1985-04-19

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, last April 4, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that henceforth the Immigration Appeal Board would have to hear personally all applicants for refugee status. Following a first refusal, the future refugee could until now send his file to the Immigration Appeal Board, which reached its decisions on the basis of the transcript of an interview. From now on, all future refugees will be able to make their case in person.
Yesterday, the Deputy Minister of Employment and Immigration stated during a TV interview that a general amnesty was one of the solutions being considered to unlock the refugee status recognition process. Between 13,000 and 20,000 people are now trapped in this system.
Whether or not there is a general amnesty, I would like to point out that this should not prevent the Government from reviewing the system used for refugee status determination. In addition, everyone suspects that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has already received Rabbi Gunther Plaut's report but does not want to make it public. Canadian men and women are all anxiously waiting for the publication of this report, Mr. Speaker, for immigration matters are all vitally important for the future of our country.


APARTHEID
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the House this morning regarding the Code of Conduct for Canadian companies in South Africa.
From Statistics Canada figures we know that there are 35 Canadian companies operating in South Africa, yet only 21 of the companies have been contacted by the Department of External Affairs to have the Code of Conduct communicated
to them. Only six of the companies have ever reported under the Code, and only one company continues to report, Alcan.
I believe it is inexcusable for the Government to permit a code, which it says it takes seriously, to be treated so lightly by the companies involved. We call on the Government first, to strengthen the Code as the churches task force has suggested; second, to assure that all Canadian companies in South Africa are informed about the Code; and, third, we ask the Minister to use his moral authority to see to it that all companies report under the Code.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, the abortion controversy has been focused on the question of the rights for the unborn, and now it seems that the disgraceful, unacceptable treatment of the unborn has been extended to babies as well. Last fall a pregnant 19-year old high school graduate gave birth to a healthy six-pound, full-term baby girl, and subsequently left the infant to drown in a toilet bowl.
The trial took place last month. The Crown laid four charges: manslaughter, infanticide, neglecting to obtain assistance in childbirth and concealing a dead body, and finally, concealing the dead body of a child. Through the process of plea-bargaining, the Crown agreed to accept a guilty plea to the charge of concealing the body of a child, which was the lesser of the four charges. On top of this, the woman was finally given an absolute discharge, hinging primarily on the irrelevant claim that the mother did not know she was pregnant.
On behalf of all the parents who have lost a baby, or who have not been able to have one, on behalf of those who have been blessed with children, and above all, for those who recognize the sanctity and dignity of life, I would like to register my disgust and outrage that neither our political nor our legal system has taken any steps whatsoever to appeal the extremely poor judgment of the Crown prosecutor in this instance.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, every week when our constituents go to the grocery store they have to pay

April 19, 1985
their grocery bills. Unfortunately that has not been the case for the Prime Ministers of our country for many, many years.
Canadians understand that the Prime Minister does a lot of entertaining, and obviously must have some help in paying the bills for guests at 24 Sussex Drive. But that does not mean that the Prime Minister should not have to pay his grocery bills. Unfortunately, in the past that has not happened. Now, as of this week, we have a Prime Minister who is at long last prepared to pay his grocery bills and those of his family.
This week the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) presented a cheque for $4,000 in payment of his family's grocery bills from September 17 to March 31. Finally, and at long last, we have a Prime Minister who understands the plight of average Canadians when they go to the grocery store, and the plight of average Canadians when the cost of food rises. Thank goodness for the present Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GRAND CANAL PROPOSAL
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week Robert Bourassa, the Quebec Liberal Leader, in his book, Power From the North, advanced a proposal called the Grand Canal. This idea for the development and export of hydro and water resources in the James Bay area has long been a dream of a resident of St. John's, Newfoundland, Tom Kierans. The proposal would amass great quantities of water in northern Quebec and, with the aid of increased hydro power, pump it to a height where it could flow into the Great Lakes water system and, indeed, further on west.
The idea appears to have received a very favourable response in the United States from businessmen and politicians. Indeed, in Canada a number of government agencies and a number of prominent Canadians have expressed enthusiastic support. Mr. Kierans believes it will be the greatest private sector-government initiative to take place in Canada since the CPR. For me, it could also be a key to unlocking the vast hydro electric potential of Labrador.
I know there are critics and opponents of this scheme. Yet it is said that the Grand Canal will provide more clean water, reduce acid rain, improve agriculture, encourage trade with the U.S., and last, but by no means least, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. I want to know where the Government stands on this proposal. If it supports the proposal, why has it not promoted it in the U.S.? We as Members of Parliament should ensure that there is a full analysis and assessment of this proposal by the appropriate parliamentary committee as soon as possible


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have again been told that the Canadian Commercial Bank needs more of their money for more bailing out, to the tune of $685 million total. The Bank of Canada Governor, Gerald Bouey, yesterday promised $215 million more of public money to the CCB stating that he will put in "whatever amount of liquidity it may require". This bail-out comes from a bottomless pit. This is the new Bank of Bouey.
I note with interest that the Canadian Commercial Bank deals not with ordinary Canadian depositors but with large deposits from the chartered banks and large corporations. The press reported today that $2.7 billion of $3 billion in liabilities were in this kind of deposit. Therefore the chartered banks are not happy with the $60,000 limit which ordinary Canadians received when Pioneer Trust went under. Instead, they call on the Governor of the Bank of Canada to bail them out. This is what it means when a bank cannot fail in Canada. It has too many corporate friends with the right government connections to allow failure.
Surely we should rename the Canadian Commercial Bank the "Bank of Bouey". It operates by his fiat alone, it brings no return to the Canadian public that is supporting it, it is a testament to the public policy failure that props up the fat cats who have over-gorged themselves. And the Government totally backs this policy of public welfare for the rich.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, on April 17, 1984, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) announced the phased closure of the Canadian Forces Supplementary Radio System at Inuvik, Northwest Territories. Although this had been anticipated for some time, the announcement still came as a shock to the community which will likely lose some 800 people out of a population of 3,500. The military has been an integral part of the Town of Inuvik almost since its founding, and has brought stability to an area with a precarious resource based economy. The part played by military personnel and their families in the life of the town will be long remembered in a most favourable light.
The commitment given by the Minister that he will co-operate fully with the municipal and territorial authorities to reduce the negative impact of the closure is welcomed, and the prompt action of the territorial Government, particularly that of Mr. Dan Norris, the regional director, is to be applauded.
It is essential that all government Departments work together to Find uses for the facilities to be vacated by DND. In particular, in keeping with his promise to strengthen northern defences, the Minister must utilize Inuvik to the fullest extent
April 19, 1985

in connection with the North Warning System and other military developments in northern Canada.


FINANCE
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) recently suggested that his budget would be inflationary and he added that wage increases would be responsible for a higher inflation rate in 1985.
I would like to point out to the House that, after the tremendous success of the six and five program, inflationary pressures have gone down in Canada and the rate of inflation has fallen from 11 and 12 per cent to 3.7 per cent, bringing down wage settlements and major collective agreements to a lower level in 1984 without affecting the purchasing power of workers.
In the private sector, the average wage increase has been 3.2 per cent, as against 3.9 per cent in the public sector, according to the figures released last March 13.
Unless this Government forgoes completely its responsibility as concerns wage policy, it is unthinkable for the Minister of Finance to accuse Canadian workers of being the main cause of inflation at this time.
Why is the Minister of Finance now saying that his budget will be inflationary? Could it be because of the additional tax on gasoline, which will have a direct and immediate impact on the consumer price index? The Minister of Finance is attempting to blame Canadian workers for an upsurge in the inflation rate which he himself will cause with his consumer tax increases.
On the other hand, the statement made by the Minister of Finance to the effect that his budget will be inflationary at a time when the wage negotiation process is in full swing can only result in even greater confusion and uncertainty for employers and employees.

[DOT] (MIS)


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, this is National Volunteer Week and ceremonies and celebrations are being held in communities throughout the country to recognize the valuable contributions of volunteers. Without the countless hours of dedicated work by volunteers, the quality of
Oral Questions
life for many Canadians would be considerably diminished. When volunteers assist the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick and the aged, they make those persons feel that their problems can be overcome, that somebody does care.
Today's volunteers are often advocates of social change. Because they are so close to the communities they serve, they provide both a social conscience and a knowledgeable voice. The self-help movement in Canada has become the new wave of volunteerism. In this form of voluntary action, individuals join together in groups to support each other in dealing with problems which affect them in their daily lives.
I like to think of the example set by Lindy Fraser here in Ottawa. Her efforts to overcome a debilitating bone disease led her to start a self-help group, not only in her own city but across the country, to provide advice, support, and understanding to others facing the same disease. Her action testifies to the creative powers which can be unleashed through volunteerism. Lindy's example is particularly compelling since she was 90 years old when she set up this organization. Truly, volunteerism knows no limits. It is therefore appropriate that Hon. Members take this opportunity to recognize the vitality, strength, and importance of volunteering which is exhibited not only during National Volunteer Week but throughout the year.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I noticed that just before Question period began he was having a quiet consultation with the Prime Minister, and I suspect it was about this subject.
While it may be amusing from time to time for the House to watch Ministers fail to communicate with each other or pass along information, and we had an incident like that a week or so ago, it is not funny or fair for a senior public servant not to be informed personally before a public announcement is made of his appointment, as was done in the case of the appointment of Arthur Kroeger to review the American invitation on star wars and the Canadian reaction to it. Why was Mr. Kroeger not informed before the announcement was made by the Minister when he left the House yesterday, and, now that Mr. Kroeger has been informed, would the Minister be good enough to table in this House the terms of reference under which Mr. Kroeger is to operate, and advise us which specific issues Mr. Kroeger is to examine?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Right Hon. Leader of the

April 19, 1985
Oral Questions
Opposition would join with Members throughout the House in appreciation of the availability to Canada of public servants of the quality of Mr. Kroeger to undertake the kinds of sensitive examinations which will be necessary to allow the Government of Canada to come to a knowledgeable decision on the invitation made by the Government of the United States.
The decision to appoint a small, inter-departmental task force was taken at the Cabinet meeting yesterday morning. The process was begun, a phone call was placed to Mr. Kroeger's office to confirm that he would in fact be undertaking that responsibility. The question was raised in the House of Commons before there was an opportunity for a direct conversation with Mr. Kroeger. I am sure the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would understand that this Government has a sufficient respect for Parliament that we wanted that news to be communicated to this House as quickly as possible. That is the line of conduct we followed.


John Napier Turner: Of course the name of Mr. Kroeger was not communicated to this House; it was communicated outside the House and before Mr. Kroeger had ever heard about it.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not true.


IDENTITY OF MR. KROEGER
John Napier Turner: My
supplementary is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. To whom will Mr. Kroeger report? To the Minister of National Defence, the Secretary of State for External Affairs or to the Prime Minister himself? Could the Prime Minister help clear up some of the confusion by indicating who will have the main responsibility for the Star Wars file.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must clear up a very obvious misunderstanding. The Secretary of State and myself received from the Secretary to Cabinet, Mr. Osbaldeston, the assurance that we could announce Mr. Kroeger's fortunate availability for the job. So there was not the slightest doubt about this communication, and we wanted to release the news to the House and the Canadian people with all the celerity such circumstances demand. I can inform the Hon. Member that Mr. Kroeger and his colleagues will report to the Prime Minister and to the Privy Council, and that as soon as I receive their advice, opinions and information, I intend to share it with my Cabinet colleagues and also, probably very shortly, with all the Members of this House.
[DOT] t M 20)


REQUEST THAT REPORT BE TABLED
John Napier Turner: In
that case, Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister undertake to
table Mr. Kroeger's report, when it is completed, and the Government's response to that report? Would the Prime Minister go a little further than he suggested in response to the earlier question, and allow the House to review and debate the Government's reaction to the American invitation to participate in the research?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we will see what Mr. Kroeger, who is a man of great principle and unquestioned objectivity, will report, and what kind of advice he will give Her Majesty's Government. We will act in the public interest.
I know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, since assuming office, has taken unprecedented measures in terms of making statements at all times in the House, and of appearing before House committees in a manner never seen in recent decades in the House. He has been open and fair in consultation, and will want to continue to be so. I think you can count on our doing that in the future.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of the Environment. It is with regard to the Ontario PCB spill. The Minister of the Environment has been attempting to wash her hands of this disastrous issue, claiming not to have authority, when of course she and her colleague, the Minister of Transport, definitely have the authority under the Environmental Contaminants Act and several other pieces of legislation.
Can the Minister tell us how many gallons of PCBs are missing? Can he also tell us where the leak started on the Trans-Canada Highway? I represent the riding where the Trans-Canada Highway begins in Ontario. Can the Minister tell us whether in fact the leak started in Thunder Bay or Ottawa, or was it already leaking when it entered my riding in Ontario?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is not true that the Minister of the Environment has not been involved in this issue. She has been very closely involved in this issue. Her departmental officials have been involved, as have the officials of my Department. The information that I have received indicates that the substances have been accounted for.


Don Boudria: How many gallons?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I'm not sure about the number of gallons, but that is the report I have had. I will certainly recheck to make sure, and will perhaps get back to the Hon. Member.
Later this day, Mr. Speaker, I will be tabling a protective direction under the provisions of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act which empowers the Minister of Transport
April 19, 1985

to make certain regulations that are not in force at the present time to govern the transportation of certain dangerous substances.


REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT INQUIRY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In addition to any criminal investigation which may take place on this issue, would the Prime Minister immediately order an independent public commission of inquiry into the Ontario PCB spill so that we can all be assured that this kind of disaster will never recur in our country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question and his observation. The Minister of Transport, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and myself have, from the very beginning, been troubled by this incident and have given it full and urgent attention in co-operation with the Government of Ontario. We deeply regret the imperfections in our national system with the provinces that allow for this kind of tragedy to occur. Human errors will always take place, but it is the responsibility of government to guard against them to the extent humanly possible. We shall be doing precisely that.
I give the assurance that the Minister of Transport, who is as vigilant in this as he is in all things, will be coming forward with recommendations that I think will be of satisfaction to the Hon. Member and of reassurance to the people not only in northern Ontario where this particular incident occurred but elsewhere in Canada where it might very well have occurred. We want to make as humanly sure as possible that it never happens again.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF INVESTIGATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, is pursuant to the question on the PCB spill in Ontario. It seems to me that what Canadians feel the other side of the House is lacking generally with respect to these kinds of events is the same sense of moral outrage that is shown at other events. A poor person could steal a quart of milk from a corner store and get two years in jail, yet people are allowed to demonstrate the negligence we have seen in this event and, according to a Department of Transport official, the most they can be penalized under the present law is $57 for not securing the load properly.
Will the Prime Minister give us his assurance that the appropriate investigation will take place and that, wherever possible, the book will be thrown not only at the industry involved but also since there is an investigation taking place with respect to how Ontario handled it, according to a Transport official, possibly at the Ontario Ministry of the Environ-
Oral Questions
ment for that Department's attitude and negligence in the handling of this situation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that it is difficult for me to compete with the Hon. Member in displays of moral outrage and indignation.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You are pretty good at it when you want to be.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We operate in a system of presumption of innocence. Even though it sorely tests our sense of fairness and honour from time to time, this country is governed according to a set of laws whereby we presume innocence. People must be given their day in court in a reasonable and serene atmosphere.
I can assure the hon. gentleman that we view this incident as deeply deplorable. It may be that there was human error involved which is excusable. However, it may be that there were violations of law and regulations and disregard for human life, in which case I can assure the Hon. Member that prosecutions will be made with vigour and to the fullest extent of the law.


COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister listened carefully to what I said, he would have heard I asked for an investigation and then that the book be thrown at whomever might be responsible.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You want to throw the book first.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Government does not seem to be taking this seriously, once again.


Mr. Waddell:: They are laughing.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is not very funny at all.
Is the possibility of compensation for the people who have been affected by this spill being explored by the Government? There is a couple in Winnipeg who cannot get home because their car has rightfully been impounded because of contamination. What will these people do? What kind of assurances can the Government give these people, that they simply will not be left to fend for themselves with respect to the damages that have been inflicted upon them in the short and long term?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Hon. Member. Because of his conduct in the last couple of days and his statement today, I got the impression that he wanted to throw the book first and read the book later. You cannot do that under a judicial system. However, I understand the impulses of dismay that motivate my hon. friend. I know he will not presume either dilatory action or bad faith on the part of the Government. We are as dismayed and concerned about this as any other Member of the House of Commons. The Minister of Transport and all

April 19, 1985
Oral Questions
other people involved have acted quickly within our jurisdiction, and we will give every assurance that this kind of incident never occurs again.
With regard to individual families who may be suffering unduly, apart from the tragedy itself, as a result of it, we will look at that, and where we can be helpful we will be delighted to come forward and provide facilities from the Government of Canada to assist them in any way we can.


CANCELLATION OF PCBS STUDY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister also comment on the cancellation by his Government of an Ontario Government request for an NRC study on up-dated scientific analysis of the key issues in the assessment of PCBs?
One thing that is perfectly clear is that we do not know enough about PCBs and their effect. Yet one of the consequences of the November 8 statement of the Minister of Finance is that this very important study, requested by the very province that now finds itself in trouble in knowing what to do, was cancelled. In light of this event, would the Prime Minister ask the Minister in charge of the NRC to reconsider that cancellation and reinstate that program?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take notice of the representation made by my hon. friend and to bring it forward quickly to my colleagues for their consideration. This is a most unusual and very harmful situation. I think all Members of the House will be seeking the assurance that it never happens again. If that representation turns out to be one way we can ensure that, Hon. Members may be certain that we will proceed.


GRAND CANAL PROPOSAL
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In his book Power from the North, the Liberal leader in Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, advances the concept of the Grand Canal, which, as the Prime Minister knows, is a scheme to accumulate quantities of water and hydro power in the James Bay area and to use them in Canada and the U.S. There are, however, critics of that scheme. If the scheme is feasible, it could have great benefits to Canada in terms of improved agriculture, a reduction in acid rain, and last but not least, the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs. For me, it could also be the key to unlocking the resource potential in hydro in Labrador.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the Government studied this issue? What is his position? Does he support it? If
so, has the Prime Minister advanced the cause, and will he advance the cause in the U.S.?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity of reading Mr. Bourassa's book in this regard. But in my book published three years ago, which I know sold like hot cakes in my hon. friend's riding-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -I put forward a proposal which I thought would be fair to Newfoundland and Quebec, which would allow for the development of those rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence, particularly from Labrador west, which would provide unique benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador and to the lower St. Lawrence and eastern Quebec. In fact the project as we set it out would have cost about $25 billion in 1979 dollars and created thousands of jobs and new opportunities for Labradorians and Quebecers.
With regard to this specific point, I have met with Premier Levesque and I have met with Premier Peckford. I have offered the full services of my office and myself to see if we cannot find a tri-partite mechanism whereby the three Governments can proceed to the development of this enormous resource which will benefit both provinces and create thousands of new jobs.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, I must interrupt. The Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for that hydro development in Labrador. 1 want to tell him also that we do read his book in Labrador. We go across to Manicouagan and buy it in Quebec. It is cheaper there. We have read it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The project on which I wanted the Prime Minister to focus was the Grand Canal. It is not only for Labrador but also, more important, for the James Bay watershed. I hope the Prime Minister will look at this seriously. If he considers it of benefit to Canada, and worthy of at least serious investigation, would he ensure that the Government puts forward an order so that it could be studied by the appropriate parliamentary committee and that all parliamentarians could have a chance to assess and analyse the benefits for Canada of the Grand Canal concept? Would the Prime Minister give that undertaking?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am not offended about where the book is bought, just as long as people keep buying it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Gauthier:: We will wait for the movie.
April 19, 1985


Martin Brian Mulroney: I want to give my hon. friend the assurance that I view the prospect with enthusiasm. In fact I can tell him that I am working on draft terms of reference whereby the federal Government might properly involve itself in co-operation with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Quebec in developing these kinds of resources for the benefit of the citizens of those two provinces and Canada. I thank the Hon. Member very much for his interest in what is a very important issue for both provinces.


CROWN SHARE OF OFFSHORE ON DEVELOPMENT-PRIVATIZATION PROPOSAL
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He will be aware that under the National Energy Program the Crown takes a 25 per cent share of the actual development of off-shore oil and gases, otherwise known as the back-in, because this is thought to be a reasonable return to the public for past tax incentives. The Minister is also aware, I think, that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has decided to privatize this 25 per cent Crown share, offering at least a first option to Canadian companies which will be called the Canadian share.
Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs written to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources mentioning the international implications of this change, which still continues the discrimination against American oil companies, this time in favour of private Canadian oil companies?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that that matter is under active consideration by the Government of Canada. He will understand that international as well as domestic implications of any action that we might take are being considered.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister is ducking the question, Mr. Speaker. I just simply asked him whether he wrote.


INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplementary question. In his letter, did the Secretary of State for External Affairs draw the attention of the Minister of Energy to the international implications? Did he suggest a discussion before a final government decision? Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggest-if you can believe this, Mr. Speaker-that the Americans get a look at the proposal to change the Canadian law before it goes to Cabinet?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my answer to the Hon. Member that the question is under consideration in Cabinet and that we are considering domestic and international implications.
Oral Questions
I suspect that the Hon. Member may think that he has a copy of a piece of correspondence that arrived in a brown envelope. If he has, let him be forthright about it and show it to the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Where's the beef?


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Last week, the Leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, Mr. Robert Bourassa, had a meeting in the United States with a number of U.S. governors and financiers to propose a $25 billion project that would cultimate in massive exports of power to the United States. Can the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that he is prepared to support Mr. Bourassa in his representations to the Americans, U.S. senators and State governors and U.S. financiers and help realize this project which will create jobs in Quebec?


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 believe that during his visit to Washington which ended yesterday, Mr. Bourassa mentioned that he was still trying to decide on the actual scope of these projects. Generally speaking, I would be in favour of any export project of this type which would indeed be very important for Quebec, and if the Federal Government can be of any help, we will be delighted to oblige.


POSSIBLE FUTURE MEETING OF PRIME MINISTER WITH MR. BOURASSA
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Does the Prime Minister intend to arrange a meeting with Mr. Bourassa to get more information on his plan and to find out what kind of help the Government of Canada could provide, either in the form of technical assistance or through the Prime Minister's own contacts with the United States, and also to see whether any financial assistance will be necessary to help realize this important project for Quebec?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I meet Mr. Bourassa quite frequently, and we have discussed various problems and issues. However, for the time being, this is a project he is submitting as Leader of the Opposition in Quebec. Elections will probably be held in due time, and until then, we are dealing with the duly elected Government of Quebec, and as a Quebecer and a Quebec taxpayer, I am of course very interested in any proposal likely to create jobs in our province. I think Mr. Bourassa is particu-

April 19, 1985
Oral Questions
larly knowledgeable in this field, considering his involvement in the James Bay project, and I listen to what he has to say on the subject with a great deal of attention and respect.


NATIVE PEOPLES
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who has been given notice of it. The Metis and non-status native organizations in Manitoba, Alberta, and British Columbia are still awaiting their funding, and we are well into the fiscal year. This is holding up vital work for native people, and it is also holding up the funding which goes to these organizations from the provinces. The Minister knows that these contracts have been on his desk for at least a month and that there was a commitment a full year ago to fund these organizations. Why is there a hold up in funding for native organizations in western Canada? Is this a part of the Nielsen task force strategy of cut-backs in funding for native groups?


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for giving me notice of the question and for raising this important matter. As the Hon. Member will know, we are in the final year of the programming in relation to support for these groups. I am setting in motion a review mechanism for the future. At the moment, given the evolution of new groups and many demands, I have been having intensive discussions with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I expect to be making a decision, as I said in committee yesterday, in the very near future.


TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, native people have been in western Canada for a long time, and funding for native organizations has been in place for at least a decade. I do not know to what new evolutions the Minister is referring. Will he tell us exactly when he will make this money available, since the contracts are already on his desk and since he knows that if the underfunds these groups it will simply be a transfer of the cost to the provinces and an implementation of the Nielsen strategy of cut-backs to native groups?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, there is no anticipated diminution of the level of funding for groups. As the Hon. Member also knows, as a fact of the evolution of native groups across the country there are now many regional groups competing for the same dollar levels. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and I are trying to address the legitimate
needs of people, particularly non-status people in cities and in areas such as the one the Hon. Member represents. We are trying to find a solution and will be announcing a decision for this last year of the program, as I said, in the very near future.


TESTING OF TOXIC HORMONE TO CONTROL COCKROACHES
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister will know that his Department is currently testing a low toxic hormone called "hydroprene", which is being used quite effectively in the United States for the control of cockroaches. Cockroach infestation is a major problem for apartment dwellers across the country. Could the Minister advise us when this testing will be completed and when hydroprene will be available on the Canadian market?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the Hon. Member any indication of the date that hydroprene will be licensed and used in Canasda. The matter which he has raised is a serious one. He is aware, also, of recent publications regarding cockroach infestation. 1 will get further information on it and get back to him.


FINANCE
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Finance. I do not know whether I should direct it to the Minister of State (Finance) or to the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday we saw a television report from Halifax were six people applied for job openings and, worse still, 1,000 applicants for a non-specialized job in Cape Breton.
Here is my question: Can the Minister of Finance or his stand-in tell us if they will address this unemployment problem by implementing the suggestion made by the Chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, the Conservative Member for Mississauga South, who advocates a $5 billion deficit cutback and a $2.4 billion increase in gasoline tax?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to accept for one moment the proposition or the inference of the Hon. Member about the consequences of prudent management in government. In the absence of the Minister, I will simply say that I take the question as notice and will ensure that the Minister gets back to the Hon.
April 19, 1985

Oral Questions
Member with an appropriate answer that sets the record [English]
straight.	INDUSTRY


RECOMMENDATIONS OF CHAIRMAN OF STANDING COMMITTEE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
To set the record straight, the Globe and Mail of April 18 attributes the following remarks to the Chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, a man who holds a very important position:

"I think the caucus would be unhappy if he"-that is the Minister of Finance-"didn't cut the deficit by S5 billion. I think he would like to go farther but he can't because so many people are out of work". I would like the Government House Leader to bring that to the attention of the Minister.
[ Translation]
At the same time, would the House Leader ask the Minister of Finance whether he has also decided to follow up on the recommendations of the Chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, the Progressive Conservative Member for Mississauga South, concerning the abolition of the Federal Business Development Bank, the abolition of the Export Development Corporation, and the abolition of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation?


WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT COMPANY-REQUEST FOR LOAN GUARANTEE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The future survival of White Farm Equipment is at stake today because the receivers are starting, through the dealers, to provide cut-rate sales of the equipment, despite the fact that the company itself has been making operating profits and has raised its market share from 7 per cent to 22 per cent over the past 18 months. Will the Minister commit the Government today to saving the 370 jobs involved, by joining with the banks and the Ontario Government that have assessed this company as viable? Will he see to it that a guarantee is provided for the $17 million in further bank loans which will help the company to survive?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will recall, yesterday there was a similar question directed to myself with respect to White Farm Equipment. The fact is that we had discussions with the various Borg-Warner officials, with Mr. Sinclair, and with union representatives. We are hopeful that something can be done to save this company. The rather pessimistic view the Member is taking about sellouts at the present time is, I think, being over-stated. There is a hope that over the next few weeks something can be done as far as White Farm is concerned, preferably by the private sector.


DAILY MANAGEMENT
Martin Brian Mulroney: Obviously, we want to cut down the deficit, and so did the Leader of the Opposition when he was running for the leadership of his Party. Unless I am mistaken, he said he would cut the deficit by half within a few short years. In the course of the French TV debate between him and me, he also stated that billions of dollars were being wasted here in Ottawa.
Hopefully with your support, we will try by every reasonable means to save taxpayers' money and handle every dollar collected by Ottawa with utmost care and attention. One of the problems is that there has been outright abuse in the past and, together, we are trying to set the situation straight. I know that the Hon. Member, as Quebec's former Minister of Finance, will give us full support. Surely he knows that a chairman of a House committee does not speak for the Government, the Minister of Finance does and will be doing so through the upcoming May Budget.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact the receivers are starting to sell off equipment. If that happens, the confidence of farmers across the country will be destroyed. During this period of time when the Minister is working out financial arrangements and discussing the matter, will he personally intervene to have the day-to-day control of the company put back into the hands of the Canadian management for a period of 90 days, in order to permit financial arrangements to be organized and these jobs to be secured?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, once again I only wish the Hon. Member would check his facts before he makes these statements in the House. The fact is that the receiver is not selling off equipment today, as indicated by the Hon. Member. 1 think there is a generally co-operative spirit on behalf of the union representatives, the Borg Warner people, and the existing management of this company. If there is a way to save it, hopefully it will be found.

April 19, 1985
Oral Questions
[ Translation}


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Considering that Wednesday last was a memorable day as clause 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force, can the Minister tell the House whether he intends to amend sections 251 and 252 of the Criminal Code dealing with abortion that is discriminatory to women since it now reads as follows: "A female person who is pregnant." It could be replaced by "a person who is pregnant." Mr. Speaker, have we once seen a pregnant male? Does the Minister intend to amend that part of the legislation?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly do whatever I can to prevent men from becoming pregnant, although I believe there was a mayor of Montreal who came dangerously close.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I will review the Section in question, Mr. Speaker.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. I did give him notice of my question. On Wednesday the Minister told the House that he had signed memoranda of understanding with two major Public Service unions, maintaining the new approach of bargaining on a master agreement basis and thereby indicating to us that 80 per cent of the items under negotiation would not be subject to the right to strike. It appears that the Minister's comments in regard to the impasses which would not be settled by the right to strike are misunderstood either by public servants or by the unions themselves. Perhaps the Minister could clarify to the House, the Canadian public, and the public servants, if indeed the right to strike on the major items concerning the master contracts will be maintained or withdrawn.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question I certainly hope that my hon. colleague opposite has listened to the comments of the president of one of the unions, comments which gave rise to this controversy. We did sign the memorandum of agreement. It is a memorandum in which details will obviously have to be worked out.
As my hon. colleague knows, these contracts are complex. He certainly raised a question of interpretation. Could he ever go back to the old system? The agreement is clear. It states that on the issues that are mutually agreed upon to be discussed at the master table, the method of conflict resolution will be one of binding conciliation, and that is an agreement in principle that has been reached by both parties.
There may be questions of interpretation as to which items fall into which categories, but the statement I made in the House the other day was a statement that was thoroughly discussed with the unions over the last six months, and one that reflects thoroughly the position of both to move on to a formal agreement which is to be presented to the House in the very near future.


EXPANSION OF AGREEMENT WITH UNIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Notwithstanding the expression, "binding conciliation", which is not very clear to many of us-

Just to clarify the matter and avoid any confusion, could the Minister table the memorandum of understanding so that we on this side of the House can read it, public service employees may know what commitment their union made on their behalf and everyone may better understand exactly what is involved?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, let us start with the concept of binding conciliation to which I referred the other day, in fact when I replied to a question of my hon. colleague. I explained it then. I explained the method of conciliation board appointment and pointed out the differences between this formula of conflict resolution and the one that existed in the Act. If at this rather early stage of the discussions union members would like to know more about the terms and conditions their union leaders agreed to, I would think it is up to them to get the information from their union leaders.
As for us, I stated clearly the agreements in principle the government is going to implement over the next few months, on the one hand, to fulfil the election commitments that were made and, on the other hand, to improve, for the first time in more than twenty years, as was mentioned by one of the union leaders-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Minister but this is becoming a Statement on Motions.
April 19, 1985


FORESTRY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. A year ago the federal Government offered $50 million per year for a reforestation agreement with British Columbia, and British Columbia refused to sign that agreement. Because of that we lost a much needed year of tree planting in British Columbia. As the Minister knows, the temporary reforestation agreement expired three weeks ago.
Since the planting of seedlings in British Columbia can only occur during a very limited number of weeks and since that period of time is now upon us, will the Minister agree today to sign that part of the ERDA related to the Canada-B.C. reforestation agreement, which includes $150 million of federal money and $150 million of provincial money, so that the planting of the seedlings can go ahead this year since it did not last year?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as we have indicated to British Columbia, we would be willing to sign the $300-million forestry agreement to which the Hon. Member refers. We have indicated that that would certainly be the highest amount to which we would go, and we are waiting for the reply of the British Columbia Government on whether or not that agreement, and certain other agreements, might be signed.


REQUEST FOR EARLY SIGNING OF AGREEMENT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State for Forestry, has indicated to me that there is nothing in law or in practice stopping the Minister from signing the B.C. reforestation agreement now. The B.C. Government has made it clear that it is prepared to come forward with $150 million. The Minister has made it clear that he is prepared to come forward with $150 million. Why does he not sign the agreement today so that those who want to get the seedlings in the ground, and the nurseries under way, can do so? There is an area that is larger than Prince Edward Island that needs to be replanted in Canada's most important forestry province.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned there is absolutely no problem with signing the agreement but, as a rule, one signs agreements with other parties.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to return to
Oral Questions
the matter of the PCB tragedy in northern Ontario. In the Department of the Environment there is a section dealing with environmental emergencies and the interprovincial transport of dangerous wastes. Why, in the current estimates, has the Prime Minister's Government cut the budget for that section by some 25 per cent, or more than $1 million, from last year's funding? Does this not show a serious lack of concern for Canadians and the Canadian environment? It is certainly something that is not consistent with protecting Canadians from tragedies like the northern Ontario PCB spill.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker I think it is quite unfair for the hon. gentleman to try to tie a given budgetary measure to the serious accident that could or could not have occurred but unfortunately did occur in northern Ontario. In any event-


Ms. Mitchell:: Can't hear you, Brian.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is because you are used to the shouting that comes from your colleagues next to you.


An Hon. Member:: You damaged your ears.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Your ear-drums are damaged, Margaret. I want to ensure that my hon. friend hears me, and I apologize.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I listen intently. Let's have some sense while you are at it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, there may be something wrong with her ears, but there is nothing wrong with her voice.
I would say to my hon. friend that the Minister will be filing regulations with the House very shortly. But, in any event, 1 know that my hon. friend, who was a Minister in the former Government, will agree that the Government of Canada has acted in complete co-operation with the Government of Ontario. I salute the Minister of Transport and other colleagues who, under very difficult circumstances, have done an outstanding job in being helpful to all concerned. They will continue to do so.


REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF BRANCH STATUS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Can he explain to the House why the section of the Department of the Environment which deals with environmental emergencies and the transport of dangerous wastes has been downgraded by his Government from a full branch to simply a division of another branch? Will the Government commit itself and move immediately to restore the status of that division to a full branch as it was previously, and to restore the budget of that division of the Department to what it was previously? If the Government does not do that, then its words, with respect to its concern about the environment and Canadians and preventing occurences such as the tragedy of the PCB spill, are hollow and empty.

April 19, 1985
Petitions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's comments are most unfair. The fact of the matter is that the Government has taken some very major initiatives with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods. The promulgation of the regulations has been accelerated to July 1 and, as I said previously, we will table further regulations today. There is close co-operation with the Department of the Environment in all of these aspects. I think we all agree that when we can put in place the kind of legislative and regulatory framework which governs the transportation of dangerous goods, which we are trying to do-and which process has been accelerated in co-operation with the industry and the Province-it will be a much safer environment for the movement of all dangerous substances.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of three, presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, April 18, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) on long distance telephone services, and the petitions presented by the Hon. Members for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) on proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 46(2), I have the honour to table in both official languages Protective Direction No. 1-the first time it has been instituted-under the authority of Section 28 of the Transportation of dangerous Goods Act, relating to the handling and transportation of dangerous goods in Canada.


PETITIONS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to table a petition which is signed by some
1,300 Canadians, who are exercising their rights as Canadian citizens. They believe that the ugly tent on Parliament Hill is a fit reminder of the prospect of ugliness of a war fought with nuclear weapons.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the House which is signed by a number of senior citizens from the community of Agassiz, British Columbia. The petition concerns the emission of coal dust from coal trains which use the CPR rail lines. Their petition asks that the Government take the necessary steps to reduce the emission of coal dust, and also to reduce the speed of trains which carry hazardous material near residential areas.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2, 267 and 293.


Mr. Ellis: 1.	Is there a Corporate Communications Branch of Canada Post Corporation and, if so, in (a) Ottawa (b) Canada (i) how many executives and staff are employed (ii) what was the annual branch budget (iii) what was the aggregate amount spent on salaries?
2.	Are any staff or executives earning more than $50,000 per annum and, if so, what is the (a) name (b) responsibility (c) location of each individual ?
3 (a) Are there regional vice-presidents of the Corporation and, if so, in each case, what is his/her (i) name (ii) responsibility (iii) location (iv) salary (b) do they have personal assistants and, if so, in each case what is the (i) name (ii) responsibility (iii) location (iv) salary?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: The
Canada Post Corporation informs me as follows:
1.	Yes. (a) (i) 133 employees including two executives, (ii) The total budget for fiscal year 1984-85 for Corporate Communications Head Office was $13.3 million, (iii) 4.3 million to January 31, 1985.
(b) (i) 82 employees, (ii) The total divisional budget for Corporate Communications for fiscal year 1984-85 was 6.5 million, (iii) 2.8 million to January 31 1985.
2.	It is the policy of the Corporation to protect the confidentiality of salary information concerning its employees. In so doing, the Corporation seeks to comply with the Privacy Act which precludes the release of specific salary information. Accordingly, the Corporation can only confirm that there are 16 employees who earn more than $50,000 per annum.
3.	No. (a) and (b) N/A.
April 19, 1985


Mr. Young: 1.	Did the Treasury Board request all departments to provide it with their action plans in relation to the Public Service Affirmative Action Program and, if so (a) have the plans been received (b) what date has been set for the implementation of the plans?
2.	Will the Government amend the Program to include persons with a mental disability?
3.	Will the Government initiate a policy whereby companies that receive contracts from the Government would be required to show that they intend to make positive efforts to hire persons with a physical or mental disability as a pre-requisite to receiving such contracts?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am
informed by Treasury Board and Employment and Immigration Canada as follows:
1.	Yes. Thirty-nine departments and agencies were asked to submit a multiyear (3 years) Affirmative Action plan while 14 small agencies (with less than 100 employees) were asked to submit only an annual report on their situation and a description of the activities undertaken to improve the representation of the target groups members within their organization.
The action plan submission date for four of the five Affirmative Action pilot departments (Employment and Immigration Canada, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Secretary of State and the Public Service Commission) was established in light of each department's planning cycle and vary from March 31, 1985 to October 31, 1985. (a) To date, 20 plans have been received, (b) April 1, 1985.
2.	The Program, as it now exists, does include individuals who are mentally handicapped.
3.	As the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced in the House on March 8, 1985, "This Government will require Crown corporations, federally-regulated businesses, and contractors providing goods and services to the federal Government, to implement employment equity" and "Businesses seeking Government contracts for goods and services of $200,000 or more will have to show their compliance or stand to lose their right to compete for Government business."
Employment equity applies to women, disabled persons (including physically, psychiatrically, developmentally and learning disabled persons), Native people, and members of other visible minorities.


Miss Nicholson: 1.	As of March 12, 1985, what were the names of all persons serving on the Refugee Status Advisory Committee?
2.	How many were full-time employees and what was his/her salary in each case?
3.	What was the per diem or other arrangement for part-time employees?
4.	For each individual, what was the date and term of his/her appointment?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Order Paper Questions
W. H. Barton	J. Kagc
V. Bcaulnc	K. Kaplansky
F. B. Bird	K. Lawson
K. Boyko	J. McCaffrey
S. Davis	E. B. Meredith
H. Evelyn	S. Rusu
Rev. P. Fernandes	J. Santos
S. Gerley	H. Tcllicr
R. L. Hutson	R. Tcrrillon
A. Kafai	J. Stern
2.	Seven full time employees: S. Davis, H. Evelyn and R. L. Hutson are paid at the equivalent of GIC-04 ($54,710 to $64,390). J. Stern, Chairman, is paid at the equivalent of EX-03 ($63,000 to $74,050.) K. Boyko, S. Gerley and E. Meredith are seconded from Employment and Immigration Canada. They are paid at their public service salary: K. Boyko (AS 7-$46,857 to $54,537), S. Gerley (SM-$50,350 to $59,229), E. Meredith (PE 7-$46,450 to $63,870).
3.	All private members are paid an honorarium of $294 for each panel session they attend. This includes the work they do in preparation for the panel session.
Name of Member	Date appointed	Expiry of termW. H. Barton	December 20, 1984	December 31. 1985Y. Bcaulnc	July 3. 1984	July 3. 1986F. B. Bird	March 15, 1983	March 15, 1985K. Boyko	November 1, 1982	November 1, 1985S. Davis	October 1, 1983	October 1, 1985H. Evelyn	August 13, 1984	July 12, 1987P. Fernandes	March 29, 1984	March 31, 1985S. Gerley	November 15, 1982	November 15, 1985R. L. Hutson	May 10, 1984	May 10. 1987A. Kafai	September 1, 1984	September 1, 1986J. Kagc	July 13, 1983	July 13, 1985K. Kaplansky	August 31, 1984	August 31. 1985K. Lawson	August 31, 1984	August 31, 1985J. McCaffrey	Junc8, 1983	Junc8. 1985E. B. Meredith	April 2, 1984	October 2, 1985S. Rusu	December 20, 1984	December 31. 1985J. Santos	August 1, 1984	July 31, 1986H. Tcllicr	July 3, 1984	July 3, 1986R. Tcrrillon	March 1. 1984	March 1, 1986J. Stern	May 1. 1982	April 30, 1997


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 19, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 18, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-39, an Act to provide for the making of supplementary fiscal equalization payments to certain provinces for the period April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1987, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to a Bill that, while it is very important to the country as a whole, is particularly significant because of the resulting inequity in its treatment of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to provide for the making of supplementary fiscal equalization payments.
I would like to say first of all why I am opposed to the Bill, and at this point, I want to express not only my own opinion as the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, as a Member from Quebec, but also the views of the Government of Quebec, and I would like to recall for Hon. Members what was said by the Quebec Minister of Finance, Mr. Duhaime. I shall, if I may, give a summary of the statement made by Mr. Duhaime in the Quebec National Assembly.
First of all, Mr. Duhaime explained that the Premier of Quebec and himself had made representations to the Federal Government, urging it to provide an equitable solution to the problem created by the 1982-87 formula that will result in a drop in equalization entitlements for Quebec. The Government felt that two points were particularly important and, in fact, fundamental. First of all, Quebec could not accept the reduction in equalization entitlements for 1985-86 and 1986-87, compared with 1984-85, considering that the province does not expect any significant improvement in its economy compared with the other provinces, and the reduction thus contradicts the whole philosophy of the equalization program.
The second major point for Quebec, still according to the Quebec Minister of Finance, is that the Federal Government should consider the more general problem caused by the anticipatory aspect of the new equalization program for the five years in the period 1982-87. According to Mr. Duhaime, Quebec is the only province getting less out of the 1982-87 equalization than it would otherwise have obtained. Quebec's loss is very substantial, according to Mr. Duhaime, and was estimated at about $750 million, while the other equalization recipients were gaining a total of $445 million under the formula.
Mr. Duhaime went on to recall that during his meetings with the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) he pointed out that the Federal Government's device for providing supplementary equalization payments for the year 1985-86 meant that lump sum payments would go to six provinces receiving equalization, namely, $110 million to Quebec, $50 million to Manitoba, $20 million to Nova Scotia, $20 million to New Brunswick, $15 million to Newfoundland and $5 million to Prince Edward Island. In 1986-87, no payments will be made except to Manitoba which will receive $65 million. Thus, all provinces receiving equalization payments will share $285 million over the next two years. Out of that amount, a sum of $175 million, according to Mr. Duhaime, is being added to the $445 million already received, making a grand total of $620 million for the Atlantic Provinces and Manitoba. At the same time, Quebec's loss of $750 million, under the new formula, is being corrected, but only very partially, by a payment of $110 million for 1985-86, leaving Quebec with a net loss of $640 million. Mr. Duhaime went on to say that, in his discussions with the federal Government, he had given due consideration to the federal Government's precarious financial and budgetary situation. I think that the Government of Quebec, particularly the Minister of Finance, and the Premier of Quebec did show restraint in this case since the Government of Quebec agreed to reduce its initial request for $750 million to $450 million, $300 million in 1985-86 and $150 million in 1986-87. According to Mr. Duhaime, however, the unilateral and political settlement announced by the federal Minister of Finance is far from satisfactory, it is even beyond comprehension.
Mr. Duhaime pointed out that, under the solution advocated by the federal Government, Quebec's equalization rights this year will be close to $200 million less than last year's. He stated: "I am surprised and astonished, but I see no logic in the proposed settlement. It allocates funds to some provinces which, according to the federal Government's own forecasts, do not stand to lose any equalization rights in 1985-86 and which are already favourably dealt with as a result of changes to the 1982 equalization program." Be that as it may, Mr. Duhaime said that the file remains open as far as the Quebec Government is concerned, and that they are waiting for further discussions with federal officials with a view to obtaining fair and equitable compensation based on the very principle of equalization rather than on unilateral policy as stated, unfortunately, by the Minister of Finance of this federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to understand what is going on. I think that all Members of the House, particularly Quebec Members, have received a document from the Quebec Minister of Finance. All explanations in the file were crystal clear. Yesterday I showed the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) one of the documents contained in the file of the Minister of Finance, and I dare hope that all Quebec Members
April 19, 1985

will look over the chart showing that the Province of Newfoundland, which had not incurred any losses, was given a $15 million gift on the eve of the election. As we all know, they have a Conservative Government. Prince Edward Island had a loss of $5 million and got $5 million, Nova Scotia lost $50 million and got $20 million, New Brunswick-another province headed by a Conservative Government, no losses, according to the federal Government-received a $20 million gift so Mr. Hatfield might spruce up his image. As to Manitoba, a loss of $72 million last year, a gain of $50 million this year and $65 million more next year.
I would suggest that the Members from Quebec would be well advised to examine the Quebec figures in the document sent by the Minister of Finance. Quebec has a loss of $750 million but gets only $110 million. Why did the Government fail to react positively to the proposal or suggestion made yesterday by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), the compromise offered by the former Liberal Government? Interim compensation over the next two years would have enabled Quebec to get the same amount as before, it would not have been penalized. In the meantime, the federal Government could have had discussions with Quebec with respect to such contentious issues as population figures and the overall total. In my opinion, Members of the Quebec caucus could have been wiser, and I hope they will be on the ball and raise the issue at next week's caucus and urge the Minister of Finance to maintain the transitional payment formula for the next two years. Why did he not do it for Quebec, and why not do it now? Second, why this attempt to push the Bill through? Why does the Minister of Finance want to give us that hand-out? I was disappointed yesterday when it was a Member from Quebec, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier), who said: That is all we have. We must therefore try to find out who is telling the truth in that party opposite. In a statement made in public at a press conference, following a meeting with the Premiers where the Quebec Finance Minister was also present, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mul-roney) said that the door was still open and that negotiations were still possible even though the Minister of Finance had closed that door. We do not have to take the Minister at his word however because it is often possible to have him change his mind. In any case, I trust that the Prime Minister himself can keep his word, otherwise, everyone will know that he cannot.
If the Prime Minister said that he was willing to resume negociations with Quebec, why are they in such a hurry to pass this Bill? Why not wait? Would it not have been wiser for the Quebec Premier to meet with the Prime Minister of Canada, as the Prime Minister was willing to do, and review this file and at least listen to what Quebec had to say and make the necessary changes?
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
I presume all Quebec Members have seen in the newspapers the headline "Equalization: Duhaime will keep after the Quebec Conservatives". He helped you during the last campaign, but I will say he is beginning to regret it.
"Wilson: Quebec must recognize that the Federal Government could not do any better in the present situation." The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Finance keep talking about the deficit, but it was not the same tune when it was time to negotiate $2.5 billion for the West. I can see the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard), who carries the luggage for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and who is saying that all this is not serious as far as Quebec is concerned. I can hardly wait to see him rise and speak for Quebec.
I have here another article entitled "Equalization: Ottawa is willing to listen". Are the Prime Minister's statements made at press conferences mere rhetoric? Or mere bluffing? "Mul-roney is willing to re-open the equalization debate on a more comprehensive level." This means that what the Prime Minister said was untrue because, today, his Party is trying anxiously to get this Bill through post haste and in an underhanded manner without continuing to negotiate.
But Duhaime is not cringing! At least, he has guts. He could inspire others. According to Jean-Louis Roy, this is a flawed compromise as far as equalization is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be helpful and wise... Normally, when you are right in the middle of negotiations, and I believe that any ordinary Canadian will agree, when a tenant and a landlord are negotiating a rent or lease, the landlord does not write out the lease forthwith, but waits until negotiations and discussions are over. But now the Government is trying to impose this. Have any pressures been applied by Ontario or Western Members, since the Quebec Members in the Party opposite all seem to be sound asleep? This Bill will be passed quickly and the money will go elsewhere. I do not know about that. Well, then it is not too bad.


Some Hon. Members:: We are awake!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that they are trying to wake up. But it is not in this House that I am asking you to wake up. Just a moment, I see the Minister of Transport. It is about time he should wake up. I am told he could do better. From his performance rating, it is time for him to wake up in Cabinet, to put his feet down, to muster up his courage and go at it. This is what it takes! People want to see men and women who know how to fight. They do not want chickenliv-ered people like the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Bissonnette), who says: We are not here to defend Quebec. We can see that he used to be in the chicken business as he is still behaving like his feathered friends.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that Quebec is being conned by the Mulroney Government. I can give another example which

April 19, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments shows that the equalization formula is penalizing Quebec and favouring the Provinces that have Conservative Premiers. On November 8, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced cutbacks in major job creation programs. Quebec lost nearly $800 million. What did we see then? All the Quebec Members rose and applauded. They were all so happy. They were all so satisfied. Even the leader of gas station owners in Quebec, the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce), said on television: "I will dare the multinationals!" Since he has been sitting in this House, the multinationals have made better money than ever, Mr. Speaker.
Recently, there was another $800 million cut. Why? Could a Progressive Conservative member or minister justify a $10 million cut in the National Capital Commission budget strictly made in Quebec? Ironically, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) is from Quebec. I know that he has been put under the supervision of his private secretary who is the real boss but can someone explain why, at the National Capital Commission, a $10 million cut strictly applies to projects which were to be carried out on the Quebec side while those to be carried out in Ontario are maintained. Precisely, the Hon. Member for Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean ... the move of the marina, the old Montreal port, $3.5 million. It means less jobs and more unemployed. I understand that on November 8, you were all new around here and still did not know where the rest rooms were, but seven months have elapsed and it is about time some of you woke up. A sum of $85 million, again in the Chicoutimi area for the construction of natural gas branch lines has been cut. Two important projects in the Trois-Rivieres area: a pharmaceutical laboratory and a botanical research centre in Victoriaville. Just imagine, the slasher of the Treasury Board, another guy who is supposed to be from Quebec, has made the cut and all the Quebec members rise to applaud him.
I remember that when they were elected, the Conservative members, especially those from Quebec, were schooled, they were not free. What happened at their first caucus? The party in power was compared to a football team: the Prime Minister is the quarterback, the ministers are the offensive and the defensive and then the members rose-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With due respect, I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to the Bill.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the subject under discussion, but I want to show how Quebecers are being hoodwinked by this government. I will carry on with my explanation.
Then a backbencher stands up and says: Yes, but what is our role in the football team? You have chosen the quarterback, the offensive line, the defensive line; what is left for us to do? He is told that as do the girls who lead others in cheering
for the team between each quarter of the game, the role of Progressive Conservative members is to act as cheerleaders.


Mrs. Mailly:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau is rising on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: I believe that you have already warned the Hon. Member that his remarks were far from relevant. But he keeps on doing it, and it seems to me that he should-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member has made her point and that the Hon. Member in view of his experience, got it.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I gave that explanation precisely to show that this is an opportunity for Quebec Members to ask for more time to consider the bill as to ensure fairness. I am glad to see that the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) who is responsible for the CMHC, is in the House. There again, Mr. Speaker, as if by chance, the formula chosen by the Minister responsible for the CMHC under the housing renovation and rehabilitation program penalizes Quebec in comparison with other provinces. As Hon. Members have seen in the municipalities of their own riding, and the Minister should agree with me on that, this year, under the housing renovation and rehabilitation program, Quebec is losing $17.8 million while Ontario is losing less than two million, that is 35.7 per cent compared with 9.3 per cent. I challenge the Minister to say those figures are wrong because they come from his department and his office. He is the one who sent them to me.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is another instance where Members from Quebec should stop being cheerleaders and start asking for results. Another one is the agreement with the petroleum multinational companies of Western Canada ... What is this going to do for jobs in Quebec? Who is going to pay the piper? The people of Quebec. Quebecers want jobs. Today at least I had reason to congratulate the Prime Minister who supported Mr. Robert Bourassa in approaching people in the United States in connection with his energy project.
Mr. Speaker, for all the reasons I have just mentioned, I believe that we in the Liberal Party cannot support this Bill, even if it is advantageous for other provinces. As a Quebecer, I find this injustice unacceptable, and furthermore, I am astonished that the Conservative Members are about to make their leader ... -I am not supposed to say it but you know what I mean-for having said: The door is open, I am ready to negotiate. He has the Minister prepare a dossier, the Quebec Minister of Finance is going to bring down his Budget, and now the Prime Minister is asking the House to pass this Bill, and he has not even finished his negotiations. This is outrageous. This is not how the Minister of State (Transport) used to conduct negotiations, I am sure of that. And the Member who was in your riding before would not have stood for it
April 19, 1985

either. He would at least have risen from his seat, and he would have made a terrible scene. This is outrageous. If we consider the agricultural sector and the dairy policy, it is a disaster.
1 am therefore going to conclude this debate on the issue-


Raymond Garneau: How about the $2.5 billion they gave the multinationals? They say they do not have the money!


Jean-Claude Malépart: My hon. friend was kind enough to remind me about the $2.5 billion negotiated with the multinationals in Western Canada. When a western bank was in trouble, it did not take long to spend a couple of million. No hesitation at all. But when Domtar was in trouble, that was a Quebec project and what is Quebec, after all! I have a sneaking suspicion the Minister responsible for Regional Industrial Development does not even know where Quebec is. He says the Government does not have to give anything because they are making a profit. Why should we give a grant? The multinationals are making money too: $2.5 billion. There is just no logic in what these people are saying. And here I am quoting the Quebec Minister of Finance. These are not my words. Even the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Levesque, and I cannot say he is one of my great friends since he is one of the people who helped to get you re-elected. And today you have betrayed him. Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Maiily).


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to draw the attention of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) to the fact that at least two projects in Ontario have been either cancelled or postponed, and I am referring to the bicycle path and the Eastern Parkway. What the Hon. Member said earlier was false. Second, on the Outaouais side, three or four projects that were on the National Capital Commission's calendar have been maintained, including the boulevard de la Verendrye in the City of Gatineau, in my riding. It is therefore just not true, that this $10 million cutback in spending penalized Quebec or that the cutback was aimed at specific projects and included a substantial part of administrative costs. That is my first comment.
My second comment refers to the Domtar case which the Liberal Opposition seems to want to bring up every time, because there does not seem to be anything else on which they can get any political mileage. I may remind the Hon. Member that an agreement was concluded. Additional funding will be granted, but it will come out of the regional development budget... Yes, because our Government, unlike-


Jean-Claude Malépart: What about the bank in Western Canada?


Claudy Mailly: Will you keep quiet! You are always shouting when someone has the floor.
As I was saying, unlike the previous administration, this is a responsible Government that is concerned about how the taxpayers' hard-earned money is being used. Instead of wasting
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments money and using funds to get re-elected in our ridings like the Liberals have been doing for 20 or even 100 years, we want to administer the money we get from Canadians in a responsible and reasonable manner, and we want to use that money where it will create jobs. Domtar will be able to proceed with its project with money from the budget for regional development. The Quebec Government, which owns part of Domtar, was satisfied with the agreement. It appreciates our situation because it is facing the same problems in Quebec where the taxpayer has a very substantial tax burden.
And another comment.


An Hon. Member:: Is it a comment or a speech?


Claudy Mailly: I will have another question at the end, if only you will shut up! It is unbelievable that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie should speak of treason on the part of a Conservative Government which at long last has managed to foster a spirit of concertation in-


Jean-Claude Malépart: That is not what Mr. Levesque is saying!


Claudy Mailly: Will you shut up, please! In the regions ... I am about to raise a question of privilege, I have the right to speak as a Member. This is the comments and questions period. I have comments to make on remarks by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie which border on truth- border on lie, I should say, because truth is something he has long since forgotten.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I will get up and show how many times you lied to the people here in the House.


Claudy Mailly: As I was saying about the question of treason against Quebec, I think that the 58 Conservative Members who represent Quebec have already shown to their constituents, in a very tangible way, that they can agree with all levels of Government, and that explains why things are going smoothly in our ridings.
There are things like Mirabel, for instance. There are things like the issue of Public Service unions' rights-


Jean-Claude Malépart: You are having a hard time finding things!


Claudy Mailly: -things which had been on the back burner for quite some time and which have been progressing thanks to this spirit of concertation.
So we have no lesson to take from the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie who, during the previous administration, was very divisive and promoted confrontation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask him a question, if he is still with us, or if he wants to read his ... I have no idea what he is reading. So, to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie ... It is ... I beg your pardon? Pardon me? Mr. Speaker, I would like to know . .. No . . . Fair enough. I would like to ask him a question. Why this renewed attempt at creating a climate of dissension between Quebec and the

April 19, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
federal Government now that, finally, we have succeeded in creating a link between Quebecers and Quebecers, be they at the federal of provincial level? What is the Hon. Member trying to do? What is the purpose of all this?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


An Hon. Member:: His microphone is off.


Claudy Mailly: He does not need one!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I found the Hon. Member's intervention rather brilliant yesterday, but today I find it rather less so.
To answer her last question, we should not speak without rhyme or reason. She asked: Why create those divisions? If only she had read her papers rather than having fun in the House. The paper from which I quoted is by the Quebec government. The comments which I quoted were not made by Liberal members but by Rene Levesque and by the Minister of Finance Mr. Duhaime. He said that you had disappointed him. We did not express that view. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should read her papers; 1 think that she did not read them.
She suggested that what I said about the National Capital is not true. Well once again, she has not read Mr. Wilson's paper on page 87, with respect to the National Capital, it is written in black and white. The National Capital Commission is not an isolated case ... the $10 million, the cuts have strictly been made in Quebec.


Claudy Mailly: It is untrue.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Is there a messenger? Can she read? A messenger to bring her .. . She cannot read, Mr. Speaker. The truth is that it is written in black and in white, $10 million. It is really a pity.
Mr. Speaker, I learned something when 1 was playing hockey. You do not hit weaker players and I will add nothing else about the Hon. Member because she really knows nothing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon). Questions or comments.


Mr. Hudon:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask whether there was a doctor in the House because I was afraid the blood pressure of my colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) might get dangerously high. I was thinking: "There we are. Something is going to happen in the House of Commons today."
Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie has quoted an excerpt from a Quebec Government document because I believe it is the first time something from such a document has been quoted by a Liberal Member in this House. This is good and it could have been otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, the reply to the question asking why this Bill must be passed so quickly is quite simple. It is because the
Provinces need the money and we promised to do it. You never made any such commitment yourselves. You had the truth at the time, but as concerns your equalization formula, you never made any such commitment. The answer is therefore quite simple, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell my hon. colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie that it is only because the Provinces need the money.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that if we want the negotiations to go on, it is because the Prime Minister said that the door was still open. The Hon. Member used to sit on school boards and he never accepted a settlement before the negotiations were over. I recognize that the Hon. Member is a man of ability and intelligence, but it was your Prime Minister, not mine, who said right on television, and it was reported in the newspapers ... I see that the leader of the gas station owners is back in the House. Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that he purchased a Mr. Muffler franchise and has had 58 mufflers installed in this House? To come back to the question asked by the Hon. Member, I think that while the negotiations are still in progress it is important for the Government to say: Let us pass that part of the Bill which deals with the other Provinces and wait for the negotiations to be completed with Quebec, at least to comply with Mr. Duhaime's request. His budget will be brought down on April 24. I think that the Hon. Member will agree that we should give them a chance, because if this Bill is passed before, there will be a "conservative" tax in the Quebec budget to compensate for the injustice created by your Government. The Hon. Member nods his head in agreement. If you agree not to defend Quebec, it is fine with me.
We were referring to Domtar a little earlier, Mr. Speaker, and there is the mapping service also. This money had already been allocated by the Government. However, when the Government took $2.5 billion, this money was not for regional development, but it was new money for the oil multinationals. And the money for the Commercial Bank, there is nothing new in all that. This is why I say that, where equalization is concerned, Quebecers are being tricked by the Mulroney Government and they have lost nearly $1 billion because of this Government since September 4. They deserve to be treated fairly this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over. Debate continues with the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly to Bill C-39, a Bill introduced by the Government to provide for the making of supplementary fiscal equalization payments to certain provinces for the period from 1982 to 1987. First of all, I would like to say that our Party thinks the Bill is unfair to the Province of Quebec. In fact, that is why a number of my colleagues have spoken out quite vigorously on the subject.
Of course, I could enumerate the payments that will be made to the various provinces, but since this information is already on the record, I would rather elaborate on the specific
April 19, 1985

case of Quebec which I feel is getting very little in the way of equalization payments under the new formula since the new Conservative Members from Quebec seem reluctant to comment at all, being content to praise and approve the Government's proposal. Mr. Speaker, Quebec's loss has been estimated at about $750 million, while other provinces are actually receiving payments totalling about $445 million. When I said $750 million, these are the very figures used by the Quebec Minister of Finance. Our Party cannot support this legislation, not because it gives money to the provinces, Mr. Speaker, but because we believe it does not give enough and is in fact unconstitutional. Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister spoke about equality. We are far from this equality enshrined in Section 36 of the 1982 Constitutional Act, which says the following about equalization and regional disparities:
36(1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority. Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to:
And then there are three commitments:
(a)	promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians;
(b)	furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and
(c)	providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.
Of course, these three commitments in the Canadian Constitution underlie the whole equalization system in Canada. For my part, Mr. Speaker, I find this Bill unacceptable because it does not completely satisfy the three conditions I have just mentioned. Under the present formula, Quebec's equalization entitlement will probably be $200 million below the level of the payments for the last fiscal year.
On the one hand, amounts are being allocated to provinces which had already benefited from the changes made to the equalization program in 1982, and, on the other hand, a large portion is being taken away from Quebec, which seems to be the only province that has to pay for what I would call a poor decision made by the Conservative Government. This is a political decision considering which provinces will be losing. We have Quebec, on the one hand, led by a Parti Quebecois Government, and not by a Conservative Government, and Manitoba on the other hand, which has also rejected the Conservative Party and elected a New Democrat Government. By accident, these are the only two provinces to lose out in the little game of equalization.
In my opinion, what should take place at this time is a public review of the equalization system rather than under the table negotiations with selected governments to quieten those that make too much noise and keep the friends of the Government happy.
As it was said in this House, some people want to blame the previous Government for the current equalisation formula. Moreover, they want to do this while ignoring the economic situation. You will recall that, when the previous equalization program was established in 1981, very few Canadians could have forecast the economic problems that would befall
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments Canada. Naturally, because of this economic situation, certain provinces did not receive as much money. Today, blaming the former Government is easy but at the time the legislation was passed in this House, no one could forecast that the years 1982 and 1983 would be disastrous economically, not only in Canada, but throughout the world. Yet, the agreement reached in 1981 was signed in good faith by a responsible Government. If it is felt that the time has come to review the agreement, let us do so! Indeed, by looking at the agreement and making certain changes, the Conservative Government could have been more generous. If it decided not to do so, it is its own decision and its own responsibility, and it seems to me that it would be difficult at this time to blame the previous Government, which is the strategy regularly used by this Government to extract itself from the difficulties it gets into from time to time.
My comments will be brief. I shall simply and unhesitatingly say that a Liberal Government under the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and advised by some of us, especially by my colleague from Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Gar-neau), would have been a lot more generous than the Conservative Government has been to the Province of Quebec, and would also have been a lot more respectful of the rights of all the Provinces in providing their citizens with equal and equitable education and health services.
Where are the Conservative Members of Parliament when we speak about equalization and the punitive way in which this Government has treated Quebec? No one can say that they have been very forceful. I hope that they will have the courage to take more solid positions and to defend Quebec instead of approving their Minister of Finance, who is unfortunately trying to solve his deficit problems at the expense of Quebecers, and partly at the expense of Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to briefly explain to you the reasons why we, on this side of the House, find it difficult to support this Government bill, a bill which we would be pleased to support if the amounts allocated, in particular to the Province of Quebec, were more generous. So, when the question is put and you see us oppose this bill, you should not conclude that the Liberal Party of Canada does not want that additional funding to be given to Quebec; on the contrary, we find that the increase granted to Quebec is not enough.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments. The Hon. Minister of State (Transport) (Mr. Bouchard).


Mr. Bouchard:: Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with the way the Hon. Member links the generosity towards Quebec with the financial situation, knowing full well that it is because the previous government has badly used, insofar as Quebec and the other provinces are concerned, the funds it had at its disposal, to make sure that the present situation facing us, given the financial situation of the country as a whole, does not favour Quebec nor any other province. The Minister of Finance has been quite clear, he could not give more . . . thus he granted to Quebec the equalization payments.

April 19, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
I think that at the present time, Hon. Members from Quebec, the Government Members, are very proud to support what is essentially a very realistic position. It takes into account essentially the funds we have at our disposal, be it for Quebec or for any other province. The Hon. Member and his colleagues are constantly linking the notion of generosity with a spending spree which has led us, once again, on the verge of bankrupty, of disaster, but that Party has, for many years, misappropriated public funds, and it continues to act in the same manner even in the Opposition, at the very moment where the Government tries to straighten out the very serious situation which, once again, was on the brink of disaster. That Party still maintains the same spending spree philosophy, under the pretext of favouring Quebec.


An Hon. Member:: It is true!


Benoît Bouchard: The minute the Government of Quebec was making a request, one year ago, it was considered irresponsible. But suddenly, because that party is in the Opposition, it discovers it has some things in common with the Government of Quebec that was banished and for which they had harsh words, under the pretext of being generous, Mr. Speaker, to the people of Quebec.
I think that was very clear on September 4 and it still is. The best way to be generous toward the people of Quebec, is to manage public funds in an intelligent and reasonable way. The Government of Canada gave to Quebec only what it could give. It did not act against the governments of other provinces. It would be naive to think that because the Government of Quebec is not a Conservative Government... on the contrary, you have criticized us because of our too good relationship with the so-called Government of Quebec. One must be serious. We are administering public funds. The equalization entitlements and payments allocated to Quebec were essentially arrived at taking into account the availability of funds, and proportionate to the amounts allocated in other parts of the country. You may call us whatever names you wish; Liberals got used to this name calling when they were in power, and unfortunately, in the last 8 months, they have not parted with the habit of constantly trying to humiliate members across the way. But it does not matter to us. Members from Quebec are happy with the computation made by the Minister of Finance. We think that Quebec has been treated with fairness and that what Quebecers want is a fair share of the available funds, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the minister's remarks and I can say that he has honestly stated the position of his party and that is to limit government spending. He refers to a solution that is realistic, fair and that takes into account the availability of funds, then he repeats the same old story we have been hearing since September 4, and even before, that is that funds are limited because of the previous administration.
Indeed, they are fair and they do what they can by giving out less money. For the time being, we will still take notice of the Minister's remarks, but I only wish to tell him and his colleagues that as this Parliament lives on-only six months may have gone by out of a four-year mandate-they will probably have to change their tune because they will not always be able, after two or three years in government, to blame the previous administration for all those evils. I merely want to warn you about that. While you may now find that solution fair and realistic, the fact is that the Quebec Cabinet is still not satisfied. It is all so easy to criticize Liberal Members for the representations they do on behalf of our fellow-Canadians, but we have been elected here to do just that. And let me remind you, for instance, that it was because of the continuing pressures applied in this House by my party that some assistance was given to Domtar. We were told exactly the same thing, that you inherited a mess, that you were left with little money, with an empty purse but, once representations from those areas became strong enough, you finally had to admit that the request was reasonable and you agreed to it, while saying that if you were unable to do it it was because of the previous administration. But eventually you saw the light and you agreed to help them. That is what happened.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) for questions or comments.


Raymond Garneau: I have one question and one comment. Mr. Speaker, I carefully listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Saint-Jacques. I want to commend him for representing the interests of the province of Quebec in a sober and honest fashion, thus fulfilling the mandate given to him by his constituents. Of course, I wish to emphasize one point. The Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard), who has just made a comment and put a question to the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques, emphasized the matter of distribution and the way the Province of Quebec was treated by the previous government in terms of equalization, the subject matter of the bill before us. Before asking a question to the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques, I want to remind the House that in 1982-83-and the Hon. Member will perhaps elaborate on this- provisional payments made under the equalization formula have brought in $354 million to the Province of Quebec. Those are the amounts that were paid, since the Minister of State for Transport wants to deal with that matter, $354.5 million were paid as a provisional payment to the government of Quebec by a liberal administration; in 1983-84, a provisional payment of $399.3 million was made by the previous liberal government and in 1984-85, $392.4 million were paid. Now, we are proposing a payment of $110 million whereas the Province of Quebec is losing 750 million.
Therefore, one could consider other cases as well and stress how the matter was handled in the case of Domtar, for instance. They simply took some funds that had already been granted to Quebec for regional development in an attempt to bail out Domtar through a special agreement on the develop-
April 19, 1985

merit of pulp and paper companies. Finally, the Province of Quebec will have to pay 100 per cent of the costs for Domtar. 1 want to ask the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques, who made an excellent speech, whether in his opinion, it would not be more profitable and fair to the Province of Quebec, instead of giving it $110 million as proposed in this bill-an amount arrived at by God knows what means and that the Minister of Finance of Quebec, Mr. Duhaime, called unfair and unjust, saying that it was irrational since some provinces did not loose anything under the present formula and nevertheless are granted additional funds-does the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques not believe that it would be a better idea to extend the provisional payments formula, thanks to which a balance was achieved during the first three years of implementation of the new equalization formula and that was developed to check whether this formula would have the expected results; the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) in his speech yesterday, and I remind it to the hon. member for Saint-Jacques, stressed that to start with, in 1982, when the new formula was implemented, officials of the Department of Finance had not forecast such a serious economic crisis. That is why the formula was implemented for three years in the hope that it would yield results and that after that period, the situation would get back to normal. I want to ask the following question: Would it not be more profitable to maintain this provisional formula whereby equalization payments to the Province of Quebec would only increase by 3 per cent from last year? Would it not be better to maintain that formula rather than to apply an ad hoc formula, draw a number at random and ask later: That's all?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, obviously it would be better to extend the transitional payment formula because, at least, it is a sound and fair method. While the Quebec government reacted to the political settlement that provided it with $110 million by saying that it was unfair and inequitable, 1 would rather describe it as arbitrary. Someone simply picked up $110 million out of a hat according to some unknown formula. That is why in my remarks I called it a political settlement. The Hon. Member from Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) is right. Had we used a well-known formula we could at least see that those figures were based on some computation. But here we have a settlement intended to pacify people I suppose, but which completely fails to meet its purpose.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: 1 will be very brief, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Take your time.


Dave Nickerson: We doubt if you will be very brief.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: I just have a couple of words. I wanted to speak briefly to put on the record that whenever we talk about
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
equalization payments and supplements to equalization payments or an increase or a decrease in equalization payments, we are always talking about dollars as they relate to this or that province.
To be perfectly honest about it, I think every place in the equalization payments Bill where it refers to X number of dollars-take for instance the $15 million to the Province of Newfoundland-it should rightfully read "$15 million to the Government of the Province of Newfoundland". I say that because of the actual and true intent of equalization payments. If you go back to the original legislation, the original intention was to give poor provinces that could not raise their own revenues some semblance of equality in Canada whereby the federal Government or the richer provinces in Canada would give money indirectly to those poor provinces so they could have services considered to be normal and expected in all parts of Canada.
That is where the entire intent falls down, Mr. Speaker. The money is simply given as a lump sum to a provincial government with no strings attached whatever. If a provincial government wants to build arterial and access roads into its one or two cities with that money, it could do so. Even when a province had sufficient access roads to its cities, it could still continue to build roads on stilts over roads presently going into those cities. In other words, it depends upon the benevolent attitude of the government in power at the time in a given province whether the actual intent of this legislation is fulfilled.
I will give you one example of what I was dealing with this morning, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to figure out how to get some government somewhere to put some money into supplying a water system to a community which had all its applications for wells rejected because all the health reports stated the water was unfit for human consumption. In the process of trying to do that, I checked with the provincial department of health in Newfoundland. I discovered there were numerous communities in a similar situation. In my area alone, 40 or 50 communities are affected. On the one hand we talk about $600 million or $700 million, loads of money, being given to a government to equalize services in this country, and on the other hand I have to tell these poor people: "No, there is no way that you can get any money so you can have pure drinking water for your school children".
I will call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and continue after lunch.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
April 19, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) had the floor.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks on the Bill before the House today, an Act to provide for the making of supplementary fiscal equalization payments to certain provinces for the period April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1987.
Before we adjourned for lunch, I was making the point that the actual intention of equalization payments was to provide help to lower income provinces to make it possible for them, along with their local governments, to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. When we talk about public services, normally in high unemployment areas we immediately think about infrastructure in the form of water systems, sewer systems and roads. These are the very areas where there are incredible discrepancies in levels of service across the country. In the case of my Province of Newfoundland, about $600 million or $700 million this year will be passed over in the form of unconditional grants to the Government of Newfoundland to provide comparable levels of public services to those existing in other provinces. Of course the "have" provinces have the taxation base from which to be able to provide those services to the general public.
When we total all the equalization payments over the past few years, we arrive at an incredible figure. That money was supposed to go toward providing services for the general public. However, as I have pointed out to the House, there are 40 or 50 communities in my riding which do not have water systems. How could that be when the intent of these equalization payments was to correct such inadequacies? Why is it that the roads are not paved in a great portion of my riding, if the purpose of equalization payments, as the Act indicates, is to provide comparable levels of public services?
The point is that the money does not go to provide the services outlined in the Act and in the agreements. It does not go to assist communities which want water. Today, in 1985, there are school children who do not have the benefit of uncontaminated drinking water. If we ask medical doctors in certain parts of the country about major problems, of course they will talk about the inadequate quantity of drinking water. I have seen little slips from the Department of Health indicating the water is unfit for human consumption. Whenever I see a Bill such as this one coming before the Chamber, I think about the fact that this money is not used for what it was intended.
These communities try to obtain federal grants which are available. I suppose they will be available next year after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has his say in the Budget and after the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) decides what she will do as far as short-term job-creation programs are concerned. The majority of this money should be spent on providing water and essential services to small, isolated communities.
As far as the intention of the Government is concerned, we need only look at the publication entitled A New Direction for Canada to find the implementation of the strategy on page 84, where the following is indicated quite clearly:
To achieve the target will necessitate a careful examination of all federal expenditures-economic and regional development, social programs, federal-provincial transfers,... to develop an orderly plan to slow their growth-
That is the intention of the Government. The Government will not increase expenditures over a period of time. There will not be the same level of increases we have seen over the years. It will slow the growth of these payments. It then says, "while reshaping their composition to minimize the effects of contraction on the economy". I would suggest that one of the measures the Government should take if it is going to cut back on these payments to the provinces is to ask the provinces to be accountable for where that money goes. In other words, if it is the intent of legislation to provide public services in a province that are comparable to public services in other provinces in Canada, then that provincial Government should have to indicate where the money went. That seems only logical.
It is fine to talk about equalization payments and about how much more money will go to provincial Governments. The Premier of Newfoundland has said that under this Government, we are receiving increased equalization payments. The Government of Newfoundland has received increased equalization payments every single year. The fact of the matter is that the formula is rather unfair. We are being told Newfoundland is going to be a rich province because of all the offshore oil out there. The fact of the matter is that energy revenues mean a reduction in equalization dollar for dollar.
The new Government indicated that for the first five years of oil production in Newfoundland, the diminishing return on equalization payments will be slowed down. If the provincial treasury were to get $10 per barrel on a billion barrels of oil, it would receive $10 billion over a period of 20 years, the time it will take for the offshore oil to be developed. When talking about equalization payments, $10 billion is peanuts. The province is already getting $700 million per year over 20 years, and that would come to much more than the revenue that would be received from the oil. The point is that in the case of the Province of Newfoundland as it relates to equalization payments, we should ask why the money is not being used to provide the services that are supposed to be provided.
If we were only discussing money and if the entire offshore accord with the Province of Newfoundland meant money and only money, we would have to come to the conclusion that under this particular piece of legislation Newfoundland ends up with zero. When the province makes money from energy, it loses on equalization payments.
The so-called poor provinces should be looking at a change of direction in provincial Government policy regarding the utilization of the money provincial Governments receive. We should ask what we can do to foster industrial development so we will then have a tax base and will not need to receive
April 19, 1985

equalization payments. Why was that not considered when the offshore oil agreement was signed? Why did the agreement contain the clause that none of the oil from the offshore could come into Newfoundland to develop refineries and petrochemical industries there but rather that it had to satisfy the demands of the eastern Canadian refining and industrial capacity? In other words, the agreement was all about money going to the provincial treasury. It was about an amount of money that is not as great as the equalization payments would be over the life of the development.
In conclusion-


Don Boudria: Oh no, we want to hear more.


George Baker: The Hon. Member behind me says he wants to hear more. I think my time is pretty well up. I do, however, have a few minutes left.
When thinking of equalization payments, one always thinks of the other transfers that are made, including transfers for post-secondary education, health services and the like. We can see what happens when money is transferred to a provincial treasury without any strings attached.
When block funding came into the Province of Newfoundland, the provincial Government froze the development of all senior citizens' homes and nursing homes in the province. They put the matter under study for four years. That payment is made on a per capita basis and has a built-in escalation. Therefore, money was going into the provincial treasury for the purpose of providing 75 per cent of the cost of the retirement of the debt on senior citizens' homes and nursing homes after individuals had paid and CMHC had brought the mortgage rate down to 2 per cent. That amount of money was increasing every year but no senior citizens' or nursing homes were being built until the matter was studied for three or four years. Where did that extra money go? It certainly did not go to senior citizens' homes and nursing homes.
When looking at the financial papers of these senior citizens' and nursing homes, one begins to realize that every time the Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) announces an increase in the old age pension, no one who lives in a senior citizens' or nursing home in this country sees that increase. We see what happens when a provincial administration is given a bunch of money with no strings attached other than a general intent to increase the level of public services. Some provincial Governments will spend the money where it is supposed to be spent but a great many of them will not do so. In fact, when examining the expenditures of the Government of Newfoundland, we can see where waste exists and where the Government has not been following through on the intended use of the money that was being transferred.
It is indeed unfortunate that when looking at the formula that controls this Bill, one must realize that the bottom line is zero in certain administrations. The bottom line is zero as it relates to Hibernia. The bottom line is zero as it relates to the Government of Newfoundland. The bottom line would not have been zero if there had not been the clause in the agreement indicating that the offshore oil would be used to
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
satisfy existing industrial capacity throughout Atlantic Canada. I still believe that part of the intent of that was to satisfy the Petromont industry in the Hon. Speaker's riding.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) knows that the purpose of the equalization formula is to distribute funds across Canada. The formula has been modified by the present Government in an attempt to bring about the agreement of some of the provinces with respect to the payments which will be made this year.
The Hon. Member comes from a province which is in a very peculiar situation. The revenue of his province is likely to vary substantially over the years because of the oil situation. What is the effect of a fixed equalization formula on a province such as Newfoundland in which revenues are likely to increase in a very substantial fashion? Does he believe that his constituents will be able to live with a formula which is set in concrete, when the income situation will vary greatly in that province?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, as far as energy revenue is concerned, if there is a development which is to last for a period of 20 years, the province would arrive at a point in the first five or six years when equalization payments would disappear. They would disappear almost totally. However, if the development in Newfoundland was to be stretched out over a 20-year period, then equalization payments would never disappear. There would always be some difference on the bottom. What is important is that there must be a constant increase to the provincial Governments in the equalization formula. A constant increase was always the intent of the legislation as growth occurred in that particular fiscal arrangement. However, if it is limited, for example, to $670 million this year, and that limitation was to be in effect for the next ten years, then the difference in the income from energy revenues and what is owed through equalization payments would be less.
To answer the hon. gentleman's question, it would be much better for the Government of Newfoundland to have equalization payments increase drastically.
Hon. Members will note that I said it was very important to the Government of Newfoundland. 1 do not accept the wording in this legislation which says that the payment will go to the Province of Newfoundland. Also, I do not accept it when it is said that the payment will go to the people of Newfoundland, or to Newfoundland. It is the Government of Newfoundland which decides where the money will go. Too often, the decisions of the Government of Newfoundland are not very good. Sometimes I wonder if it is interested in governing the province, or if it just wants to hang out a carrot as it does during every election campaign. It hangs out the carrot and says that all the people of Newfoundland will be rich. However, the carrot gets rotten after a while.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In resuming debate, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).
3920

April 19, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to speak briefly on Bill C-39. I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Baker) for his eloquent remarks. I hesitated in rising to speak this afternoon because I wanted to give the Conservative back-benchers from the Province of Quebec an opportunity to speak.

Although 1 waited for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, 1 failed to see the Hon. Member from Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) and other Hon. Members rise to speak on behalf of their constituents and ask the very questions they should have raised in the House this afternoon. I must say that 1 am somewhat disappointed, because I was looking forward to hearing the Hon. Member for Duvernay who undoubtedly would have made a very eloquent speech, perhaps he will choose to do so when 1 am finished.
Mr. Speaker, when discussing fiscal equalization payments, we should remember the promises that were made to the Canadian people last fall.

When the Conservative Government was elected last fall, I do not recall that it said it would short-change the Province of Quebec or any other province, not even the Province of Ontario, which also qualifies for equalization payments. The Province of Ontario should not qualify for equalization payments, but it has been so poorly run over the last number of years that it is in the situation in which it does qualify. The Province of Ontario definitely needs a change.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will be campaigning in Ontario for the next few days to give a hand to Premier Miller. Perhaps the Prime Minister is right in doing that because the Premier needs all the help he can get. As the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) is from Ontario, he will know that the Premier's campaign is flat and that he is not doing very well. The Prime Minister is setting a precedent in helping the Premier, and I hope that he will campaign on the same theme on which he campaigned last August-time for a change. It would be nice to hear the Prime Minister say that during the election campaign in Ontario. Perhaps he could also raise the issue of equalization payments and indicate that the Province of Ontario has been so poorly run over the last number of years that it now qualifies for those payments. But the province will not take the equalization payments because that would indicate that it is not in as good a financial situation as it was before, and Ontario Tories would never admit to their shortcomings. That would be admitting that a change is needed in Toronto. Of course, we all know that a change is needed. I hope that the Prime Minister will campaign on the same theme as he did last summer and say that it is time for a change. After 43 years, it is time for a change.
Why is it that we are a little short right now in providing the provinces with the payments which they need? There may be several reasons. The Government spends 80 per cent to 90 per
cent of its time telling us that it cannot fulfil its election promises because of the previous Government. That strategy is wearing thin. The Government has been in power for eight months. Government Members seemed to have had the resources to fulfil just about anything before they were elected. They made 338 promises. However, in none of those promises did they say: "Vote for me and I will cut your payments". Perhaps it was an oversight on the part of the Government.
Let us look at the areas in which the Government has cut its funding to the provinces. Not only do we know that the Province of Quebec and others will be losing many millions of dollars worth of equalization payments because of the actions of this Government, but we also know, for example, that as a result of the cut-backs which were announced on November 8, black Thursday, the Province of Quebec will lose $770 million because of the book of cut-backs. Those are the cut-backs which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) inflicted upon the people of Canada. They range from cuts in agricultural programs to cuts in capital expenditures and construction and all kinds of other reported cuts. The cancellation of the census is even included but, of course, the Government changed its mind on that.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware that the information in the census was necessary in order to establish the equalization grants, to which the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre), who is here right now, would attest. The provinces probably shook the Minister of Finance hard. The Minister of Supply and Services must have given him a few shoves himself. And it was only because of those actions that the Minister of Finance changed his mind and reinstated the census, ensuring somewhere in the order of 6,000 full-time jobs, plus about 40,000 part-time jobs, which had been lost as a result of this particular cut-back. A vast amount of funding has been cut by the federal Government throughout those same areas of the country which are once again suffering because of the lowering of the equalization grant.
I must also take a moment to discuss what the Government is doing with the funds it has. Of course, one of the reasons it cannot provide these grants is because it is spending-or should I say "wasting"-the money elsewhere. What is it wasting its money on? Let me start by stating the fact that we have the largest Cabinet in the history of this country. It is not just 1 per cent or 2 per cent larger than we had before, not even 10 per cent larger. The Cabinet we have now, Mr. Speaker, is about 25 per cent if not 30 per cent larger, than the Cabinet of the previous Government. The population of this country did not explode by 30 per cent overnight when this Government was elected. They are the same people who were here prior to September 4. But the Conservatives, in order to run this country, needed a Cabinet which was one-third larger than the Cabinet of the Liberals. Perhaps that is because the Conservatives are only two-thirds as efficient as the Liberals and needed a larger Cabinet in order to get the same results.
April 19, 1985

There may be another reason, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Conservatives needed a make-work program. One would think that a make-work program would address itself to the general population. However, in the case of this Government, the make-work program really addresses itself to members of the Conservative Party who had been elected-and some who were not who needed something to do. So the book-ends, or "surfers" as we call them, those who came in with the tide, needed something to do and, of course, the Government decided to appoint a much larger than necessary Cabinet. There were 40 Cabinet Ministers. We are seeing a gradual reduction in the size of the Cabinet as Ministers resign; however, it is still a 39-member Cabinet. There are 39 limousines, or 40 limousines if the Minister who resigned kept the limousine he had. The west door of the Parliament Buildings looks like a used car lot. I have never seen so many cars in all my life in any one place. The other day I had a hard time getting into the parking lot with my automobile, Mr. Speaker, because a lot of limousines were blocking the entrance, waiting for Cabinet Ministers to come out of their meeting or whatever it was they were doing in the building at that particular time.
On top of those 40 limousines and 40 Cabinet Ministers for which the people of Canada have to pay, we have to have 40 political commissars. These are the people in the office who apologize and write letters of refusal for the Ministers. Of course, the Minister himself writes a letter of acceptance whenever he gives out money and the political commissars sign the letter whenever he refuses. I've had experience with that in letters I have received from Cabinet Ministers. Some of them are signed by the political commissars, but whenever a letter says "We are glad to agree with you", in most cases it is signed by the Minister.
The Government seemed to have plenty of resources when it came time to reward its own. The Government has made approximately 1200 political appointments since the election of last September. I am sure that every Conservative backbencher must be ashamed of this record, Mr. Speaker. Not only did the Government appoint 1200 people, but a large number are defeated Tory candidates. Not 1200 Tories were defeated, of course, but I will say that most of the high-paying jobs were given to defeated Conservative candidates. There is the case of Lawrence Hanigan who was defeated by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Gar-neau). Mr. Hanigan was running the Montreal Urban Transit Commission and was doing a fine job. There were only 20 strikes in ten years. Now that particular gentleman is hired to run our railway system at $100,000 a year. And once he was appointed to that position, it was determined that that salary wasn't enough. How could the poor guy live on $100,000 a year? So he was given a $25,000 or $30,000 salary increase so that this defeated Conservative candidate could make ends meet.
So we wonder, Mr. Speaker, why it is that we have no money to run the necessary programs we must have. It is small wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we waste money in that way. I see the Conservative back-benchers across the floor nodding and
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments agreeing with me. Do you know why that is, Mr. Speaker? Some of them must be almost disappointed that they were elected. They would have had higher paying jobs had they been defeated along with Lawrence Hanigan and others who received large pay increases. They were justly rewarded for having lost the election. In that Party winners become the losers and losers become the winners, providing they are friends of the Prime Minister.


An Hon. Member:: What about Lloyd Francis?


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member opposite talks about the 1 per cent or 2 per cent of political appointments which were not given to prominent Conservatives, but the fact still remains that this Government has appointed one prominent Conservative every three hours since it was elected last summer. And this is a Government which promised not to partake of patronage and not to waste the Canadian taxpayers' dollars which are so necessary in order to run the valuable programs for which the Government is saying it does not have the required funds. This is the same Government which said it would only appoint people who had a willingness to serve and who had a high degree of competence. This is the same Government which turned down the reappointment of Senator Florence Bird who is one of the most competent people in this country. That is acknowledged by Amnesty International and all the refugee groups in this country. They have all given their support to the reappointment of Florence Bird. Why was she not reappointed, Mr. Speaker? It was because the Minister wanted to imprint her own style on her Department.
This is not a Government of substance, this is a Government of style. We have political commissars to hide the Ministers. We have style when we appoint new people. Whatever happened to substance? What is wrong with substance instead of style? We have the Prime Minister starting his own fan club. At $100 a throw, people can actually become members of the fan club of the Prime Minister, "The Brian Club", I believe it is called.


An Hon. Member:: Of course, it beats John Turner's club.


Don Boudria: We hear an Hon. Member who is pleased. He probably bought one or two memberships in the fan club of the Prime Minister in order to make his way from the back row where he sits to a row closer to the front, in Cabinet. Perhaps he will succeed by buying a membership in that fan club, but maybe not. I do not want to speak too long on this Bill, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to return to the issue of equalization. For a moment, as I am sure you noticed, Mr. Speaker, I was dwelling a bit on patronage. But it is all linked. This Government is wasting money on unnecessary things, and then has none left where it makes a difference, where it counts, in helping out the people of this country who need it the most. Why does the Government not have the money? Because it spent it on other things. Because Members opposite partook of patronage. They wasted taxpayers' dollars by redecorating their offices on Parliament Hill. They rented limousines. They delivered a Budget using a Government jet. All these and other

April 19, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments kinds of things they have been partaking of since last September.
Why don't 1 hear Conservative Members from Quebec standing up in this House and making a speech, saying that their province needs more equalization payments? Why don't 1 hear Conservative Members from the Maritime Provinces standing up and speaking on behalf of their constituents in this House? They should be standing up demanding the funds from that Government. They should be putting their seats on the line if they have to. But we do not hear that from the Conservative back-benchers. They are nice and silent here. Even the Member who wanted to abolish the tolls on the Champlain Bridge is not moving. His colleague over there is not doing so either. They were talking of lower gas prices, abolishing tolls and all those other issues, and now they are not doing anything. They are content and happy to just sit there and wait just in case they get their turn to be called to the front row and join the executive of the Brian fan club as opposed to being just regular Members, which is what they are now. Well, we in our Party are not satisfied with that. [Translation]
What Liberals want, Mr. Speaker, is to promote equal opportunities for all Canadians in their search of well-being. What they want is to enhance economic development so as to reduce disparities. They want to provide all Canadians with an acceptable level of equality and essential public services. They also want provincial governments to stop wasting taxpayers' money. We know, Mr. Speaker, that several provincial governments, when they were given, with no strings attached, the power to manage federal funds, squandered that money and did not spend it the way they should have. I am sure my colleague opposite who shares my opinion will agree with me that we should get rid of all those Conservative provincial governments that are now in power.

In the Province of Ontario, for instance, just to give an example of how those funds have been used, 97 per cent-well, this better be good.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) is rising on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: I wonder if those remarks are relevant. The previous subject was dear to the Hon. Member's heart, and he is now starting on another. It seems to me provincial elections have nothing to do with the equalization matter now before us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member deals with the Ontario government's policy regarding equalization, that could be relevant. But I believe the Hon. Member is getting the point which was made by the Hon. Member for Gatineau and that he will act accordingly.


Don Boudria: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I agree entirely, as 1 usually do, with the impartial ruling you have made on that matter.
Mr. Speaker, let us refer, for a moment, to the government of Ontario.

In relation to the funds being awarded to the Government of Ontario by the federal Government, and its investment particularly in the area of housing, right now the programs we have are such that 97 per cent of the funds for public housing in Ontario come from the federal Government and 3 per cent from the province. This is only one example of a program in a province which was supposed to have a two-government component. Once we removed that condition and gave it to a provincial Conservative Government, they wasted the money.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired. On a question or comment?


Mr. McKnight:: Mr. Speaker, if I can ask the Hon. Member a question, is he at all familiar with the Canada-Ontario rental supply plan and the 50/50 sharing of that plan between the federal and provincial Governments? This will provide something like 2,800 units to the people of Ontario through the auspices of the previous Minister of Housing, Mr. Bennett, and now through the auspices of Mr. Timbrell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, yes-


Jacques Guilbault: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to bring to your attention the fact that the Minister is asking a question of a Member which is irrelevant to the Bill before us, namely equalization payments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I rule the question pertinent because the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) brought the matter up by what he said concerning the use of equalization payments by the Government of Ontario.


Don Boudria: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the rental supply program. I am also familiar with the municipal non-profit housing program and all the other programs we have in relation to housing in Ontario. I am also aware how, if you take those programs, combine them together and divide the federal and provincial components, you end up with 97.2 per cent federal money and 2.8 per cent provincial money. Most of these programs were designed for an equal contribution from both levels of Government.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is as follows: Mrs. McDougall, for Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre), moves that Bill C-39, an Act to provide for the making of supplementary fiscal equalization payments to certain provinces for the period April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1987, be now read the second time
April 19, 1985

and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services) moved: that Bill C-43, an Act to dissolve the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and to amend the Surplus Crown Assets Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to begin debate today on this very important legislation, especially as it is the first piece of legislation I have had the opportunity to introduce.


Don Boudria: It is your second.


Harvie Andre: Yes, it is my second; I stand corrected. I do not think I had a chance to debate the first one.
In any event, although this is essentially an administrative or bookkeeping Bill, it is important because it directly reflects this Government's commitment to fiscal responsibility, deficit reduction, leaner government, increased accountability and a reduced role for Crown Corporations. I will return to those points in detail in my later remarks, but first I thought it would be useful for the House to have a brief history of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and the events which have precipitated the introduction of this Bill today.
The Corporation was created by the Government in 1943 under the name War Assets Disposal Corporation. Its purpose was obviously to dispose of excess materiel from World War II. In wartime all kinds of materials are purchased in pursuit of the war effort, not all of which are consumed in war. Those not consumed are of course unnecessary in large part after the restoration of peace. The Corporation carried on this activity until 1949, when its name and mandate was changed by the Surplus Crown Assets Act. As the name implies, at that point the Governor in Council granted to the new corporation responsibility for disposing of all surplus Crown assets, not only those relating to the war effort. It also gave the corporation responsibility for disposing of surplus assets of foreign powers located in Canada.
Crown Assets Disposal Corporation
[DOT] (M50)
In those formative years the corporation performed its function effectively and efficiently. Unfortunately, in the 1970s I do not think that efficient and effective would be two adjectives that one would use to describe the performance of that Crown corporation. If our late colleague, Mr. Tom Cossitt, was still with us, he may have had a pretty long list of activities of the corporation of which he would wish to remind the Canadian public. Those who are interested might look at some of the questions which Mr. Cossitt put on the Order Paper in 1978 and 1979 which were never answered. However, perhaps the past should stay in the past.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, Crown Assets Disposal was not unique in that regard. There were many aspects of government performance, both within Crown corporations and otherwise, that were subject to scrutiny and probing questions by Mr. Cossitt, a great many other Members of the House, and members of the public which precipitated the establishment of a royal commission on financial management and accountability called the Lambert Commission. That commission recommended a number of quite important and profound changes to the way in which government functioned in an effort to improve accountability and financial management to save the taxpayers money and ensure that the taxpayers know how their money is being spent and their assets are being disposed of. It attempted to restore some degree of political accountability in keeping with the traditions of our parliamentary democracy.
One of the recommendations of the Lambert Commission was that the activities of Crown Assets Disposal should in fact be placed directly within the operations of government as a common service. In 1982 this occurred and the disposal activities of Crown Assets Disposal were moved into the Department of Supply and Services and have been a part of the operations of my Department ever since. It was decided that there were no advantages to retaining the arm's length relationship that a Crown corporation implies and that there would be improved accountability and responsibility and a better deal obtained for the taxpayers by having the activities conducted within government. In addition, the management and administration of the corporation was taken over by the Department of Supply and Services. These changes were implemented by Order in Council in 1982 and have been phased in. At that time all employees of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation were offered employment within the Department of Supply and Services. No one's employment was terminated outright. The vast majority of employees did accept employment with the Public Service and are so employed today.
Consequently, we have a situation in which we have a corporation in form only. There are no employees. Its activities are undertaken entirely by the employees of my Department. However, there is a legal requirement for such a corporation to exist. It must have a board of directors, hold annual meetings, produce annual reports, and maintain separate accounts which

April 19, 1985
Crown Assets Disposal Corporation must be audited. For three years we have had these unnecessary expenses carrying on.
However, as the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) knows, it has not been a total loss. There have been opportunities to appoint directors. Outstanding Canadians from coast to coast have been sitting on the board of directors. I'm sure the Member would know most of them personally because they were quite active in his political association. It was certainly enjoyable for them to come to Ottawa from time to time to attend annual meetings and collect a per diem. The taxpayers of Canada enjoyed the opportunity of subsidizing some very honourable and hardworking members of the Liberal Party. In October, after being sworn in as Minister, I had the sad duty of terminating some of those appointments.


Jacques Guilbault: Now you've got enough Tories.


Harvie Andre: No, as a matter of fact we replaced them with public servants who reside in Ottawa and receive no per diem for attending meetings. Therefore, that expense has been cut out, but there is still the expense of maintaining separate books, producing annual reports, et cetera. This legislation is introduced to clean up that situation by removing this corporation from the books. Instead of having 438 Crown corporations we will now have 437. That is a start on the road toward reducing this unconscionably large list of structures and organizations that have been put in place over the last 20 years.
The substantial portions of Bill C-43 are dealt with in Clauses 1 to 6. I'm sure Members will have noted that Clause 5 allows any business transaction which is still in progress involving Crown Assets and outside parties to carry on. Therefore, no one will suffer personal, financial or legal consequences of these changes. The remaining 10 clauses of the Bill are consequential amendments to the Surplus Crown Assets Act and are administrative in nature. The final section is a schedule outlining consequential amendments to Acts other than the Surplus Crown Assets Act.
This is a straightforward, uncontroversial piece of legislation. For that reason I urge the House to give it speedy second reading and expeditious reference to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. I would like to take this opportunity to look beyond the technical aspects of this legislation and recognize its profound symbolic importance. I am deeply committed to the principle of this legislation, as is the Government. I spoke earlier of several principles which guide the Government's action.
First, the Government is committed to fiscal responsibility. Bill C-43 is fundamentally designed to eliminate duplication of effort in the Government of Canada and to formalize a process which has already saved $600,000 for the taxpayers of Canada and will result in an annual saving of that amount. In the figures we deal in around here of millions and billions, it may not seem like much, but if you look after the thousands, the millions and billions will look after themselves.
The Government is firmly committed to the principle of deficit reduction. The legislation has as its underlying premise the perpetuation and improvement of a regime which successfully recovers for the Crown some $23 million annually from surplus assets. The administration is committed to a leaner, more efficient Government. In his statement last November 8 my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), indicated that of his four-part strategy for economic renewal one was to have less government intervention. This is one small step, but I can assure my colleagues opposite that there will be many more in the future. When the electors, or more likely old age, require us to move on, we will definitely be leaving behind a leaner, more efficient, and more effective Government than that which we inherited after 20 years of Liberal rule.
The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) has announced a number of very important initiatives that will attempt to clear the mess left by his predecessor. My colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), has indicated the Government's intention to consider the privatization of a whole range of Crown corporations. Furthermore, those that will be retained for good public policy purposes will be more accountable to the House and the Canadian public and will operate in a more responsible fashion than has been the case in the past.
I have stated that accountability is the cornerstone of this Government's mandate. Therefore, we do not accept the use of the arm's length relationship of Crown corporations to avoid that accountability and responsibility. In a democratic society, we do not find reasonable and proper the previous Government's habit of removing the day to day scrutiny of activities by leaving it to the Crown corporations when those activities are part of the Government's ongoing activities. We will be increasing accountability and the responsibility of Ministers of the Government to the House on a daily basis which will be combined with the very important initiatives being recommended by the Task Force on Parliamentary Reform. This will lead to a much more democratic procedure which will assure the electors of Canada that they know what the federal Government is doing with their money and that their representatives in the House can hold the Government accountable. It is only through such change that we will begin to reverse the trend of 20 years of Liberal rule and restore a reasonable kind of Government to this country.
Although this legislation is not profound in itself, it will save money. It does establish the trend. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) laughs. Much time is spent in the House worrying about appointments to directorships of Crown corporations and other positions which he believes is a concern. I suggest to him that he should be applauding loudly because we are eliminating some opportunities for such appointments through this legislation. I am making the commitment that we will continue to do so. Our Government is firmly committed to the privatization of Crown corporations when it is no longer necessary for the Government to own them. It is firmly committed to winding up those
April 19, 1985

Crown corporations that no longer serve any useful purpose. Therefore, the Hon. Member should be applauding us for removing these opportunities for political patronage.
In the meantime I can assure him, with respect to those Crown corporations that are retained for good public policy reasons, that we will continue to maintain our current practice of appointing the best people possible to those positions. He can be assured that the taxpayers and electors in his riding will be well served by the Government of Canada even though they may have chosen not to elect a representative of the right Party in the last election.
I welcome the support of my Cabinet colleagues who I know support the aims of this legislation. I urge members of the Opposition, whom I know to be thoughtful and honourable, to support this worth-while initiative.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Party and as official critic I am pleased to respond to Bill C-43 which was moved by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre). The Minister is slightly guilty of plagiarism in his comments. He should have at least acknowledged that the previous Government had begun the process of dismantling the Crown corporation. Of course, the Minister forgot to mention that.
The Minister's remarks left me with the impression that he was reading his address in reply to the Throne Speech rather than introducing a small, administrative Bill to eliminate a redundant corporation. Understandably, our Party is in agreement with the Bill since we had begun the process pursuant to the report of the Lambert Commission to which the Minister referred earlier. The Lambert Commission had also recommended the unification of the two arms of the Department of Supply and Services, which has already taken place as a result of the last shuffle of deputy ministers.
I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to a reduction in the number of people who are appointed through political patronage. He stated that there would be less political patronage as a result of the elimination of the board of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. However, I wonder if this is an indication from him that there is division within the Cabinet as far as Crown corporations are concerned because I am sure the Minister will recall that his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), indicated his desire to form a new Crown corporation to take over the Cyprus-Anvil Mine in the Yukon, in his riding. I am sure that difference of opinion between the Minister of Supply and Services, who wants to do away with many Crown corporations, and the Deputy Prime Minister, who wants a new Crown corporation to serve a specific interest in his riding, will eventually create a rift within the Government of Canada.
Our Party supports the dismantling process of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. The Minister gave us the assurance a few moments ago that no one will lose his employment as a result of this dismantling. The Minister also informed us previously that the corporation itself had very few people, if
Crown Assets Disposal Corporation
any, left on staff because it had essentially been united with the Department.
However, I want to reiterate that we believe the functions of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation should be united with those of the Department of Supply and Services because the Minister should be in charge of all activities within his Department. We have no difficulty with this legislation, other than our wish to receive the assurance that I requested earlier.
The Minister concluded his remarks by saying that he wanted the best people to serve on Crown corporations. I am pleased that he said that. I am sure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) reads Hansard regularly, and that he will read the Minister's speech. After taking a copy of Hansard and reading the Minister's speech, he will probably immediately remove from the board of Air Canada Gayle Christie, the former defeated mayor of the City of York and the former defeated candidate for the Conservative nomination in that riding. The Duchess of York was appointed to the board of Air Canada and was interviewed afterward by a journalist. The journalist asked Mrs. Christie how she felt she qualified to be on the board of Air Canada. Her reply was, and these are not my words but hers: "I know how to drive a car". Those are the qualifications of the Duchess of York.
They are similar to the qualifications of other Conservatives appointed to various positions by this Government since the last election. Perhaps some of the people were even less qualified than Mrs. Christie. I referred earlier today to the appointment of Lawrence Hanigan, and I have referred to several other people who have been appointed by this Government to sit on various corporations whose qualifications seem to be that they held a membership card and had a prominent position within the Conservative Party.


Walter Franklin McLean: They are outstanding Canadians.


Don Boudria: I am glad that the Minister has said he personally does not want to partake in that practice and he will fight in Cabinet to ensure that the appointment of political hacks to boards of Crown corporations will be terminated. I am glad to see that at least one member of the Cabinet is on my side in this issue in the person of the Minister of Supply and Services and probably the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) who is heckling right now. He should be heckling. He should be upset at the fact that so few women have been appointed to these Crown corporations.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: You just criticized the last appointment.


Don Boudria: He is-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member has talked about the appointment of women to Crown corporation boards. He has just now personally criticized the last appointment, one of an outstanding Canadian by the name of Gail Christie who was appointed to the board of Air Canada.

April 19, 1985
Crown Assets Disposal Corporation


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With respect, I do not believe that is a point of order.


Don Boudria: Not only is it not a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but it is not even a good point, as you have recognized. 1 have only described the qualifications which the individual attributed to herself.
If Hon. Members want to talk about outstanding Canadians sitting on boards, let me talk about Florence Bird. Why was she not reappointed? She is an individual with outstanding qualifications. I know the Minister of Labour is concerned about the status of women and is probably fighting right now to get her reappointed. I hope he succeeds because Senator Florence Bird should be sitting on the advisory refugee board. I give the Minister of Labour all my support when he wants to get more qualified women to sit on these Crown corporations and fewer of the likes of Mr. Hanigan and the others who have been appointed by his Leader.


Walter Franklin McLean: There have been more women appointed than ever. Take a look at the record of your Government.


Don Boudria: I am right behind the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, but I am not behind the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) who fired Geraldine Copps. Geraldine Copps did her job. Geraldine Copps' daughter, a member of this Parliament, criticized the Government and for that reason her mother was not reappointed. I am not behind that Minister, Mr. Speaker.


Claudy Mailly: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. First, the Hon. Member has already alluded four times to the attendance of members and ministers particularly. Secondly, the case he mentioned has already been disposed of in favor of the Secretary of State. So, I doubt he can make comments on that very subject in this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau would be right on her first point of order. As I know the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), I am sure he will take note of it. As far as her second point of order is concerned, I suggest that it is rather a matter of debate.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has the floor.


Don Boudria: Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for having ruled in such a way on the minor point of order raised by the Hon. Member. You noticed of course that I asked some ministers to intervene, but I don't think 1 made any comment regarding whether they were or were not present in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker.
Anyway, I will be brief because I am almost finished with my remarks on this Bill. However, I want to say this to the Secretary of State who spoke earlier. Even if I agree with his colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre), who wants to depoliticize Crown corporations, and as well with other Ministers, for instance the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), to whom I give credit hoping he will continue to make sure qualified women are appointed to the boards of many Crown corporations, I sometimes find myself in disagreement with the Secretary of State of this country who decided at one time to deal in his own way with a candidate related to an opposition member of this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this debate on behalf of our Party. Our Party is in favour of this Bill. We want assurance that any employees who may be remaining in the corporations do not lose their employment on account of this change. We are in agreement that the Minister of Supply and Services should be running the Department in its entirety and that this change was recommended and was already in process when the previous Government was in office. This is a continuation of what had already been stated. I applaud the Minister for continuing a previous Liberal initiative.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-43. It is an appropriate piece of legislation to be brought before this House. It is quite clear that the corporation itself has served its day. My understanding is that there may be only one actual employee. There is a board of directors but there may be just a bookkeeper associated with this Crown corporation.
There is a point I want to make in relation to this Bill that I think this House should take into account every time a Bill comes before this House. Very recently, during the last Parliament, I do not know whether it was an accident of numbering, but Bill C-44 which came before this House was an amendment to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act which had a very deleterious effect on one person whose name happens to be John Turner. He actually lives in Vancouver but is a prospector in the Yukon. That piece of legislation has had a very serious and harmful impact on him.
I draw that to the attention of Members because if Members look at Clause 5 in Bill C-43 they will see there a protective mechanism placed in the Bill that should be put in every piece of legislation to protect those who are involved in litigation or who are in the process of initiating litigation against the Crown or against corporations associated with a piece of legislation. Clause 5 says very clearly:
5. (I) Any action, suit or other legal proceeding in respect of an obligation or liability incurred by the Corporation, or by the Minister in closing out the affairs of the Corporation, may be brought against Her Majesty in any court that would have had jurisdiction if the action, suit or other legal proceeding had been brought against the Corporation.
It is a very important principle for those members of the public or, in terms of this corporation, I suppose for other countries because this corporation over the years has acted as
April 19, 1985

a disposal agency for foreign nations which have assets to dispose of in Canada. In the case of Bill C-44, the rights of at least one Canadian and perhaps a number of Canadians were quashed by this House by the lack of provision of proper, full and adequate information to Members of this House, including myself.
I am sure Members on that side know that I am in the process of dealing with this matter with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The John Turner in question has been dealt a serious blow by an action taken by this House without consideration having been given to his right as a Canadian citizen in the legal process in which he was involved in the Yukon.
A second part of this Bill which I am very pleased to see is clause 5(2) which reads:
(2) Any action, suit or other legal proceeding to which the Corporation is party pending in any court on the coming into force of this Act may be continued by or against Her Majesty in like manner and to the same extent as it could have been continued by or against the Corporation.
That is very important, Mr. Speaker. The basic duties of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation are being transferred to the Department of Supply and Services. I think all Hon. Members of the House recognize that that Crown corporation is basically a dummy corporation. Its employees have been transferred to the Department of Supply and Services. They are public servants.
Earlier today I was advised that six public servants have been appointed to the board of the corporation, including the chairman. Four of them are from DSS, one is from DND, and one is a former Assistant Deputy Minister of DSS who was seconded, apparently, from the Calgary Olympics Board. Our contact earlier today was with one of the auditors in the Auditor General's Department. The conclusion was that they saw no reason to retain this corporation, considering that all its work is now done by DSS. By eliminating the corporation, as the Minister pointed out, Canadians will in fact save money, such as the administrative costs, audit costs and so on. As long as the corporation was retained as a legal entity, the Auditor General's Department had to report on it and, of course, the board and the hollow corporation had to respond as well.
In his press release the Minister concluded that there had been a realized savings of $600,000 so far and that there may be future savings as well. I certainly laud him for this, and I think all Hon. Members who take the time to look at this Bill will do so as well.
I should like to refer to some of the history in this regard. In 1943, this corporation was set up and was called War Assets Disposal. Six years later its name was changed to Surplus Crown Assets Disposition, for getting rid of the assets of all Crown agencies and for disposing of the assets of foreign powers as well. In April of 1982, an Order in Council was passed moving almost all the functions of the Crown corporation into the Department of Supply and Services.
I should like to deal with some questions which I hope the Minister can answer today so that we could conclude consider-
Crown Assets Disposal Corporation ation of the Bill or, should it go to committee later this afternoon, so that the committee could be provided with the information. As is often the case when Bills come before the House, there are housekeeping matters associated with them. Albeit this is a housekeeping Bill, there are housekeeping matters associated with it which should be dealt with clearly and openly by the Government so that those who have historically been employed by Crown Assets or have recently left its employ know that their rights are protected, and that the public is protected, as I believe it is, at least in terms of litigation by Section 5.
I notice that in 1981 and 1982 there were some 95 employees, according to the annual report of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. In 1983 there were 104 employees. However, I draw to the attention of the Minister, in the hope that he will be able to provide the House with some information this afternoon or once the Bill is in committee, to figures which I have taken from his own Public Accounts of Canada, Volume III, 1984. I note that the salaries and allowances in 1983 for those 104 employees were $2,463,978 and the employee benefits were $355,548. I would like some explanation from the Minister in terms of the movement of those employees into the Department of Supply and Services. Either this afternoon or in committee, could the Minister provide the agreement on the transfer of employee benefits and associated fiscal matters, along with any outstanding concerns of former employees and the notification of any expected or present litigation?
I ask for this information because since the passing of the special Order in Council in 1982, the winding down of this corporation has occurred quite quickly. On looking at the financial statements of the Crown corporation, it is unclear exactly what happened to the extraordinary items at which the Auditor General has also taken a look. I should like to put on the record just exactly what is in the notes on the financial statement of March 31, 1984. I think Hon. Members should have the answers to these questions very clearly in their minds before this Bill extinguishing that legal entity is passed into law. In part it is indicated that in prior years it has been the policy of the corporation of accrue vacation and termination benefits due to corporation employees and to record these amounts as liabilities on the books of the corporation. As a result of the corporation's employees being transferred to the Department of Supply and Services, the employee-related liabilities established on the books of the corporation as at March 31, 1983 are being reversed in the current fiscal year as extraordinary income. In the future these liabilities will be paid by DSS and charged to the corporation in the year they are paid. Further, a lump sum amount was paid in settlement for the cancellation of the Montreal Office accommodation lease. This office was relocated to that of the Department of Supply and Services.
Many matters have been put before the House by the Minister in terms of the winding up of this corporation. They should, at the very least, be put before the committee so that they can be made very clear. On page 147 of the public

April 19, 1985
Crown Assets Disposal Corporation
accounts on March 31, 1984-that was the date the statement was made and in fact is the date of the public accounts published by the Minister-the following amounts are indicated in terms of this extraordinary income. For example, reversal of vacation pay liability, $131,262; reversal of termination benefits liability, $125,492; and the extraordinary loss, which is the lump sum settlement regarding the Montreal office accommodation lease, $95,000, for a total of extraordinary income in the amount of $161,753. I hope the Minister brings the House up to date on how that is being handled by DSS. I think it is important that we have an update. I think we should know what has happened in terms of the transactions related to the 104 former employees and what has happened in terms of the leases.
The next section in the Minister's public accounts points out the long-term receivables. I think we can get clarification on that because long-term receivables include mortgages relating to land and buildings sold prior to 1974 and loans outstanding from the sale of major equipment. The receivables mature in 1984-85 and on up to 1999, for a total of $1,630,151, less the current portion of $263,000, giving $1,367,035.
Perhaps the Minister could clarify where those mortgages and the sale of land and buildings stand. I assume all that money will move into DSS and will be seen within its accounts receivable. That is unclear in the Bill. The Bill does not specifically deal with it, other than the unwinding of the corporation. I have not found any section of the Bill dealing with the movement of either the extraordinary income or the long-term receivables. It may be that within the legalese of this Bill there is wording to deal with it, but I have not found it.
There are two other matters related to that-"Due to Canada and others-Agency Account" and "Commission to agents", for example, Vebeg, an agency of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany which retained $19,652 from the proceeds it remitted to the corporation. I think the Minister can clear that up quite quickly. I understand that it is related to the sale of goods related to the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany. Perhaps we could get clarification of that, because again there is no specific wording in Bill C-43 to deal with it.
Then there is "Lease commitments". I think the House should know whether or not those have been increased or decreased. We are dealing with three fiscal years here. We are dealing with 1983-84 and on up to 1986-87. There is almost $200,000 in these commitments. Could the Minister simply clarify whether or not DSS will pick up those lease arrangements? I think the general regional agreement now is that those Crown Assets Disposal sites have simply moved their operations into DSS locations. We should have clarification of those lease commitments.
Then there are the contingencies upon which I touched. I give the Minister full marks. He may not have heard my concerns regarding Bill C-44 which passed in the last Parliament, but that was a dark day for the House. I think the Prime Minister will take extraordinary steps to see that the prospector John Turner is given his proper due because he was done a very ill deed by the former Parliament through Bill C-44.
Clause 5 very clearly deals with litigation and gives those who are in the process of litigating or who may litigate in regard to something that is just happening right now the opportunity under Clauses 1 and 2. Perhaps the Minister could respond either today or in the committee regarding Clause 10 on contingencies. That Clause indicates that claims aggregating approximately $266,000 in respect of contractual obligations, accidents, alleged misrepresentation of assets sold and sundry other matters in dispute have been received by the corporation but are not reflected in the accounts. In the opinion of management and legal counsel, the position of the corporation on these claims is defensible. However, the final outcome of such claims is not determinable. Settlements resulting from the resolution of these claims are expected to be accounted for in the year in which the settlements occur.
I would solicit the views of the Minister on this, but I would hope that we do not find ourselves in the same situation as we did with Bill C-44. In that situation, someone who had a contingent liability or was involved in litigation regarding falsification of the age of something acquired from Crown Assets Disposal was precluded from obtaining redress from the Crown. I know only little bit about the law, but my unpractised reading of Clause 5 would lead me to believe that the public is covered in that way, but I am concerned about the wording that is contained in public accounts under contingencies. Legal counsel to the corporation indicate that the claims are defensible. However, they do add the rider that the final outcome of such claims is not determinable.
Again, on a reading of Bill C-43, I do not find a clause that would allow greater assurance to the public and to any of those who may be involved in litigation or considering litigation that their rights are not being precluded. The John Turner case from the last Parliament will, over time, come to be a very well known case in this country because it was a terrible error on the part of Parliament to have blocked his opportunity to complete litigation before the legislation was passed by the House.
Let me deal with a few other matters related to Bill C-43. The matter my friend the Minister raised is one that irks me to a great degree. It flows from the directors' meetings costs. In the annual report it is indicated that in 1984, the meetings of the directors cost $14,390, whereas in 1983, they cost $695. Perhaps the Minister could advise the House as to why there was such an enormous jump from 1983 to 1984. I notice as well that there is a listing of what is called other costs. It appears on page 145 of the financial statement of the Crown Corporation and indicates $23,000 in 1984 and $54,000 in 1985 for other costs, immediately after directors' meetings costs.
For a long time, the Canadian public has been concerned about the random and often irrational appointments of people associated with politics to boards of directors, and particularly
April 19, 1985

so in this case which dealt with a dummy corporation. There was no longer anyone working within the corporation. All of the employees except one had been transferred to the Department of Supply and Services. One can only wonder why, in an election year, board of directors' meetings costs should go from $695 to over $14,000, and why there was such a dramatic increase in other costs when there are no employees. I am sure the Minister would want to make some comments on that.
Again, I seek the views of the Minister and the Government. When an agency of the Government got rid of surplus commodities, it cost the corporation $240 per report in 1982 and $226 per report in 1983. Coming from a rural area, I am a great attender of farm auctions and rural auctions. I solicit the Minister's view, and I think we might be on the same wave length on this, but it seems to me that it might make more sense in many areas of Canada to dispose of assets by way of auction rather than by going through the great costs of reporting back on these particular surpluses.
If there are six desks that need to be disposed of from the RCMP offices in Terrace, British Columbia, it might make more sense to have the provision under another Act for their disposal by auction if the articles are valued below a certain amount. A government official could simply phone a local auctioneer and say, "Look, I have six desks, five chairs and three lamps that are four years old. The desks have six broken legs and a bunch of cracks. You pick them up and auction them off'. Rather than incurring enormous bookkeeping costs of $200 to $250 per lot for the disposal of small numbers of low-valued items, we as taxpayers and Members of the House would be better off to use local auctioneers.
I think the Minister has a sharp pencil. He might want to give Members of the House an answer to the following question. As indicated in the annual report, there were 104 employees in 1983. Salaries were $2,463,000, employee benefits were $335,000 and accommodations were $558,000. Perhaps the Minister could clarify those employee benefits and how the accommodation section that is noted within the audited report fits in. It is obvious that it does not deal simply with the leasing of premises for Crown Assets Disposal. I wonder whether or not that accommodation section relates in some way to accommodations for employees. It is unclear. It does not deal specifically with that of which we are disposing in this Bill but it is simply a point of interest. I wanted to find out what was going on.
Having dealt with those items, I would like to finish going through the Bill. Members of the public may wonder what we are doing this afternoon by dissolving the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. Members have made it clear that there may be one employee left. There is a board composed of public servants who will not be displaced. The Minister will respond either this afternoon or in committee regarding what is happening to their benefits, vacation pay and so on so that Members of the House are assured that there are not any outstanding matters of which we should be aware. One of the duties I intend to take upon myself, having been one of those who was burned on Bill C-44, is to make sure the Government
Crown Assets Disposal Corporation
provides publicly any information regarding outstanding contingency liabilities, lawsuits, grievances of employees and so on so that we do not make errors in passing a Bill on Friday afternoon, a Bill that should have a greater degree of scrutiny.
I have brought to your attention, Mr. Speaker, my concerns over what I see as being things that may be missing within the Bill. There may be ways in which the Department of Supply and Services could deal with things like contingent lease liabilities and so on. I think it is important, though, that Bills contain clauses directly relating to points that have been raised either by public accounts or by the Auditor General.
In conclusion, let me say that I support the Minister's actions today. I do not think we should have dummy Crown corporations on the books. I do not think we should, at any time in the future, allow any Government to set up a Crown corporation with a board of directors and allow directors' meetings costs to go up about 1500 per cent in an election year. It is a remarkably repugnant situation.
I am pleased that the Minister has brought this Bill before the House. It is good legislation, it is appropriate and it will save the public money. The legislation appears to have a proper protective mechanism which should also be included in Bill C-44, but perhaps that could be done retroactively. Clause 5 seems to provide that mechanism.
My concerns with regard to the rest of the Bill are more related to the affairs of past employees and the present employee, contingent liabilities and the possible litigation which may be ongoing. The Minister may be able to provide that information this afternoon, and then we could pass the Bill.
I believe that I have raised all the principal concerns which the public might have and today would be a good day to get rid of what might be considered a contingent liability for the taxpayers of Canada.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to undertake an extraordinary procedure, in the sense of attempting to respond to the questions which the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) has raised, with the hope that if I can respond to his concerns, perhaps there might be a disposition, by unanimous consent, to proceed with committee stage and third reading this afternoon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House realize that if the Minister speaks again he will be closing off debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief concerns which I would like to raise with respect to the remarks of the Minister when he introduced the Bill, and I would like to set the record straight.
The activities of this Crown corporation were wound up about two and a half years ago and integrated with his

April 19, 1985
Crown Assets Disposal Corporation
Department. There is little doubt that the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation will be busy during the coming months and years of this administration if the recent actions which were taken by this Government are any indication.
It is interesting to note that the corporation has the responsibility to sell practically everything that is determined to be in excess of government need, with the exception of land.
With reference to the Minister's statements, I would like to point out to the House that his Department took steps to cut back on its operations. In the Expenditure and Program Review which was presented in November, it was indicated that steps would be taken to improve administrative efficiency and that regional centres would be closed. In closing those centres, the savings would amount to $14.2 million. It also indicated that the disposal of surplus properties by the Department of Public Works would save $27.2 million and that the disposal of those properties would be accelerated. The list goes on and outlines the sale of assets, cut-backs in government Departments and increases in public fees. These include the user fees in national parks; berthage fees for fishermen; parking fees; commercial rents and toll bridge fees. As well, projects involving the redevelopment of federally-owned waterfront land were cancelled, and certain capital projects were terminated. Car parking rates at airports were increased, as were rental rates for airport lands and buildings. Tariff structures were revised. The list goes on. Then the Minister rose in the House and said that the Government wanted to get rid of Crown corporations because they cost too much money. However, another section of that document outlines saving measures. The document indicates that CN Marine will be established as a separate Crown corporation to respond more effectively to the needs of Atlantic Canada to reduce administrative costs. That will amount to a saving of $21.5 million. How does that jibe with what the Minister said a few minutes ago? The Government did it in a very sneaky way. It jacked up the rates in a particular activity in eastern Canada so that families will now have to pay $200 or $300 to get from one province to another via the ferry system. Then the Government turned around and said that it would save a further $21.5 million by establishing a separate Crown corporation.
It is not very difficult to pick holes in the speeches of the Ministers of this administration. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre) gave a speech a few moments ago as if one of the primary actions of the Government were to cut back on Crown corporations when that change had already taken place. He justified the change, he told us why the change was taking place, but the change had already taken place. It will only save doing up two sets of books instead of one.
With those few words, I will bow to the Minister's explanation of how he can, on the one hand, say that the Government is getting rid of Crown corporations and, on the other hand, create Crown corporations, as was stated by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), "to respond more effectively to the needs of Atlantic Canada, and to reduce administrative costs". I wish they could get their act together.


James Ross Fulton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty which we might run into-and I would solicit the views of the Minister on this-is that it is not a situation in which there could be a question and answer period. If something has been left out to which he has not been able to respond, or if he has not been provided with something by the Department-


Harvie Andre: There will be a second round.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre).


Harvie Andre: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to be brief.
The Hon. Member asked me a question privately about the fee to Vebeg which is an agency of the West German Government. I am informed that we have a memorandum of understanding with the German Government and that, in essence, it is acting as the Crown Assets Disposal for us in Germany having to do with assets respecting the Canadian military in Germany. We, in turn, provide the same function for it in Shilo when the German forces are in Canada. That acts as their commission or brokerage fee.
With respect to the question regarding contingent liabilities, those are contingencies for the potential litigations which exist. When the accounts were published, there were 11 cases. Three cases have been resolved and eight are outstanding. Seven of those cases are against the Crown, and the eighth case is the Crown against the customer. In total, it amounts to a contingent liability of $266,000. It is the opinion of officials that there is no change in the legal opportunity to the companies as a result of this Bill, and that Clause 5 will protect them absolutely. Of course, we are all interested in having that accomplished as quickly as possible.
With respect to the $161,000 worth of extraordinary items, I am informed that there have not been any further extraordinary items since the public accounts were put in place. The reason for the extraordinary items being placed there was that the initial estimate of adjustments, because of employees moving from the Crown corporation to the Public Service, was high. Those items represent that difference. It is a one shot thing. Now that the employee situation has been straightened out, the officials can see no other such extraordinary items arising in the future. It is listed as an extraordinary item because it does not naturally fit into the accounting procedures.
With respect to the question of more efficient ways of disposing absolutely, the interesting thing about this Department, which I have enjoyed working with, is that we work on cost recovery. We charge, in essence, a brokerage fee for our service. That gives us, in a sense, a bottom line-and I am sorry to use that corporate jargon-which means we can measure efficiency and effectiveness.
April 19, 1985

We are exploring constantly for ways in which we can do what we do cheaper. The suggestion of the Hon. Member that in some remote areas it may be cheaper over-all to delegate an auctioneer to dispose of the assets and so on is a good suggestion. If we are not doing it, we ought to be doing it. I certainly hope we can pursue that in other areas. I am attempting throughout, both in our buying function and in our disposing function, to move toward giving more responsibility to regional offices which are closer to the source of the action, so that we buy closer to where it is used and we sell closer to where it is disposed of, again for reasons of economy.
I do not know whether I have answered all the questions of the Hon. Member. But if perhaps he has other questions, he might put them now.


James Ross Fulton: In terms of the extraordinary items, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has touched on what they were. Those were for the transition, I take it, of 104 employees from the Crown corporations to DSS. In the same way as with the contingency, he has touched on the outstanding cases and he was advised that Section 5(1) and (2) will cover those people. The litigation is not going to stop. They are going to be able to find a resolution to it, which pleases me, because I do not think we should ever close the door again as we did on Bill C-44.
On the transfer of the employees, are there any other outstanding items related to the employees of which this House should be aware, or has this basically resolved it, that is, paying the differential between the employee benefits, which was a point I raised with you? It seemed amazing to me that where the Department is paying $2 million in salary, it is paying $355,000 per annum in employee benefits. I have had an opportunity to look at enough Public Service contracts to know that that is rather substantial, especially when you add somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500,000 in accommodation. We are looking at a fairly substantial package there and I am just wondering whether or not these extraordinary items which are listed in the public accounts cover all of the differential? The Minister said it is a one-shot payment to cover all of that, but are there any which are still outstanding? Are there any employee matters of which we should be aware which are not dealt with by this? I take it they would still be dealt with by the Public Service. Are there any outstanding matters?


Harvie Andre: I am aware of a couple of individuals who feel that they have not been properly dealt with. They are going through due process now as members of the Public Service. Whether the Bill is passed or not does not affect their position because the Order in Council of 1982 established that they are moved into the Public Service if they so chose, and that was the procedure. So this Bill does not affect that in any way. I am told that except for one or two what are described to me as minor situations, which should be accommodated through due process, the transition has been made and there are no further employment matters.
I neglected to mention under extraordinary items the question of the Montreal office accommodation. Given that DSS, as other Departments of Government, is now a tenant of the
Crown Assets Disposal Corporation Public Works, it was necessary to take care of the leases, and what have you, which Crown Assets had. So to dispose of the Montreal lease, if you will, and move into a Public Works accommodation, a payment was made, and that is cleared up and done. I do not know what it was. The Hon. Member mentioned the cost of directors' meetings and so on, and I can say that we are of a like mind.


James Ross Fulton: I have one final point, Mr. Speaker. I agree that the matter of the amount the directors were taking for their meetings right before the election is rather disgusting.
Under "Dissolution", I just want to make one point clear, that in Section 6 in the Public Accounts of Canada, Volume III, the $1.6 million and the $1.37 million, which are longterm receivables, I take it that the dissolution section of Bill C-43, subsection (4), deals entirely with that. That amount in excess of $1 million is simply transferred to receivables of DSS. That is all I have.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Andre, seconded by Mr. McKnight, moves that Bill C-43, an Act to dissolve the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and to amend the Surplus Crown Assets Act and other Acts in consequence thereof be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there have been discussions and there may indeed be a disposition to deal with this matter through all stages in the House this afternoon, including Committee of the Whole. I meant to rise before you put the motion, Mr. Speaker, but even though you have, it may be that, by unanimous consent, we can carry on with this Bill and deal with it in all stages in order to give the Senate something to do next week.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comments made by the Hon. Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn), I must say that I did not know about the suggestion that we should go through all stages this afternoon. Perhaps the Hon. Government House Leader would let us know who he has dealt with in our Party. That comes as a surprise to me.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I just came in myself, Mr. Speaker, but I had understood that the Minister and the opposition critic had had an informal discussion with respect to this matter and that there was-


Don Boudria: I have no objections.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I apologize. I was just informed of this. I know the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has been sitting here all day. I know there was no serious objection to the legislation and there was a possibility of getting it through all stages this afternoon. I apologize for not communicating with the Hon. Member because I had not

April 19, 1985
Crown Assets Disposal Corporation
heard about it until I walked in just now. But if there is such a disposition, we can deal with it now. I apologize and I will make it up to the Hon. Member in some other tangible way, if he can accommodate us today.


Jacques Guilbault: We certainly have no objection to the substance of the legislation and I made that point to the Minister earlier. I am simply surprised that the Hon. Government House Leader would have the idea that there was agreement. I do not think there was any agreement. We can try to develop one on the floor of the House. However, I would hate to see agreements being put to us when they have not been concluded. This being said, it would be nice, this being a TGIF Friday.


James Ross Fulton: Perhaps I can clear the matter up a little, Mr. Speaker. I did have brief discussions with the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and with the Minister. I do not object, alghough I have not been privy to the discussions which were held between the Opposition House Leader and my own House Leader. 1 think the agreement was that the Bill would go from here to committee, but from what we have heard this afternoon, I believe the Minister has answered the concerns which have been raised in the House this afternoon and, at least speaking for myself and my colleagues, I do not object to our proceeding. I think it is a good Bill.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, let us deal with it in Committee of the Whole and let us forget about the clock. Perhaps we could get unanimous agreement to go a few minutes past four o'clock so that we can deal with it. Perhaps we can have the agreement of the Hon. Member who is coming up with Private Member's legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Andre, seconded by Mr. McKnight, moves that Bill C-43, an Act to dissolve the Crown Assests Disposal Corporation and to amend the Surplus Crown Assets Act and other Acts in consequence thereof be now read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the Chair.
Clauses 2 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["Order. Private Members' Hour has now expired.\nIt being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1)."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 169?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Fernand Jourdenais: that Bill C-221, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House today and speak to my first Bill, which consists in amending certain sections of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.
I had very specific reasons for proposing this Bill. First of all, the Bill is aimed at correcting a situation which, I feel, has led to a double standard. Let me explain. Today, when a person applies for a course with his Manpower counsellor, they take his application form and invite him to an information session where they start off by telling him he should not expect to be on a course the next day.
It's true! I know someone who applied two years ago and is still waiting. Then they tell him that if he does not have an income, he will get about $85 a week or more, depending on his status. He will also be told that he may work. If he does not work more than 25 hours a week, he may earn as much as he wants. If he is unemployed, he will be given what he is entitled to and the course will be paid for by the Employment Centre.
I know someone else who was working as a waitress without tips, who was on her feet all the time and had a constantly changing schedule. Her doctor strongly recommended that she stop doing this kind of work, for health reasons, and she wanted to get a better job. For her, the answer was to take a course in a subject that would suit her, such as typing and work processing. Her boss refused to let her change her hours, so that she could work and take a course at the same time. She left her job to take this course, which is from 11:45 a.m. until 3:45 p.m.
This woman, who is paying $1,000 for her course and who is still looking for another job has lost her unemployment insurance benefits and is being penalized because she had the courage to leave her job to take a course and make a better life for herself.
April 19, 1985

Under Section 39(1) in the present legislation, a legacy from the previous Government I may add, and I quote:
For the purposes of this Part, a claimant is unemployed, capable of and available for work during any period he is attending a course or program of instruction or training, or other courses or programs designed to facilitate the re-entry of a claimant into the employed labour force, to which he has been referred by such authority as the Commission may designate.
I propose that Section 39(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
For the purposes of this Part, a claimant is unemployed, capable of and available for work during any period he is attending a course or program of instruction or training, or other courses or programs designed to facilitate the re-entry of a claimant into the employed labour force:
(<?) paid for and authorized by the Commission; or
(b) paid for and chosen by him, with the approval of the Commission;
I repeat, with the approval of the Commission.
Although I do not agree with the interpretation, even after checking the present section, I am convinced that the proposed amendment will improve its clarity and accuracy.
This Bill entitles a person attending a course or program of instruction or training chosen and paid for by him to receive benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. 1971 subject to the approval of the Commission-
-and I repeat, subject to the approval of the Commission.
Such a person, unlike those attending courses paid for by the Commission, is not entitled under the present provisions of the Act to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he is deemed unavailable for work.
As a result of this amendment, a person who wants to quit working to attend a course will have to get prior permission from the Commission, which is intended to avoid possible abuses. Should the employment counsellor refuse, the person will still have the right to appeal to the board of referees, as is the case under existing legislation.
Mr. Speaker, let us figure out what it costs now and what it would cost under my amendment.
Let us take the case of a man who earns $200 a week and who is eligible for unemployment insurance benefits after having been authorized to attend a course by the Commission. His gross benefits will amount to 50 per cent of his salary, or $120 a week. In addition, the Commission will pay $1,000 for tuition fees, if I take the example mentioned earlier. Assuming the course lasts eight weeks, the State will pay $1,000 in tuition fees plus $960 in benefits, for a total of $1,960.
Now then, under the proposed amendment, if the same man is authorized to attend the same course, the Commission will not have to pay the tuition fees, only the benefits of $960, so it is easy to figure out that the State will save $1,000.
Mr. Speaker, here is what officials have been saying:
The mere fact that a person quits his or her job proves that he or she is interested in attending a course, not in returning to work.
Must we conclude that any beneficiary who attends a course paid for by the Canada Employment Centre is interested only in attending courses, not in working?
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
In my opinion, Section 39(1) as it reads now discriminates against people who want to be self-sufficient. Here is another example which illustrates the situation.
Last September, a single woman aged 35 with three children was without a job and drawing unemployment insurance benefits. She looked for work, but invariably she was asked whether she could speak English. Since she did not, she had a hard time finding employment. So she decided to take evening English courses, at her own expenses, while continuing to look for a job. Believe it or not, her benefits were cut off because she had taken the initiative of attending a course. And yet, Mr. Speaker, this was supposed to make it easier to return to work and, in any case, she did not have much else to do. So I asked a qualified person from my office to represent that woman before the board of referees. Fortunately, the ruling was in her favour. If she had stood alone in her fight, I am not sure that she would have won. She had a number of problems, especially during the holiday season.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment I have introduced tends to correct this deficiency and to be fair to all those who want to improve their lot. This is often their only recourse.
I am sure there is not one Member in this House who does not have at least one constituent who was put in such a situation.
As to the amendment I am proposing to Section 103, it simply says that, where a claim for benefit is allowed by a board of referees, benefits will be payable from the day of the initial claim if it is filed pursuant to Section 55. The reason for the change I am suggesting to this section is that, when a claimant appeals to the board of referees, one month may have gone by since he received his notice of disentitlement and another month may go by before his case is heard.
The best example which comes to my mind is the first one I mentioned. The claimant filed his claim on March 5, 1984, received a notice of unavailability on March 29, 1984, and appeared for the first time before the board of referees on May 23, 1984. This means that close to two months went by before the claimant was able to make his point. In this case, the board of referees allowed the benefits to be paid from the day it heard the appeal. This means that, under an amended Section 103, whenever the claimant has established that he was available at an earlier date than the day the case is heard, he will be paid from the day of his initial claim or from the day his availability was established.
If this section is not amended as requested and if the appeal is heard by the board of referees three months after the initial claim, the claimant will be penalized by the system.
Mr. Speaker, I think that I have explained the purpose of this Bill rather clearly. Naturally these two sections are not the only ones that need to be amended. The whole legislation

April 19, 1985
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 should be changed and I know that this will be done. Until then, I would like the Unemployment Insurance Act and Regulations to be applied more humanely.
I am convinced that if some officials had more compassion and understanding for taxpayers, some cases such as the one which I have just described could be avoided.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that young people who deal for the first time with the big machinery of unemployment insurance and are the victim of such unfairness, find it discouraging and lose confidence in our institution, so serious is the wrong done to them. Some adults are also facing the same fate under that discriminatory clause. I say it over again: there is a double standard.
I hope that my colleagues in this House will agree with me and that we will redress as soon as possible that wrong which has lasted for too long.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the Hon. Member's reference to that particular case. Most Members of Parliament get involved with appeals of decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. One sees many cases in which a person worked and qualified for unemployment insurance and then did something. He may have gone to school, taken part-time work, become self-employed, or helped someone build a house. In other words, he did something other than remain next to his telephone and was thereby judged to be not looking or not available for work.
I am surprised to hear a government Member disagree so vehemently with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). The Minister of Employment and Immigration, through the instructions of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), has said publicly that she will cut $200 million or $300 million from the unemployment insurance fund. In fact, she said publicly many times that she agreed with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and with Mr. Bulloch that there were many jobs available which people were not taking because they were on unemployment insurance.
The fact of the matter is that when people who are on unemployment insurance wish to better themselves, they are afraid to do anything. They are afraid to work, go to school, or take a part-time job. In fact, the Unemployment Insurance Act says that you can make 25 per cent of what you are receiving in unemployment insurance without claiming it. We have all seen cases in which the investigators hired by the Unemployment Insurance Commission have automatically cut off benefits indefinitely, forcing people to go through appeal procedures, even though they were only making 10 per cent of what they were drawing on unemployment insurance. The list goes on and on.
A common case is that of students attending trade school or university who gained unemployment insurance stamps by working evenings at a gas station, by baby-sitting, or by
working at a take-out restaurant. They thereby qualified for unemployment insurance. When they go to school they indicate to the Manpower office that they are available to work in the same positions they previously held, but between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. When asked what they will be doing for the rest of the day, the students indicate that they will be going to school trying to improve themselves. They are then told that they do not qualify for unemployment insurance.
The decision is not made by the local unemployment insurance official, although some people believe it is. The person in the local unemployment insurance office sends a notice to the Department of National Revenue asking for a determination of entitlement for benefits. That is the form that is used. Someone in the Department of National Revenue makes a judgment on whether that person should receive unemployment insurance. He may make a judgment that that person must pay back unemployment insurance for as many as three or four years. That judgment is sent to the individual in question. The individual, who is perhaps going to trade school, college or university, wonders how he will pay back $5,000.
He therefore appeals to the board of referees. Over board members' right shoulder is the investigator of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Over the other shoulder is someone with the Unemployment Insurance Act and the determination is made by the Department of National Revenue. In 99 per cent of the cases the board of referees follows the original judgment made by the Department of National Revenue upheld by the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
Of course, that student can then appeal to the Minister. Once that appeal is turned down, the Minister makes a judgment, and if the student really wants to go further, he can go to the Federal Tax Court of Canada. Last year, the umpire, who was similarly a federal judge, would hear the case. Many judges have made judgments concerning part-time and fulltime students. One can read the many judgments that have been made over the years.
The basic is that one is not allowed to do anything while collecting unemployment insurance. Even if you leave your home telephone number in order to go looking for work elsewhere and someone finds out about it, you can be cut off for the time you have been gone.
Let me give an example of one of the most ridiculous aspects of our system. One can find, in those institutions that provide upgrading courses or courses in new occupations, people who are on what is called a manpower seat sitting next to a person who is not receiving any money at all. It is a situation in which they are taking the same course, have worked at the same job and finished their work at the same time. They have the same rate of benefit, but one is getting paid and the other is not. There could be someone on what is called a provincial seat. This leads to a situation where someone could find out how much a provincial seat pays for training and choose that, if that person qualifies for such an allowance from that particular province. It is entirely unfair that someone is receiving
April 19, 1985

unemployment insurance and taking a course while the person in the next seat is not getting a penny.
This has nothing to do with income but with the way the lists are distributed. Currently, there are new rules for deciding who gets the manpower seat. The new rule is: first come, first served. For example, someone could be on that list for three years while another person might apply this year for a course because of his or her prospect for employment in that occupation. Although that person may need the course more than the one who has been on the list longer, the rules state that it is is first come, first served.
What should happen in the case of unemployment insurance? I believe that if somebody qualified for unemployment insurance and is available to work outside the normal retraining hours, he should be able to draw his unemployment insurance without any interference from the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
It is unfortunate that the changes being made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration are detrimental. Recently, she changed the mobility allowance. The Government announced that it was going to cut back on that allowance, but now one must exhaust one's unemployment insurance in order to get it.
I watched the news on one of the national networks in this country the other night. There was an item dealing with all the jobs available in Banff, Alberta. At that time I was staying at a home on one of the islands in Newfoundland where everyone in the house was unemployed. After this report about all the available jobs in Banff, the reporter said that there is even federal assistance available to move people to Banff to fill these jobs. Every one of those unemployed people in the house knew that was a complete fabrication of the truth because they knew of the requirements to get a mobility grant. In order to get a mobility grant, not only is it necessary to have a job that lasts for more than one year, the nearest Manpower office to that job must list that job for a specific period of time. It then must go to the next closest place to be posted again. Mobility is approved on the authority of the local Manpower office closest to the job, after you have a signed declaration from the employer guaranteeing work for over one year.
I suppose that there are people who do not understand what it means to be unemployed. They may sit in their homes and criticize people for being lazy for not taking those jobs. There are people throughout this country who are anxious to go there if they only had enough money to take the train. If the Department of Employment and Immigration decided to hire a VIA Rail car and provide meals along the way for people travelling, there would be plenty of employees in Banff.
The reason for this inequity is quite simple. There are people who have never drawn unemployment insurance and therefore do not qualify to go to work on any federal job scheme. That is the law because one must have exhausted one's unemployment insurance in order to qualify.
Now, people do not qualify for mobility grants unless they have exhausted their unemployment insurance. Let us consider
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
the case of those over 18 years of age who are living at home and have lost their family allowance. If they have never worked before they cannot get welfare in four provinces in this country. If those people are living with someone else, they qualify for welfare in some province. In Newfoundland, it is $71 a month. The point I am making is that as a result of the Government's recently passed measures, it is really putting the nail in the coffin and giving no hope at all as far as the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Minister of Employment and Immigration are concerned.
The other day I asked the Minister a question concerning 210 people in Newfoundland who are judged to owe her Department between $5,000 and $7,000 as a result of an audit of a certain company. The Minister's response was that she responded to a telex from the Premier, a telex from the Minister of Fisheries and one from someone else. She said that her Department will go very easy on the collection of the money. However, it was a mistake in the company's books. That indicated to me that the Minister of Employment and Immigration knew no more about those cases than the man in the moon. She only knew what she was advised by her advisers in Ottawa and in the regional office in Newfoundland. Of course, their advice was that the company had made a mistake, as they saw it.
The fact is that the benefits from funds paid out to the Unemployment Insurance Commission by a company depends on the occupation and when work is performed for the company. Let us take the case of a fisherman. He is judged to have an unemployment insurance benefit when he sells fish to the company. Let us assume that he sold the fish to a company once every two weeks. The books would show that he worked for the week in which he sold his fish.
The Unemployment Insurance Act states that if that person worked the previous week, in order to get that particular product he was selling to the company the following week, that company can issue two unemployment insurance stamps. In other words, it is work for two weeks but it is not on the books of the company because audits are made according to what is on the books. What is on the books of the fish company is shipments of fish.
The Minister said that the company made the error in issuing those unemployment insurance stamps. I suggest that no one made an error. None of those fishermen should be paying back that money and receiving attachments. The people who made the error were the bureaucrats who advised the Minister to instruct her unemployment insurance officials and the Department of National Revenue to go over the books of these companies. That is who made the error. In other words, that will go, as the Minister said, to the board of referees. The board of referees will side with the Department of National Revenue, and then the case will go to the Deputy Minister of National Revenue on a second appeal. The Deputy Minister of National Revenue will side with the people who performed the audit. Then the case will go to the Federal Tax Court of Canada in about two years' time. Meanwhile people cannot collect their unemployment insurance.

April 19, 1985
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
What will happen in the court? A judge will sit on that case and he will say that if there is reasonable doubt, then the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) is wrong. We will go through this entire procedure for two years and at the end a federal judge will say: "There is doubt here because these are the facts". Meanwhile, what have you done? You have put all these people through all this misery, and the Minister gives a simple answer. She said: "The company made an error". That is what is wrong with the direction of the Government. It is trying to cut back on unemployment insurance. The Government does not want to give unemployment insurance to the fellow going to school. The Government is not going to correct that. The Government will not do what part of this Bill says. The Government is going to save money in the unemployment insurance fund. The Government will cut back and will look good to some of the employers in the country. The Government is going to look good to people who say that everybody on unemployment insurance is lazy. That is what is going to happen.
As I said before, what should happen is that anybody who wants to up-grade himself or herself and attend a trade school or a course of instruction should be able to draw his or her unemployment insurance, because as it exists today half the people in the class are drawing unemployment insurance and the other half are not.


Ms. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to have the opportunity to express my views on Bill C-221. I must congratulate my colleague for introducing in the House this Bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. With the proposals he has set out, we have the opportunity to examine closely the said Act and the way it is applied to the Canadian people.
Today I will only talk about the proposed amendments to section 39 which sets out the requirements a claimant must meet to receive normal unemployment insurance benefits while attending a training course recognized by the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking now about the use of the Unemployment Insurance Fund for innovative purposes, a provision of the Act which has been in force since 1977.
In order to be able to assess the impact of the proposed amendment to section 39, I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is essential to understand fully what are those innovative uses I have just mentioned.
During the next minutes I intend to make a summary of the objectives of section 39, in its present form, and to explain how the provisions are applied.
Under the innovative uses of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, trainees who receive unemployment insurance benefits can continue to do so while they participate in programs
designed to improve their employability. The purpose of section 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act is to simplify the provisions relating to income support as far as the claimants who are attending occupational training courses are concerned.
This process supports the following objectives: first, to accelerate professional re-entry of the claimants; secondly, to multiply the training opportunities for the claimants; thirdly, to mesh the objectives of the Unemployment Insurance Act and of the National Training Act for claimants. Fourthly, to increase the number of manpower training courses offered to the unemployed, taking into account the needs of the labour market.
Trainees who receive an income supplement from the Unemployment Insurance Fund belong to two different categories: those who attend training courses approved under the National Training Act, and those who attend approved classes at their own expenses or at the expense of a province or some other agency. Trainees may receive unemployment insurance benefits during the training session and six weeks thereafter in order to look for a suitable job.
Supplementary allowances to live outside their home, to look after dependents, to travel or to commute may be paid in accordance with the National Training Act or from funds earmarked for the mobility program. These supplementary allowances cannot be paid to those who finance their own training.
Selection and recommendation of trainees is done in the usual way by employment counsellors using the normal process for information gathering.
Trainees entitled to unemployment insurance benefits lower than the training allowance they would receive, can receive other benefits to bring the total to an amount equivalent to the training allowance.
To receive benefits under section 39, the trainee must be eligible to unemployment insurance benefits. Furthermore, he or she must be selected by an employment counsellor for an approved training program. Trainees which are sent to an approved vocational training course at their own expenses are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits as long as they have not exhausted their entitlement and the course is geared to the needs of the labour market.
Trainees who pay their own way must attend courses in trades of national or regional importance. Provisions have been established by members of target groups. Trainees can also attend language classes if their lack of knowledge of one or the other official languages prevents them from finding employment.
The total amount allocated under section 39 for every calendar year is established by order in council. Maximum payable benefits as well as unemployment insurance premiums are revised every year. In 1984, the maximum weekly benefit was $255; in 1985, it is up to $276, an increase of 8.2 per cent.
April 19, 1985

Mr. Speaker, according to the statistics provided by Employment and Immigration Canada, 56 per cent of trainees will take those courses under section 39. Those courses will last an average of 16 weeks. And their costs are estimated at $234 millions for the fiscal year 1984-85.
Eligible trainees receive unemployment insurance benefits as income support for the duration of the course. The government assumes part of the costs and the employers and the employees the other part with their contributions. But the government alone pays the entire cost of any extension of benefit granted to a trainee to conclude his training as well as the supplementary extension up to six weeks allowed to seek employment. It is a large sum of money. But it is a sound investment in our human resources and an efficient mean of preparing our unemployed for the labour market.
Mr. Speaker, let us now refer to the proposed change to section 39. In its present wording, section 39 deals with the attendance of beneficiaries to training courses which correspond to their needs and may help them to increase their earning capacity as well as their "employability". The submissions are based on the labour market criteria established under the National Training Act.
Bill C-221 would bring one change: instead of attending a training course paid for by the Commission, a claimant would simply be authorized to take a course. It is possible to link courses trainees could take at their own expense with the conditional enrolment policy.
According to that policy, a claimant may, under certain circumstances, attend a training course and receive unemployment insurance benefits provided for in Section 25. Here are the conditions:
1)	an employment counsellor certifies that the claimant cannot be enrolled in a course under Section 39;
2)	the claimant cannot find a suitable job in a reasonable length of time;
3)	the training course suggested would increase his chances of finding a job;
And those are cumulative conditions, Mr. Speaker-
4)	he would leave the course if he were offered a job.
Pursuant to this Bill, claimants to whom Section 39 applies can receive unemployment insurance benefits or training allowances, whichever are the highest. Moreover, the period of payment can be extended to 104 weeks if the trainee is attending a course.
The proposal is innovative. It is a step forward in that area. We want to make sure that unemployment insurance funds are used in the best way possible.
It also recognizes that training and retraining are vitally important to allow our citizens to participate in the economic upsurging.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members know, since last December the Minister has been holding extended consultations concerning the improvement of the Government's training and job-creation programs. Several interesting suggestions have been received from all sectors of society. With his Bill, the Hon. Member is making a valuable contribution and is keeping us abreast of the times.
In fact, the Bill and its consideration by the House will be a very useful contribution to the review of the Unemployment Insurance Act that was announced on November 8, 1984 and to the improvement of training programs throughout the country.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) for introducing this Bill. I regret that the Government has not taken the steps which it promised to take on numerous occasions over the last few months. We heard rather extensive discussion on the part of an Hon. Member on the Liberal benches which seemed to me to be a discussion aimed at prolonging the debate and making sure the Bill was talked out. However, I think the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Ms. Jacques) made a valuable contribution. She spoke for a sufficiently brief time to indicate that it was not her effort to prolong the debate nor to talk the Bill out.
Anyone with municipal council experience knows of unemployed constituents who have attempted to take initiatives to improve their education and training and, if on social assistance or unemployment insurance, have found themselves threatened with disqualification. If it should happen that under the National Training Act they have to make a choice, they will find that the benefit under that Act will provide them with allowances which are less than social welfare payments. The unemployment insurance arrangements are somewhat better. However, the Hon. Member pointed out one of its significant defects. There seems to be an inclination to deprive the individuals involved of an opportunity to make their own choice with respect to what kind of training or education they will pursue.
I do not propose to take very much time. I just want to point out how consistent the Bill is with a document which was produced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) last December. It is really quite a marvellous document. Most people who read it will find that it contains a number of quite exciting ideas in respect of providing opportunities for those Canadians who want to work. I think most people would agree that most Canadians want to work and should be provided with opportunities to obtain training and education to provide themselves with the wherewithal to qualify for available jobs. However, I regret that the document which resulted from the discussion of this consultation paper, that is the agreement between the Government and the provinces, while high on rhetoric is slight on specifics. There is very little reference to many of the excellent ideas proposed in the document of the Minister in which key ques-

April 19, 1985
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
tions were posed. How can the unemployment insurance system be best used to promote training and prepare the unemployed to find jobs? Are arrangements under Section 39 of the Act sufficiently flexible to provide income for all who can profit from training? How can arrangements under the Canada Assistance Plan best support a co-ordinated countrywide skills development strategy? The document indicated that part of the answer would be an extension of training for those in receipt of unemployment insurance, including training in courses not directly sponsored by the Government. It would seem clear to anyone familiar with this document that the Bill before us today is a singly resourceful effort to prod the Government along the path it appears bound to take. It would be unfortunate and indeed hypocritical if Hon. Members in the House today did not express their support for the Bill by referring it for third reading.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to make a few comments in connection with Bill C-221, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971. I, too, would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) for bringing the Bill forward. It is an excellent initiative by a private Member and one that certainly should be applauded.
The Unemployment Insurance Act is one of the cornerstones of our social security system. This is what gives me particular pleasure in having an opportunity to say a word or two about it. Years ago, as we are all aware, there was no such thing as unemployment insurance. Anyone who was faced with the tragedy of losing his or her job was forced on to the dole or general welfare assistance. Before then there was not even that type of assistance to look after someone who lost his or her job. I suspect that everyone in the Chamber today, and perhaps every Member of the House, has had that type of experience in their own family circle or in their circle of friends. We have had that type of experience in my own family. Before there was anything like unemployment insurance or general welfare assistance, my family had the tragic experience of unemployment. I can recall stories my parents and relatives told about members of the family having to struggle in that sort of a situation, and I can recall quite clearly the stories of members of my family who lived out the final years of their existences in complete and absolute poverty because of that sort of problem.
Fortunately for all of us, this sort of thing does not exist any longer. The unemployment insurance concept is one which recognizes that anyone who loses his or her job does not do so through his or her own fault. It provides people a method of providing for themselves and their families through a system to which they themselves have been able to contribute. That allows them to carry on with a great deal of dignity and a feeling of self-worth. A lack of self-worth is probably one of the worst problems associated with losing one's job. It is obviously not nice to have one's income suddenly cut off, but above and beyond all that is the dreadful feeling that one is not quite as worthy as one's neighbour who has a job. Certainly
this type of legislation has made sure that that sort of problem will not exist.
In spite of the fact that the general principles of unemployment insurance are universally accepted, there are a good many problems with the details of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Over the last several years, there have been a number of such instances pointed out by a good many people. There has been a lot of debate and concern about a variety of different aspects of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Just to name two or three such aspects, there is obviously a concern about the waiting period that exists before benefits can be collected. There is some question over whether or not, if one leaves one's job voluntarily, there should be a lengthening of the waiting period rather than the waiting period which now exists. As well, concerns have been raised about the amount of time one should have to work before qualifying for benefits. That too has been a matter of a great deal of concern and debate over the last few years on the part of those who feel that the unemployment insurance system has been abused from time to time.
In addition to that, there is the concern of employers and particularly small business employers over the contributions they must make to the fund and the feeling that those are out of proportion to the earnings they can generate within their own businesses. Because of that, there have been recent suggestions for changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. It has been suggested that we could take some of the employers' contribution provisions out of the Act and pay those contributions out of general tax revenues or the Consolidated Revenue Fund. All of those items are items at which we must look seriously.
The concern set out by the Hon. Member for La Prairie in Bill C-221 is another concern at which we must look very seriously with a view to amending the Act to make sure that there is equity and fairness in the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. A number of Hon. Members have referred to the purpose of this Bill. It is the intention of this Bill that a person attending a course or program of instruction or training chosen and paid for by him or her should receive benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act subject to the approval of the Commission since such a person, unlike those attending courses paid for by the Commission itself, is not now entitled under the present provisions of the Act to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he or she is considered to be unavailable for work. That is certainly an admirable proposal and one which I suspect every Member of the House endorses. It would seem that people who propose to pay for their own training and education in order to improve their employment chances should not be in a worse position than those who rely on training courses set out by the Commission itself. I endorse that proposition wholeheartedly.
The wording of the Bill itself, as I understand it, however, causes at least one technical difficulty in the administration of the Act. That has to do with the appeal provisions. As I understand it, the revised Section 103 would provide that where there was an appeal and the appeal was granted in a
April 19, 1985

situation with more than one claim for unemployment insurance benefits, one of which was not under appeal and the other of which was, a claimant would receive benefits if his appeal were granted not only for the period of time it was under appeal but for the entire period dating back to the day the initial claim for the benefit was made. I do not really believe that that is what the Hon. Member intended when he put forward this Bill. I am sure he did not want to see someone getting a benefit to which he was not entitled. He wanted to make sure that people who should be receiving benefits would get them. With that in mind, it seems to me that the Bill does need a little polishing up before it is enshrined as part of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Hopefully, the Government will bring forward very shortly a proposal incorporating the Hon. Member's proposal but one which would solve that small technical difficulty included in Bill C-221. At the same time, I hope the Government will put forward a number of other proposals that will improve the Unemployment Insurance Act while at the same time continuing to enshrine those general benefits all of us wish to see continue.
While I am one who believes that considerable changes should be made to the Unemployment Insurance Act, I hope at the same time that before we make those changes, we can produce a great many more jobs than exist right now. Any changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act, apart from the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
one put forward by the Hon. Member, may very well reduce the benefits to potential claimants rather than enhance them. If that is the case, it would certainly work a hardship on people if it were to be done at a time when there were one and a half million Canadians unemployed. I know the Hon. Member would not want to see anything like that occur in his own riding.
While I applaud the Hon. Member's proposal and would like to see it incorporated in the Act and while I applaud many of the other proposals that have been made from time to time by small business and by individual Canadians across the country, I would really like to make sure that we put all Canadians who want to work back to work again before we run the risk of disentitling any of them from these benefits. Having said all that, 1 would like to applaud the Hon. Member for doing an outstanding job. I am sure that as time goes by, the concept he has outlined here will be enshrined in the Unemployment Insurance Act of Canada. I am sure such an amendment would be a glowing tribute to the Hon. Member and one of which he could be proud in the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Private Members' Hour has now expired.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 22, 1985