimbursed, but the chartered banks which were involved in the bail-out attempt are not. Mr. Speaker, this is grossly unfair, as we could have shown, if such a democracy-wise contemptible motion of closure had not been introduced. They have the gall to suggest this is in order to put forth other prices of legislation. Mr. Speaker, we are not the ones responsible for this CCB and Northland Bank fiasco. This Government is responsible. It should take the blame and table action accordingly. They sent two banks down the drain, and now they tell us: "Hurry up, clean up that mess! Get it out of this House, so the Canadian people will not see it on their television screens, so they will not see how incompetent we are. Let us try and cover that up in future tax increases." Mr. Speaker, I submit this is utterly unacceptable, undemocratic for a Government to use its majority to force a motion of closure through only a few days after the second reading of the Bill has been moved, in order to hide its incompetence.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party are going to vote against this time allocation motion. We oppose this motion, as we oppose Bill C-79. We oppose a gag on the debate, Mr. Speaker, because the full reasons for this bail-out are not yet known. They are not forthcoming from this Government. We know little about who will be reimbursed, notwithstanding that some of the individuals and companies involved will be receiving very large amounts of money.
We know very little about the reason the Northland Bank is being treated in the same way as the Canadian Commercial Bank. We now have a great deal of information about the Canadian Commercial Bank. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, based on the information received as a result of the hearings of the Finance Committee held in May and June, we believe that the Government should have acted then and not waited until September.
Mr. Speaker, the passage of this motion would ensure that the debate on this Bill in the House will cease very quickly. It has been suggested that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have been hiding behind the skirt of the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs.

October 17, 1985
Time Allocation
McDougall). That is not so, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of State for Finance is now hiding behind Mr. Justice Estey's robes. That is no improvement. In fact, it is a good deal worse in terms of parliamentary accountability and the responsibility of a Minister for the field for which that Minister is responsible.
Mr. Speaker, since I last spoke on Bill C-79 a number of suspicions of mine have been made dramatically clear. The tabling of the Hitchman Report has laid bare the deficiencies-and, in fact, the total inability-of our inspection system, our monitoring system in ensuring a sound banking system.
Mr. Speaker, there is now very little truth to the claim that Canada has one of the best banking systems in the world, a claim which has been made repeatedly by the Ministers of this Government and by the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
The Hitchman Report has highlighted many of the failures and deficiencies in our system of inspection. It is little wonder that the Government was reluctant to release it.
Members of the House will know that I sat on the Finance Committee throughout its examination of the Canadian Commercial Bank in May and June of this year. The committee heard from all of the principals at that time: the President of the Canadian Commercial Bank, the auditors of the Canadian Commercial Bank, the Inspector General of Banks, and the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
It is obvious from a reading of the Hitchman Report how dishonest, how deceitful, and how shallow so much of the testimony and the advice the committee got at that time was.
Mr. Speaker, the scrutiny which we and all Canadians thought was inherent in our monitoring of the banking system turned out to be simply second and third-hand assurances on the part of the Inspector General of Banks and the Governor of the Bank of Canada, two individuals who essentially took the word of management. What the Hitchman Report shows is that the Canadian Commercial Bank management acted foolishly in its lending practices and continued to act foolishly even after the bank was bailed out last June. This happened even though we had every right to expect that after the bail-out in March, the Inspector General would inaugurate the kind of inspection system which he ought to have had in place all along.
I suggest to Hon. Members that they could read no more scathing an indictment of our financial system and its monitoring than that provided by an editorial which appeared in the Financial Times of October 14. If I might be permitted to quote from that assessment, the editorial reads in part:
The findings of the 71-year-old ex-deputy chairman of the Bank of Nova Scotia as he delved into the chaotic mess of loan files at the CCB were in turn profound, startling and devastating.
Above all, they indicated that Hitchman seemed to be alone among countless bank officers, directors, external auditors and federal regulators in having the right nose for the job.
If there was any doubt before the release of Hitchman's report as to the inadequacy of the Inspector General's office in policing the CCB case, there is not a shred of doubt now.
Nor was the performance of the CCB's external auditors anything to rave about. Hitchman's testimony raised grave questions about the role and judgment of the auditors who seemed as ready as the Inspector General's office to accept, lap-dog fashion, management's word on almost everything.
That editorial refers to a pretty comprehensive list of those with responsibility. It is very similar to the list that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and I compiled when we issued an NDP addendum to the Finance Committee's report. Here is what we said on June 12:
If the CCB experience points out anything it is the deficiencies of the present system in which persons with direct responsibilities including bank officers, bank directors, bank auditors, external auditors, bank investment underwriters and government monitors, including the Inspector General of Banks and the Governor of the Bank of Canada, all failed to locate serious difficulties in CCB operations so as to expose and correct them before that bank virtually drifted into bankruptcy. Independent of anything else in the Green Paper discussion paper, there must be an immediate and comprehensive updating and revitalization of this sytem if the savings of Canadians are to be protected as they must be against mismanagement and conflicts of interest by officials of financial institutions.
That is what we said in June, Mr. Speaker. The advice we gave and the conclusions the Minister of State for Finance should have drawn from the hearings which were held by the Finance Committee in May and June were not heeded. Despite the Minister's hands-on direction of the CCB, we got the same old stuff. Here is how the Financial Times describes the new CCB in operation after the $250-million bail-out which was supposed to make the bank a viable operation again:
In mid-July, after CCB president Gerald McLaughlan had assured Hitchman the bank was devoting its energy to collecting on old loans instead of pursuing new business, the CCB loan committee recommended two new loans of $15 million each.
Both loans were to be made to brand new companies whose capital value was-
Get this, Mr. Speaker:
-$1 each. One of the $ 15-million loans was for a 10-year term, to bear interest at 10% or prime plus a half. Yet CCB would have had to pay 12% to raise the funds to be lent out-costing the bank an additional $5 million. The real estate which the loan would purchase had been valued at $9 million.
Where was the Inspector General of Banks? Where was the Governor of the Bank of Canada who, on a number of occasions, said that the CCB was a viable operation? It is quite clear that those with the ultimate responsibility for protecting the people of Canada were remiss. The Minister of Finance, the Minister of State for Finance, the Inspector General of Banks, the Governor of the Bank of Canada and all the Ministers concerned must take full responsibility. Their failure to act when they should have acted and their failure to require the Inspector General of Banks to perform the job he was supposed to perform will cost the people of Canada billions of dollars.
The failure of the Canadian Commercial Bank has contributed to the failure of the Northland Bank and has placed a number of other regional and smaller banks under extreme pressure. This failure has made the people of Canada question

October 17, 1985

the soundness of the Canadian banking system, which is something the country simply cannot afford. Because we believe the Government has failed miserably in its duty we propose to vote against this Bill.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) expressed astonishment about our parliamentary leader's lack of seriousness. Well, I too am astonished that the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides-who is aware of his reputation as a former banker and who at one time was a heavyweight in another Government-would continue to play on the nerves of Canadians and accuse the banks of being short of cash. The Member for Laval-des-Rapides must know, because he was once in the limelight, that his attitude can only create more problems for the banking community. Has he become incompetent, or did he lie to the people when he stated that the British Columbia bank had a serious cash flow problem which could also have an impact on the Continental Bank of Canada? The ultimate result was that the various bank branch managers had to explain to their major depositors that everything was just fine. Senior management like the vice presidents of the two banks had to tell the Canadian public that it was not true, that neither bank was beset by cash flow problems.
It would seem that the Member for Laval-des-Rapides and his colleagues have one goal in mind-make it look like the Canadian banking system is on the ropes. Of course! Then they can blame the Government. That is why they want to keep the pot boiling and push the panic button so that Canadians will have no idea which way to turn. We know they may still be reeling, but this is right up their alley and they probably would not hesitate to sink right along with our banking system and ruin Canada's economy because they simply cannot get over the fact that they were turfed out of office on September 4, 1984.
I am sorry to see that one Member is not here this morning-the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) is probably in his Bay Street office-but I would have liked him to take part in this debate, considering the fact that he had a hand in creating the problem we are facing today.
The number of Canadian banks went up to 70 under the previous administration, and some of those institutions are also experiencing difficulties. The Liberals did not bother to introduce appropriate legislation to avoid the problems with which we must come to grips.
Let it be said that most of those problems can be traced back to the National Energy Program, of which one of the main architects was the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice. That is how the Liberals created a Canada-wide paper empire, a house of cards which was bound to collapse because it was structured on the basis of negotiated oil prices which did not take the law of supply and demand into account. That is how the ensuing policy led to a climate on confrontation with the
Time Allocation
provinces. The cash-starved Liberals sought to impose daily taxes on our entire oil industry. Their eyes, Mr. Speaker, were bigger than their belly. They defied the economic rules. And today those same Liberals are telling us that we are going to spend ... they suggest $1 billion to compensate some depositors for the funds on deposit with the Northland and the Commercial Bank of Canada. The Liberals know that the amount involved does not come to $875 million. They know that businesses which make deposits .. . there is an economic factor to be taken into consideration. They pay taxes on that amount and they know quite well that the net cost is going to $470 million which is quite a difference from $1 billion.
The Liberals have incurred such costs, that they raised the deficit to $200 billion during the last decades and always for the sake of economic costs.
Mr. Speaker, it must be noted that if we decide to compensate depositors, it is because there are among them community, religious, and charitable organizations, savings funds, unions, school boards, small and medium-sized businesses, individuals, cities and municipalities. We do not know what could be the consequences of our not taking action with respect to those banks. The Liberals must think that they took the decisive step a few years ago but, unfortunately, we now have to face the problems.
We are also told that foreign banks will be reimbursed. An amount of $113 million has been mentioned. We know that the two banks involved have assets which amount to one per cent of all assets in the Canadian banking system. All of the figures are not available, Mr. Speaker, but we can easily make a very conservative projection with a small "c". If $113 million equal one per cent of the assets, then 11.3 billion will equal the entire assets. This probably means that foreign banks have deposits for at least $11.3 billion in Canadian banks. If we do not solve the problem of our $113 million, foreign banks could very well withdraw their $11.3 billion due to a lack of confidence in our banking system and in our Government. We cannot accept that, because if we figure out 10 per cent revenue on $11.3 billion, it would come up to $1 billion.
Finally, those foreign banks are investors in our small and medium-sized businesses. Their investments represent the operating capital of thousands of Canadian businesses which, should these foreign deposits be withdrawn, would have to look elsewhere for their cash flow.
The Liberals keep repeating this $1 billion figure. We say $470 million. Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind Liberal members of the mistakes they made before the Canadian people figured them out. For instance, the $125 million they invested in Consolidated Computer with no return whatsoever. Also, the $15 million which they invested in the small CCM business without any accountability. Also, the $32 million they wasted in the Maislin mess. Not to mention the $125 million they wasted on Massey Fergusson.

October 17, 1985
Time Allocation
Mr, Speaker, I should like to point out to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) that I did not interrupt the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) during his speech and ask him to show me the same courtesy. Hon. Members should show their consideration for their colleagues by not interrupting them. Liberal members should teach that lesson of elementary courtesy to each other and to their backbenchers.
1 should like to mention also the $1 billion they wasted in the de Havilland fiasco. And finally, the biggest waste of them all, the $2.1 billion they invested in Canadair. This means that the Liberals wasted altogether a total of $3.5 billion during the last few years they were in power. Their past record is so lousy that they are not in a position to tell us what to do, Mr. Speaker.
Our Government is proposing a solution for our Western banks. The Liberals proposed nothing when the Caisse d'en-traide economique were faced with similar problems in the province of Quebec. Just as so many ostriches, Mr. Speaker, they buried their heads in the sand. They prefered not to see the problem. They ignored it. I am well aware that the Caisses were under provincial jurisdiction, but the Liberals could have tried to help them just as we are trying to help these Western banks, for we feel that this country extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific. They will be responsible for any delay in adopting this legislation. The House is going to adopt it in spite of them and I want them to stop all these innuendoes about the so-called failure of the Canadian banking system.
I urge the NDP, if it wants to maintain its footing in Western Canada, to support this legislation.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, this House is being asked to agree to a motion which will choke off debate on second reading of one of the most important Bills which will ever come before this House under this Government or any other Government. Yet we have had only four days of debate, less than 11 hours, to discuss this Bill which asks Parliament on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer to approve the expenditures of $827 million-almost $1 billion.
The Government House Leader did not give any persuasive reasons why the House should accept this motion to gag Members of Parliament and to cut off debate on this Bill. [Translation]
And certainly the Conservative Member who just finished his speech did not provide any arguments to support the situation and convince us to adopt this motion. He referred to the National Energy Program, but the Hitchman Report has pointed out that the National Energy Program had no connection with the problems of the Canadian Commercial Bank, none at all! The Hitchman Report clearly indicates that the
banks' problems were related to bad management by the banks and not at all to the National Energy Program.
The Conservative Member was complaining about the deficit but wants the House to support a measure that would add one billion dollars to that deficit. The total bill for this bank fiasco will add not just one but three billion dollars to the deficit, and the Conservative Member wants the House to support this motion and this Bill? The Hon. Member also referred to measures to help certain Canadian companies survive, but these Canadian companies were known to the public. They were known to Canadian taxpayers. And now, the Hon. Member and his colleagues want to keep secret the identity of those who will be saved by the legislation being provided by the Conservatives!

The principle of this Bill is that almost $1 billion of the taxpayers' money should be spent to reimburse people whose identities will be kept secret. That is so contrary to a basic principle of parliamentary Government that we must oppose this motion and we must oppose this Bill. A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons published a book entitled House of Commons Precis of Procedure, under the authority of the Clerk of the House of Commons. On page 61 is found the following, and I quote:
Second reading is the most important stage in the passage of a bill. It is then that the principle and object of the bill are debated and either accepted or rejected.
The Conservatives want to choke off debate after less than four days or 11 hours of debate on what is understood to be the most important stage in the passage of the Bill. This Bill is shocking. It is contrary to the basic concept of a parliamentary Government that money should not be voted unless we know for what and for whom this money is to be spent.
It is obvious, and not just from this motion, that the Government wants to hustle its problem away from the spotlight of Parliament as quickly and as fully as possible. At the beginning of September when the Government announced the failure of the Canadian Commercial Bank-the first failure of a bank in 63 years, and it happened under a Conservative Government-it said it was going to set up a joint committee of the House and Senate to look into the matter. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that we are not only going to do that, but we are going to televise the proceedings. However, as soon as the dimensions of the fiasco which was brought about by the Conservatives, became clear, and as soon as the dimensions of the responsibility of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and the Prime Minister himself became more and more evident, the Conservatives suddenly began to cool off, saying, "Perhaps we should not have a joint committee. Perhaps a committee of the House would be important enough". And when we began to try to ensure that the committee would work so that we would have the information we require, the Conservatives backed off again and in one day, all of a sudden, a royal commission of inquiry was set up. A royal commission
October 17, 1985

can certainly be very useful but it is not going to be proceeded with under the lights of the television cameras. Radio reporters will not be there and there will not be the scrutiny of the elected representatives of the people. So it is obvious the Conservatives have something they want to hide from the scrutiny of the elected representatives of the Canadian people.
This motion to choke off debate on this Bill is further evidence of the Government's desire to move away from the platform of Parliament so that we cannot debate this incredible fiasco involving the failure of two banks within a month, and the resulting expenditure of close to $1 billion-actually $3 billion altogether. The Government wants to have this Bill passed without Canadians knowing for whom and to whom almost $1 billion of their money is going. The Government has given no convincing or persuasive arguments either in law, morality or in fact as to why this money should be spent without the elected representatives of the Canadian people knowing to whom this money will be paid. After all, we are not dealing with the ordinary situation in which when a bank is operating such that its depositors are entitled to have confidentiality in the ordinary course of business. These banks have failed. They are not under the Bank Act. One can say that there are no such banks in existence. We are dealing with claims in a bankruptcy and when there are claims in a bankruptcy the people who want to be reimbursed for moneys owing to them have to come forward and make their names public.
The principle of this Bill is that the money should be spent without this information being given to the elected representatives of the Canadian people. I ask in this House, as I have asked before, what are the Conservatives hiding? Who are they trying to protect? Why are they afraid of giving these names? The Government has not given any answers. It cannot give the answers without further confirming its own incompetence and its own responsibility for this incredible fiasco. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say, in the interests of parliamentary Government but, more important, in the interests of the sound expenditure of almost $1 billion of taxpayers' money and, in general, in the interests of sound management of our financial system, that this motion must be defeated. Then we must go on to defeat this Bill. If we do not do that, we will damage parliamentary Government, we will damage the pock-etbooks of 25 million Canadians and we will leave a stain on the whole concept of parliamentary Government and on the basic principle that if the taxpayers' money is to be spent, we must know who is going to receive that money.
This motion must be defeated and then we must go on to defeat this thoroughly bad Bill.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian concerned about the recent problems involving the CCB and the Northland Bank, I rise in this House today to lend my support to Bill C-79, an Act respecting provision of compensation to depositors in those institutions and the CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation.
Time Allocation
What we are proposing is simply to compensate uninsured depositors in these institutions, nothing more and nothing less. Many of those who have been criticizing this action seem to lack a complete understanding of the devasting effort governmental inaction would have. As the Member for Sarnia-Lambton I have seen the problems this situation has caused. It has affected my community as well as many others, small and large. I refuse to stand by the wayside and do absolutely nothing for the municipalities, small business owners, colleges, and credit unions in my riding. To do so would be a grave error.
The Minister has stated clearly and emphaticaly, Mr. Speaker, that in taking this action it is not the Government's intent to set a precedent. This is a unique and isolated case. Nothing like it has happened in the past 66 years. What is more important, these are financial institutions which supported western Canada's economy. However, the fact that nothing like this has ever happened in the past is not to say that problems did not exist. Last week on the CBC a former Liberal Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in the last Government, admitted that his Government was well aware of the problems concerning the regulation of financial institutions, yet what did it do? Absolutely nothing. That Government stood by for 16 years and watched. It did not act to try to strengthen the financial climate of this country. It had 16 years in which to do something while we had only six months, and we have already done more in that time than the Liberals ever did. Certainly the circumstances of the past few months amply demonstrate the need for reform in this area. This Government is committed to regulatory reform and we so indicated in the Throne Speech, the Budget, the Wyman Committee, and in the discussion paper on financial institutions. We have acted in four very concise and distinct areas, and this is a record to be proud of.
We in this House have had more than ample debate on this Bill and the entire issue surrounding it. Yet there are some who will cry that we are stifling them, not allowing Members enough time to speak out. I would like to offer some facts which will disprove those allegations. We have had four full days of debate. During this time 51 Members have addressed this issue. What is more important, over 80 per cent of those Members were in the Opposition. It is obvious that this indicates there has been more than a fair chance for all sides in the House to participate in this debate. Each day of delay means financial hardship and uncertainty, not for those of us in the House but for many Canadians who want only to have their fears alleviated.
What has been somehow forgotten or ignored by the Opposition in the debate on this issue is the depositors we are attempting to help. We are trying to help the municipalities who have over $41 million on deposit in these institutions, small businesses, charitable organizations, credit unions, labour unions, hospitals, colleges and, in particular, ordinary individual Canadians. I am somewhat concerned to hear Opposition Members whose ridings contain credit unions, speaking against this Bill. It seems odd to hear the Leader of

October 17, 1985
Time Allocation
the Opposition and the NDP make an issue of wealthy foreign banks who, it would seem from what they have said, are the only ones to benefit from this Bill. I say it is time they stopped fooling the Canadian public and started being concerned, as we are, with the backbone of these banks, the small depositors. It also seems very odd that the Opposition wants a list of depositors made public, a list which would name the municipalities and credit unions in their ridings. Those Members do not seem to be too concerned about the plight of those depositors.
Bill C-79 responds to a very particular set of circumstances. We are doing this because we recognized in March, as we recognize now, the importance of these banks to that economy. The western economy was flourishing as a result of the energy boom. Real estate values increased tremendously. Oil and gas prices were stable. That economy was particularly vibrant and booming, it seemed nothing could go wrong. However, such was not the case. In the early 1980s, westerners witnessed the creation of the National Energy Program, a "gift" of the previous Liberal Government. They watched the NEP burst this bubble of economic prosperity. It had a devastating effect on employment, housing, and investment in the energy sector, all of which are critical elements of the western economy. World energy prices bottomed out and the economy of Alberta rapidly declined.
Intricately entwined in this situation were these two financial institutions, as well as others. They suffered just as other sectors of the economy suffered over the last five years due to inept Liberal economic policies. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is the product of such policies. We are attempting to alleviate the serious economic impact which would result if we did nothing, thus forcing municipalities, credit unions, charities and small businesses to absorb the loss of their deposits in excess of $60,000. I am sure all Members are aware of the impact on these organizations and the people we serve if we were to do nothing. It is a sure thing that many of them would be in serious financial difficulties. We are speaking of a domino effect involving lay-offs, permanent job loss and business and bank failures. We have a responsibility to these people because they participated with us in an attempt to save these institutions back in March.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we bear an onerous responsibility. The easy way out would be to say no to these municipalities and tell them to raise their taxes. It would be easy to say no to the credit union members and tell them to go work for another five years and save again what they have lost. But we do not believe that is what should be done. We believe what we are doing is right and that we should support those Canadians who need support in this time of need.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) said that there were four days, 11 hours of debate on second reading of Bill C-79. Indeed, there were 51 Members who spoke during second reading of Bill C-79. He said that the vast majority of those were from the Opposition. The purpose of second reading is to debate the Bill in principle. I do not believe that we
have been given the reasons behind Bill C-79, which is to bail out uninsured depositors over $60,000. The Member rose to make a 10 minute speech on a time allocation motion.
The fact that 51 Members out of 282 Members in this Chamber have spoken means that less than 20 per cent of Members of Parliament have spoken on the question of putting up a billion dollars of taxpayers' money to bail out people who took a risk.
They put their money in the Canadian Commercial Bank and Northland Bank because of their belief in that Conservative-honoured principle of risk taking. They deposited their money there because they could get a little more interest than they could from the other five banks. The very basis of Conservative ideology is risk taking. The Conservatives preach that the free market and free enterprise system is what will make this country work. However, in one fell swoop, they swallowed themselves whole like an anaconda. One of the Hon. Members on the Government side suddenly found tongue to lend his voice and rose to speak on this closure motion. He said that the Liberals bailed out de Havilland, Canadair and Massey-Ferguson. Why are the Conservatives following in the footsteps of the Liberals? The answer is that they are exactly the same. There is really no difference between them. The Bobbsey Twins from Bay Street strike again. 1 will call them the "Siamese Twins of Bay Street".
The other argument I heard today is that we must save these small depositors in order to prevent a domino effect. I suggest that the Conservatives should apply the same principle that they attempted to apply earlier this year with respect to old age pensions and other social security systems. Why does it not use a means test on those who are seeking bail-out relief? If it can be proved that an operation will go down the tubes without this bail-out from the Government, the Government could apply that means test and reimburse these depositors on the basis of their needs. Furthermore, depending on their need, this reimbursement could vary up to 100 per cent beyond the $60,000.
When the Conservatives were in opposition and the Liberals introduced closure motions from time to time, they were the ones whose voices were raised the loudest. They complained that the Liberal Government was trying to choke debate and smother free speech in the House of Commons by denying the rights of Members of Parliament to participate in debate.
Now that the Conservatives are in Government, the shoe is on the other foot. I believe this is the third or fourth time since September 4 that a closure motion has been introduced in the House. Although the Government has a massive majority of 211 Members, with 70 Members sitting in the Opposition, it is using a sledge hammer to open a peanut. What fear forces the Government to bring this great might of 211 Members to bear on 70 opposition Members? Why is the Government so suspicious and furtive? Not only does it want to deny opposition Members of the House an opportunity to speak, I suspect that it had a muzzle on its own Members when Bill C-79 was
October 17, 1985

before the House for debate in principle. I suspect that the Minister of State, "billion dollar Barbara", and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) put a muzzle on them. Now that we are debating a time allocation motion, those Members will find voice, stand up and make 10 minute maiden speeches.
The Government is afraid because there are certain questions being raised. It has established the Estey Commission. After thoroughly investigating the collapse of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank, Mr. Justice Estey will make a report to Parliament. Why must we quickly pass Bill C-79 to provide a bail-out of up to a billion dollars when we do not know all the facts or have a report which clearly indicates where the responsibilities lie in this whole fiasco? Serious questions remain unanswered. Who will get the bailout? The Government has named certain categories of those eligible for a bail-out. Among them are foreign banks and their Canadian subsidiaries, which will get some SI47 million. Another poor little group that will receive a bail-out is the lottery corporations. They have $34 million invested in the Canadian Commercial Bank. That is a group that should understand risk and what it means to take a gamble. They will get back all of their $34 million.
I believe that the odds were against the Canadian taxpayers when the Government stepped in to bail out foreign banks, the Canadian subsidiaries and lottery corporations. I seriously suggest that the principle of a means test ought to be applied in this case. No one wants to hurt the little credit union that is in jeopardy. If such companies can prove that they have a need, let them get paid. That principle was established for the old age pension program. However, I believe that the Chase Manhattan Bank, Citicorp, the Bank of Hong Kong and the Bank of Japan would have to go a long way to prove need in order to have the Canadian taxpayers bail them out.
Closure motions present a dangerous precedent and it is beginning to be used on a regular basis by a majority Government in the House of Commons. It is a dangerous principle to use this measure to cut off the opposition Parties. It seems to me that the Government has something to hide.
Conservative Members should oppose such a time allocation motion on this Bill. It strikes at the very heart of democracy. The Government is asking taxpayers to pay money, yet their representation in the House is being denied as a result of this closure motion. I appeal to all true Tories not to let their House Leader lead them to believe that they must use might and force to crush the Opposition. There is no haste required to bail out these uninsured depositors. I think we would be wise to defeat this motion for closure and continue debate on Bill C-79. It may mean that we must hoist the Bill until we receive the Estey Commission Report so that we can then decide what to do. That is the way we should proceed, Mr. Speaker. We should not bow to the pressure from these 211 Tories. Might or right, Mr. Speaker, not might is right.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I join this debate in opposition to a motion put
Time Allocation
forward by the Government House Leader which will choke off the debate on the bail-out of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank.
It is a pretty sad day for Parliament when the Government chooses to limit debate on the question of approving close to $1 billion to be paid to the uninsured of those banks. We, in Parliament, have an obligation to our constituents and to the population generally to review all the various proposals and monetary expenditures of the Government of Canada.
I believe very strongly it is implicit that when moneys are spent by the national Government, whether they be spent on a provincial or joint federal-provincial project, spent pursuant to an item of a Crown corporation, spent in the form of a direct grant or transfer to an individual or a particular organization, Parliament ought to know where the money is going. It is not sufficient, in my view, for the Government to refuse to tell Parliament who will be receiving the money as a result of the passage of this legislation.
The Government has been less than candid, Mr. Speaker. It has provided categories of individuals who may or may not receive money, but the Government has not told us which individuals or foreign corporations, nor has the Government told us the amount they will receive. The Government has not given us the reasons either.
The Government has not disclosed the documentation, the memorandum of understanding, if you will, between the various individuals who borrowed money and who are now seeking to be bailed out. I think it is wrong to be bailing out these banks, Mr. Speaker.
The money could be better spent helping Canadians. It could be used to increase job opportunities, to provide a host of services requested of this Parliament and of previous Parliaments. I think of money for the maritime feed freight assistance and moneys for job creation in my own constituency and in other less fortunate regions of the country. I think of substantial moneys that could be made available for small craft harbours, ensuring a viable fishing industry as well as ensuring jobs for thousands of Canadians. I think of the forestry industry in British Columbia. I think of the drought in western Canada. I think of financial assistance to individuals for daycare facilities. There are many areas where money is needed.
Surely there is a better way that the national Government can spend in excess of $800 million. Surely the Government does not want to sign a blank cheque for two banks. There has to be an obligation, and a fundamental obligation on behalf of the Government, before it makes those payments, that the names of the individuals be laid before Parliament.
This request is not to abuse those who will eventually receive moneys from the Government, but Parliament and the people should know where the money is going.
It is very peculiar after only 11 hours of debate that approximately only 22 per cent of the Members of this Parliament have spoken in this debate. Now the Government has chosen to cut off debate and to cut it off completely.
7714

October 17, 1985
Time Allocation
This is the first time in about 62 or 63 years that a bank has gone under. That in itself would suggest to me that the importance of the subject matter is deserving of careful scrutiny, not only by opposition Members but by Government Members. 1 do not wish to impute motives to members of the Government, but it is rather strange that many, if not most, have been extremely silent, silent with regard to the entire substance of the issue, particularly with the naming of the uninsured depositors and those who will receive moneys.
Let us look at what has taken place. Early in the process the Government said we would have a special joint committee of both Houses of Parliament. We started out being told that the hearing would be televised. Then we were told we would have a parliamentary committee of the House of Commons. Finally, on a weekend, upon returning from our constituencies, we learned that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had made a decision to appoint a very prominent Canadian to head a judicial inquiry concerning the collapse of the two banks.
What do we have now? There will be no televised hearing. There will be no parliamentary scrutiny of the facts surrounding the collapse of the banks. Why the change, Mr. Speaker? What has the Government got to hide? Why the cover-up? Those are questions Canadians are asking parliamentarians. Those are the questions being talked about on a regular basis by Canadians. If we are to provide $875 million, why is Parliament being denied the right and the opportunity to peruse in great detail the individuals and the corporations who will receive that money?
It is not right, and it is not in the best interests of parliamentary democracy to terminate debate on a money Bill of the magnitude of this one, of approximately $1 billion. Information is being withheld, and I suggest it is being withheld wrongly from Parliament.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), can stand in her place and say she has a legal opinion that perhaps it is not in the best interests to release that information. I do not have to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that the rock of democracy in this country is the Parliament of Canada. Parliament ought to know and ought to be given information directly from the Minister of State for Finance. The Minister of Finance is not here for this debate, probably with good justification. He is hiding. He does not want to participate.


Mr. Clinch:: Order.


Mr. Beatty:: He is out looking for John Turner.


David Charles Dingwall: The Minister of Finance does not want to participate in this debate. He knows that his incompetence has been demonstrated on numerous occasions. He is not here to defend nor to lead the Government-


J. Roger Clinch: Order.


David Charles Dingwall: -with regard to this particular issue.


J. Roger Clinch: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Reference to Members' absence or presence in the House is not
parliamentary. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), I am sure, is well aware of that.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Particularly when benches on his side are empty.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Clinch) is quite right and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) knows that also.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the suggestion of my hon. colleague. The Minister's absence has been noted by other Members in this Chamber. We know he is not here, but 1 indicated that there might be good justification for that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The period of 10 minutes is now over, one way or another, and this may settle the issue.


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion before the House today, both as a westerner and as a businessman who dealt with the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank in Saskatoon. I would be interested in giving the House of Commons the national perspective with regard to this motion.
I dealt with these two banks because they offered excellent service. They were aggressive banks and, in particular, began to demonstrate that western capital formation would benefit the region of Canada in which I lived. I do not think anyone in the House can disagree with that.
Many people are asking, including many of my constituents, why these two banks collapsed in western Canada. The two banks appeared to be well on their way to success and to taking a firm hold in our western economy. It seems to me that banks do not fall overnight; there has to be good reason. Recent evidence suggested that there was bad management in the bank. That is possible. I do not think the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) can look over the shoulders of these people all the time. However, there is another point which caused those banks to collapse. When the western economy was prospering, individuals, corporations, large and small companies, were making investment decisions based upon a current buoyant economy in western Canada. People were buying homes and automobiles, people were building office buildings and warehouses, based upon the rules which they had before them from the former Liberal Government. When the national energy policy was introduced, it was the death-knell not only for western Canada and those businesses, but for many businesses right across the country.
Many of the things which happen in western Canada, as we all know, are good for eastern Canada, particularly in the automotive sector. In order to get my point across, I should like to make a comparison. Can we imagine what would happen if our national Government were suddenly to pull the rug out from under the automotive industry? Not only would there be regional bank collapses, but chances are that there
October 17, 1985

would be some major bank collapses. That is precisely what happened in western Canada-the very source of the drive behind our economy was suddenly stopped.
What about those people who say that something should have been done about the banks earlier? I remind the Liberal Party that in 1980 it allowed the banks to expand seven times, from 11 banks to 70 banks, but it forgot to make adjustments to the regulations and regulatory agencies which controlled the banks. That is something the Minister of State for Finance is coming to grips with in our new Government.
In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 9(4)(a), I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the House continue to sit between one o'clock p.m. and two o'clock p.m. this day, for the purpose of continuing consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn.
If I could carry on with my remarks to complete my 10-minute presentation-


Mr. Deans:: Wait a minute.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion of the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ravis) is made according to the provisions of Standing Order 9(4)(a) and Standing Order 9(4)(f>), which provides:
In putting the question on such motion, the Speaker shall ask those Members who object to rise in their places. If twenty-five or more Members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted.
I find the motion to be in order. Those Members who object will please rise in their places.
And fewer than 25 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion is therefore deemed adopted.
Motion (Mr. Ravis) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Continuing debate, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House is of course to cut off debate on second reading of this particular Bill. The official position of opposition Members is that in tabling the Bill in the House, the Government of Canada should at least say who will receive the money; in other words, those people who have deposits of more than $60,000. I do not know why-and I suppose no one in Canada apart from the Conservative Government knows why-the Government will not make public those names.


David Charles Dingwall: Cover-up.


George Baker: That is exactly what it is. I should like to go back to the previous statements of the Government. For example, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who is in charge of this particular piece of legislation, through the Minister of
Time Allocation
State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), indicated the following in the Budget:
And it challenges Canadians by rewarding success, not subsidizing effort.
In another portion of the Budget, he said:
-incentive that allows individual Canadians to decide where to put their money ... This is central to our philosophy. The decisions should and will be made by individuals across Canada, not by politicians or public servants here in Ottawa.
In another part of the Budget, he said:
In keeping with the philosophy of greater reliance on market incentives, the Government is moving to reduce the use of grants and other subsidies.
Prior to the election, Members of the so-called great Conservative Government were quoted as saying:
It will be a Government open to public scrutiny-
They went on to say:
We will run an open, honest and accountable national Government. We will rebuild Canadians' trust in the federal Government by ensuring parliamentary accountability.
As if that were not bad enough, we have a closure motion before the House. What did the Conservatives say prior to the election? They said the following about Liberals: "They have no respect for our institutions; measures are rammed through Parliament by closure on debate". Mr. Speaker, what a contradiction by a political Party after taking office!
Of paramount importance in this debate is the fact that we have over $800 million being paid out to depositors in the Canadian Commercial Bank in the position of having more than $60,000 in deposits, and those depositors will not be identified. I repeat, over $800 million!
Mr. Speaker, that is quite something given the fact that we have today fishermen in my Province of Newfoundland without sufficient stamps to collect unemployment insurance benefits for the winter and farmers in western Canada who have been driven to the welfare office. The average farm family income in most sections of central and western Canada stands at about $5,000.
With all of these natural disasters occurring in this country, with people for the first time in their lives turning to the welfare system, the Government of Canada introduces a Bill in this Chamber to reimburse deposits over the $60,000 CDIC ceiling, and it is proposed that those moneys be reimbursed without naming the individuals and companies involved.
Mr. Speaker, what kind of Government is that? What kind of Government would allow 20,000 to 30,000 primary producers in eastern Canada, our Fishermen and fish plant workers, to go on this year without sufficient earnings to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits for the winter?


John R. Rodriguez: A Tory Government.


George Baker: What kind of Government would introduce such a Bill and then turn around and say that it is going to wait until Christmas before it decides whether or not to do anything to help our fishermen and farmers?

October 17, 1985
Time Allocation
Mr. Speaker, the obvious answer to that question is that only a truly Tory Government could carry through on that kind of philosophy and that kind of contradiction.
The Government recently announced in this Chamber that it would no longer guarantee fisheries improvement loans with the banks. Those loans were taken out in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It will no longer guarantee those loans to individual fishermen, and our fishermen are now being taken to court and having their possessions seized. It will no longer support those guarantees. Yet that same Government comes along with a Bill to reimburse those with deposits in the Canadian Commercial Bank in excess of $60,000. We are talking about rich people here. Some of those who will benefit from this Bill are millionaires.
Of course, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation guarantees deposits of up to $60,000. But now the Government of Canada turns around and says that while it is not going to name any of those who will benefit, it will reimburse those individuals and companies which had deposits in the Canadian Commercial Bank in excess of $60,000, together with any interest that would have been earned up to a certain point in time.


John R. Rodriguez: A money-back guarantee.


George Baker: A money-back guarantee, yes. Mr. Speaker, that certainly is not acceptable to the Canadian people. We have, on the one hand, a Government that refuses to guarantee the loans of fishermen because the banks went over a certain limit and, on the other, a Government that is willing to reimburse those who had over $60,000 in deposits, and they are willing to give all that money back to these individuals and companies without even telling the Canadian public who they are.
Just imagine how a fisherman with nothing at all in the bank feels! When the farmer in western Canada or the fisherman in Newfoundland goes to the welfare office to apply for benefits, one of the first questions asked relates to how much money that individual has in the bank, and if there is any money in the bank, that money has to be spent before that individual can qualify for benefits. A farmer or fisherman applying for welfare cannot even have money in a child's bank account, money earmarked for that child's education.
The Government is saying to our fishermen that it will no longer guarantee their loans with the banks; that because the loans have gone over a certain limit, the courts will now be permitted to seize their property. It is saying that it can no longer support a guarantee that it put in writing seven years ago. And yet that same Government is now proposing to pay off millionaires in respect of a situation where there was no guarantee. There was no guarantee to reimburse those people for potential losses as there was in the case of loans under the Fisheries Improvement Program. Yet here we have the Government of Canada proposing to spend over $800 million to reimburse the depositors in the Canadian Commercial Bank. And we hear: "What's $800 million?"
In giving an account of the problems of the banking sector in this Chamber, the Government Members toss around figures. We hear: "Oh, it's only a billion." They never come clean; they never say how much everything costs.
The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is broke, and has been since the PCs took office. It is about $900 million in the red.


An Hon. Member:: You are treading on delicate ground.


George Baker: The hon. gentleman says that I am treading on delicate ground. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation will have to borrow from the Bank of Canada and as a result of that borrowing rates on deposit insurance will increase.
But there is still money, Mr. Speaker, coming from the Government of Canada. A billion dollars here or there does not really matter. But only for a certain class of people. For the poor farmer, the poor fisherman, the poor logger, the people who keep this country going-much more so, Mr. Speaker, than do Members of Parliament or a great many other professions-there is no money. Mr. Speaker, we want to know to whom this money is being given. Once we have that information, we will decide whether or not they should get it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the bank bail-out Bill, and I am particularly concerned with the fact that the Government is now proposing that there be a limit to the debate on this measure, thereby not allowing for adequate discussion of the subject.
Canadians are increasingly concerned about the security of their banking institutions. We have had in the news word of the possible failure of the Mercantile Bank, with talk of a merger or buy-out of it in order to save it from difficulties. The failure of the Northland Bank followed, in rapid succession, the failure of the Canadian Commercial Bank.
We are very concerned about some of the implications of these failures, and particularly that of the Canadian Commercial Bank, the biggest bank failure we have had to date. Canadians have cause to ponder how their institutions are being run.
For a year preceding the failure of the Canadian Commercial Bank, the president of that bank was an American who was resident in California. We have to wonder who is tending the shop.
We have been presented with an appalling list of erroneous, inadequate, and imprudent banking practices, including lending practices and decisions about the areas in which loans would be made by that bank, and that situation prevailed for a considerable period of time.
For the last entire year of that bank's history, it did not have a president who was at home guarding the interests of Canadian depositors and shareholders.
October 17, 1985

It is the Canadian taxpayer who is now going to have to pay as a result of the imprudent decisions taken by these people. And we do not have the answers yet. We do not know who it is that we are being asked to spend all of this bail-out money for. We do not know yet the extent to which the California operations of the Canadian Commercial Bank led to its overall failure. We do know that a lot of money went from the Canadian Commercial Bank to its supposed branch plant, its bought-out bank in California; but it is not clear which was the head office and which was the branch plant. To what extent was the Canadian Commercial Bank, in effect, acting as the branch plant and taking the losses for a bank in California?
We have a Progressive Conservative Government that acted far too hastily in making the original decision for a bail-out. It did not have adequate information in March, when it made this decision. It simply hoped that the figures given it about the long-term viability of that bank would be accurate. However, it became painfully obvious this past summer that the problems of the Canadian Commercial Bank were far more fundamental than had been revealed up to that point. Certainly it was up to the Government at the time of the bank bail-out to look into the long-term viability of the bank and not simply to indulge in wishful thinking which led it to believe that the bank could be turned around and made profitable and solvent again.
We have to wonder why a merger with one of the chartered banks was not considered at that time rather than rushing into a bail-out which turned out to be extremely costly to the Canadian taxpayers. We have to wonder what kind of personality problems on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) might play a part in this. Perhaps the loss of face involved in a bank failure under a new Conservative Government when banking institutions had been sound for many years is something the Prime Minister did not want. Perhaps he did not want to have a bank failure appear as a blot on his record. Perhaps that is why a hasty bail-out was carried out rather than taking more time to look at the options and come up with a solution that might have worked in the long term. We do not know if such a solution would have worked, but we do know that the decision was taken prematurely.
We still have questions about the discussions the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had with the heads of the large chartered banks. We have heard reports indicating that the banks were getting information which made them take their money out of the bank. Certainly we do have information indicating that it was largely the banks that did take their deposits out of the Canadian Commercial Bank after the bail-out when they began to realize that the bail-out had been an unwise, stop-gap measure and that eventually the music would have to be faced.
When looking at the deposits of the Canadian Commercial Bank, we see that at the end of January before the bail-out, the Government of Canada had $15.5 million on deposit. After the bail-out it still had roughly the same amount of money, $14.4 million, on deposit at the bank. The provinces had $45
Time Allocation
million on deposit before the bail-out and $45 million on deposit after the bail-out. However, the banks had $641.8 million on deposit before the bail-out, but by the end of June, they had $267.2 million on deposit. There was a very substantial reduction in deposits on the part of other banks. They began to see the writing on the wall and to understand that the bail-out had been a short-term measure and was not going to solve the problem of the bank.
Before the bail-out, individuals had $410.1 million on deposit and after the bail-out they had $308.5 million on deposit. Certainly some individuals knew or had the wisdom to assess the situation correctly in time to get their money out of the bank.
Who is going to benefit from this massive bail-out? It will be the uninsured depositors who have uninsured deposits above the limit of $60,000. Let us take a look at precisely who these people are. We do not have their names although we would like to. However, we can look at the categories of individuals and corporations involved. Since that is the best information we have, that is what we have to examine. Banks had $200 million left on deposit with the CCB. Corporations had $140 million, credit unions had $130 million, investment dealers had $110 million, and the provinces had $165 million. Municipalities had $82 million on deposit and individuals had $27 million on deposit. Regarding the latter two categories, there is much more cause for concern.
Members of the New Democratic Party have recommended that there should be compensation for those who have been badly hurt by this failure and were not in a position to know better. Less sophisticated investors would have been innocent in this kind of situation and unable to protect their own interests. However, in the case of the chartered banks, major corporations, investment dealers and indeed the provinces, this kind of excuse simply does not hold. We consider it absolutely unconscionable for there to be a blanket bail-out, and indeed a bail-out without names attached. We find it unconscionable that taxpayers' money should be used in this wholly unaccountable way.
As well, we have some concerns about the role played by the Bank of Canada in this procedure. Part of the arrangement made at the time of the bail-out last March was for the Bank of Canada to infuse funds into the Canadian Commercial Bank. It was to lend the Canadian Commercial Bank any amount of money that was needed to make up for short-term losses in deposits. Of course, as word began to get around and people began to figure out the situation, there was a short-term loss in deposits, particularly because of the chartered banks and some investment corporations.
The money that was lent to the Canadian Commercial Bank by the Bank of Canada amounted to $1.3 billion. This money was supposed to have been secured against the assets of the bank, but it is not clear what security this entails. If the assets are not worth very much, that is not very good security. At this point, it is possible that the assets of the bank are going to be worth only half of their book value at the time these advances were made. Thus, it is possible that the bail-out, which

October 17, 1985
Time Allocation
amounts to $875 million at the moment, could go well over the billion-dollar mark. That is a very substantial amount of money.
What is $1 billion worth to this Government? I think that that is a question that members of my Party have been asking a great deal. It is shocking that the Conservative Government could easily find $1 billion, and perhaps even more if necessary, for a bank bail-out while it has not been able to find that kind of money for old age pensioners, family allowance recipients, the users of child tax credits and those who benefit from social programs. The amount of money the Government proposes to save on its child support programs this year is one-fifth of $1 billion. In other words, the Government can find five times as much money for a bank bail-out as it can for supporting Canadian children. We know that one in five Canadian children lives under the poverty line.
An amount of $ 1 billion spent on arts and culture would be an enormous infusion of funds to that area. This year, there were cut-backs of $100 million in arts and culture, yet the Government can find $1 billion for the banks. In short, the bail-out amounts to 10 times as much money as the Government decided to cut out of the area of arts and culture, an area which could do so much to build our country and bring good jobs to Canadians.
In conclusion, I am very concerned about the amount of money involved in this bail-out and about the fact that we are not receiving the names of those involved. There is no accountability to the public and this is money that could be so much better spent in so many other priority areas.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in this debate. I and many of my colleagues did not speak during the original debate in order to give a full opportunity to members of the Opposition to put their points on the record. Therefore, within the context of this debate on time allocation, I would like to put a few points on the record with respect to the Bill that is before us.
I think it is important that we have on the record some remarks made by Conservative Members of Parliament from the Province of Ontario.


Mr. Parry:: Otto, take him out to the ball game.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. There is some babble from across the way. Perhaps the Hon. Member could put that in writing. It is a real shame to see members of the NDP, who should be supporting pension funds, universities and small credit unions, reacting in this way. One would have thought that members of the NDP, particularly with their strong western representation-


John R. Rodriguez: Let's have a means test.


Mr. Cassidy:: Let's hear it for foreign banks.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I thought they wanted to support western Canadians.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Those poor, benighted orphans of capitalism.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I think it is a shame to hear members of the NDP shouting against what we are trying to do, which is to support first, the Province of Alberta and the people of Alberta who invested in these banks and, second-


John R. Rodriguez: Like Peter Pocklington.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -the regional banking system. I wish to refer specifically to the recession and what it, propagated, promulgated and assisted by the NDP and the Liberal Party, did to the Province of Alberta. We know that in Canada as a whole we had problems. However, the recession in the West was heightened by the efforts of the Liberal Party and heightened by the implementation of the national energy policy supported by the NDP. Everyone in this House knows, and it should go on the record, that the NDP and the Liberals heightened the depression out west. We in Ontario are fortunate. Our economy has rebounded. We have a resilient economy, despite the fact that we now have an accord between the socialists and the Liberals in Ontario.
What the Conservative Party is doing is to support the bank and trying to strengthen the economy of the West. It is a shame that western members of the New Democratic Party are against the economy of the West. It is a shame that the western members of the New Democratic Party are against strengthening the economy of the West.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Your Government is giving money to the foreign banks.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Let us talk about the foreign banks. The credibility of the Hon. Member-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please.


Michael Morris Cassidy: These people are being paid from taxpayers' money.


John R. Rodriguez: Poor westerners.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I hate to interrupt the Hon. Members. It seems that I keep hearing things.


Mr. Fulton:: Not Mackenzie King voices!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It could be from the same source. However, I would appreciate it if Members from all sides of the House would keep the tone down and let the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary finish his speech.


Michael Morris Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did 1 hear you correctly suggesting that it was the spirits which surrounded Mackenzie King which led the Government to bring in this bail-out Bill?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: No. From what 1 keep hearing from a certain part of the House, I am under the
October 17, 1985

impression that sometimes Hon. Members from a certain part of the House may be under the influence of spirits of either one kind or the other.
The point 1 am trying to make is that I think all Members of the House would appreciate it if the Hon. Member were allowed to finish his speech. We have a certain number of problems hearing him because of all the noise.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Because of the spirit of exchange.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that 1 woke up Hon. Members opposite. However, I think you, Sir, may have put them at ease.
I wish to talk about the regional banking system and what it means to the country. In the 1970s, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party supported an extension of the banking system to give regional banks an opportunity. We know that the socialists would like to nationalize the banks; but at least we in the two stronger Parties in the country want to give the regional banks an opportunity. Thus, we gave them that opportunity and they invested out west. They invested in the energy industry and all matters connected with it, despite the problems which they faced.


John R. Rodriguez: How can you say that with a straight face?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: When these regional banks went out and attracted deposits, they attracted them from municipalities, colleges, universities and pension funds. In supporting the concept of regional banks and in paying back those depositors we are simply supporting the concept of a regional banking system. It is an absolute shame that members of the New Democratic Party-and I appreciate there are not too many Liberals out west-purport to represent the West.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There are plenty of Liberals out west.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is a shame that the members of the New Democratic Party are against the regional banking system and want to squash that system.


David Orlikow: We are for an honest banking system.


Michael Morris Cassidy: You won't bail out farmers!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) would not know a farmer if he saw one.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I have them in my riding.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The farmers would laugh at the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre. They laughed at the Hon. Member when he was leader of the New Democratic Party in Ontario. He got laughed out of the provincial Legislature, and he is fast working at being laughed out of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: You're being laughed at right now.
Time Allocation


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: What the whole matter boils down to is the fact that we as a federal Government have supported, in the past, the transfer of billions of dollars to the Atlantic provinces because we believe in strengthening the entire country. We have invested $1 billion in the aircraft industry in Quebec to help that particular area of Quebec. We have assisted the eastern banks with the Dome refinancing. We built the St. Lawrence Seaway. In this country we believe in regionalization and in helping those areas which need help the most. I am sorry that the New Democratic Party does not believe in that type of thing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am sorry that the New Democratic Party, with all its western representation, with all its members from Saskatchewan-


John R. Rodriguez: Whose Bill is this?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -and Manitoba, does not believe in regional banks.


John R. Rodriguez: You killed the banks.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I notice that there are not too many of those Members in the House today. Perhaps Hon. Members opposite should ask them how they feel about the big five. Maybe Hon. Members in the House should ask their colleagues who are not here today-


John R. Rodriguez: You ask Barbara, you killed the banks.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -how they feel about the big five and what sort of support they have for them.
I wish to close by saying that we believe our banking system in Canada is sound and stable. The steps we are taking in repaying the depositors are being taken to support the banking system. The members of the New Democratic Party and the Liberals are fighting the paying back of deposits made by hospitals, municipalities-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Uninsured depositors.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -pension funds and universities. I think Hon. Members opposite should go and ask those universities-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Cover-up, that is what we are opposing.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -how they feel about the delay. Every day the passage of this Bill is delayed, interest which would be paid to those hospitals and pension funds is delayed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Tell us who they are.


John R. Rodriguez: Who are they?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Hon. Members opposite can have that on their consciences if they like. They can go out and campaign the next time around and say; "Yes. I delayed passage of the Bill because I did not want you to get your interest payments". If Hon. Members opposite wish to do that, then I invite them to

October 17, 1985
Time Allocation
go ahead. 1 notice there are no western Members here making those type of speeches. They are leaving it to their fellow Members from Ontario. Where are the western Members? I ask Hon. Members opposite, where are their western colleagues? How come they are not in the House? They are embarrassed by what their colleagues from Ontario are doing to them.


John R. Rodriguez: Where are the risk-takers?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, mine was a very carefully prepared speech-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I became somewhat excited by the complete lack of responsibility shown by my colleagues across the way. I appreciate having had the opportunity to contribute to this debate.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion with respect to what the Bill before us is all about.


An Hon. Member:: You are confused.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: 1 would like to set Hon. Members straight. Bill C-79 is 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 my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier pointed out to the previous speaker.
The previous speaker said that he had a well prepared speech. I would hate to hear one that is not prepared.
I would like to straighten out another matter as well. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) also spoke in this debate. He said: "We Conservatives are talking about $470 million while the Opposition is talking about a $1 billion bail-out." I think it behooves the Conservative Government at least to have its members read a Bill before they get up in the House to speak about it. Clause 16 of the Government's Bill reads as follows:
There is hereby appropriated, for the purposes of this Act eight hundred and seventy-five million dollars to be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund from time to time as required.
Yet, the Hon. Member stands up and says: "We Conservatives are talking about $470 million." How phoney can one get?
I would like to put another fact on the record. No list of depositors has been granted to the Members of this House before the Bill came before it for discussion. Indeed, no list was granted before the time allocation motion was moved.
We have no information with respect to the Northland Bank. I would remind all Hon. Members of the House that we as Members of Parliament sit here because we must be accountable to the taxpayers of the country. We do not sit in the House to vote blindly for something which is not explained
in principle nor, indeed, spelled out as being a Bill with respect to uninsured depositors in these banks.
I would also remind the Government that it was a Bill of the Liberal Government presented approximately five years ago which raised the limit on insured loans in the banks of Canada from $20,000 to $60,000. This Government now comes in and, holus-bolus, takes in everyone. All of us must be accountable to the taxpayers of this country and I hope that Hon. Members of this Government are prepared to go out into their own constituencies and explain to the senior citizens and those families with children why their tax deductibility was taken away from them. I hope those Hon. Members can explain why they are bailing out the rich and the wealthy.
Where is that great theory of Tory individual enterprise? We heard all of those speeches in the previous Parliament about investment and about the need to give people the chance to invest and take their risks.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Open Government.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Open Government. There is no risk here whatsoever. The Government's buddies get into trouble, and what does it do? It bails them out using the tax dollars taken out of the pockets of the little people. We are in the midst of debating one of the most difficult issues to hit the banking system in Canadian history, probably since the time of the railway scandal back in the 1870s.
The Government has tried to cut the senior citizens back in the name of economy, and it is going to be reminded of that day in and day out. The Government lifted $170 million out of one of the best high-tech industries we have in Canada, namely, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. For what? Where is the money, Mr. Speaker? Is that $170 million now being used to bail out the friends of the Tory Party of Canada?
I was quite interested during this debate to listen to Hon. Members of the Conservative Party talk about the terrible Opposition which is trying to drag out this debate and that they had to bring in closure. I remember, as I am sure other Hon. Members do, that in previous years when previous Governments would bring in limitation on debate, there would be the biggest screaming on earth from the Opposition. Is it not strange how the Tory philosophy changes now that those Hon. Members sit on the Government side of the House? It now becomes very worth while to bring in closure on debate. 1 remember sitting in one of those fine seats on the government side a few years ago when we, as a Government, brought in limitation on debate. The Opposition at that time stood up and sang "O Canada". They were not in very good voice but they sang it. I suppose they think that if we were really a responsible Opposition, we would stand up and sing "O Canada" hoping that we can save Canada from this Tory Government.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Spare us.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Hon. Members on the Government side are trying their best to drive home the fact that this is a western
October 17, 1985

Canadian issue. This is a Canadian issue which affects every Canadian from coast to coast. When the Government tries to regionalize issues such as this, what it is trying to do is to balkanize Canada.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's right.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: That is what it is trying to do with this financial situation today. We heard all kinds of promises, Mr. Speaker, in the last election campaign. We were told about the wonderful things this Government was going to do. Now the Government says it cannot do these things because there is no money. Yet we have enough money to bail out a bank at the rate of $1 billion. There is nothing to it, Mr. Speaker, even though some of the Government's own Members do not even know the amount of money which is involved in this Bill. The Conservative Government is trying to blame the Liberals for the regulatory system which is in place in Canada today. If the regulatory system is so bad in the banking industry in Canada, why then did the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDou-gall), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) tell people to invest their money in the Canadian Commercial Bank because it was one of the greatest things since sliced bread? What it is doing here today in this Bill-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -is not only bailing out its rich friends but it is bailing out the Minister of Finance-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -the Minister of State for Finance and the Prime Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Good speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am happy to know that from the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).
It being 1.05 o'clock p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 84, have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea?


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Time Allocation


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Call in the Members.
During the ringing of the bells:


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order in connection with the vote. This vote is being taken after the House accepted the request of the Government for extended hours. I question whether the bells, under the circumstances, should ring for only 15 minutes rather than, in accordance with, the usual practice, ring until both the Government and Opposition Whips are ready to come in.
I say this because we are not dealing with a situation within the fixed time provided for by the rules. We are under extended hours and, therefore, I submit to you, Sir, that the bells should not cease ringing automatically 15 minutes after the call of the vote.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much receiving some forwarning from the Opposition House Leader of his intention to raise this question. If I can refer you to Standing Order 9.(4), Mr. Speaker, with respect to extending hours, this motion is intended to extend:
-a sitting through a lunch or dinner hour or beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a specified item of business or a stage or stages thereof-
We are not entering into a new stage or into a new consideration of the debate by any means but we are simply continuing on with respect to the debate which is presently before the House. It does not introduce any new dimension with respect to the debate; it is only to conclude the debate. Therefore, it is my submission to you, Sir, that the provision with respect to the limited bell of 15 minutes does apply in this instance and it would apply in the course of the debate under normal circumstances, a new element not having been introduced into this matter.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is related but somewhat different. I do not understand how we can be debating a point of order while the bells are ringing. It is quite clear that all business in the House ceases when the bells start to ring.


James Ross Fulton: Then you had better sit down.


Ian Deans: As my colleague says, I should not even be standing. But while I am on my feet, let me make one point. I believe that the extension of the hours takes us beyond the normal hour, that the rule for the debate of two hours is that normally it was considered to be a debate during the ordinary sitting hours of the House. Therefore, the length of the bell is at the discretion of the party Whips rather than a 15 minute

October 17, 1985
Time Allocation
bell as set out in the Standing Orders under normal circumstances.
++NAYS
Members
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would like to point out to the Chair that the amount of time taken for this debate should not in any way affect your decision with respect to the fifteen-minute rule.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Section 84 of the Standing Orders seems to clearly indicate that the bell rings for a period of 15 minutes, and although I can understand the point made by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), it may be a question he would like to bring up with the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedures and Organization.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
It being after one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.33 p.m., the House took recess.
(Division No. 118)


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

++YEAS
Members
Beatty
Belsher
Bernier
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blenkarn
Bouchard
Bourgault
Brisco
Caldwell
Cardiff
Champagne
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Cook
Cooper
Corbett
Cossitt
Cdte
(Langelier)
Crosby
(Halifax West)
Crouse
Darling
Della Noce
Desrosiers
Dorin
Duplessis
Edwards
Ellis
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gass
Gormley
Gravel
Greenaway
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hamilton
Hardey
Hawkes
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Howie
Hudon
James
Jardine
Jelinek
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Jourdenais
Kelleher
Kindy
King
Ladouceur
Landry
Lanthier
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Lesick
Lewis
MacDonald
(Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Malone Mantha Mazankowski McCain McDougall
(St. Paul's) Mclnnes
McKenzie Merrithew Minaker Nicholson (Niagara Falls)
Nielsen Oostrom Pietz Porter Price Ravis Redway Reid St-Julien Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Sparrow Stewart Suluk Tardif
(Charles bourg)
Taylor Towers Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tremblay
(Lotbiniere)
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-116.
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the universities of the country are absolutely vital to Canada's social, cultural, and economic development. The development of an educated citizenry, the provision of highly qualified manpower and the advancement and application of knowledge through research and development activities, are but some of the crucial services which the universities provide to Canada and to Canadians. Yet the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Ministers seem to be doing almost everything in their power to destabilize the university system.
The "Nielsen task force" is conducting a secret inquiry that may be used to condone future cut-backs in federal support for post-secondary education. The federal granting councils have not been given the funds which are essential to the maintenance of the research infrastructure in the universities. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) wants to cut transfers to the provinces. When, by how much, and from which program, he won't say. Yet this is the Government which supposedly ushered in the era of openness and co-operation with the provinces.
It is time for the federal Government to come clean with the universities. The future of our nation depends on it.
October 17, 1985



CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, most Canadians have come to believe that because of the improvement and extension of our social welfare programs, Canadians in need, those who are hungry or do not have clothing, have their needs met by one of the federal, provincial or municipal programs. Unfortunately, that has not happened in recent years. An increasing number of people are finding that to obtain food and clothing, they now have to depend upon charitable organizations.
Recently the Anglican Church issued a report showing that 200,000 people in Vancouver depend upon charitable food banks. A recent report on the National News on CBC reported a similar situation for farm families in Saskatchewan.
I call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to meet with his provincial colleagues to establish a task force to see what is the situation, how many people are in need, and how many people are not having their basic necessities met through Government programs, and to plan to meet those needs through Government support rather than through charitable sources.
* *
*



TOURISM


Mr. Fernand Ladouceur (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, there is a sector in Canada which deserves our particular attention because of its economic impact and the jobs it generates.
This particular sector injects nearly $20 billion in our economy, it employs over 600,000 people and it covers 60,000 businesses located across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am referring to our tourist industry, a sector which should be given the status it deserves, in addition to our recognition of its dynamic role in our economy.
Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the National Conference on Tourism Tomorrow, with more than 300 participants from the tourist industry, including the private sector and the various levels of government. The conference reflected this Government's commitment to co-operation, consultation, research and consensus, and more specifically, its commitment to preparing consistent policies for the development of this industry. Once again, the conference came across as tangible proof of our Government's will to demonstrate to all Canadians the importance of sensible participation in developing reality-oriented policies.



CO-OPERATIVES FIRST MEETING OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL MINISTERS

Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, this is National Co-op Week in Canada. It is a significant week for Canadians when one considers that 43 per cent of all Canadians over 18 years of age belong to at least one co-op. In my home Province of Saskatchewan, 78 per cent of the adult population belongs to at least one co-op. Therefore it is appropriate that the highlight of National Co-op Week, an historic, first-ever meeting of federal and provincial Ministers responsible for co-operatives will take place tomorrow in Regina.
Co-ops are a mainstay of Canada's economy and society. In effect they form a third sector of the economy. There are financial, agricultural, housing, consumer, retail, energy, artistic, and manufacturing co-ops, to name just a few. Co-operatives are active in local, domestic, and international markets. Co-operative management education is a new and rapidly expanding field in many universities across Canada, including the University of Saskatchewan in my own riding of Saskatoon East.
My hon. colleague, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), who is also responsible for Canadian co-operatives, has developed an excellent rapport with co-ops from coast to coast. They know that our Government recognizes, appreciates, and wholeheartedly supports the essential jobs and services which co-ops contribute to our economy. I wish my hon. colleague every success in the meeting with his provincial counterparts.
* *



PETRO-CANADA OPPOSITION TO ACQUISITION OF GULF

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the dishes are flying in the Tory kitchen, and Canadians are justifiably upset with the Government.
I should like to read a letter which I just received from a person living in Calgary who, by mistake, thought that I was a Tory Member of Parliament. Heaven forbid that that would ever happen. It reads:
I am returning my sustaining membership card in the PC Party, suitably mutilated in the form of a double cross to protest the hypocritical action recently taken by the Government to further expand commercial activities by approving Petro Can's purchase of GulFs marketing department.
Despite trying to mask your actions in a cloak of Canadianism, the issue is simple. The Government or its Crown corporations has no more business selling gasoline than it does selling groceries-
You have broken faith with those who voted for and supported the PCs as a party of free enterprise. The question now is: Are you honest enough to admit making a mistake, and are you courageous enough to reverse the action?-

October 17, 1985
Have you any political principle besides getting elected and holding power?- Sincerely,
C.R. Guest.


"THE BLUE JAYS HAVE STRUCK OUT!"


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I read the following with my deepest apology to Ernest Lawrence Thayer, wherever he may be:
It looked extremely rocky for the Blue Jay nine that day;
The score stood three to three with one game left to play.
So, when Barfield died at second, and Johnston did the same,
A pallor wreathed the features of the patrons of the game.
A straggling few got up to go, leaving there the rest.
With that hope which springs eternal within the human breast.
For they thought: "If only the Blue Jays could get a whack at that",
They'd put even money now, with the Blue Jays at the bat.
Then from the gladdened multitude went up a joyous yell-
It rumbled in the mountaintops, it rattled in the dell;
It struck upon the hillside and rebounded on the fiat;
The Blue Jays, the mighty Blue Jays, were advancing to the bat.
But they left their men on second; and also first and third;
Bobby stood a-watching, to see what had occurred,
And there they stayed for time and time again;
Bobby's face grew stern and cold; his muscles began to strain.
Oh somewhere in this favoured land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light;
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout,
But there is no joy in Hog Town: The Blue Jays have struck out.



THE ECONOMY


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, our friends opposite must have been very disappointed upon reading in the papers this morning that our Government has maintained its popularity ratings and still has the confidence of the majority of Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lise Bourgault: This kind of success is not achieved by scandal-mongering or verbal fireworks. It is based on the facts of our Canadian economy today, and that is what the people wanted on September 4, 1984.
Mr. Speaker, in Argenteuil-Papineau, in my riding, three new industries will be opening very shortly, creating over 160 permanent jobs. Boverre and Faro Dentaire, of Italian origin, will create 58 and 54 permanent jobs, respectively, and invest over $17 million. Nora, a mineral water bottling plant, will create 48 permanent jobs with $8 million invested.
Mr. Speaker, these are only a few examples of the economic vitality of my riding, and I am sure that the new employment programs introduced by our Government will help give hundreds of Canadian unemployed workers, especially youth and women, an opportunity to acquire experience and find permanent and satifsying employment.
Mr. Speaker, the people judge a Government by its acts and intentions, not by the partisan critique exercised by my friends opposite.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, Conservative Party MPs have a long tradition of accepting freebee trips to countries such as South Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan. But what about the Liberals? On Tuesday-


Ms. Copps:: What about Soviet Union? What about Ed Broadbent's visit to the Soviet Union? What about Ed?


John R. Rodriguez: On Tuesday night, two Liberal MPs, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif), returned from their own all-expenses-paid junket to Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, while it may not have cost those two MPs a cent to spend ten days in Taiwan, there is indeed a price to pay. In the last two years Canadian wheat sales to the China that Canada recognizes were valued at $1.3 billion. Was it worth risking the future of Canadian wheat exports to China for ten days in Taiwan?
What kind of signal is the Liberal Party sending to the Government of China when it authorizes its MPs to accept freebee low-road-to-Formosa junkets?
Is the Liberal Party prepared to endorse the view of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that the Taiwanese Government, a Government which does not allow opposition Parties to campaign in elections, is, and 1 quote, "a very good, very progressive, very open government"?
And Finally, Mr. Speaker, what about the textile workers who live in the riding of the Liberal MP for Richmond-Wolfe? What price will they pay when their own MP would rather accept an all-expenses-paid trip to Taiwan than to stand up and defend Canadian jobs against sweatshop textile imports from countries like Taiwan?
Mr. Speaker, the Rat Pack is not dead; it is on sabbatical in Taiwan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 17, 1985

[ Translation]



FINANCE


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, last May 23 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced that contributions to a registered home ownership savings plan (RHOSP) would no longer qualify for preferential tax treatment. Contributors were thus able to withdraw their accumulated funds and spend them as they saw Fit without any tax liability.
Over $2 billion could and still can be freed for injection into new activities likely to create jobs and stimulate home construction and consumption.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec has yet to make its regulations consistent with those of the federal Government, as the other provinces did. It goes without saying that the Quebec decision prevents people from spending funds accumulated under the plan, creates a prejudice, and deprives Quebecers of a potential $300 million purchasing power, whereas the rest of the country stands to benefit from the injection of available funds into the economy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Minister of Finance to review the matter and put pressure to bear on his provincial colleague, or to take steps to enable the residents of Quebec, and particularly those of the riding of Lotbiniere, to take full advantage of the initiative of our Government.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, it is saddening to see some Conservative Members gloat over their popularity while 5,000 Montreal East workers are on the verge of losing their jobs because of the indecision of the Mulroney Government.
Mr. Speaker, it is saddening to note that their first decision-they were concerned over the image of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) whose priority was to save face-was to waste $56 million of the taxpayers' money to change the colour of our military uniforms.
Mr. Speaker, I plead with all Members to put pressure on the Conservative Government and find solutions to avoid the Canadian Vickers shutdown. The solution is quite simple: let the Prime Minister assume his responsibilities, grab the phone and tell the president of the company to stick to the provisions of the previous contract.
With respect to the Gulf refinery, Mr. Speaker, again the issue is quite simple: the Prime Minister ought to ask the
Oral Questions
Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to give any prospective buyer of the Montreal East Gulf refinery the full benefit of the kind of credit the Reichman brothers had when they bought the whole Gulf refinery complex.
Mr. Speaker, in the case of Bombardier, Laforge and other Montreal East industries, again the Prime Minister need only ask his VIA Rail and CN pal to award contracts for 25 to 40 locomotives to be manufactured in Montreal East, and this way we-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his allotted time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
For a number of weeks my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, and I have been trying to get to the root of the $1 billion tax largesse to participants in the Gulf Canada deal.
This morning in an interview published in The Globe and Mail, the former Deputy Minister of Finance, Marshall Cohen, had the following to say about that deal:
A couple of times it came up in . .. Priorities and Planning-
And as you know, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister presides over that committee.
However, at his press conference last Friday the Prime Minister of Canada said about this $1 billion tax ruling, and I quote his words:
1 can only assume, because there was no involvement by me or anyone else nor would there be in a revenue ruling, that the officers of the Department of Revenue passed judgment-
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is: Did the Prime Minister and the senior Ministers of the Government who participate in the Priorities and Planning Committee discuss and review the whole Gulf Canada deal, including the tax ruling that now appears to be a part of that deal? And what was the Prime Minister referring to last Friday when he said that neither he nor any of his senior Ministers knew anything about the deal; that it was only the Minister of National Revenue?
Could the Deputy Prime Minister try to reconcile those two statements?


An Hon. Member:: They are irreconcilable.

October 17, 1985
Oral Questions


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to reconcile the preamble to his question and the question itself.
As a former Cabinet Minister he knows that there is a process under law whereby these tax rulings are made; that they are made by the Department of National Revenue. Certainly, if he wishes to direct questions to the Minister of National Revenue, I am sure that that Minister can explain the process to him-a process which I am sure he understands-in more detail. But he knows, or should know, that there is no consideration or review of those tax rulings in any Cabinet process.


John Napier Turner: The Deputy Prime Minister is telling me that this matter was not discussed in the Priorities and Planning Committee. Yet the former Deputy Minister of Finance has said it was and that he left the room so as not to participate in the discussion.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO FORMER DEPUTY MINISTER
John Napier Turner: Let
me direct a question to the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister also made it clear in his press conference last Friday that neither he or any senior Minister-presumably the Minister of Finance-knew anything about that $1 billion tax ruling.
Mr. Cohen is quoted in The Globe and Mail this morning as saying that the Minister of Finance relieved him of that specific situation because of a potential conflict of interest and that the Minister of Finance dealt with it, to use Mr. Cohen's words, on a "hands-on, day in day out" basis.
My question for the Minister of Finance is: Didn't he deal with that particular tax ruling? Didn't he instruct the Minister of National Revenue, after a Priorities and Planning Committee decision, that that was part of the Gulf assets purchase?


An Hon. Member:: Come on!


John Napier Turner: What is the real story here? Don't be funny about this, because I can tell you that this is a very serious matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to read the article very carefully. Mr. Cohen was talking about the Gulf-O&Y deal. The matter of the acquisition of Gulf Canada by O&Y was discussed, and was discussed at some length because of the importance of that deal.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REVIEW
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have been stonewalled by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for weeks. I am going to put a
question, within the rules, to the Chairman of the Finance Committee, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South.
I want to ask the Chairman of the Finance Committee whether he would agree to convene that committee for the purpose of reviewing this whole matter of the Gulf Canada acquisition by O&Y and call before that committee all the participants in the deal. Those participants can then produce their own tax rulings. It would not go against the Income Tax Act. They could produce their respective rulings. The committee could then call before it the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the Prime Minister.
Would he do that?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: And don't look to Mike for the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a little difficulty with the question. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that questions to committee chairmen are supposed to be about matters before the committee.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Mr. Speaker:: Questions are supposed to be about matters that are before the committee. That is the limit.
I suggest, in the circumstances, that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition may wish to rephrase his question.


John Napier Turner: I have made my point to the chairman of that committee. He knows what he can do.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Member will know that the matter has been answered more than adequately by the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister.
We in this Government have gone overboard to make sure that parliamentarians have a full opportunity to debate important and real issues, not the phony issues the Leader of the Opposition is raising with respect to this deal.


ROLE OF ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in light of Mr. Cohen's revelations, I did not think that the Minister of Finance would stonewall us. In response to what the Minister just said, Mr. Cohen has said that the Minister was advised that the Gulf takeover was handled by the Minister of Finance and David Weyman, the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for tax policy. Is the Minister telling us that the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for tax policy was not concerned with a tax ruling made by the Government of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if there was any tax ruling, that tax ruling was handled by the
October 17, 1985

Department of National Revenue, the Department which has responsibility for this matter under the law. The Hon. Member knows the nature of that law because he himself is a tax lawyer.


Donald James Johnston: That is irrelevant to the question, Mr. Speaker.


SALE OF GULF-ROLE PLAYED BY CABINET PRIORITIES COMMITTEE
Donald James Johnston: would like to continue with a very simple question. Did the Priorities and Planning Committee consider the tax ruling given in the Gulf transaction? Yes or no?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Stonewall!


Mr. Foster:: Check with the PMO.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Check with Barbara.


Erik Nielsen: Essentially that is the same question that was put by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. The hon. gentleman asked if the tax ruling was considered in P and P and 1 have answered that question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What's the answer?


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member, as a former Cabinet Minister, should know that questions of that nature are subject to a process under law which is administered-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Cover up.


Erik Nielsen: -by the Department of National Revenue. Perhaps it would be a bit more fruitful if Hon. Members would direct questions regarding that process, if they are in doubt about it, to the Minister of National Revenue.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-ROLE OF PROVINCES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade who is telling the provinces that they will have to surrender some of their power to free trade negotiators. Does the Minister not understand that there is a federal system of Government in this country? Will he commit the Government to respect fully the rights of the provinces as these negotiations go forward?
Oral Questions


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House and the Hon. Member that the Minister is well aware of the rights of the provinces and their exclusive jurisdiction in certain areas. If the provinces wish it, and only with their consent, would the chief negotiator act on their behalf. There has never been nor will there ever be any suggestion of coercion on the part of this Government with respect to those rights which lie exclusively with the provinces.


AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact the Minister seems to be pushing the provinces rather than persuading them. Will the Minister agree that no provincial agricultural loans and price-support programs, to use those as an example, will be given up in negotiations without the provinces being able to veto any such concession on the part of the federal negotiators?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult at this time to defend a position or a negotiating stance when we have not as yet even commenced negotiations. In any event, even if it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal Government, the provinces will be fully involved and fully consulted before any decision whatsoever will be made.


REQUEST FOR PROVINCIAL VETO
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is avoiding the question as he avoided it last week at the provincial Trade Ministers' Conference. I put the question to him again. Last week the provincial Ministers told the Minister that they did not want the agricultural sector to be included in the bargaining. Will the Minister give a clear and precise commitment that there will be no concessions given by the federal Government without the provinces having the right to veto those concessions where they affect provincial rights and responsibilities?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, let me make it quite clear that in those areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, obviously the provinces have, in effect, a right of veto. In those areas where the federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction, before taking any position or negotiating anything with the United States, the provinces will be fully consulted and heard.

October 17, 1985
Oral Questions


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
For some time now, we have been trying to make the Minister aware of the fact that Montreal's industrial base is being eroded beyond the point of no return. The Minister has been saying that 51,000 jobs were created in Montreal during the past year. Today, however, we are informed by Statistics Canada that it was only 39,000 jobs, Mr. Speaker, and that the number of unemployed has increased by more than 1,000.
I therefore want to ask the Minister to do the honourable thing and, first of all, correct her statement on the number of jobs created in Montreal, and above all, to explain how she intends to prevent the impending disaster, in other words, the 5,000 jobs that will be lost very shortly unless the Government overcomes its inertia and does something about it.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in September 1982, the unemployment rate in Montreal was over 13 per cent. Today, it has dropped to 11 per cent. There has, therefore, been a drop in the unemployment rate.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member whether he was asking questions in the House in 1982, when the unemployment rate was so high. The answer is no. He remained silent.
Mr. Speaker, we will be investing S200 million this year in Montreal, to create jobs for the men and women of that city.


SITUATION IN MONTREAL
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister can twist and turn the statistics any way she likes. She can ignore the fact that the jobs that were created are part-time jobs. However, there is one question she has been constantly evading and that is, whether she could inform the House what her specific plan is to prevent the impending disaster in Montreal. Two hundred thousand dollars is not enough to save 5,000 jobs that will be lost unless the Government wakes up and does something about it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. It is not $200,000 but $200 million.
Mr. Speaker, between 1980 and 1984, more than 225 companies closed their doors in Canada, and 50,000 Canadians lost their jobs during that period. This was a tragedy.
It is for that reason that we have changed the ad hoc measures which the former Government took. When it saw 225 companies closing their doors what did it do? Nothing. We have changed in order to prepare long-term-


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister may want to complete this under Statements by Ministers.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY WELLAND CANAL LOCK BLOCKAGE
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It concerns the Seaway blockage. Given that the reputation of Canada as a shipper which can be counted upon for the supply of a number of bulk commodities in the world market is precarious, to say the least, and given the second major mishap in less than 13 months-so serious in fact that some American authorities are calling for a takeover of the operation of the Seaway-will the Minister advise the House what action his Government is prepared to take to prevent future mishaps which can bring the Seaway to its knees?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority is acting with all due dispatch to get the Seaway operational again. A contract has been awarded to Canron for the stabilizing of the wall. Another contract has been awarded to Pitts Engineering Construction. A contract has been awarded to Acres International Limited, a firm of consulting engineers in Niagara Falls to determine the cause of the blow-out.
I think it is rather interesting to note that both the Shipping Federation of Canada and the Dominion Marine Association, which are major users of the Seaway, said that they were satisfied that neither the accident last year nor this year could have been prevented.


FUTURE VIABILITY
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is basically the same question. What exactly is the Government prepared to do on the rest of the Seaway to ensure that in future years it remains viable and that there will not be accidents due to the deterioration of the walls or the locks?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first, we are not sure at this point in time whether the walls are in a deteriorated condition. This was a blow-out. I think the Hon. Member would expect me to ascertain the facts, which is precisely why we have appointed a consulting
October 17, 1985

engineer to determine the specific cause of the accident. We will take action thereafter.

[ Translation]


TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, I direct my question to the Minister for International Trade.
Last November 29 the Government told the House it would announce its textile policy in the coming months. On May 1, 1985 Government spokesmen again told us about a major plan to restructure the textile industry. Eleven months later, no plan has yet been announced, hundreds of jobs are being lost, and what I want to know from the Minister is this: Is the Government waiting for the textile industry to disappear before announcing its plan?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the hon. gentleman that this Government has every intention of doing everything it can for the textile industry so that it will be able to survive. I can tell the Hon. Member that a group of Ministers are presently working on this program. We hope to be able to discuss the matter in the next short while in Cabinet and announce a textile policy which will be of benefit not only to the industry but to all of Canada.


INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER INTENDS TO STOP GRANT TO TEXTILE PLANTS
Jean-C. Lapierre: In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, plants are closing down and 755 textile workers will apply for unemployment insurance in the next two months.
Here is what I want to know from the Minister: Does he intend to stop the $6 million grant to Dominion Textile to upgrade two plants scheduled to close down in June? Will he spend taxpayers' money on plants which will no longer be in operation in a few months?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that particular question under advisement. I am not familiar with the payment to Dominion Textile. That is a matter under the purview of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I will have the matter brought to his attention and we will see that a reply is made.
Oral Questions


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS MINISTER'S ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last month in Halifax he announced to a closed meeting his decision to reduce the amount which the provinces would receive under present legislation with regard to transfer payments. The Minister knows that that is money used for medicare, post-secondary education and other provincial programs. Will the Minister confirm to Canadians that that indeed was his announcement?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know from where the Hon. Member would have obtained that information. However, what I would say to him is that there were no specific amounts mentioned. In the Budget speech of last May I mentioned that the growth rate would be reduced so that there could be savings of $2 billion from what would have been the case had the previous growth rate continued. The amounts which will be paid to the provinces will bear the same percentage of program spending in 1990-91 as they bear in the current fiscal year. Thus, the provincial share of federal government spending will remain the same.


IMPACT ON PROVINCES
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. He has not answered my question.
There was no indication in the Budget that there would be a cut next year with respect to the transfer payments. Will he admit that that indeed is the case? Will he finally give the public the amounts which are involved? It is a serious matter. Why not come clean?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in the announcement I made with respect to the $2 billion saving that it would start in the next fiscal year.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That is not in your Budget. Your Budget has nothing.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Will the Hon. Member let me answer his question? He says it is an important one. I would like him to listen to the answer.
The savings will commence next year. However, there was no discussion at the meeting in Halifax with respect to the amounts which will be saved. Another meeting will be held within the next few weeks. At that time I would expect to have some agreement with the provinces in regard to what the amount will be.

October 17, 1985
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post. My question pertains to the subject of home delivery. Many people who live in newly constructed homes have found to their dismay that they do not qualify for home delivery under the new guidelines set down by Canada Post. Is the Minister willing to reconsider the position of the Post Office in this regard?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Hon. Member's concern. I would like to tell him that last June Canada Post announced its intention to expand its services to the Canadian people. As the Hon. Member knows, the March-ment Commission is examining the benefit of expanding this type of service. As soon as we have its recommendations, which should be sometime in November, we will deal with them.

[ Translation]


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT WITH QUEBEC ON TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell this House whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) asked the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Johnson, when he met him last week, to transfer the jurisdiction over certain economic areas to the Federal Government, in order to be able to reach an agreement with the Government of the United States?


Erik Nielsen: No, Mr. Speaker.


SUMMONING OF CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, could the Deputy Prime Minister assure this House that such a request will not be made to the Provinces before a constitutional assembly is called, in order for the provincial powers to be transferred to the Canadian Government in a legal way?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I can give no such assurance to the hon. gentleman.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You should.


Erik Nielsen: The Whip of the Official Opposition says I should. Of course I should not. In view of the absence of any urgency the question would be more appropriately put when the Prime Minister is back in the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The official zipper!


PETRO-CANADA ISSUANCE OF AUDITING CONTRACT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance in the absence of the Prime Minister. It concerns the fact that Petro-Canada is switching its auditing account to a large American-based accounting firm. This is an account reportedly worth up to approximately $2 million annually. In the interests of keeping jobs in Canada will the Minister assure the House that all major accounting firms in Canada were first approached by Petro-Canada? Can he tell the House why the decision was made to give this rather lucrative contract to an American-based firm?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am at a bit of a loss as to why the question was put to me. However, I will bring it to the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and she will get back to the Hon. Member.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is, obviously, the Minister of Finance, and these things go through an NOC.


ELECTION CONTRIBUTION INQUIRY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Can the Minister confirm that the real reason the Arthur Anderson Company received this contract is that it reportedly contributed over $100,000 to the Conservative election campaign last year? Is that the real reason this contract did not go to some major Canadian-based accounting firm?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is grovelling in the gutter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is no basis upon which he should make that allegation. However, as I said in my previous response, I will bring the substance of the Hon. Member's question to the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and she will get back to him.
October 17, 1985


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Science and Technology. The Bulletin of Business Opportunities of September 12 revealed that the Department of Science and Technology entered into a contract with a certain J. P. White of Richmond in the amount of $176,500. The contract has since been cancelled and the individual has been hired by the Minister on his exempt staff. Would the Minister tell the House if public tenders were called when the contract was originally awarded? And why was the contract subsequently cancelled?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the ultimate question would be more appropriately placed with the Minister who is responsible for contracting, that is, the Minister of Supply and Services. However, it is my understanding that the contract was entered into by the Deputy in my Ministry. It has now been terminated and, as the Hon. Member correctly states, Mr. White has been employed on my personal staff.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, what we obviously have is a case of political patronage.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Question.


David Berger: And the Minister backtracked when he feared the consequences.


Mr. Crosbie:: Question.


David Berger: The Government always seems able to justify spending more money-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


David Berger: -on public relations.


FUNDING OF SCIENCE COUNCIL OF CANADA
David Berger: My supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Rather than spend this money on public relations, will he agree to give the exact amount of $176,500 to the Science Council of Canada so that it can, among other things, rehire two librarians whom it had to lay off when the Minister cut its budget in half?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to tell the Hon. Member that the Science Council of Canada is doing some outstanding work for this Government-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We know that.


David Orlikow: No thanks to you.


Thomas Edward Siddon: -in response to specific questions which have been addressed to it in recent months, and in fact no such
Oral Questions
amount of money is to be expended in any event. So the Hon. Member obviously does not have a legitimate grievance.


DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Is the Minister aware of a departmental memo in her Department which indicates that 325 person years are to be cut from the staff of Canada Employment and Immigration across Canada? And can she explain how the pledge of the Minister of Finance of minimum disruption to the public will be achieved when there are 325 fewer CE1C employees to provide service to unemployed Canadians?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the service to unemployed Canadians by the staff of CEIC continues to be at the very high level. I can assure the Hon. Member that that will continue to be so. Any reduction in the staff will largely be taken care of through attrition and through recycling within the Department, and I can assure the Hon. Member that he and those persons employed in the Department do not have a great deal of cause for concern.


PROVISION OF SERVICES
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister not aware that for the last several years Hon. Members of this Party have had complaints from CEIC employees about the pressure put upon them, and complaints from the unemployed about receiving service from Canada Employment Centres? How can the necessary improvements in those centres be achieved when the Ministry is cutting 325 jobs because of Wilson's cut-backs?


John Carnell Crosbie: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the staff of the CEIC is indeed concerned about the services which it offers to those who are unemployed. That is why they make such a very real effort-one which every one in this House should recognize-in order to provide those services.
Yes, the operations in the Department are being streamlined, but as I said, this is being done in such a way as to cause the least possible dislocation and disruption in services.

October 17, 1985
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and it concerns his meeting this morning with the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and their discussions relating to the chemical waste dumps along the American side of the Niagara River. Would the Minister advise the House if the proposals put to him today included a provision for the actual removal and destruction of the toxic wastes in those dumps, or whether it included just retaining the toxic wastes in their present location?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct. I met this morning with the head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Lee Thomas, whom I am happy to welcome to the House this afternoon.


John Napier Turner: Order.


Thomas Michael McMillan: He tabled for the Department of the Environment and for myself, in particular, the most extensive proposed action plan from the U.S. Government to the Canadian Government on any specific environmental issue in the recollection of any of my officials. The plan, which I have only now received and have yet to have a chance to read in detail, covers every facet of the clean-up of the pollutants to which the Hon. Member referred-


John Napier Turner: Order.


Thomas Michael McMillan: -including the possibility of extraction and elimination.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Next week during National Universities Week across this country, instead of celebrating, professors and students will be racked with uncertainty. At the recent meeting of federal and provincial Ministers of Finance, this Government announced that not only will it stand by its unilateral budget decision to reduce $2 billion from expected federal transfer payments to the provinces, but that these cuts to the transfer payments will begin next year instead of in 1990.
Does this not mean that this Government, instead of taking away S2 billion from the provinces by 1990, is really taking away up to $6 billion by starting right away in 1986?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear to the Hon. Member that these are not cuts. They are reductions in the growth rate.


Ms. Jewett:: Oh, what a euphemism.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The growth rate will still be substantial. There will still be billions of dollars which will be transferred to the provinces for the very worth-while programs in health and post-secondary education.


Pauline Jewett: You are just muddying the waters.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As I indicated in response to a previous question, the per cent of federal Government spending which is transferred to the provinces will not be changed. It will stay at the current level throughout this whole period. So I caution the Hon. Member not to misinterpret this matter and cast doubts in the minds of the people who are interested in these programs.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, obviously the $6 billion figure has not been denied.


SIZE OF PAYMENTS-EFFECT ON PROGRAMS
Roland de Corneille: If the Minister is not going to confirm what the provincial Ministers of Finance heard, and what his own Department said, perhaps he can at least tell us whether the provincial losses of $6 billion caused by the Government will be spread across the whole system, across the board, or will there be targets of either medicare, post-secondary education or welfare? Which one is going to get the axe?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there will be no program which will get the axe. That is the point I am making. The amounts which will be transferred by the federal Government to all of these programs will be increasing year after year in accordance with the directions which I set out in the Budget. The growth rate will fall but there will still be substantial amounts of money. No decisions have been taken as to what programs would be affected. That will be the subject of further discussions between the federal and provincial Ministers of Finance.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and concerns whether or not a clean-up of the four worst dumps is involved in the action plan presented by Mr. Thomas to the Minister today.
October 17, 1985

Given the reluctance expressed by Mr. Thomas when asked direct questions about whether or not the extraction and destruction of the chemicals in those four dumps would be forthcoming, can the Minister indicate, if that is the American position, whether he finds that acceptable? Does the Government find it acceptable that the Americans are not willing to proceed directly to dig up and destroy the toxic chemicals in those dumps?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I have no particular brief to carry for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. They can pretty well defend themselves. My interest, which is the same as that of the Hon. Member, is to clean up the Niagara River. I received a voluminous action plan from the head of the EPA which covers everything from enforcement, to compliance, to tightening up standards for toxic chemicals, to monitoring and surveillance. I have not had a chance to pass final judgment on the American position. I will do so with equal measures of criticism and fairness and I hope that the Hon. Member will be equally open-minded in his assessment.


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that when Mr. Thomas was questioned about extraction and destruction he said that is something they were considering, but they were also considering alternatives. I am asking the Minister if that possible position by the Americans is acceptable to him or is he going to hold to the view, one which I am sure all Canadians take when it comes to our drinking water supply, that these dumps need to be cleaned right out and the toxic chemicals destroyed?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt about the position of the Department of the Environment and the Government of Canada. Our preferred option is for extraction and elimination of the offending toxins. It is not simply to contain. We recognize this approach is going to cost billions of dollars. We as a Government are committed to linking arms with the Americans, the State of New York, the U.S. Government, and the Province of Ontario toward that end. The Hon. Member can be assured that our position on this subject will not change.


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER SEAWAY WELLAND CANAL BLOCKAGE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. He is aware that we have suffered the most disastrous crop in many, many years in western Canada, driving farm incomes well below the poverty line in many cases. Now we have the Welland Canal blocked and over 70 ships, many carrying grain to our customers overseas, are backed up in the system.
Oral Questions
Is the Minister willing to make a commitment today that the Seaway will remain open until our contractual obligations are discharged as soon as the lock is repaired, or conversely, to pay the cost of shipping this grain by rail from Thunder Bay to the lower St. Lawrence ports, which 1 understand will cost something like $15 a tonne extra? I ask this because of the large Russian order of 3.5 million tonnes which have to be-


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


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the Hon. Member's concern. However, I think he would agree that it would be premature to make that sort of a decision at this time. We have no way of determining with any degree of accuracy how long the Seaway will be tied up. I ask the Member to be patient for three or four more days so we can do the initial assessment, and then we will be in a position to determine the time it will take to get the Seaway operational again. If there are any contingency arrangements which have to be made, we will consider them at that time.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I just pointed out that this is an urgent matter for the western farmers. They have to know whether the Government is going to stand behind them in this disastrous situation.
Last May the Government took $30 million away from the Seaway Authority. This-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member had a very long first question. Does he have a supplementary?


Maurice Brydon Foster: As I indicated, the Government took some $30 million. I wonder if-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is it his position that during the several times the question of the Gulf-O&Y-PetroCan deal was discussed by the P and P Committee, the decision on the tax ruling was never brought to that committee's attention?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a lack of understanding on the part of some Members who are surprised that I would be answering this question. I do so as vice-chairman of that committee of Cabinet. I can tell the Hon. Member, as he knows, that it would be totally inappropriate for me to be telling the House, or anyone else, what discussions

October 17, 1985
Oral Questions
go on in that or any other Cabinet committee. If he is interested in the process, with respect to the making of tax rulings, there is a Minister responsible for that in the House to whom he can direct his questions.


ROLE OF ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Finance who probably is the only one of the two who might know the answer. Did David Wyman, the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for tax policy, bring to his attention that there was a request for a pre-tax ruling regarding the Gulf-O&Y-PetroCan transaction?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is aware, as my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, has mentioned, that I cannot, and neither can he nor any member of the Government, discuss any particular tax ruling.


Ian Deans: I am asking if you were told.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is a matter which must be dealt with between the taxpayer and the Department of National Revenue.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and concerns the recently released report of the inquiry on federal water policy. The report recommends that the National Hydrology Institute, currently in the final stages of construction in Saskatoon, become a Prairie and Northern River Research Centre. Could the Minister assure the House that this recommendation will be given serious consideration to ensure adequate provision for agricultural and fresh water research in western Canada?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Pearse and his fellow commissioners made a very strong case for the centre of excellence to which the Hon. Member referred. I am looking at the recommendation with considerable sympathy. For that purpose, and others, I have established an inter-departmental task force to look at the report in its total context. In that connection I will be reviewing the recommendation to which the Hon. Member has made reference.


TRANSPORT
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Is the Minister aware that 130 workers in the CSW ironworks, in the East End of Montreal, have been laid off over the last few days? Moreover, does he realize that such layoffs will go on as long as his Government has no 'Buy Canadian" policy in the transportation industry?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I met with the president of the union very recently, last week that is, and we are looking at the situation very closely. Indeed, the company over the last few years has been significantly reducing its labour force, but there is still hope for the coming months, and we are looking at all company orders to see whether in fact there is substitution from Canadian production in Montreal to production abroad, namely in Australia, as has indeed been said.


PURCHASE OF ROLLING STOCK WHEELS IN CANADA
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Minister has finally accepted to meet those workers, who had been asking for a meeting for well over three months.
Will the Minister contact the Canadian railways to ensure that they buy rolling stock wheels made in Canada rather than in Brazil?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, that matter also was examined with the union president, and I must state I myself did not wait three months before meeting him. I met him immediately, that is during the week he came to my constituency office.
As far as Brazilian-made wheels are concerned, this is an item I am examining, to find out exactly how pertinent that matter could be.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood, one question, with respect.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns his contention in the House yesterday that the child tax credit is not going to be deindexed. Has the Minister had a chance to look at the Budget papers where it
October 17, 1985

clearly states that in 1989 the child tax credit will be deindex-ed? Or is he announcing something which will be very welcome indeed, a new policy that since the Budget the Government has had a change of heart and will not be deindexing the child tax credit?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: If the Member recalls her question and my answer yesterday, I did not refer to the deindexation at all. I said in my answer to her that the child tax credit would go up and in fact does in the first two years.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary.


SITUATION IN 1994
Lynn McDonald: Yes, it is going up, but will the Minister confirm that it will be going down and will be deindexed so that by 1994 the child tax credit will be worth less in constant dollars than it is today?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my answer from yesterday and today. It is going up for the first two years, as I pointed out to her.


Lynn McDonald: Tell us when it is going down.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will report to her, if she comes to committee-where we will welcome her-that as the economy improves, and the indications are that the economy is improving under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am sure that she welcomes those developments. As the Government looks at those trends and a new social policy obviously comes forward, I am sure she would want to support that.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, October 16, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, what business does the Government House Leader intend to call for tomorrow and next week?


Mr. Prud'homme:: He will change it.
Committee Reports


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the distinguished Member, who intervenes, knows that when I make changes, I usually do so at the request of the opposition Parties in order to accommodate them because of their attendance in the House.
Today we will be dealing with motions for concurrence with respect to the excise tax Ways and Means motions. The sequence of Bills will be the same as this week. I hope that we will make progress on Bill C-75 with respect to the Canada Shipping Act. Following that, there is Bill C-62, the legislation concerning employment equity, and Bill C-42 respecting Canagrex. It is my intention to follow that sequence through the rest of today and tomorrow.
Next week we will continue with that sequence, although I would indicate to the House that on Tuesday next it is my intention to call Bill C-79 for the final day of debate with respect to second reading and any motions associated with the second reading of that legislation so that that matter may go to committee.
Other Bills will be forthcoming. Legislation will be introduced with respect to amendments to the Criminal Code concerning lotteries. Obviously, there will also be a Bill concerning the Excise Tax Act. These Bills will be brought forward and I will consult further with the opposition Parties in that respect, depending on the progress we make. Hopefully we will make good prgress on the items we are considering now. I only want to reserve the option of beginning to discuss the Excise Tax Act sometime next week, possibly Monday. However, I will give the earliest possible notice concerning the House business, after consultations with my colleagues, the opposition House Leaders. If there is any alteration to that sequence, first there will be consultation with Opposition House. Leaders and an announcement on the floor of the House at the first opportunity.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report, Statutory Instruments No. 30, and the fourth report. Statutory Instruments No. 31, of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, in both official languages.


STRIKING COMMITTEE-EIGHTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the eighth report of the Striking Committee in both official languages.

October 17, 1985
Order Paper Questions


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REORGANIZATION ACT
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-66, an Act respecting the Reorganization of the Canada Development Corporation, without amendment, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above-mentioned reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to table a petition regarding concerns raised in relation to Bill C-67 and Bill C-68. The bulk of the petition comes from inmates at the Saskatchewan penitentiary who are particularly concerned that the laws under which they were sentenced be those maintained during their sentences.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition signed by several dozen soft white wheat producers in southern Alberta. They call on the Government to have the Canadian Wheat Board establish a direct emergency feed seed grain quota for their crops so they can be delivered.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 193 and 420.


Mr. Stackhouse: In (a) 1980 (ft) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983, how many abortions were reported by hospitals in Canada?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Did the Government increase the airport tax by 1 per cent in November,
1984	and, if so (a) what income accrued to the Government between November and December 31, 1984 (ft) what income is forecasted for 1985?
2.	How many persons travelled by aircraft in Canada between January 1 and March 31 (a) 1983 (ft) 1984 (c) 1985?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1. The 1
per cent increase in the Air Transportation Tax that went into effect April 1, 1985 was announced in the November 8, 1984 federal economic statement. The additional revenues expected to be generated in the fiscal year 1985/86 by these measures amount to $34.6 million.
2. (a) Between January 1 and March 31, 1983 there were 9,562,700 passengers enplaned and deplaned at the top 30 Canadian airports. (b) For the same period in 1984, based on preliminary information, there were 10,594,300 passengers, (c)
1985	statistics are not yet available.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, it has now been over a year since the secret meeting between the former Solicitor General and Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick. Over seven months ago I put a series of questions on the Order Paper, specifically Question No. 296. I have asked on a number of occasions when I might be receiving a reply to those questions.
I want to put the question again to the Parliamentary Secretary or to the Solicitor General. Will they advise me and the House when answers might be forthcoming to those questions on the Order Paper? Will they provide a status report? As I indicated, it has been over seven months. Surely that is sufficient time to answer the questions.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that those questions are being given the attention they deserve and will be answered soon.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: This is not the Question Period. There is no supplementary.


John V. Nunziata: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the Hon. Member's point of order?
October 17, 1985


John V. Nunziata: On a number of occasions 1 have asked the Parliamentary Secretary when I might receive answers to those questions and he has risen repeatedly and said, "Soon, soon". With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, at least he could have the common courtesy of indicating precisely when we might get answers.
Ways and Means


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member knows that the practice is to allow a question and an answer, and that is the end of it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 have Question No. 386 on the Order Paper, dated May 31, 1985, dealing with the important question of pensions in the Public Service of Canada. I think it is imperative that Members of Parliament be given the information as soon as possible. It has been six months now. I am sure that the Government has that information because it is dealing with the unions. Why can he not get the information?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that this matter is indeed the subject of discussions between the various unions and the Government and his question wil be
answered soon.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act laid upon the Table on Wednesday, October 16, 1985, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
++YEAS
Members
Andre	Fraieigh	McKnightBeatty	Fretz	MerrithewBelsher	Gagnon	NicholsonBernier	Gass	(Niagara Falls)Binns	Gormley	NickersonBlackburn	Greenaway	Nielsen(Jonqui&re)	Guilbault	OostromBlais	(Drummond)	PietzBlais-Grenier	Gurbin	PorterBlenkarn	Gustafson	RavisBouchard	Halliday	ReidBourgault	Hamilton	St-JulienBrisco	Hardey	SchellenbergCaldwell	Hawkes	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Cardiff	Hnatyshyn	SchellenbergerChampagne	Hockin	(Wetaskiwin)(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Howie	ScottChampagne	Hudon	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Champlain)	Jardine	ScowenCharest	Jelinek	SiddonChartrand	Jepson	SparrowClark	Johnson	Speyer(Brandon-Souris)	(Bonavista-T rinity-	StewartClinch	Conception)	SulukCollins	Jourdenais	TardifCook	Kilgour	(Charlesbourg)Cooper	Kindy	TaylorCorbett	King	ThackerCossitt	Ladouceur	TowersCote	Landry	Tremblay(Langelier)	Lanthier	(Quebec-Est)Crosbie	La Salle	Tremblay(St. John's West)	Lawrence	(Lotbini&re)Crosby	Layton	Tupper(Halifax West)	Lesick	TurnerCrouse	Lewis	(Ottawa-Carleton)Darling	MacDonald	ValcourtDaubney	(Kingston and	VankoughnetDella Noce	the Islands)	VezinaDesrosiers	MacKay	VincentDor in	Malone	WarnerDuplessis	Mantha	WhiteEdwards	Mazankowski	WilsonEllis	McCain	(Swift Current-Epp	McDougall	Maple Creek)(Provencher)	(St. Paul's)	WilsonFennell	McGrath	(Etobicoke Centre)Ferland	Mclnnes	WinegardFontaine Forrestall	McKenzie
NAYS Members	Wise-123.Allmand	Heap	MurphyAngus	Henderson	NicholsonBaker	Hopkins	(Trinity)Berger	Jewett	NunziataBlaikie	Johnston	OrlikowBoudria	(Saint-Henri-Westmount)	OuelletCaccia	Kaplan	ParryCopps	Keeper	PennerDeans	Langdon	Pepinde Corneille	Lapierre	Prud'hommeFoster	MacLellan	RodriguezFulton	Malepart	RossiGauthier	Marchi	TurnerGray	McDonald	(Vancouver Quadra)(Windsor West) Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)	(Broadview-Greenwood) Mitchell	Young-42.
October 17, 1985
Canada Shipping Act


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Barbara Jean McDougall: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act (2), laid upon the Table on Wednesday, October 16, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Barbara Jean McDougall: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Act, laid upon the Table on Wednesday, October 16, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Henderson (p. 7687).
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-75 and to deal with some of the questions of impact on not only the ridings which directly border the Seaway but also the inland ridings. Perhaps some of the Members who represent these inland ridings do not realize the impact that the proposed amendments will have on them.
Primarily, as has been mentioned, the Bill addresses the question of marine transportation and pollution. There are several amendments in the Bill which are necessary to bring the Act and Canada's shipping practices into line with international procedures, some of which are imposed by agreement to which Canada subscribes. Most of the Bill deals with such matters as licensing and certification of personnel. There are new regulations contained in the Bill, which I am sure all Members of the House would welcome given the disastrous impacts of maritime pollution, with respect to such matters as the transportation of hazardous cargoes and the prevention
and clean-up of pollution among which, of course, the principal fear is oil spills.
The Bill provides new regulatory powers, something which we can only look at with a little puzzlement since we have heard the Government's declared intention to abandon regulation of the transportation industries to a large degree. Yet, the Bill proposes some instruments which will enable further regulations. Indeed, the Bill goes a lot further in that respect. In it there are some rather insidious clauses which 1 believe run counter to the very notion of responsibility in a Crown corporation and which, indeed, run counter to some sound commercial practices which should otherwise be applied.
Clause 4 of the Bill constitutes enabling legislation to allow the Government to recover the costs of navigational services provided by the Coast Guard. This is a development at which the House should look very carefully. I hope it will receive a great deal of study in committee since it would place powers in the hands of the Government which 1 believe could well be detrimental to the entire Seaway system and, indeed, to the entire system of bulk goods transportation in Canada.
Under this legislation the Government would have the right to recover costs involved with such services as setting and maintaining marker buoys, providing radar and Loran-C, vessel traffic services, ice-breaking, escorting services and dredging. According to the latest Estimates the cost of providing these services is in the range of $136 million to $191 million. The amount to be recovered is not indicated anywhere in the Bill which is before us. Indeed, the sort of recovery which might be imposed could go from the sublime to the ridiculous.
I remember when I was younger I read a book on an American adventurer of the 1920s and 1930s, Mr. Richard Halliday. One of his stunts, shall we say, in those days was that he would swim the entire length of the Panama Canal. He did so and recorded that at one lock he was charged a fee of a 36 cents to swim through it. That was the lockage charge for a swimmer through the Panama Canal. One would hope that the Government does not intend to go to that level of detail. However, there is nothing in the Act which would prevent it from doing so. As the Act presently provides, costs could be imposed on any nature of vessels which could run the gamut from canoes right up to the largest vessels capable of using the Seaway system.
Over the past few years we have seen some of the dissension, confusion and resistance which has been generated within the aviation community as the Government has moved to impose all manner of tariffs and user charges upon members of the general aviation community. During those same years there has been a marked decrease in the amount of pleasure flying and in the amount of general aviation carried on in Canada. That is not something which can be merely blamed upon the recessionary trends of the period since we have no way of disaggregating those trends from the trend of these nuisance fees which raise the cost of operations and which impose
October 17, 1985

considerations upon users of smaller craft which could well lead to them abandoning the use of such systems.
What about fishing boats? What about when a fishing boat ties up on the East Coast at one of our docks to unload the catch which is becoming increasingly uneconomic to bring home to port? Will the vessel be visited by a government collector at that time? Will we see disputes over tying up and retying when someone brings a boat into dock and then for some reason or another moves it, not for a fishing voyage, and brings it back again? What sort of costs will be imposed as a result of this Bill? Regrettably, the Bill is silent as to the nature of the costs which could be imposed under it.
We realize that the bulk of charges would fall on commercial shipping. I point out the potential problems with respect to pleasure boats and fishing boats by way of a supplement to the main argument which is based on the impact on commercial shipping on the Seaway system, within Canada and from Canadian ports generally. If we were to see a cost recovery factor of any significant degree imposed by way of increases to Seaway tolls and tariffs, then there would be a readjustment within Canada's freight system. In this way we would see a realignment of freight movements. There would be a tendency for freight movements to move west rather than east. There may be Hon. Members in the House from the West who would say that this is not such a bad thing. However, I point out to them that there are some significant problems with western routes in Canada. Also, the act of realignment could produce as many negative results for these Members' ridings and their constituents as could the positive benefits which would flow therefrom.
The costs which could be imposed as a result of this legislation could easily make the St. Lawrence Seaway nonviable. We could see an increase in tolls leading to a loss of revenue as shipping freight moves through other routes significantly, of course, in a westerly direction. We could see a reduction in traffic on top of the reduction which has already occurred. Something which surprised me, Mr. Speaker, when I first read it, is that cargo traffic on the Seaway last year was down 27 per cent from the previous year, which was itself down 20 per cent from the high in 1977. What that tells us, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a major national transport infrastructure resource which is being under-utilized to a very significant degree.
For example, even if we postulate that the Seaway was running at 85 per cent of capacity in 1977-which, I for one, feel is hardly likely-that would mean that today it is running at somewhere around 50 per cent of capacity. Surely, with the national investment in the Seaway, we should be looking not to reduce utilization but to increase utilization in order to ama-torize those costs over a greater number of users.
With respect to the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, I believe it will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, if I raise again the question of the Budget raid which was carried out on the Seaway's contingency fund, and the indig-
Canada Shipping Act
nation this drew from the industry at the time. The Government, of course, does have powers over Crown corporations and over the cash reserves and balances of Crown corporations. However, looking at that raid from a purely business point of view, we have to say that it was carried out in a most ill-advised fashion. As we have seen from the events of recent weeks, there is a very definite need for a contingency fund in the St. Lawrence Seaway because contingency type occurrences arise. Things happen like collapses at docks, dock breakages and bank slippage on canal portions of the Seaway.
It seems to me that the way in which the Government has announced to the public of Canada these measures leaves a lot to be desired. I hold in my hand the press release of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) concerning the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. I, for one, can find no reference in that press release to the fact that the Canada Shipping Act amendments empower the Government to proceed much as it would like by regulation to collect whatever fees in the St. Lawrence Seaway it felt it needed for other purposes, or that it felt the traffic would bear. What the traffic will bear in reality is not very much in the way of an increase.
That money was earmarked for capital improvements on the Seaway, particularly on the Welland Canal, and now it has gone back into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The Government is using it, of course, for such worthy, noble and laudable purposes-and I hope no Hon. Member of this House misses the sarcasm-as bailing out banks in a way in which outrages business sense far more, even, than the initial scoop of the $30 million.
I would like us to examine for a few minutes the theoretical basis under which transport infrastructure is funded. We fund transport infrastructure from general revenues for several reasons. There is the reason of public benefit; and the belief that a transportation system offers benefits to a country over and above the simple economic benefits of easier routes which are cheaper to travel and service. There is the role of the transportation system in ensuring the circulation of dollars within a country and of enabling the buyers and sellers to get together and the goods to flow and the services to move. This must be done in the most efficient fashion possible in order that the economic imperatives of production, sourcing and demand can be met.
There is, of course, the straight economic development theory which states that the more goods which flow between two given points, the more wealth is created and the more employment will result. We also fund infrastructural transportation services from general revenues from motives of efficiency of collection because it is not worth sending out a bill which costs $1.50 in order to collect a service charge of $1.30. Those figures, of course, refer to the take-off and landing of a light aircraft but there are parallels and equivalent situations which could well arise in the charging of fees at docks and wharves and fees for lockage, and so on.
I feel there is something seriously lacking in the arguments of the Government in its attempt to show the economic basis of the disire to recover considerably more revenue from the St.

October 17, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
Lawrence Seaway. We have not had any information which tells us the St. Lawrence Seaway is subsidized to a greater per cent than other forms of transportation networks. We have not seen anything to indicate that there will be, as a result of this legislation, any form of mode neutrality in the allocation of transport infrastructural subsidies. We have not seen any cost benefit analysis of raising the tariffs and fees by 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 25 per cent or whatever the Government has in mind. We do not know what the Government has in mind and, indeed, it seems to me that the Government does not know what the Government has in mind.
We have not seen any economic modelling to show what will happen to the transportation flows of bulk commodities if these costs are imposed on the Seaway. There are sophisticated tools which are available to the Government. There are people who are expert in the use and application of these tools, but we have not seen anything to suggest that the Government has applied these tools to any form of analysis of the sort of charges which could be envisaged under the Act.
Every ledger, after all, Mr. Speaker, has two sides. The Government is looking at the imposition of charges and we have not been presented with any information as to how the increase of those charges might affect revenues. We also have not been given any indication as to what the Government plans to do with the $30 million it lifted. We have had no indication as to whether it is being used to reduce taxes which, of course, was something the Budget did for those of us who have the good fortune to be wealthy. We have no indication as to whether it was applied to reduce the deficit or put into a policy reserve to be used for such purposes as the bank bail-out which is going to cost so much to Canadian taxpayers and which is going to have such a harmful effect on job creation in this country from coast to coast. We have no indication as to what the Government plans to do with the money either definitely taken or notionally generated.
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the powers which this legislation allows the Government are the sort of powers which Government policy makers love to have. Government policy makers love to have the sort of flexibility, as they term it-that sweet and innocuous word-so they might be able to impose the charges where and when they felt was appropriate.
There was a statement made by an aide to the Minister of Transport who said, "We are going to make Crown corporations stand on their own two feet". That sort of imagery and language, Mr. Speaker, surely is both outdated and inappropriate in terms of a national utility like the St. Lawrence Seaway. It is not a question of making Crown corporations stand on their own two feet. It is surely more a question of giving Crown corporations the legislative and regulatory environment, the framework and the regulations which can enable them to make intelligent and economical decisions in the national interests. That would give them the opportunity to stand on their own two feet which this legislation manifestly does not do.
Heaven only knows how the Government is going to track who uses navigational aids and to what degree. These services are as fundamental to the operation of the maritime transportation network as the salting, ploughing, and repairing of roads is to our highway network. Let the Government not be seen to be taking steps which are going to unfairly penalize one mode of transportation with economic consequences which will result in dislocation, unemployment and a great reduction in the utilization of that national utility, the St. Lawrence Seaway system.	i



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Public Service-(a) Career planning for employees facing lay-offs, (b) Job security; the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Social security-Request for clarification of child tax credit.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Henderson (p. 7687).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the Hon. Member believes that users should pay some portion of the cost of a transportation service? If so, does he have any figures in mind?


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, 1 find it difficult to believe that the Minister of Transport believes he can find a Member in this Chamber who does not believe that users should pay some portion of the cost of the transportation system. The answer to his question is, of course, yes. The answer to his second question is that I did not have a specific figure in mind. My
October 17, 1985

belief is that in the allocation of the cost of a transportation network there should be a degree of mode neutrality; i.e. whether one looks at the infrastructure which supports an air transportation network or the road transportation network or, in this case, the Seaway transportation network, or indeed a rail transportation network, there should be a degree of commonality in the level to which these are subsidized, bearing in mind of course the degree to which they are used. My belief, based on previous experience and, indeed, on previous meetings with the Minister, although many years ago, is that it is probably the railroad which recovers the largest percentage of its costs at present.
I simply say to the Minister that the question of a targeted percentage is really something that I should be asking him to put before this House so that we can make a judgment. By way of a comment, I would certainly welcome hearing from him if there are such figures.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's answer. I think he answered it honestly. Yesterday, one of his colleagues suggested that these transportation services should be free. There should not be a user fee. So we have a contradiction within the NDP.
The Hon. Member alluded to the fact that the rail sector probably recovers the greatest percentage of its costs. Currently, in the marine mode, the recovery is somewhere from 2.5 per cent to 4 per cent. Would he consider that to be fair?


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, first the Minister will permit me to doubt whether a Member on this side made a specific statement that the provision of service should be absolutely free. Second, 1 am sure that he would accept as my answer that I would be very interested indeed to see any figures which suggest that the cost recovery of any service was as low as 2.5 per cent to 4 per cent.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is.


John Edmund Parry: One thing that I am aware of from my own experience, and I appreciate that this may not fall under the Minister's responsibility, is that of small craft harbours, of which there are a number in my riding, and I would be very surprised if that facet of the marine mode was recovering such a low percentage-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is.


John Edmund Parry: -of the cost of operation because my own observations have indeed been quite the contrary.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member checks he will find that the range of figures 1 quoted is correct. Furthermore, if he doubts my word about the interpretation of what one of my colleagues said, he might want to read Hansard at page 7691 where the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) said:
I recognize that a certain amount of cost recovery has been going on for a long time, but is it necessary to increase it? Maybe we should be taking it off the others if they are increasing. Maybe transportation should be a free service.
Canada Shipping Act


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, without getting into a question of nickels and dimes-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You are involved in more than nickels and dimes.


John Edmund Parry: -the use of the term "maybe" surely indicates the presentation of an argument on an entirely hypothetical basis. Maybe the Minister should examine whether transportation services should be-


Mr. McKnight:: Now it is Party policy.


John Edmund Parry: -provided free. Maybe the Minister should ignore representations from people like myself who suggest it is a good idea to recover some portion of the cost. Indeed, if the recovery is only in the order of 2.5 per cent, maybe it would be a worthwhile question to ask whether that recovery was worth the cost of collecting it. I point out that any statement that contains the word "maybe" cannot be treated as a categorical enunciation of policy.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to speak to the amendment moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson). The Hon. Member moved an amendment to Bill C-75, requesting that consideration of this Bill be postponed six months to give the Minister more time to reconsider certain aspects of Bill C-75 which had aroused considerable concern among many people in the Maritime Provinces, who are faced with major problems in the fisheries and potato-growing industries.
The House is aware that some of my colleagues from the Maritimes have spoken to point out that some aspects of Bill C-75 seem to infringe seriously on the agreement concluded by the Government of Canada and the Province of Newfoundland. This particular aspect was raised by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).
I have not heard the Minister clarify this particular issue. According to my hon. friend from Newfoundland, when the people of Newfoundland voted in favour of entering Confederation, commitments were made by the federal authorities on behalf of Canada to provide a certain number of services free of charge to the people of Newfoundland. However, Bill C-75 provides certain transportation fees for the people of Newfoundland.
I do not know whether the Minister has had time to examine the speech or comments made by my hon. friend in the House earlier this week, but I believe that the matter of the agreements-
Mr. Speaker, the Minister tells me that he listened very carefully to the comments of my colleague from Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe. I think that the point made about the

October 17, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
possibility of betraying this part of the union agreement is a major one which should be clarified as soon as possible.
I also think it is important that the Minister consider the remarks made by my hon. friend from Davenport (Mr. Caccia), who mentioned quite a number of concerns shared by those who are concerned about environmental protection in Canada. 1 think we must ensure that the environment is protected, especially in the remote areas of Canada's North. Our country, and we cannot say it often enough, borders not only on the Pacific and the Atlantic but also on the Arctic Ocean. Clearly, since navigation in Canada's North is becoming increasingly important, we must ensure that every possible precaution is taken to prevent ecological and environmental disasters.
1 think that my colleague from the Maritimes, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), spoke very eloquently about the difficulties facing the marine industry and its ever growing responsibility for an ever larger share of the operating costs. My colleague from Gander-Twillingate explained in no uncertain terms that, at the very moment the industry is in the doldrums, the Conservative Government is just about to charge for services which might be provided by the Department of Transport and levy fees whose impact might be serious enough to push the industry into bankruptcy. As my colleague from Gander-Twillingate pointed out, this is hardly the time to levy an additional surtax on an industry which is already in a bind.
1 am therefore in favour of the six-month hoist motion with respect to this Bill, just so the Minister will have time to reconsider the issue and enlighten us on the dire consequences the adoption of this measure might have on the Maritimes.
I would suggest there is another factor which we ought to take into consideration and which I think would justify the six-month hoist. All Hon. Members know that as a result of an investigation on the tragic Ocean Ranger incident, a commission of inquiry has examined the consequences of this tragedy and made a number of recommendations. The recommendations were made public last July. By mid-summer the Minister and his officials had been made aware of those recommendations.
Here we are, in early October, some three months later, and the Minister has just introduced this very important measure. Just by looking at the thickness of Bill C-75 one can readily see that it has to be an important measure. It amends the Canada Shipping Act as well as the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act, and the Gas Production and Conservation Act. Now I think we could justifiably expect the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to implement with that Bill the recommendations put forth as a result of the Ocean Ranger tragedy.
Indeed, my colleague from Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe has said how sorry he was that the main recommendation put forth by that board of inquiry was not to be found in the Bill, namely that the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act be amended so that they apply to drilling rigs located more than 200 miles offshore. The Minister has told us of course that he will come back in a few months with further amendments to the legislation which would take into account the entire recommendations made by the board.
I also take to witness the transport Minister's colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), another representative from Newfoundland, who intervened in that debate to say that he wanted to assure the people of Newfoundland that the recommendations put forth in connection with the Ocean Ranger would be implemented, that as a Minister in the cabinet and a representative of Newfoundland, he would see that all those recommendations are approved. He recalled that the board of inquiry chaired by Chief Justice Hickman of Newfoundland had submitted its final report which several departments, among them the Department of Transport, were now considering, in order to decide how many would be implemented. The Minister of Justice stated in concluding that as a representative of Newfoundland, the matter was of great interest to him.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of Justice is right. The report of Mr. Justice Hickman is very important and should be the subject matter of Bill C-75. That is why the proposal made by my colleague from Egmont (Mr. Henderson) to defer for six months the discussion of this legislation is quite relevant. It would allow the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues to study in depth all the recommendations of the Hickman Report, and to come back with a comprehensive legislation that would deal with all the items that should be examined and considered by the Government concerning such a tragedy that should not be allowed to repeat itself. 1 think that Members on both sides of the House will agree with me that that kind of tragedy should not be allowed to recur, and the Government has a responsibility to take, within the shortest time frame possible, the steps needed to prevent such future tragedies.
I would like briefly to recall that my colleagues from the Maritimes are especially concerned with the impact of the legislation on their constituents. What is of particular concern to them is Clause 4. If you will allow me to quote one paragraph from Clause 4, I think you will understand how important it would be for the Minister to take another six months to review its terms. Clause 4 gives the Government authority to impose charges relating to navigational services upon any users of aids to navigation, dredging, vessel traffic services, ice breaking services and escorting services.
But where I do not understand the implications of the legislation, is this: if the Government wants to collect money from those who use such services, that is a decision it can take and for which it can endorse full responsibility.
October 17, 1985

However, Paragraph 3(2), Clause 4, provides, and I quote:
(2) Charges may be imposed pursuant to sub-section (1) in relation to any ship or vessel, regardless of whether the Canadian Coast Guard actually provides a navigational service to that particular ship or vessel.
1 wonder if the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary who is listening closely to my comments has grasped the full implications of that section. In other terms, the Government through this Bill not only wants to impose user fees for a service on people who would use the help and support of the Department of Transport but even where they do not use the service or the Department's help. Simply by reason of their sailing in Canadian waters would those people also have to pay those fees.
In my opinion, this clause is quite unfair, if not totally absurd. It is one thing to charge people for using a service, but quite another to want to charge people for not using it.
I therefore believe that this aspect of Clause 4 must be changed.
Another point, Mr. Speaker, that I want to call to your attention concerns the next paragraph in the bill, which can be found on page 5. This provision is totally unacceptable and I think that the Minister should take his responsibilities. Indeed, Subsection 3 of Clause 4 states the following:
Where a charge imposed pursuant to this section is not paid as provided in the regulations made under subsection (1), interest may be charged on the amount from time to time outstanding, at a rate fixed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the users of aids to navigation, dredging, vessel traffic services, ice-breaking services and escorting services would feel much better if the Minister of Transport himself made his own recommendations to the Governor in Council.
Why would the Minister of Transport, who is in the House at this time listening to me, not take this responsibility himself? The shipping industry would feel much more comfortable if these charges were imposed by himself rather than by the Minister of Finance. I believe that the Minister should think about this.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that there have been major cutbacks in the Department of Transport. It has to make its own contribution to the reduction of the national debt. I know that the Minister of Transport is not alone to be bled white and that many of his colleagues in other Departments also have to cut back on their expenditures.
However, I do not believe that it is wise, at a time when our shipping industry is in difficulty in Canada, to impose these additional charges notwithstanding the approval or decision of the Minister of Finance.
All these are good reasons why the bill should be hoisted for six months, Mr. Speaker.
Canada Shipping Act


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member care to comment that Clause 4 of this Bill, while brought forward by a Conservative Government, is a continuation of long-standing policy by the former Liberal administration to impose user fees and cost recovery mandates on a number of services provided by the Government of Canada?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer my hon. colleague. The concept of user pay has been the topic of a number of debates in the past, but it has never been the subject of legislation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: I admit that it has been the target of much pushing by officials of the Department of Transport. 1 know that some of my former colleagues publicly advocated this concept. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it was never, although it was known to be a preferred option by some of my colleagues in Cabinet, implemented as Government policy. Therefore I regret sincerely-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You have difficulty saying that with a straight face.


André Ouellet: -that the new Government with a new Minister of Transport has jumped so quickly on the band-wagon prevailing in some quarters and is now trying to impose such a heavy burden on the users of our very good Maritime system.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member tell the House whether he believes that users should be charged any portion of the costs required to maintain the marine system and infrastructure in Canada? If so, what percentage?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) that if I were in his place the first thing I would insist upon is that whatever charges there may be would be presented by me, as the Minister of Transport, and they would not be imposed on me, my Department and the users by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). That is the first element of my answer. I hope the Minister will accept my suggestion and amend the Bill accordingly to make sure that he, as Minister of Transport, will do that. After discussing the matter with his clientele, he would be in a better position to arrive at appropriate fees that could be levied in some cases.
In answer to the Hon. Minister, I want to tell him that in some cases I would agree with some charges, but in other cases I think it is totally irresponsible and unacceptable to charge them. Some of my colleagues, in speaking previously in this debate, indicated that because of the regional aspect and the remote areas of our country some services are given by only one client under very difficult conditions. To charge these users additional fees would be to exploit the Canadian population. In some cases the users could pass on additional charges

October 17, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
to their customers. However, in many cases the additional burden cannot be passed on to customers and it becomes an impediment to continuing to give service.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Hon. Member. I am sure he is aware that something in the order of $824 million is being spent in the provision of that service. The cost recovery is something in the order of 2.5 per cent. Does he consider that to be an example of exploitation?
Also the Hon. Member indicated that he was prepared to accept that there should be costs for some services which are rendered. One of the reasons that provision in the Bill is rather broad at this stage of the game is to allow the committee to examine it in detail and to hear what the users have to say. If the Hon. Member reads my speech, he would find that I indicated very clearly that there would be nothing imposed without the fullest of consultation with the users, as a matter of fact, in an attempt to try to explore an arrangement or mechanism for the collection of some fees. Hon. Members across the way have been talking in terms of 100 per cent cost recovery. There is no transportation system which functions on 100 per cent cost recovery, and the Hon. Member knows it. I appreciate his remarks in this regard, but I think it is an area at which the committee can look in some detail. Then perhaps we can tighten up that portion of the legislation in a way that charges could be levied with some degree of accuracy and perhaps more clearly defined.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comment of the Minister when he acknowledged that any charge would not be imposed without proper consultation. Also I welcome his willingness to have the committee look at the Bill clause by clause and to devote the necessary time to consult with users. Indeed, I look forward to reaching that stage in committee. Some of the people who will be affected by these new charges could appear and indeed indicate their fear and their requirement not to be strangulated.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to comment on this Bill which will amend the Canada Shipping Act, in particular, and certain other related Acts as well.
There is a port in Toronto. I am not sure whether the Hon. Minister is that well acquainted with eastern Canada, but we do have a port in Toronto, and the port is in fact part of the Seaway. Of course the port was there before the Seaway. But, it is of concern to the City of Toronto whether that Seaway traffic declines or not, and a certain slice of the prosperity of the City of Toronto depends on the maintenance of the Seaway traffic. While the revenues go properly to the federal Government, there is all the indirect revenue that comes to the commerce and industry of the city.
We notice from the letter of the Minister of October 1, 1984, in response to correspondence that he had regarding this, he makes a pledge. This is October 1, 1984, and he says: "I have asked by officials to defer any increases in the Seaway tolls pending a complete analysis of the Seaway's future needs
and its importance to Canada's economy". It seems as though, having made that pledge a year ago, and having that pledge in fact enthusiastically accepted by his correspondents in the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association who welcomed that kind of a challenge-it would appear that his conclusion must have been that the Seaway is of little importance in the economy of Canada. The actions that he is proposing appear to envisage the disappearance of the Seaway rather than its maintenance, and that is what gives us concern in Toronto.
Shipping has been decreasing over the past year or two, especially since the tolls were increased, and now the reserve is to be taken away. It is very interesting that just at the time the reserve is taken away, there is a collapse in the Welland Canal. In response to a question a couple of days ago, the Minister explained clearly that he could not tell us anything about what was going to be done about that collapse, in fact, the Seaway took over the obligations of the Welland Canal and has thereby provided a good deal of revenue to the federal Government that was not coming before. The Welland Canal was being subsidized by the federal Government to the tune of perhaps $30 million but, now that it is incorporated into the Seaway, the Government is free of that expense. But, the Government nevertheless decided not to allow the money that had been paid in by the shipping industries as a reserve against trouble to be any longer available in the accounts of the Seaway. It looks as if that may have been a very unwise decision.
Toronto is at present a considerable transportation centre not only for shipping, that is for water shipping, but for rail and for road and for air. There is a long-range danger-and I do not mean in hundreds of years; I mean in years, in a decade or so-a long-range danger of not only Toronto but a good many other cities on the Canadian side of the border losing out to the American systems of transportation which in some cases are very highly subsidized by the American Government.
The Hon. Minister said recently that there was no system which is 100 per cent subsidized. That may be true, but I am sure he is aware of the information given by the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association a year ago to the effect that the United States administration continues to support 100 per cent recovery of all operations and maintenance costs as well as capital expenditures. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that this applies, for example, to the Mississippi waterway. What we are faced with is the prospect of the $2.5 billion industry of shipping Canada's grains to the East through the Seaway being diverted-all or part-to the Mississippi waterway.
Of course, if our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) can charm President Reagan sufficiently by singing "Irish Eyes are Smiling", perhaps he will be able to persuade President Reagan that that is unfair competition and, in the spirit of free trade, President Reagan will no longer allow the Mississippi waterway to be subsidized, no longer allow it to compete with the St. Lawrence Seaway. Perhaps. Before additional charges are laid
October 17, 1985

on the users of the St. Lawrence Seaway, I would hope that that proposition would become a treaty, would be signed by the President and approved by all of the states of the United States which may have a voice in the matter. Until then, I think it is unwise to add to the $25,000 or so that it costs to ship a load of grain from the Lakehead through the St. Lawrence system.
There have been a good many documented objections presented by the people most directly concerned, and 1 see nothing wrong with that. I wish to refer, in part, to a letter from one of my colleagues in which he points out one of the difficulties that appears to have been overlooked by the Hon. Minister. It is in the letter of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), at page 5 where he talks about the danger of the grain going to the south. What he points out here is that the St. Lawrence Seaway is the only inland water system in the world that has a cost recovery mandate. He refers to what has been mentioned already, the fact that the Mississippi River system and the 60-mile long Houston Canal system are 100 per cent subsidized by the American Government's Army Corps of Engineers.
There is a good deal of other documentation that has been presented to the Minister and which is before the committee to show that it is hazardous to try to claim 100 per cent recovery from this system, especially at a time of declining traffic and, therefore, declining revenue. It is particularly hazardous to apply discriminately-that is to say, to apply unevenly-the principle of cost recovery.
The Minister quotes the figure of 2 per cent to 4 per cent recovery at present. However, I believe it is a fact that in the cost he is including the amortization of the cost of the Seaway. Yet, the Minister represents a Party which, a century ago, was happy to have the Canadian Pacific Railroad built with no recovery of the cost. The Canadian Pacific Railroad has never been obliged to repay the capital cost, to repay the millions of acres of land, to repay all of the valuable mines, to repay all of the other valuable considerations which it received from the then Conservative Government and its successors in order to build a railroad across Canada. This was accepted by the Canadian people and paid by the Canadian people because our forebears believe we needed a railway to span this country.
I have not heard yet that it is seriously contended by the Government that it will reach back into history and recover the capital cost of building the Canadian Pacific Railroad. If we do hear that suggestion from this Government, we will be hearing a word or two from the CPR President, I am sure, and I am sure his donations to future election campaigns of the Progressive Conservative Party will be in jeopardy.
It is very unreasonable to sock the Seaway for the cost of building the Seaway when it is in competition with both Canadian carriers such as Canadian Pacific Railroad and American carriers such as the Mississippi River system which do not have to pay the capital costs. In the case of the Mississipi River system, not even the maintenance costs are paid.
Canada Shipping Act
If the United States considers it worthwhile to provide the Mississippi system as, in effect, a public utility, without charging full-recovery cost to individual users, then it seems a foolish piece of dogmatism, a foolish piece of doctrinaire capitalist dogmatism, to insist that this particular system, the Seaway, must pay full-recovery cost.
The city I represent, Toronto-I represent a good part of it, including a part that is right on the Seaway-has paid, directly and indirectly, a good deal of costs-the capital costs and the operating costs-of the Seaway. However, I do not think that there was sufficient consultation with places like the City of Toronto and the other ports on the Seaway before Clause 4 was slid into the Bill.
According to the press statement of the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), the purpose of the Bill is simply to make improvements regarding pollution and things like that. The press statement neglected to mention the principle of cost recovery, full or partial, further cost recovery, but we have in fact Clause 4, which reads:
The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after Section 3 thereof, the following section:
"3.1 For the purpose of defraying the cost of navigational services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard, the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting charges relating to those services, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, aids to navigation, dredging, vessel traffic services, ice breaking services and escorting services.
Mr. Speaker, that is wide open. Given the philosophy that has been reiterated this afternoon by the Hon. Minister, cities like Toronto and shippers such as the ones that have corresponded with us have good reason to worry about what will happen if this law takes effect, if this law is passed and put into force.
Rather than saying that we should trust the Minister and trust any committees that may be set up to do the suitable thing and not to overcharge where it would cause damage to the economy, I think those questions ought to be looked at first. I think the whole matter should be deferred until the Minister can bring forward much more realistic fears as to which costs he thinks ought to be recovered and which of the users he thinks can generally be expected to pay those costs.
If he simply slaps the charges on or delegates to some committee, some officials, the job of slapping charges on and companies go under because they cannot compete at the higher rates with the American routes and those companies then disappear from the scene, it will be very hard, if not impossible, to recover the shipping industry in Canada.
I think it would be a mistake for this Parliament to adopt this Bill in anything like its present form. There are some good things in the Bill, such as those advertised by the Minister in his press release. Certain regulations are introduced, notwithstanding the anti-regulation philosophy which the Minister exhibits in other areas, but the matter of these charges threatens the existence of the industry, Mr. Speaker. There will be no charges if there is no industry. I think the Hon. Minister ought to be willing to see a halt in the processing of this Bill until there has been much more careful investigation into the
7746

October 17, 1985
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation costs that it is necessary to charge and into the users which are genuinely capable of paying those costs without going under.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Charest):: It being 5 o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE ADVISABILITY OF ESTABLISHING SUB-COMMITTEE ON CBC
Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve) moved: that the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture establish a sub-committee for the purposes of reviewing the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the matter of the Corporation's programming:
1.	That the sub-committee be empowered to hire professional and support staff;
2.	That the sub-committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place in Canada for the purpose of visiting the Corporation's facilities;
3.	That the sub-committee report back to the House directly; and
4.	That the sub-committee be granted all necessary powers to undertake a comprehensive review of CBC's management and programming.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to deal with the problems at the CBC. Canadians across the country are all complaining about attitudes, management and programming at the CBC. I therefore think it is our duty to raise this matter today and to ask the Government to establish a sub-committee, first of all for the purpose of reviewing management and programming at the CBC. Of course, people will say this is political interference. Well, we have reached the point where our only choice is to take a hands-on approach.
The CBC costs Canadian taxpayers the astronomical sum of nearly one billion dollars annually. When will we have a Government with the courage and the will to change this state of affairs?
The House will recall that some years ago, even the Prime Minister at the time, the Right Hon. Mr. Trudeau, said that he was going to shut down the CBC. This problem has been around for a long time, and nobody does anything, says anything or changes anything. It is time we took charge, Mr. Speaker, that we set up a sub-committee of the people's democratically elected representatives, Canadian citizens who are here in the House, today, Mr. Speaker, representatives of the people who ask and insist that changes be made at the CBC. Something must be done.
You know, we have conservatories across the country where young musicians are trained for their future careers. At the CBC, whose prime objective is to promote Canadian culture . . . You watch television, Mr. Speaker, like the rest of us, like all Canadians, and we always see the same people, the same faces, the same group. There is a small clique there . .. Mr. Juneau has completely lost control. He has no authority whatsoever. There is a small clique of friends who produce programs and travel all over the world. They work with their performers here and there, and on top of that they are paid by the CBC to do programming. Not bad, eh!
That is why we are always looking at the the same individuals, the same faces. What are we going to do with our young musicians, our young singers and our old artists who are practically starving?They always use the same people, the same individuals. When they need someone to play the part of an old man they give him a wig and tell him: "Here you go, you play old man Gamache because you belong to the gang, you are one of the boys".
So it is, Mr. Speaker, and the Auditor General of Canada himself said that the worst management can be found in the CBC. Even today's papers report Mr. Juneau as saying that the CBC is in a dramatic situation. Dramatic it is! I would not know who should be blamed for this dramatic situation, but he is right there, he is the man in charge.
Here is what I read in Le Devoir this morning: Former President Johnson really shocked members of the seminar when he explained how "the national dream, created fifty years ago when the Canadian broadcasting system was established, has become a national disgrace". Those are the words of former CBC President Johnson, as reported in Le Devoir this morning!
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives can certainly not be held responsible for that mess. The Liberal regime lasted long enough, we know better.


Mr. Rossi:: You have been there for a year and a half, Edouard, so what have you done?


Édouard Desrosiers: If anyone ought to be aware of those problems, it has to be the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).


Carlo Rossi: I am aware.


Édouard Desrosiers: You were in that Government. You supported all those policies. And when did you stand up to defend your Italian friends, the great Italian artists we have in Canada? When did you rise in the House to speak up for those people? They have every right to promote their culture in this country-


Carlo Rossi: We have not seen you for a month. Do not say anything, you are not in a position to speak up, you have not been in the House for a whole month!


Édouard Desrosiers: Yes, my dear, we know you. We know your kind ... You have been here for quite a long time as the
October 17, 1985

member for Bourassa. As I said, seldom have you stood up in the House to fight for the Italian artists within your community. I challenge you to quote a single instance where you made representations on behalf of the great many Italian artists in this country.


Carlo Rossi: I rise in this House more often than you come to this place.


Édouard Desrosiers: Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is important for all Hon. Members to look into the CBC problem, a serious problem which, I feel, should not exist. Mr. Juneau who thinks he is the big boss is responsible for it. He is responsible for this situation. I wonder why he is clinging to power. He should resign. He has completely lost control over the CBC.
As recently as this morning, one could read in the Le Devoir newspaper:
Mr. Pierre Juneau, the President of the CBC, warned the Sauvageau-Caplan task force on radio-broadcasting in Canada not to try and draw a red herring the way previous commissions did over the past 30 years-
The Liberal party was in power 30 years ago. They have been in power for the past 100 years. For a whole century, Mr. Speaker! And now Mr. Juneau would like us to come up with "instant miracles" to cure the ills of the CBC. How could we deal seriously with a man who is in charge of CBC and who is seeking "instant miracles"? Do you not find him somewhat strange?
Anyway, I feel it is important:
1.	That the sub-committee be empowered to hire professional and support
staff;
2.	That the sub-committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place in Canada for the purpose of visiting the Corporations' facilities;
3.	That the sub-committee report back to the House directly; and
4.	That the sub-committee be granted all necessary powers to undertake a comprehensive review of CBC's management and programming.
There are reasons for the cuts, Mr. Speaker. There was a shameful waste at the CBC. There are 19 stories too many in the CBC building. Five of them are completely empty. There is nothing in there.
I think it is about time the Government look into this responsibly, because it is the Canadian taxpayers who are footing the bill. This waste has to stop.
I now ask you to support my motion so that we may regain control of the CBC, develop serious guidelines for programming, really promote our true Canadian culture and let our various ethnic groups, such as the Italians, the Greeks, the Japanese, the Chinese, and so on, make their presence felt. We never see them on the CBC. Never! The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) knows this. We have very talented artists of Italian descent in Canada, but we never see them on the CBC.
One of my friends who is Black is an excellent singer. He has never been given a job by the CBC. He is Black and he has no right to belong to our culture! Yet, he was born here in Canada and is a good Canadian. However, he is never given a job. When did you ever see a Black man on the CBC? Everyone watches it!
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Mr. Speaker, this is another proof that it is time for our Government to establish this subcommittee to review the management and programming of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to address the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers). I would like to call attention to the fact that in his motion he calls for the review of the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the matter of the corporation's programming.
It was recently brought to my attention that the Hon. Member on March 29, 1985, brought a different motion to the attention of the House. In that motion he called for the House to dissolve the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to terminate the present mandate for all members of the corporation's Board of Directors. It was an even more sweeping decision which he asked us to make at that time. He asked that we completely eliminate the CBC.
In order to give the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he was unaware of the previous studies which have been made by commissions throughout the years with respect to monitoring the work of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its budget. I cannot see how he could have been unaware of the commission appointed by the former Minister of Communications, the Hon. Member for Frontenac (Mr. Masse), since on May 8 of this year the former Minister set up a commission. In setting up the commission he had a number of interesting words to say. He said that in carrying out the review it would not duplicate what has already been done but will build on work carried out previously such as that of the federal cultural policy review committee, the Applebaum-Hebert Commission and other recent broadcasting policies and initiatives of his Department.
In his press release, the former Minister of Communications stated that he would be presenting the task force recommendations to Cabinet. He said that this would be followed by the tabling of a White Paper in the House of Commons. He said that the White Paper would be considered by a parliamentary committee where formal discussions will take place.
Again, to give the Hon. Member the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he drafted his motion before May 8, before his former Minister's press release which set out the creation of a new task force. As we all know that task force was to deal with a great many matters. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the mandate of the Caplan-Sauvageau task force which reads as follows:
-make recommendations to the Minister of Communications on an industrial and cultural strategy to govern the future evolution of the Canadian broadcasting system through the remainder of this century, recognizing the importance of broadcasting to Canadian life. The strategy will take full account of the overall social and economic goals of the government, of government policies and priorities, including the need for fiscal restraint, increased reliance on private

October 17, 1985
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
sector initiatives and federal-provincial co-operation, and of the policies of the government in other related economic and cultural sectors.
I would like to continue the quotation of the former Minister with respect to the appointment of the Caplan-Sauvageau task force which states:
It will also take full account of the challenges and opportunities in the increasingly competitive broadcasting environment presented by ongoing technological developments.
The long and short of the matter is that the rather wordy mandate of the task force is that it has to deal with the entire sphere of public broadcasting in Canada. Included in the terms of reference is consideration of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I would like to point out to Hon. Members that the motion before us is duplicative. It is a waste of time for this House to consider. It is unnecessary and pointless. Why? As I said at the outset, frequent commissions and reviews have been set up to which the former Minister paid tribute. I refer to the Applebaum-Hebert Report and many other reports prior to that. Also, the Hon. Member proposes a move which would duplicate the work of the committee which his former Minister established.
I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that implementation of the Hon. Member's motion would cost real money. It would involve an excessive waste of taxpayers' money.
I would like to direct Hon. Members to what the Hon. Member proposes in his motion. It states:
That the sub-committee be empowered to hire professional and support staff;
I would suggest to Hon. Members that that would cost real money. Second, he proposes:
That the sub-committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place in Canada for the purpose of visiting the Corporation's facilities;
That is merely a euphemism for going on junkets across the country in order to obtain information which would cost real money. In this case I wonder why the former Minister would have appointed the Caplan-Sauvageau task force to do exactly what the Hon. Member proposes. I suggest this is a complete duplication of what his own Party is already doing. To hire a professional support staff, which was included by the mover of this motion, is something which reminds me-and I do not want him to think I am being purely partisan-that our Tory friends seem to have no shame about wasting public funds while they try to deindex seniors and family benefits, pay off bank loans which are not good and provide capital gains for the wealthy. The Government certainly knows how to suggest ideas for the wasting of the taxpayers' money, and here is more evidence of that.
One of the chief concerns I feel we should have about this motion is that the approach of the Tory surgeons is first to cut or amputate and then diagnose the patient. Last fall the CBC budget was cut and the survival of Canadian culture was at one and the same time threatened. The Government was clearly taking a chance that our air waves might be filled with
American programming because the Budget cuts inevitably will affect Canadian content programming and our ability to reach rural and remote Canada. Our national identity depends on our cultural identity. Yet by these cuts, the national dream of the Canadian identity is under attack.
The CBC is an important factor in defending our culture. It is as important today as the railway was, and is, to keep our country united. Yet this Government saw fit to make the enormous cuts of $85 million and more. The outcry, of course, from Canadians was tremendous. They were indignant at these cuts because they know the cultural industry is one of the best job creation industries in Canada. Critics of the cut-backs which have been imposed on the CBC, and on other arts and cultural councils, have argued that Canada's cultural industries employ as many people as agriculture. In 1981 it had revenues of almost $8 billion and a payroll of $2.5 billion. Employment in cultural industries rose 74 per cent between 1971 and 1981 as compared to 39 per cent growth in the economy as a whole. It is six times more efficient, by the way, in job creation, than the manufacturing sector.
In stressing the impact of federal aid, critics point out that for every one dollar received from Ottawa, the cultural industry generates almost $5 from other sources. Yet while other industries were cut by 3 per cent, culture was cut by 5 per cent. At a time when Canadians are concerned about cultural sovereignty and unemployment is high, Government support for Canadian programming and for artists and performers is being reduced. For the half a century the CBC has been on the air waves, it has made it possible for Canadian writers, film makers and artists to make a living in this country rather than going south of the border. It has created a Canadian identity and has produced programs which commercial stations would not likely produce. Because of the recent cuts, the CBC may be seriously weakened as a national service. It may not be able to continue to broadcast in two languages, run two television and four radio networks, a northern service, an international service and a parliamentary channel.
I do not want to take away the right of my hon. friend to criticize the CBC for whatever reason he wishes. No doubt there are areas where improvements could be made following his suggestions and those of other people from across this country. I am sure that all of us want to monitor and express our personal opinions about the CBC, and how to improve the service, in any way we wish. The Hon. Member suggeted on March 29 that we eliminate the CBC. He now suggests that we have a duplicative committee to cross this country at the taxpayers' expense to "reinvent the wheel", to once again examine the CBC. That seems to me to be quite unrealistic.
We have to be concerned about the cuts which were made by this Government to the budgets of the CBC and other cultural organizations. It is interesting now to see that the former Minister of Communications, the Hon. Member for Frontenac has had a conversion on the road to Damascus. He speaks now of cultural sovereignty. He sets himself up to say he is going to be a champion of that cultural sovereignty, that he will defend it to the death. His successor has also indicated
October 17, 1985

his defence of our sovereignty. But we cannot defend the sovereignty unless we have a budget and if we cut the budget we are going to cut the sovereignty. It is as simple as that. We should not destroy the infrastructure of those organizations which have been the hallmark and the bulwark of our strength and solidity as a nation. If we are going to make sure we have cultural sovereignty, then we should not cut the CBC and we should not cut culture. Anything else is lip service and empty hypocrisy.
Let us hope, indeed, that it was a conversion on the road to Damascus. Let us hope that the Minister of Communications, in Cabinet and everywhere he can, will stand up and be counted. Let us hope he will face up to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in order to ensure this country is defended in terms of its cultural sovereignty and in terms of developing jobs for Canadians in the area where more jobs can be created than in any other sector of this country.
The statement released by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) on November 8, 1984, on the Government's expenditure and program review, contained a number of significant funding cuts for cultural agencies. Particularly hard hit is the CBC. The nature and degree of these cuts, and the subsequent statements by the Minister, indicate a substantially different approach to cultural policy than under the previous Government. The Applebaum-Hebert report on cultural policy recommended in 1982 the maintenance of an arm's length relationship between cultural industries and Government but continued Government consultation and funding.
During the 1984 election campaign, the Conservative Party indicated a commitment to the arm's length principle, as well as to maintaining funding for agencies and councils in line with inflation. That is what the Conservative Party said. However, in 1984 cuts were announced to the CBC, the Canada Council, the CRTC, the Department of Communications and the National Film Board. The former Minister of Communications, the Hon. Member for Frontenac, announced in a press release on November 15 of last year that three consultants were being assigned "to participate on my behalf' in the Budget restraint exercise at the CBC. At this time the Minister also indicated his plans to conduct "a fundamental review of the corporation's mandate, role and activities". In an interview which was published in The Globe and Mail he stated that his Government intends to question "the traditional arm's length relationship with cultural agencies as well as the primary role of the CBC".
He stressed the Department's responsibility to set cultural policy and he doubted whether the CBC should continue to account for two-thirds of all the money the federal Government spends to support cultural activities. It does seem, Mr. Speaker, as if they are a bit confused over there in the Tory benches. They are going to have cultural sovereignty and an arm's length relationship with the CBC, yet the Minister proceeded to put his commissars into the CBC and he was
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation questioning whether there should be an arm's length policy. It seems as if the ship is going in every direction. It is this kind of confusion which of course leaves all of us a bit nervous because if there is that much confusion in these and so many other policies, then people cannot plan ahead. They cannot really rely upon this Government to defend our sovereignty. This even puts into grave question the ability of this Government to negotiate with the United States over matters which relate to books and publishing and communications and so on. If the Government cannot elucidate and elaborate on a policy and stick with it regarding the CBC, how can we assume that it will know where it is going when it comes to negotiating in areas where we cannot afford to make a mistake?
This member of the Conservative Party is also proposing a subcommittee with the aim of dangerously interfering as politicians with the long-standing Liberal Government policy of an arm's length relationship with the CBC. Indeed, the Consumer's Association of Canada said that limiting Cabinet power to issue directions to matters of broad public policy is what they wish. Rightly so. The Cabinet should not be able to interfere in the specific programming of the CBC. The Member moving this motion is from Quebec and he must certainly be aware of the special role that the CBC plays in providing French-language broadcasting not only in Quebec but in other areas of Canada where there is a demand, indeed a great need for it. Does the Hon. Member not realize that the CBC is vital to our national interests and must have the budget and freedom to program appropriately? Does he wish his committee to interfere with these national interests? How can he assure us that this interference by politicians which he is suggesting will not dangerously politicize the CBC so that it will no longer be able to provide its vital service to this country?
[ Translation]


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to turn away completely from the irresponsible attack launched by the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) against the CBC. There are occasions and reasons for criticizing the Corporation. We must not be blind supporters of the CBC, and I will have negative comments to make, but we should use a balanced approach. We have to mention both the good and the bad points, because the CBC deserves to be commended even for some of its triumphs.
What are the facts? The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is serving large section of the globe. There are two TV networks in both official languages, and four radio networks also in both official languages, and in AM and FM. There is the Northern service broadcasting programs in several native languages in addition to our two official languages, and there is a universally recognized international service.
The CBC costs less per program, per program hour than any other national network in the world. It is difficult to have comparisons made with private Canadian networks, because

October 17, 1985
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
they do not produce much of their programs. They buy programs mainly from the United States.

Therefore, the record of the CBC with regard to cost efficiency and with regard to serving this enormous country of ours is actually very, very good and we can be proud of that. We can be proud, too, of the quality of many of the programs and specials which the CBC produces. We think of Chautauqua Girl, Charley Grant's War and The Nature of Things, a program which is sold all over the world, and the lesson is very clear. When the CBC has adequate funds to do the job, it does it very, very well and we as Canadians can be very proud.
I do agree that a re-examination of the CBC is needed. This is precisely what is happening already with the task force on broadcast policy. Quite correctly, this task force is examining not only the CBC but the private broadcasters as well. We have a national broadcasting system which includes the public sector and the private sector, and the private sector broadcasting has been notoriously negligent in producing Canadian programs. If we want an improvement and we want to see a more vital Canadian culture, it is to the private sector that we have to look to make an enormous change to improve the development of Canadian programs. Canadian programming has come almost entirely from the public sector and because we are going to have to depend on that public sector, we need a strong CBC. But we also need a re-examination of both sectors and it is quite clear that for the kinds of improvements we need from the CBC, we have to spend more money. Where I think the CBC most deserves criticism, and I want to spend a little time on this because these facts are still not sufficiently well known, and it is a subject which the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) did not mention, is the exclusion of coverage of women's issues and events, and the relegation of women in the CBC to roles largely outside the production, direction, and management capacities. This is a subject about which the women's movement in Canada has been complaining, as well as articulating and documenting in great detail, for a large number of years.
The first intervention by the women's movement concerning the CBC came in 1974, more than 10 years ago, and the CBC ignored it. The second intervention, which was joined with an intervention on CTV, and many other groups joined in as well, came in 1978 at the CRTC hearings. At that time the corporation decided that it had to respond to the criticism and it invited representatives of women's organizations to meetings with senior management. These were extremely interesting meetings and at the end the Corporation came up with a so-called plan of action where it was going to reform its act. I have documentation from a 1978 CBC task force on the status of women, its recommendations and implementation. There is a list of concrete measures to improve coverage of women's issues and events, to include women in drama, news, public affairs, sports, children's programs, indeed all the programming on the CBC, to improve women's opportunities to get into non-traditional roles and to rise in the corporation. Unfortunately the CBC has not acted on these recommendations.
This has not been a plan of action, it has been a plan of inaction. It has been a plan on paper, not one in reality. Therefore, we have	women's organizations, including
employees of the CBC itself, across the country in all of the networks complaining that they have been excluded, that they are not being given fair and adequate attention. Now that we have a Charter of Rights which guarantees equality to both sexes, this situation is not only reprehensible, it is indeed illegal. This is not just the privilege of a male management, old fashioned and traditional, which wishes to have the CBC remain a boys' club. This is illegal now. Women have legal equality with men and this exclusion from our major public network is totally reprehensible. Let me refer to what women within the Corporation are saying. This brief was prepared.
-a preliminary brief submitted to the Board of Inquiry on Employment Equality by the CBC's reporters union. This is a presentation to the Abella Commission, and at that time the CBC was one Crown Corporation that had a so-called action plan. But the results of that plan were something else, and I quote:
We believe there is general discrimination against women within the CBC at all levels. For instance, there are very few, if any, women in managerial positions, or in traditionally male-dominated areas such as the sports department.
We have found that women were systematically underpaid compared with their male colleagues for absolutely identical work. We also have found that the majority of women worked as researchers or research assistants, while the majority of men worked as reporters and interviewers, or M.C's, which are better-appreciated jobs within the CBC.
We tried to learn whether those salary differentials were based on objective and rational considerations such as experience or education. Or whether, on the other hand, individual hiring negotiation practices and the absence of established criteria did not awaken old sexist discriminatory reflexes at the employer level.

This brief was brought out in 1983 but nothing has changed since then. I have a reply from the President of the Corporation to a representative of another women's organization about their so-called plan of action. Let me cite from this reply as well:

The Corporation is proud of having launched one of the first, and also one of the most successful Equal Opportunity Programs for women in this country. However, you will certainly agree with me that, despite all that has been accomplished over the last 8 years, the situation of women generally has not advanced as it should have.
This is sheer hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, on the part of the President of the CBC, Mr. Juneau, when he says such things, because he has done nothing to put that plan of action in effect. And he goes on:
This is the reason why we have decided to launch as soon as the next financial year a revitalized affirmative action program. This program will be provided with specific targets which management will have to reach.
October 17, 1985

It is the same plan of action as developed in 1979. We had such a plan, but the CBC did not implement the basis of the plan set up six years ago.
It will include a complete review of our salary scales to guarantee the application of the principle of equal salary for work of an equal value throughout the Corporation.
And he goes on with the same nonsense about his plan of action.

This is yet another example.
What is the situation in terms of what we see on the air right now? The Corporation was required to monitor its own programming. There is monitoring from 1981 and 1982. Another study was conducted as a result of the CRTC Task Force on Sex Stereotyping in the Media and MediaWatch has also done some monitoring.
The results are well worth citing for consideration of the House. In television news, women are very seriously underrepresented where 77 per cent of news readers and 79 per cent of reporters are men. In television news, 85 per cent of all interviewees are men; female experts were invisible as 91 per cent of experts were men; 70 per cent of the people in the street were men and 84 per cent were eyewitnesses. Even when interviewing ordinary citizens on the street, they cannot find any women because of the traditional view that men are important and only men constitute news or public affairs. The interviewers and the interviewees are men.
In radio news, 86 per cent of people interviewed were men; female experts were almost non-existent as 92 per cent of experts were men; 55 per cent of people in the street were men and 79 per cent of eyewitnesses were men. These are recent statistics and this situation is inexcusable. It shows that the Corporation has not mended its ways and still consists of a complacent group of very sexist men who are quite content to abide by the old club rules, despite the fact that we have a Charter of Rights and a commitment, I believe from all Parties in the House, to improve chances for women and admit women as equal partners with men in the political, economic and cultural life of this country.
The CBC has been scandalously deficient in addressing this. I could go on to comment on many other policies. For instance, it has a policy for the portrayal of women in programming. It also has policies on hiring in which there is an affirmative action program which states that in job areas where women are under-represented and two job candidates are equally qualified, the woman is given the advantage. That is nonsense because it never happens. When we follow up on a complaint that women are being discriminated against we are told that no qualified women applied. We are told that not one qualified woman applied in the 150 applications. That is hardly believable in areas where there are large numbers of well qualified women.
In fact, there is an affirmative action plan and the CBC has not shown that it is serious about applying that plan. We have legitimate reason to criticize the CBC but the question is how
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
to address the problem. I do not believe that a parliamentary committee is the correct way to deal with this issue. The CBC should take this matter seriously because recommendations have been made to the task force on broadcasting about this issue and many others. The task force must be scrupulously careful to bring forward concrete measures that both the Corporation and private sector broadcasting can adopt to ensure that women are shown as the equal members of Canadian society that we are.
It is unnecessary to establish a new committee and incur the expenses for travelling across the country. The task force on broadcast policy just completed its tour of the country during the summer. I presented a brief to that task force along with other people and organizations. That task force will be presenting its recommendations and a report will go to the committee. That will provide another opportunity for input, using the means we already have at our disposal without the additional expense and energy to all of those organizations which would have to repeat what they said to that task force.
In conclusion, many of the problems facing the CBC today could be solved with more money. Additional Canadian programming, especially children's programming, drama and entertainment, require more money. It costs money in order to have Canadian content for prime time entertainment viewing.
It is obvious that it is more expensive to produce a program than to buy it from the United States. The American corporations can produce their high budget programs and sell them all over the world at a small fraction of their production costs. We are subject to this dumping, as it is called in any other sector of the economy. We cannot stop it by raising a curtain to prevent programs from coming in. We can only compete by producing our own programs, and that is expensive. However, if we care about Canadian culture we will ensure that measures are taken so that the programs are produced. That is the way to fight for the survival of our culture.
In concluding, I want to salute the work done by the partisans, the friends of the CBC, who are being constructive and enthusiastic critics representing the grass roots of Canada. After all, these were the people who demanded the CBC in the first place. If the CBC has grown distant from its roots, these people are speaking up now. That is welcome and we should be listening to the criticisms they and our citizens are making. These are constructive criticisms and are well within the concern that we all share, which is to have a strong Canadian culture.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to address the motion put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) about the establishment of a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture for the purposes of reviewing the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the matter of the Corporation's programming.

October 17, 1985
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
I must congratulate the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for the uncanny timeliness of his private Members' motion. Even as we speak, Mr. Speaker, several Members of the Progressive Conservative Government are meeting with the special task force to review Canadian Broadcasting policy. The Hon. Member will know that Mr. Gerald Caplan and his co-chairman, Mr. Florian Sauvageau, along with a distinguished group of communicators, are spending nine months crossing the country, consulting with all sectors of the Canadian economy and discussing with a wide range of interested groups and individuals matters relating to the future of Canada's broadcasting system, which will bring about the first fundamental review of Canadian broadcasting in 15 years. My hon. friend can see how this debate can only contribute to the information gathering process of the task force on broadcasting. In that regard, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) and the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) for some of their very timely and constructive remarks. Although I cannot agree with everything that was said, I do appreciate their contributions.
That being said, I can say on behalf of the acting Minister of Communications that he is interested in the proposal of my colleague.
The process for the recent revision to the Broadcast Program Development Fund and for the review of French language television services was undertaken in December, 1984. This clearly illustrates that the ministry is always interested in contributions to the ongoing dialogue in the evaluation and development of broadcasting policy. It is in this light that I see the motion placed before us.
To suggest that the affairs of the "Holy Mother Corporation" have most Members of this House writhing in an earthly hell from time to time is something of an understatement, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, Members on this side frequently get apoplectic about the CBCs daily programming and management practices, and so it is not surprising to see motions, such as this one, recommending the implementation of extreme and extraordinary measures to examine the CBC.
There are two immediate responses that I would offer the Hon. Member in connection with his motion. The first is that whatever our concerns and complaints, no matter how much we castigate, slam and damn the CBC, I am one Member of Parliament who fervently believes in the viability and continued existence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It was after all, a Progressive Conservative Government which created the CBC in the 1930s. It will not be under a Progressive Conservative Government that we will see the CBC dismantled or put up for sale. Second, I would say to my hon. friend that this is a time for fiscal and economic restraint.
The acting Minister of Communications, following the lead of his immediate predecessor, the Hon. Member for Frontenac (Mr. Masse) is working on the Government's review of the communication portfolio and the future of broadcasting in particular. If we were not undertaking such a complete review, and if the special task force on broadcasting was not at this
very moment carefully examining the future role of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the over-all context of this country's broadcasting system, then the need perceived by the Hon. Member to establish a subcommittee, such as the one he described, could easily be confirmed. In such a case, it might well be useful for it to have a broader mandate such as to suggest ways and means to determine the optimum support and allocation of resources to cultural activities in the communications portfolio, while paying special attention to the role and activities of the private sector and provincial Government in the cultural development of the country.
I must oppose this motion, Mr. Speaker. Our Government, whose first goal is the reduction of the deficit, would probably find the establishment of such a committee, as described by my colleague, too onerous. It would also be duplication of work done by the Auditor General of Canada, who performed a comprehensive audit of the CBC in 1982-83, and by work that will be done by the task force on broadcasting policy whose establishment the former Minister of Communications had announced before the Hon. Member brought this motion forward for debate at this time.
May I remind this House of the size of the CBC? The CBC English-language division is made up of 31 AM radio station, 15 FM stations and 18 television stations. In addition, 15 AM radio stations and 26 television stations are under an affiliation contract with the CBC. The French-language service groups, 15 AM radio stations, six FM radio stations and 13 television stations, while seven AM radio stations and five private television stations are in affiliation. Simply put, the CBC has over 150 broadcasting facilities. To this we must add the CBC northern services, CBC international, this parliamentary channel and all other related activities.
How expensive would it be, I ask the Hon. Member, to visit the large number of CBC facilities spread throughout the country, especially if a group of persons were involved? Would it be prudent to hire additional experts and knowledgeable support staff when the Government is trying right now to control its own expenditures of personnel and already has people in place to study relevant issues in the entire broadcasting industry? Would it not be easier for the Standing Committee to request from the CBC the numerous studies it has commissioned itself?
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but what I want to make clear is that expenditures such as these must be clearly justified. Is it really the case with this proposal? Can we believe, I ask the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, that we really need another committee to scrutinize the operations of the CBC? Frankly, there are other ways to satisfy the Member's need for current information about the CBC. What immediately comes to mind is the CBC's parliamentary services. This service was instituted to answer the questions Members could have regarding the activities of the CBC. Any Member can use it for his or her benefit.
As for visiting CBC facilities, I suggest that Members of this House might wish to visit CBC facilities located in their
October 17, 1985

constituencies. If there are no studios in their areas, I am sure that a visit could be arranged to the Ottawa studios.
What I want to emphasize is that there does exist simpler and less onerous ways than the creation of another committee to review the CBC's activities. It is not as though the CBC operates by itself year after year without reporting to Parliament. Every year the Minister tables the CBC's annual report, to which is attached a financial report certified by the Auditor General of Canada.
Furthermore, officials of the Department of Communications are in constant contact with the CBC on all aspects of its activities as they relate to public inquiries directed to the Minister as well as to the development of communications and culture for Canada in both the domestic and international spheres.
May I remind this House that CBC reports to Parliament through the Minister of Communications and that the Minister of Communications exerts control over expenditure levels of the CBC by making recommendations to the Treasury Board on proposed program expenditure levels of the Corporation? The Minister also makes recommendations to the Governor in Council regarding remuneration and pension benefits, and must approve all CBC by-laws concerning such matters.
As well, the corporation's capital budget is approved by the Governor in Council upon recommendation of the Minister of Communications, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board.
In addition, every year the President of the CBC appears before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture and provides the members with the opportunity to question the CBC's achievement of its objectives as well as its operations. As for the review of the CBC programming service, it is normally done on a regular basis-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am sorry to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary.

The time allotted for Members' Private Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 46 deemed to have been moved.
Adjournment Debate

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the question I wish to raise this evening in the adjournment debate is further to a question put in the House on October 8, 1985, reported at page 7455 of Hansard, which deals with an important and timely subject, namely, jobs in the Public Service of Canada and the burning issue of job cuts in the public service.
For some time now, Mr. Speaker, both in the media and here in the House, there has been constant talk of the many cuts made by the Conservative Government in the Public Service of Canada. For instance, a few weeks ago we were informed of 3,000 layoffs at Canada Post, 5,000 at Transport Canada, 1,150 at Customs and most recently, in referring to the 1,500 jobs cut within his own department, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) stated in this House on October 3, as reported at page 7297 of Hansard, and I quote:
We want the 1,500 jobs and more for Indian people, not federal bureaucrats.
On October 8, I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) what kind of career planning he had in mind for public servants affected by these arbitrary cutbacks, cutbacks based on certain percentages and involving numbers as high as 15,000 jobs over 15 years, a decision we find absolutely cruel and hard to accept. I asked him whether he had a plan to help these public servants retrain and find other jobs within the Public Service of Canada. The Minister answered, as reported at page 7455 of Hansard of October 8, 1985, and I quote again:
Regarding workforce adjustment policies as well as most of the other commitments we have undertaken vis-a-vis the unions, we have worked out a policy that provides for the kind of pre-notice, retraining and recycling within the Public Service that will minimize the adjustment of these workers to an obviously difficult situation.
Mr. Speaker, the House will also recall that not so long ago, it was October 8, hardly a week ago, I asked the President of the Treasury Board whether those same public servants laid off in accordance with his program of employee cutbacks, a program which, and I say it again, was arbitrary, would be put on a priority list and whether they would get the support and help of the Public Service Commission in finding a job within the Government's departments and agencies.
The Minister gave me the assurance that everything was being done to help them find jobs within the public service, that notice periods had been negotiated with the unions to provide for the most complete retraining available, and that, and these are the Minister's own words, out of 3,000 public servants laid off since November 1984, only 130 had not yet been recycled.
Mr. Speaker, this matter seemed to me to be important because it affects a great many civil servants who are concerned about their future in the Federal Civil Service. 1 was

October 17, 1985
Adjournment Debate
somewhat skeptical when the Minister said in the House that all but 130-odd employees out of about 3,000 had been recycled within the Public Service. 1 believe the Minister realized that he had made a mistake, because he rose on a point of order in the House three days later, specifically on October 11, and indicated he wanted to correct some misinformation he had provided to the House on October 8 in reply to a question from the Hon. Member from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), and I quote:
Last November a decision was made to reduce the growth planned by the previous Government for 1985-86 by some 1,300 person years. Because of vacancies and attrition, only 725 indeterminate employees were directly affected. Almost 700 of them were dereployed within the Public Service. Approximately 30 were actually laid off and all of them were entitled to a priority for placement for one year.
On a Point of Order which was not really one, the Minister corrected a statement which he had made in the House on October 8.
Because the Minister answered in that way on October 8 last 1 made inquiries of the Public Service Commission in respect of these employees who were declared surplus. I requested the statistics in connection with this matter, and 1 was provided with a document dated October 10, 1985 from the Staffing Priorities and Complaints Centre.
This document states that 1,972 employees were declared surplus during the period September 1, 1984 to September 30, 1985. Of that number, 766 were removed from the system for a number of reasons, including priority status of one year expired, resignations, retirement, death, status rescinded or reappointments.
Of those who are still on the priority list, 296 were laid off and 910 were considered surplus, bringing us to the 1,206 employees who still are on the priority list and who have to find jobs. Of those, 253 have chosen not to exercise their priority entitlement. This is in the document dated October 10, 1985. The total number of reappointments being 673, that means that only 34 per cent of the employees who were either laid off or declared surplus were redeployed.
Those are the actual figures to September 30, 1985. They do not include the 1,500 employees of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the 300 maintenance workers under the Department of Public Works-and these are mainly women-who have been told that they will get their pink slips on April 1, 1986. Nor does it include the numerous public servants who have been laid off or declared surplus since October 1, 1985.
When the Minister said in the House on October 11, 1985 that he had been provided with the figures and wanted to set the record straight, I believe he did not have the record straight. I believe his Parliamentary Secretary should now set the record straight once and for all. Give us the complete facts with reference to this lay-off program of the Government.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is concerned for his constituents, the public servants, and 1 know, too, that he does not want to indulge in any scare tactics. He has applauded our efforts in handling this matter in the most professional, responsible and fair method possible. I want to thank my hon. friend for putting the facts in connection with this program on the record.
There are some 1,972 employees affected. However, we have done our best to redeploy as many of these people as possible. 1 only received the figures as he read them out. It seems to me that we still have a lot of time to realize positive results on the efforts we are making.
When we announced in the May 23 Budget that we were going to reduce Treasury Board controlled person-years, we put the emphasis on the word "attrition". We said in the Budget papers that efforts will be made to achieve these reductions through attrition wherever possible. We have a reasonable record in redeploying these people through attrition. The Hon. Member indicated that some 1,000 people had retired. That was the whole idea of the attrition policy. We realize that people retire, decide for one reason or other that they want to go on to other things, or die unexpectedly. That is why we have been focusing on attrition and redeployment as a fair and responsible way to handle what everyone knows is a problem for the Government, the deficit.
The Hon. Member will know that prior to declaring any employee surplus all Departments are expected to redeploy as many as possible of the affected employees within the Department including retraining where this is necessary. When a surplus is declared, employees are usually given six-months' notice. I would point out that the official minimum notice period is four months but the Government has decided to give six months' notice to people who are being laid off. On being declared surplus, these employees are immediately entitled to a priority for placement in vacant positions in the Public Service for which they are qualified or could become qualified through retraining. If surplus employees accept a lower paying job, their salaries are protected for a year.
We appreciate that this is a delicate matter but there does not appear to be long lines of people pounding at our doors saying that they have been mistreated. I think that in itself speaks to the treatment they have received. If my hon. colleague can show any instances of us not being fair, I request that he bring them to my personal attention.


SOCIAL SECURITY-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF CHILD TAX CREDIT
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, on October 16 I raised a very important question regarding family allowances and the child tax credit. The Government has been feeding us the line that its increase in the child tax credit will make up for the unfortunate decrease in the family allowances.
October 17, 1985

On October 16, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) if he was aware that the child tax credit itself was to be deindexed so that the so-called replacement would be a very temporary one indeed. In reply, I received a denial of the problem, and a rather rude denial at that. Let me quote from the Minister's response:
Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has read the Budget and Bill C-70 she will have seen that the child tax credit will be increased. 1 suggest she look at those figures.
This rather smug put-down is totally unwarranted. Bill C-70 has nothing to do with the child tax credit. It deals with the deindexation of the family allowances. The child tax credit is not even mentioned in it. I did look at the Budget papers and I will quote from them:
The child tax credit will be indexed to increase in the CPI in excess of three percentage points.
This is found under the section entitled "Taxation Year 1989 and Subsequent Years". This is a polite, euphemistic way of saying that from 1989 on there will be a deindexation of the child tax credit. That is, the indexing for the cost of living will only be in excess of 3 per cent, so that every year from 1989 on the child tax credit will lose 3 per cent of its value, just like the family allowances.

The sad truth is that the Government will reduce those three child assistance social programs. First to go will be the family allowances, as of January 1, 1986. Next will be the child tax exemption, and this cutback will take effect the following year. Finally it will be the child tax credit. It is true that the child tax credit will be increased, but only on a temporary basis. The child tax credit is now worth $384 a year for each child. It will go up for a while, but in the case of families eligible for the full tax credit, meaning low income families, in nine years the tax credit will be worth less than it is worth now.
If we add up family allowances and the child tax credit we find out that, beginning in 1991, those families will be getting less Government assistance than they do now, including the poorest families in Canada, where one child out of five lives under the threshold of poverty, yet even those families are under attack by the Conservative Government. I am ashamed to say this is the situation in a country as wealthy as Canada!
What does deindexing mean? It means a loss in value. Families will receive a check because the Government does not dare eliminate the child assistance program just like that. Unfortunately, the monthly family allowance check will not buy much. Its value will have been cut nearly by half within 20 years. In current dollars, it would represent about $17.50 a month per child.
The child tax credit will be worth the equivalent of $276 in 20 years compared with the present amount of $384.

The Government of Canada, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare are
Adjournment Debate
not being honest with the people of Canada when they say that the family allowance reductions will be replaced and that the poorest families will be better off with its programs. It is simply not true. All families are being attacked. Even the poorest families will be worse off with the deindexation measures. There will be a decline year after year in the value of our social programs. Fewer families will be eligible for receipt of the child tax credit, which is another point the Government is reluctant to make. Fewer families will qualify for whole or partial aid, thanks to deindexation. This is a serious matter. It is important for the people of Canada to speak up now to oppose this drastic Draconian government measure of attack on the families of Canada.
Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Finance): Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to reply to the noble question asked to the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) last October 16 and repeated this evening by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), who wondered whether the minister of family and welfare was aware of the fact that the child tax credit would be reduced by so-called deindexing.
First, I wish to repeat that the First objective of the restructuring of family tax benefits undertaken by the Government as announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in our Budget last May is to ensure that these benefits and any benefit increases will be directed at those who really need them. Under the restructuring or readjustment of family tax benefits which will be phased in over the next three years, the child tax credit will effectively increase from $384 in 1985 to $524 in 1988.
Indeed, in 1986, the tax credit will be increased by $70 and it will then increase by $35 a year during the next two years. Consequently, to insure that these very necessary increases will be directed towards the most needy families, the annual income level above which the tax credit will begin to decrease will be lowered from $26,330 to $23,500 for the 1986 fiscal year.
However, in cases where the inflation rate would be too high, the effective value of that tax benefit might decrease, as a result of a limited indexation. It is very important at this point to remind all Hon. Members that when tabling his budget last May, our able Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated, and I quote:

The Government will review the inadequacy of payments in light of future circumstances and will increase them as resources will permit
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, if and when those increased opportunities materialize, I am confident, as I am aware of the Minister of Finance's social concerns, that available funds will be ade-

October 17, 1985
Adjournment Debate
quately channeled through a system of family tax benefits, based on an improved principle that will take into account not only the level of income but the social objective of providing more effective assistance, on the basis of actual need, to the families that are the most in need.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 18, 1985