1985-10-22

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 10, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 7379).
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is both with pleasure and with a sense of dismay that one has to speak this morning on this Bill.


An Hon. Member:: Is it a pleasurable dismay?


Steven W. Langdon: It is a pleasure to be able to convey to the House the sense of sadness one has to feel because this Bill has been brought before the House by the Government.
This Bill represents a story of corporate irresponsibility on the part of a bank but it also represents a story of Government mismanagement with respect to the handling of this entire affair. The level of corporate irresponsibility has become quite clear as the testimony of Mr. Hitchman has proceeded in the Estey inquiry. We find that this former banker, who has had the opportunity to actually dig into the details of this operation, has uncovered an incredible mare's nest. The operation of this bank was simply not acceptable and Mr. Hitchman suggests that that fact could have been easily discerned if somebody had taken the time to investigate the matter with care back in March. His report demonstrates not just the corporate irresponsibility of the bank but the sense of mismanagement which has been demonstrated by the Government in carrying this bail-out procedure forward, beginning in March.
I think we have to speak with sadness about the willingness of the Government to commit what is now $875 million for these two banks despite the lack of detailed information back in March which Mr. Hitchman has said could clearly have been available.
What we have is not just a story of Government mismanagement and corporate irresponsibility. It is also a story which characterizes the misplaced priorities of this Government. As I look at this Bill and the huge sums of money that are going to be spent because of it, I have to think of the farmers of Essex county on whose behalf I had to write to the Farm Credit Corporation and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) this past winter pointing out that the farmers were going to lose their farms because of the lack of special government help for the farm community. The answer we received was, "We cannot afford to help those farmers".
As well, I have to think of a small, struggling company based in my constituency called Diversified Fuel Components which had to try source after source to receive assistance in getting through a difficult financial period. Ultimately this company did get such help, but it received it from the provincial Government, not the federal Government, despite the fact that programs should have been available to help this kind of innovative firm. Yet the answer that that company received in response to request after request I raised on its behalf was that there simply is not enough money available.
I have to think of older workers who are in their late fifties and had worked for companies like Champion Spark Plug which again is situated in my constituency. These workers had been part of an enterprise which, from 1978 to 1984, had been able to get assistance under the Labour Adjustment Benefits Program. When these workers were laid off this past summer, they made a simple request. Like their counterparts who had received help up until February 1984, they too as older workers wanted to receive help with the very difficult problems faced by older workers who are unemployed. Yet once more, the answer that came back to me from the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) was, "I am sorry, we do not have enough money".
I have to think of the people of Essex-Windsor who want assistance for the Hiatus House which provides assistance to women who are caught up in the transition between marriage and independence. Many women have to leave their family homes and they face great difficulties in doing so. Hiatus House, supported mostly by private charities from the Windsor and Essex county areas, provides help for them to make that transition. Not only for Hiatus House but for transition houses like it across the country, we have requested that help be made available. That was one of the recommendations of our action group report on jobs which we wrote this past winter. Once more, the answer that came back to us was, "We do not have the money for that kind of thing".

October 22, 1985
Depositors Compensation
I have to think of construction companies within my constituency which requested that the increase in sales tax that would hit those small producers be postponed for a year to permit them to phase it into their contracts, a quite straightforward and reasonable request. Once more the answer came back from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson): "We do not have the money." Thus, we end up with farmers, small business people, older workers, women, and medium-sized construction companies saying to the Government: "Look, here are sensible matters which need just a little bit of money", and the Government comes back with the answer: "No. We do not have that type of financing available."
Then we saw two banks get into trouble, and suddenly $875 million was made available. It is not available for poor individuals, hard pressed widows or desperate credit unions, but, as the statistics made clear, it is available for foreign banks, other Canadian banks, investment dealers, large Canadian corporations and life insurance companies which will receive the majority of the support which this Bill is to provide.
To conclude, I think this is an immoral, irresponsible Bill which reveals far too clearly that the priorities of the Government lie with the rich and the wealthy as opposed to the poor, the weak, the hard pressed-the people who can make a contribution to the future of our economy.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that I am pleased to participate in the debate this morning. However, I am not.
For the first time in over 50 years a bank folded in September of this year. Only a few weeks later a second bank found itself in a similar predicament. This is as a result of a Government which, last summer, made campaign speeches across the land saying to the people of Canada: "Vote for us. We are business-like. We can run the country in a businesslike manner. We are friends of business and banks which can really associate with us. We can do things more productively". That is what the Tories said last summer. What happened to their business-like manner in running the country? If this is business-like I wonder what type of business those Hon. Members across the way were in before they were elected to the House. I certainly hope they were not running those businesses the way they are running the country because we would be in even deeper trouble if the businesses of the country were run as badly as this Government is run. Of course, the Government says, as did the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDou-gall): "It is not our fault. It is the fault of the previous Government". That is what the Minister of State for Finance said in the House. She said: "Blame it on the previous administration. Blame everything on the previous administration".


Mr. Gormley:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: There is one of those generic Tories, Mr. Speaker. He is one of those Members from whom we very seldom hear.


John Kenneth Gormley: It's better than being a Taiwan Liberal.


Don Boudria: Here is someone who very seldom speaks in the House and who is now saying: "Hear, hear".
Let me bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the Hitchman Report which was commissioned on June 25 by the Minister of State for Finance and which was tabled on August 12. Whose fault is it, according to Mr. Hitchman? He does not talk about the National Energy Program or all of those other reasons given by the Minister of State for Finance.


Mr. Fennell:: He is a Liberal.


Don Boudria: An Hon. Member across the way says that His Honour the Judge is a Liberal.


Mr. Foster:: Who appointed him?


Don Boudria: He was appointed by the Tories. He is a well qualified-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. 1 would hope that no one in this House would speak about the political affiliation of the judiciary, who are well respected gentlemen, whatever their political affiliation before becoming judges.
I do not think we should allow something like that in this Chamber. I would hope that the Hon. Member would stop saying this.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to correct the record. The gentleman to whom reference was made is not a judge. He is an ex-banker with the Bank of Nova Scotia. I was not implying that he had been appointed a judge.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate what the Hon. Member is saying. It was my understanding that what the Hon. Member had mentioned was the particular individual who is now looking after a judicial inquiry. I would hope that that is not said again.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 am glad you brought the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) into line. He certainly needs it.
I was just going to read from the report of George Hitchman. What does it state as reasons for the failure of the bank? He said that of the 84 loan accounts he reviewed, he found that 28 of those had no financial statements; 11 had financial statements which were over a year old; and 45 had financial statements but some of them lacked sufficient detail in order to assess the loan properly. This is the way in which the banks, which were supervised by the Government, were run. This is the kind of administration we have.
October 22, 1985

I have an article from The Toronto Star dated October 22 in my hand. The article is entitled, "Expert assails poor records of failed bank". It states in part, and I quote:
Retired banker George Hitchman reiterated his report's conclusions before a federal inquiry that the Edmonton bank's management had engaged in unsound banking practices and kept poor records of the bank's affairs.
I hope that clears up the Minister's erroneous and sometimes misleading comments. She has accused previous administrations of these failures, but these are Tory failures. They are nothing else but Tory failures caused by a bad Government.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that in a very few days there will be additional tax measures which will be implemented as a result of the disastrous Budget of last May 23. We know, of course, that those tax increases will total $2.6 billion. What is interesting is that if one adds the cost of the Gulf fiasco and the cost of the bank bail-outs, one finds that the total comes to just about the identical amount. So the blunders of this Government over the last three months have cost the taxpayers the same amount as the tax increase which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is inflicting or will be inflicting on the people of Canada over the next few months. There is no excuse for this kind of administration.
I would like to read to you, Mr. Speaker, what some of the farmers in my riding think of the priorities of this Government in bailing out banks versus helping out the needy. I would like to read a letter which is signed by Lorraine and Richard Lapointe of Martintown, Ontario, in the riding of Stormont, Dundas, which is temporarily held by a Conservative Member. The letter says:
Dear Mr. Warner:
At a time when your Government is cutting back on Agricultural programs and planning to phase out subsidy payments to dairy farmers, it is disappointing and frustrating to see you so eager to reimburse the depositors of a failed bank.
Investors knew there was a risk involved and were fully aware of the insurance limitations.
NOW TELL US WHY ALL CANADIANS HAVE TO PAY!
A copy of that letter went to the Minister of Finance. I want the record to show that a Member to my right says that these people are my cousins. I am sure Mr. and Mrs. Lapointe of the riding of Stormont-Dundas will take that accusation for what it is worth. If they voted Tory in the past, the Tories just lost two votes. We know they have none to spare and they have lost two more because of partisan remarks such as the Hon. Member just made against the good people of Stormont-Dundas.
This is the situation we are facing in this country. We have a Government which does not want to give any priority to the concerns and problems of the farmer. We have a Government which is failing to live up to the campaign promises it made to the good people of Canada last summer.

I see the Secretary of State agrees with what I just said since he nodded his approval. I invite him to cross the floor
Depositors Compensation
and join us. He is starting to see the light, a bit late, perhaps, but it is never too late for a Conservative to let himself be inspired by ideas that make more sense than that party's philosophy, Mr. Speaker.
In any case, it is clear the Government is making a mistake by wanting, to reimburse depositors in this way, that is, without letting the House and the people of Canada know where the money is going to.

Why can the people of Canada not be told who this money is going to, Mr. Speaker? Finally, how did the Minister of State for Finance decide that certain investors were going to be reimbursed and certain investors were not? In my view, people who deposited in excess of $60,000 in these banks are clearly investors just like anyone else. Why are they reimbursed and the preferred shareholders, for instance, not reimbursed? What is the difference? They are both investors. They have both invested money which is uninsured. One is being assisted and one is not. This is unfair and the Government should really rethink this whole measure in order to improve it.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, it is clear today, as it has been for some time, that this debate should end. It has become repetitive and unproductive, and nothing has shown that more than the two opposition speeches delivered today. The NDP has shown today, as it has previously in this debate, that the only new thing it has is the word "New" in its name. In this debate the NDP has dragged into this Chamber every tired-out, used up idea, cliche and trite saying which it has been storing up, saving, cherishing, indeed revering, since the Regina Manifesto. However, they all add up to one thing: That Party is against banks, business and anything which builds up the economy and causes this country to prosper.


Mr. Nystrom:: We are against Tories.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: With a fine disdain for the truth NDP Members seized on one feature of the Bill, the possibility that it will be helping foreign banks. The thought that some of our resources could go to foreign banks has really gripped their imagination. They have implied to the public that that is what the Bill is all about even though the facts show that only 12 per cent of the money involved is going to foreign banks. Where does the other 88 per cent go? This is something that has received no attention from the NDP at all. For example, the compensation of the credit unions will amount to 14 per cent, more than that of the foreign banks. Does the NDP want those credit unions to be bereft as a result of these banks ending their days? The compensation for the provinces and municipalities will total 21 per cent of the funds involved. Does the NDP want the western provinces to be ignored? Would it want those provincial Governments and municipalities to be left behind? I should not want to think that the NDP Members are that indifferent to the well-being of the provinces and municipalities of western Canada and other regions, but that certainly could be inferred from the addresses they have given.

October 22, 1985
Depositors Compensation
What about the labour unions and the religious organizations? What about the universities? There is a cause. It being National Universities Week this week, the Opposition has reminded us that the Government should be providing more. If the Opposition had its way, we would ignore the needs of universities, religious organizations and labour unions that had money on deposit in these banks.
With regard to the Liberals, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that they should have stayed out of this debate altogether. They have clearly been part of the problem rather than the solution. Their finance critic, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), for whom I have high regard, made the point in her address early in the debate that no bank has ever failed during a Liberal administration. I had thought that we had a bank failure in the early 1920s during the King administration. However, that is a historical point which may have been passed by. The point which we must focus on is one in more recent history which is familiar even to members of the Liberal caucus, namely, that under their administration the banking system was allowed to expand from 11 institutions to 70, while the staff of the Inspector General of Banks was kept static at eight inspectors. That fact could not be ignored, even by their finance critic, who said:
I do not know why additional staff was not added to the office of the Inspector General of Banks at a time when, following the revision of the Bank Act, the number of banks in Canada was greatly increased. There was a rather obvious case to be made for increasing the number of inspectors.
It was obvious to everyone but the Liberal Government in office at the time. The Liberals have been part of the problem and now they are trying to be part of the solution.


Mr. Gauthier:: Keep going. Read on.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: During this debate the Liberals may have shown that they may be short of members, but they are never short of gall. That is one thing which they always have in rich quantity. The "fatuous forty" in this debate have marched in day after day and emptied themselves as though the people of Canada had rejected them not only in 1984, but a year later, in September, 1985, have done precisely the same thing again. I note that the Liberals have been feeling much better in the past several weeks. Due to Question Period they were sure that they were on their way back. However, just last week the Gallup poll showed that in September-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On September 5 Parliament had not resumed.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: -the public would have supported the Progressive Conservatives by 48 per cent in contrast to 29 per cent for the Liberals.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Be honest now.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That's before "Tunagate".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Coming from you that's not very nice.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: One could say of this that when all they get is 29, all they can do is yearn and pine. In fact we can go on to say that come '88 they'll still have to wait. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that under the administration of this Government the economy has turned around. The reason for that is that there has been confidence restored in the possibilities for doing business in this country.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Busted banks, rotten fish.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: This Bill is itself a confidence builder. It is directed toward that objective because it is a way in which the Government demonstrates its commitment to keep the pledge that was implied, if not articulated, in asking the depositors in these banks to continue depositing.
It should be clear to us all, Mr. Speaker, that business prospers when there is confidence among those doing business, one with another. Indeed, so much of our business today depends upon that kind of mutual trust. An investor has to be amazed at the way in which the securities industry of this country day by day depends upon people being able to rely upon the commitments that one makes to another. Without that reliance the whole thing would collapse. If you found that commitments which were made were not honoured, at the very least you would not do business with that person again.
This is an example in which the Government asked people to leave their money on deposit in two banks that were in trouble. In the interest of the country as a whole, but particularly in the economy of the western region, the Government was trying to assist, stabilize, and help these banks to survive. When that was no longer possible and it became clear that in spite of that assistance those institutions were no longer viable, the Government made the kind of hard decision which Governments sometimes have to make and decided that those banks would have to be allowed to close their doors. Having made that decision, and having earlier made a commitment to those depositors, institutions and individuals alike, it was right that the Government keep its word, articulated and implied, to depositors, who responded to its request and, at considerable risk to themselves, made an impressive effort to keep the banks alive.
That was not a bail-out like the bail-out of Maislin Transport in Montreal under the former administration. No shareholders of this bank were bailed out. Those shareholders had to bear the risk. No Government came to their rescue. The only assistance given by this Bill is to those depositors who put their money at risk and made it possible for those banks to continue operations during the time that they did.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we consider this Bill to be appropriate to the general effort that has been made by the Government to restore business confidence and to renew the economy. I think it will be clear from the passage of this Bill that the business community knows it can count on the word of the Government.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join in this debate because I think that the Hon. Member for
October 22, 1985

Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) has just displayed his great ignorance of what we are debating here. We are debating a reasoned amendment by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). That amendment reads:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefore:
"this House declines to give second reading to a Bill, the principle of which is to permit payments of large, but unspecified amounts of public monies to unspecified persons or corporations, thereby substantially denegrating Parliamentary accountability for expenditure of public funds".
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the very basis of parliamentary democracy and our accountability is the bringing of the Estimates of various Departments of the Government before the House or before a parliamentary committee in order to determine exactly what the expenditures are for. The Government is asking for a blank cheque. It is saying that it will not give any details about who the money is being paid to. Is it to their Tory friends in Alberta? We do not know; maybe it is not. We should know if it is.
Surely it is basic to parliamentary democracy to know who will be receiving the money, whether it is their bank friends in Toronto or California or anyone else. We should be entitled to more detail either from the Estey Commission or the parliamentary committee.
When we get to the committee stage of this Bill I hope we will be able to find out the names of those with the hundreds and thousands of dollars in bad loans. We should also know that information because this whole episode really speaks of a political fix.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made an incredible decision on the spur of the moment to bail out a bank. He made his Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) agree with this decision even when they, in their own incompetence, realized it was a terrible mistake. However, when the Prime Minister made this decision over a weekend, those Ministers did not advise the Prime Minister to have an audit conducted by the senior banks who participated in the bail-out. Those banks were also pressured by the Prime Minister to invest millions of dollars in that bail-out. I suggest this is the worst fiasco in Canadian banking history.
A very interesting article in The Financial Post has the headline, "Never-ending circle of passing the buck". This article outlines how the $1.3 billion worth Canadian Commercial Bank fiasco takes place. First, the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of Finance cannot be faulted because they did not attend the meeting. Although the bankers, the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Inspector General of Banks attended the meeting, it is amazing that the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of Finance did not attend that meeting where a decision is made to put up $255 million. Since those Ministers cannot be responsible for such a decision if they did not attend the meeting, that is how the buck is passed in that circumstance.
Depositors Compensation
The Governor of the Bank of Canada stated that he had no direct knowledge of the state of the bank's finances. It is amazing that he would advance hundreds of millions of dollars when he does not bother to check and does not know anything about the state of the finances. He stated, "The Bank of Canada is not involved in monitoring the Financial soundness of individual banks and supervising their behaviour". Therefore, the buck is passed again because he is not responsible. Who is in charge if it is not the Governor of the Bank of Canada? What about the Inspector General of Banks, Mr. Kennett? The article states:
No, not his fault either, if you listen to the rumours. He and former Deputy Minister of Finance Mickey Cohen, you see, actually argued against the bail-out.
Therefore, they are not responsible. They are said to have been overruled by the Government Ministers. Of course, they are not responsible because they were not at the meeting. It is a perfect circle of buck-passing.
I believe the responsibility lies with the Prime Minister. Obviously he made the decision and, incredibly, his Ministers knuckled under and agreed to it. However, a three-day audit would have given sufficient warning to these Ministers to advise the Prime Minister that this bail-out was a useless exercise. This view was stated by the consultant at yesterday's hearings.
The Hon. Member for Scarborough West stated that confidence has been restored. However, I would ask him, in what area this confidence has been restored? The $60 million requested by the Government last March will ultimately cost the Government a billion dollars. This certainly did not restore confidence in investors in the Northland Bank because that bank has failed. It has not restored confidence in depositors in the Mercantile Bank because it faced a terrible run on its deposits.
I suggest that the Hon. Member is doing a lot of wishful thinking if he believes confidence has been restored in these areas. Small banks like the Bank of British Columbia as well as the Continental Bank have had to raise interest rates in the face of serious problems. Therefore, rather than renewed confidence in the country we have had the greatest lack of confidence in our banking system in 62 years. Two banks have failed and another bank had such a serious run on its deposits that it had to amalgamate with another bank.
The Government should have investigated the matter and conducted the proper audits rather than acting on the Prime Minister's quick political judgment. The Northland Bank would probably be in business today and the Government would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars. Therefore, 1 believe the Government should accept our amendment which states that:
this House declines to give second reading to a Bill, the principle of which is to permit payments of large, but unspecified amounts of public monies to unspecified persons or corporations, thereby substantially denigrating Parliamentary accountability for expenditure of public funds.
If we do not accept such an amendment, hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent without any information as to

October 22, 1985
Depositors Compensation
who will receive these moneys and why they are being paid out in this irresponsible way.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us today is a reasoned motion. Rather than paying the $875 million to uninsured depositors in the Northland Bank and Canadian Commercial Bank, the amendment states:
this House declines to give second reading to a Bill, the principle of which is to permit payments of large, but unspecified amounts of public monies to unspecified persons or corporations, thereby substantially denigrating Parliamentary accountability for expenditure of public funds.
This is an extremely important principle. The main reason for the existence of Parliament is to oversee the expenditure of parliamentary funds and to approve taxation measures which the Government, of formerly the Monarch, decided upon or proposed. This is the very essence of why we are here as Members of Parliament. We are looking at a proposal which will pay out some $875 million in a bail-out package to the uninsured depositors of those two banks. If we are to be credible parliamentarians, we should look at the background of the situation to see the legal requirement for the country to make such an expenditure. It does not take very much searching. There is no legal requirement to do that. In fact, that is what the entire Bill is about; it is trying to create the legal framework whereby Parliament and the country will guarantee $875 million to the uninsured depositors of those banks. It is a fundamental change of the laws.
With all deference to the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) who is now out of the Chamber but perhaps is listening, I do not think there were any previous examples of this happening in the country. He cited Maislin trucking in Quebec when the Liberal Government bailed out its shareholders. He said that this case was not like that because we were not bailing out the shareholders of the two banks. If he had understood the situation, or perhaps had been more honest with us, he would have recognized what he was doing by supporting a Bill to bail out shareholders to a total of $875 million in uninsured deposits. This particular Bill makes certain that in essence the shareholders of the Northland Bank and the Canadian Commercial Bank receive another $875 million when the final computations are made as to the worth of the remaining assets of the two banks. It increases the value of those assets because the money held by shareholders in shares will not be reduced to pay off part of the liabilities of uninsured shareholders. It becomes a zero liability against the two banks and therefore leaves far more in the pot for the two bankrupt companies to redistribute to the original shareholders. In fact, it is a bail-out of the shareholders of those two banks in a more indirect way than perhaps the Hon. Member understood. In essence, it puts another $875 million to $900 million into the pool of assets to be redistributed to shareholders.
Who are the people who will benefit from the pay-out? This is the crux of the debate for the last number of days. The list which was presented to us was prepared by the Ministry. It
does not tell us who will be the beneficiaries of this $875 million. The Government hides behind a section in the Bank Act and says that that kind of information cannot be made available. However, when one looks at the Acts relating to bankruptcy, those laws require that individuals or corporations that wish to participate in receiving funds from a dismantled company due to bankruptcy must come forward to make public their names and get on the list in order to share in the division of the bankrupt's property. That is not being required in this case, simply because the Government chooses to look at the Bank Act rather than at the Acts relating to bankruptcy.
Whom is it bailing out? We do not know the individuals. We know them by categories. According to the information provided to us, just barely 2 per cent of the money from the $875 million bail-out will find its way into the pockets of individuals. Most of the deposits of individuals are covered by the $60,000 for which all depositors are insured when they put money into a financial institution due to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
One thing that has bothered me about this whole proposal is the blinkers worn by Government Members, including Ministers, when they deal with this particular proposition. They fail to see it as denigrating the roles of Members of Parliament and of Parliament itself by taking away the right to know where money goes. On top of that, they hide behind an analysis of the situation which I think is quite faulty. We know from the facts which have been compiled that the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank both grew very rapidly in the early 1980s. For instance, the Canadian Commercial Bank saw its assets jump to $3.1 billion in fiscal year 1984 from a mere $864 million in 1980. In a matter of four years, it quadrupled its amount of assets. I remind the House that assets in bank terms mean the money lent out to individuals and other corporations. Northland experienced a similar kind of rapid growth. Its 1984 assets totalled $1.1 billion compared with $254 million in 1980. Northland issued four times as much in the way of loans in a period of four years in the early 1980s.
The Government has tried to make much of the National Energy Program as a contributing factor to the failure of the two banks. I am not sure how that computes, whether the Government means that the oil companies felt so confident in the National Energy Program that they rushed out and borrowed a lot of money, or that somehow the National Energy Program worsened the prospects of oil companies and therefore made them go out to borrow money. In any case, I have trouble following the logic. In March, we had the Western Accord which was supposed to correct all the problems existing in the oil industry. The skies were suddenly looking clear again and, if we listen to the Minister of Energy, everything was looking up in the energy business. Yet, that was the time when it was decided that the loans held by these banks were no longer viable, that they were bad loans. Suddenly these energy companies, despite the new times which are supposed to be coming with the Western Accord, will no longer be good. That tells me that somehow the Western Accord had not improved
October 22, 1985

economic conditions in western Canada and, in fact, it was more prudent to fold up these two banks. The Government recognizes that and therefore has gone ahead and done it.
I do not see where the analysis follows the actions of the Government. I think there is a great deal that the Government is not telling us. We have to have further information before Parliament can legitimately pass this Bill.


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join my colleagues in opposing this amendment. I certainly am very pleased to follow my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), and to be able to pick up on some of the points he made. We are both from western Canada and I think that there is a western perspective which we must present when speaking of these two banks.
I found it interesting that the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre, like many of his NDP colleagues, did not jump up and down and say that we should give money to the credit unions, the unions and the individuals, the very people for whom he supposedly speaks. It seems to me that members of the NDP are trying to make political points on the fact that there are some other banks involved, banks which invested in the two banks that failed. I would like to suggest that ordinary people like ourselves and our constituents invest in banks and buy shares in them. Let us not pretend that banks are almighty corporate beings. They are made up of ordinary people as well. I would like to drive that point home.
I received a letter from a small businessman who had in excess of $100,000 on deposit in one of these banks. He invested not his savings but his cash flow in the bank on a 30-day basis. The collapse of the bank froze his operating capital and he had to lay off his workers. That meant lost jobs. Without additional money, he may not be able to proceed on two committed contracts. This will force him into a breach of contract, a permanent lay-off of workers and possibly a bankruptcy. This businessman is typical of many Canadians who are looking for assistance from Bill C-79. If his business fails, workers in the City of Saskatoon will lose their jobs and it will be because of the Liberals and the NDP Members who are so violently opposing this Bill.
Yesterday I asked this particular contractor if he knew why he had not received his money. He indicated that he did and that he was furious. He was upset with the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) and he has written letters to them to tell them so. I think that is just one example of people who are experiencing difficult times. These people have to pay off their subtrades and their employees and now find themselves in a situation that could very well mean that their small businesses could go under.
The Hon. Member who spoke previously mentioned that big oil companies were making investments back in the days prior to the National Energy Program. I say that the National
Depositors Compensation
Energy Program was not a kick in the shins, it was a kick in the teeth. It meant the virtual collapse of the western Canadian economy. It was not just the big oil companies that were making investments. Small businessmen and individuals were making investments as well. You will understand, Mr. Speaker, coming as you do from Edmonton in the Province of Alberta, that people lost their homes, their cars and their businesses and are now trying to make a comeback as a result of the Western Accord and the good news from the Government indicating that it is prepared to set some rules and live by them, without changing them every time it feels that it is the right thing to do.
I would like to inform the House of things that have happened post NEP as a result of the Western Accord and the Atlantic Accord, particularly from a western perspective. A survey was taken by the Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen to which there were 10,000 respondents, and it was just released on Thursday or Friday. It gives us some idea of what is beginning to happen across the country and how different it is from the results of tampering with the economy of western Canada that the Liberal Party did back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. One of the questions asked in the survey was, "What are your current plans for investment in your business in the coming six months?" Nationally, 42 per cent of people at the small business sector said that they intend to increase their level of investment. In Saskatchewan alone, that percentage is 36. For businessmen right across the country, this means that people will be going back to work.
The next question was about working capital including inventory. Nationally, 40 per cent of the 10,000 respondents said that they planned to increase their working capital and inventory. In the Province of Saskatchewan that figure was 34 per cent.
The next question was, "In the past six months, has employment in your firm remained the same, increased or decreased?" Nationally, 34 per cent said that it has increased in the past six months.
Some Hon. Members may feel that I am getting off the subject but I do not think I am. That is what this is all about. Those two western Canadian banks got into some very serious difficulty as a result of the National Energy Program. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) can say that the Liberals had nothing to do with that, but I think that the Liberals must certainly take some share of the blame for this particular problem.
Liberal Members are trying to tell us that two banks collapsed as a result of the outcome of the election held on September 4, 1984. I would like to deal with the year 1980 when the Liberal Government expanded the banking system by almost seven times. A great many people in Canada did not argue with that but some did. However, the key point is that the Liberals forgot to do one thing. They forgot to make adjustments and update the regulatory system of the banks. When Liberal Members point their Fingers at the management of the banks-and I am not saying that these banks were perfect-I suggest that they take a look at their own back

October 22, 1985
Depositors Compensation
yards and realize that they should have looked at the regulatory system of the banks. This is where I must salute the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) who has begun this long overdue process.
As the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre just mentioned, there has been much discussion about releasing the names of the depositors. I wonder how the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre would feel if the Bank of Canada made his private financial statements available to the rest of the country. I say that that is private information. In one of the major financial newspapers, the headline for this morning reads, "Estey unlikely to release names of bank depositors," and I say, rightly so. I do not think that kind of information should be made available. Opposition Members know about the categories of depositors, and I think that that is good enough. I do not think we have to deal with the individual names of the small businesses and those individuals who want to keep that information private.
I find it difficult to understand how members of the Liberal Party and the NDP who oppose modification of indexation on the grounds that it will hurt ordinary Canadians can publicly oppose a Bill that will save the livelihoods of thousands of people in every one of our constituencies. Again, I am talking particularly of those in western Canada. People who live in western Canada made investment decisions on the basis of what they knew at the time. At one time there was a buoyant economy in the West because of activity in the energy sector, the engine of growth in western Canada. People who made investment decisions on that basis had every right to believe that the economy would remain buoyant. I think opposition Members have to take a good, hard look at this particular issue from a western perspective and realize that there are thousands of people who are stranded and need assistance. For every day that we delay this Bill, it is costing us more and more in interest.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to speak on the amendment and say how pleased I am with the position taken by the Liberal Party in declining to give second reading to Bill C-79. The principle of this Bill is to permit large but unspecified amounts of public moneys to go to unspecified persons or corporations, thereby denigrating parliamentary accountability for expenditure of public funds.
This is a very large sum of money that the Government is proposing to give to the depositors of two western banks.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Uninsured.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Depositors over $60,000 are completely uninsured. The Government is speaking of $875 million. I personally believe that the amount that it will cost the Government and the taxpayers of Canada is substantially more than that. How did this situation arise? Why is the Government in this position? Why has so much damage been done to the banking system, to the depositors of these banks and to the
taxpayers of this country? Why, when the Government decided to investigate this question in March of 1985 and formed the bail-out group, did this bail-out group rely only on information that the Canadian Commercial Bank itself chose to make available to them? Why would the Government rely on information that the bank in question was choosing to making available?
On March 22, 1985, the officers seconded from the Royal Bank of Canada reported that they could not accurately assess the effectiveness of the support package because they had not had full access to the books. This is incredible.
The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ravis) is saying that it is the fault of the previous Liberal Government that the inspection process of the bank is not better than it is today. I agree that it should be tighter. I agree that is should have been done before, but this Government has been in power for over a year and now it is just coming to grips with the question. How long is it going to take it to improve the inspection service in this country? Do banks have to fail before any action is taken? Is this what the Government does, wait for the catastrophes to happen before it puts into place the action that is necessary to correct these situations and, hopefully, to prohibit and to avoid catastrophes such as this? It is incredible.
The inspection process in this country, I agree, leaves a lot to be desired, but the Government's position is that the people who entrusted their funds to, for instance, the Canadian Commercial Bank in good faith on the strength of the Government's assurances should not be penalized. What about the people who were led to believe by these Governments that everything was all right? The bail-out package which was put in place in March encourages a lot of these people to deposit their moneys in these banks. The banks themselves, in order to get these depositors, offered higher interest rates. Financial institutions actually placed funds of people in this country with these banks. How could this have been allowed to happen? What kind of conscience does this Government have to allow and to actually perpetrate this particular situation?
The Government talks about credit unions. Certainly credit unions have been hurt. People have been hurt, but how were they hurt? It was because of the fact that the Government from March of 1985, and I think before, led them down the garden path.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is right.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The Minister says that these people, the international banks, the banking communities, everybody has to be reimbursed, not only the small unsecured creditor, or the individual who did not have the wealth of information that the Government and the international and Canadian banks had. No, everybody has to be secured. The question is, why? Why have we got to go with this complete compensation? Why? When the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) is asked that question, she does not have an answer. Is there an international agreement that the Government has with the United States and other countries that requires investors in banks failing in any country to be completely compensated? Is
October 22, 1985

that the case? If so, the Minister should come clean to the people of Canada and to this House and state that such an arrangement is in place.
For instance, the Canadian Commercial Bank increased its share of the Westland Bank in California from 39 per cent to 100 per cent in March of 1984 in response to a cease and desist order issued against the Westland Bank by the U.S. regulator. If this bank was in difficulty in March of 1985, then it certainly was in some difficulty in March of 1984. Yet it was allowed to further invest in the Westland Bank in California.
The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East has said that it is because of the National Energy Program. People put money into the National Energy Program; this bank put money into the National Energy Program and because of the National Energy Program the economy in western Canada went downhill, and that is the reason these banks failed. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East only has to listen to the witnesses at the Estey Commission who said that the reason these banks failed is bad loans and bad management. That is the reason these two banks failed and that is the reason this Government should have been able to spot what was happening to these banks and act in the interests of the people of this country. It should not have allowed these banks to offer higher interest rates and allowed people to invest when it knew what was going to happen. For instance, the Northland Bank on September 1 froze interest rates so people who came in after March did not get any increase in their interest rates-did not get any interest whatsoever after September 1. This is what the Government is saying they are doing to protect the people of this country.
If the Minister of State for Finance and the Government are so interested in protecting the people of the country, doing something for the people of this country with respect to banking, why are they not looking into why the banks are not offering any small business loans to regions of this country who suffer from economic disparity? Why is the Government not looking into the question of why all this money, which is being secured and guaranteed 90 per cent by the Government, is only being offered to regions of this country where the economy is successful? Why is the Government not looking into why banks are not reporting cases of computer fraud and computer crime, the cost of which is in all probability being passed back to the depositors and the people who are dealing with these banks?
It is ludicrous to say that this Government by doing this is acting on behalf of the people of this country. We heard in the May 23 Budget that the reason we were going to have to take all this hard medicine was that we had to do something about the deficit. Any reduction in the deficit has been completely neutralized by the action of this Government since then. What the people of this country have had to forfeit because of the May 23 Budget has not gone back to the individuals. It has gone to the business community in this country.
The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East said that during the National Energy Program people's businesses failed and people lost their houses. During that period of the recession
Depositors Compensation
people's businesses failed and people lost their homes. I can tell the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East and members of the Government that there are still areas in the country where people are losing their homes and where businesses are failing. It is because of the fact that this Government is not looking after these people that this is still happening. It is looking after the people in the large corporations who can help themselves. In the meantime, those who need help are not receiving the attention and the legislation needed to bring them into a position in which what they are going through at the present time can be avoided.
I think what the Government is doing here is wrong. I would ask it to take note of the amendment put forward by the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner).


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a few of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ravis). He referred to the time when the Liberal Government of the day expanded the banking system and, according to him-and I think rightly so-it did not make the appropriate changes in the total banking system to accommodate the expansion. It did not change the rules with respect to monitoring, inspection and so on.
There are two matters which I wish to recall in this regard. One, of course, is that I am sure the Liberals went ahead with that expansion with the support of the Conservative Party at the time, as was often the case when the Liberals changed the banking system. Second, I think it is also true that when interest rates were allowed to float in 1966, according to the theory that competition would provide interest rates at an even lower rate than 6 per cent, it was done with Conservative support over NDP opposition.
It has often been said by the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall)-and I am glad she is in the House-that it was the fault of the Liberals because they did not clean up the inspection service while they had the opportunity. That is true, except for is one thing which has been left out of the Tory explanation, that is to say that in 1979 the Tory Government of the day brought in a draft Bank Act. It never had the opportunity to pass the legislation because the Government fell. However, it had an opportunity to indicate what its intentions would be with respect to the banking system.
The fact of the matter is that the Tory Bank Act of 1979, which did not receive the approval of the House, and the Liberal Bank Act of 1980, which was eventually approved by the House, are not substantially different with respect to those issues and laws which pertain to the case which we have before us. I speak of the failure of these two banks. I think it is a case of political and intellectual dishonesty for the Minister, or anyone else on the other side, to suggest that the Liberals were fundamentally different from the Conservatives in this respect because they had their chance in 1979 to indicate what they would like to do with the banking system. What they indicated

October 22, 1985
Depositors Compensation
was that they were not substantially different from the Liberals in that respect.
The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East also spoke about changing the rules. This, of course, has been a familiar Conservative complaint regarding the Liberals' management of the economy, that is, that the rules ought not to be changed. One sometimes receives the impression that the rules should never be changed, that whatever happens to be the case ought always to be the case no matter what. In any event, it is interesting that the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East made this observation because what could be a more significant changing of the rules in our economy than to depart from the principle, which has been established for some time that people with deposits of over $60,000 who are prepared to take those types of risks are, in fact, taking a risk and cannot rely upon the Government to bail them out? What the Government is doing now is fundamentally changing the rules of the banking system and, in doing so, changing people's expectations with respect to an activity that is a favourite focus of the Conservative Party. I am talking here about risk.
How many times have I sat in the House and listened to speech after speech by Conservative Members of Parliament talking about the almost mystical quality of risk-taking? They often say that risk-taking is what makes the economy go round, it is what this country was built upon. We have been told that risk-taking is this and it is that. This is the type of garbage I have had to listen to for years and years. We are now forced to suffer the indignity of seeing the Conservative Party-not the Liberals or the NDP, those anti-free enterprisers, but the Conservative Party-bail out everyone who had more than $60,000 deposited in the Canadian Commercial Bank. Anyone who deals in that amount of bread should know full well that he is taking a risk when he invests it in those banks. I find this to be an incredible irony.
The other thing I would like to say with respect to Conservative rhetoric about the bail-out has to do with the National Energy Program.


Mr. Minaker:: You supported it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Hon. Member across the way says that we supported the National Energy Program. Actually, if one were to check the record one would see that we voted against the National Energy Program. However, that type of fact does not bother the Conservatives. They have been going around the country for the last four year saying that the NDP supported the National Energy Program when, in fact, we did not. However, the facts do not seem to bother them because they are more wound up in their own mythology than what is really going on in the country. In this case they have been a victim of their own propaganda. For so long they have said that everything that is wrong with the economy in western Canada can be blamed on the National Energy Program. That has blinded them. It has made them unable to see that the problems of the Canadian Commercial Bank were not related to the National Energy Program but may well have been related-in fact, it seems to be obviously the case-to bad management and
incompetent judgment with respect to loans. Perhaps it was because the Conservative Government was fresh in office that it had not learned that the world was not the way it thought it was when it sat in opposition-1 do not know. However, being victim of its own propaganda and because it has said it so often it cannot believe otherwise. It cannot believe that problems in western Canada might be related to something other than the conspiracy against western Canada which has been going on for years, according to the Conservative Party.
I would like to say a word about that because western Canada is a much more complicated reality politically, socially and economically than what Members on the other side would like us to believe. Western Canada is not the boardrooms in Calgary. Western Canada cannot be easily and uncritically acquainted with the energy sector. Western Canada is a diversified economy. Western Canada is potash, grain, forestry, mining, manufacturing, workers and ordinary people. Western Canada is not just people who sit around worrying about what they will do with more than $60,000. I am sick and tired of having the part of the country from which I come equated with a small financial elite who sit in the boardrooms of Calgary and Edmonton. That is not what western Canada is for me. It is a much more complicated reality, which is why I can rise in my place as a western Canadian and say that no one should fall for this business. We cannot simply let the Conservatives do what they like as long as they label it as being for western Canada. They seem to think that, as long as they say that it is for western Canada, we should be quiet. Whose western Canada is it? It is not my western Canada when the Conservatives use those words.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make some remarks on the parliamentary process which is involved in Bill C-79. First, I would like to direct some remarks to the provisions of the Bill itself.
The short title of Bill C-79 is the Financial Institutions Depositors Compensation Act. However, if one really wished to inform the Canadian public one would entitle the Bill: a Bill to restore and continue confidence in the Canadian banking system. That is what the Bill is all about. It is not directed at persons who deposited funds in the banks involved, the Northland Bank or the Canadian Commercial Bank. The real purpose of the Bill is to assure Canadians that financial investors across North America and throughout the world have confidence in the Canadian banking system and that each and every depositor, Canadian or otherwise, knows that when he puts a dollar in a Canadian bank, that dollar is protected.
I would like to ask my friends opposite, the Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, if they would want it any other way. Would they want people to be uncertain about Canadian banking? Would they want Canadians to line up Monday morning to extract their money from our Canadian banks and destroy the economy of this country because they do not have confidence in our system? I think it has been admitted time and time again that there are remidies
October 22, 1985

which might be introduced into the system to protect us from difficulties like this in the future. I believe parliamentarians on all sides would do well to direct their minds to those solutions. But simply to cry over what has happened in the past is to be totally unconstructive both for Canada and for those people in Canada who want to invest in financial institutions.
I would direct the attention of Hon. Members opposite to the real purpose of this legislation. When those Hon. Members stand up in the House of Commons and say that this Bill ought not to be passed, that it ought to be shunted aside on the basis of the amendment which has been proposed, what they are saying to Canadians is, "We will not help you have confidence in our banking system. If you want to put a dollar into a Canadian bank, you take your chances". I do not see how that can be in the interests of Canada or in the interests of Canadian economic development. I do not know who in Canada would consider that to be a proper attitude to take. If we destroy the foundations of our economy, how can we expect our economy to grow and prosper? How can we expect Canadians to benefit?
I would like Hon. Members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party to tell us what would happen in Canada if there was no confidence in our banking system.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We have been saying it for a long time-open Government. Give us the names of those depositors, your friends.


John Kenneth Gormley: What brought on that outburst?


Howard Edward Crosby: Another point with respect to this Bill is the parliamentary process which is involved. I suppose, having been in opposition at one point, I would admit that there are circumstances in which prolonged debate of a Bill which is before the House of Commons is justified. I think one circumstance is when the public is not aware of the provisions of the Bill and by prolonging debate, a public information channel is created through which people can become informed. But is there anyone in Canada who does not know about the difficulties of the Northland Bank and the Canadian Commercial Bank? If there are any, I would be very much surprised. Everyone knows what happened.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's why we have a judicial inquiry.


Howard Edward Crosby: Everyone knows about the decision of the Government of Canada to protect the Canadian banking system and to restore confidence in it by dealing with the problems of depositors. That is what the Bill is all about. It is that simple.
With respect to the failure of the Bill to require the depositors to be named or identified, there is a simple answer. The matter is before a commissioner, a person appointed under the Public Inquiries Act, who has all the powers and authority of a judge of the Superior Court. He has the power to summons witnesses and to look at records. That person has already been mentioned today. He is an eminent jurist and a Canadian and
Depositors Compensation
I am sure Mr. Justice Estey will make the right decision in the interests of all Canadians.
If one wants to talk about governmental policy in this regard, I have in front of me an extract from the Daily News of Halifax dated October 22, 1985. It talks about the venture capital program in the great Province of Manitoba, which, as we all know, has a New Democratic Government. The headline reads, "Millionaires' interest-free loans". The millionaires in question are receiving interest-free loans from an agency of the Government of the Province of Manitoba. But what is interesting, Mr. Speaker, is that the Business Development Minister, Jerry Storie, has declined to name the firms which actually get the money when the venture capital companies use the funds. I am sure Hon. Members opposite are asking themselves, why is the Business Development Minister of the Province of Manitoba declining to name the firms which will receive the venture capital funds? That is explained by the Minister's assistant who says, and I quote:
Some investors may not want to be lined with a specific investment. The company for its own reasons may prefer not to be identified publicly.
So when members of the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons speak on the matter of identifying people who are benefiting from Government financial programs, they speak with forked tongues. They have one rule for the Government of Manitoba and another rule for the Government of Canada. But in this case, I have to agree with the Government of Manitoba-perhaps for the last time-because what is important, just as with the banking system itself, is confidence. People will not invest in banks unless they have confidence in the banking system which governs over the banks. People will not invest in enterprises, particularly venture capital enterprises in the Province of Manitoba, unless they have the confidence that the Government of Manitoba will protect the business relations which have developed with the agency of the Government of Manitoba.
I do not need to speak about the members of the Liberal Party because when they were in government their Ministers rose time after time in this House and said that the system of business relations between the Government of Canada and persons who invest in Canada, persons who are interested in building the economy of Canada, depends upon a confidential relationship. I ask Hon. Members from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to tell me how many times they have heard that phrase in this House. How many times have they heard the Ministers in the Liberal Government stand up and say, "We must have confidence; we cannot open the files of the Government which relate to business transactions and tell everyone what the arrangement was, what the terms and conditions were"? The Liberal Party has defended that position over and over again. And we have the New Democratic Party following exactly the same policy in Manitoba. The only difference is that members of the New Democratic Party in this House of Commons can stand and irresponsibly condemn such a policy because those Hon. Members have never formed the Government of Canada and, of course, we all know they never will. We are talking about nothing in relation to this Bill.

October 22, 1985
Depositors Compensation
We are talking about smoke. Every Hon. Member of the House of Commons, past, present and future, knows that there has to be confidentiality in some relationships. The Government of Canada has gone further than some people would want to go by leaving it to the Commissioner, the eminent jurist of the Supreme Court of Canada, to render a decision on the point. What more could one ask, Mr. Speaker? I think all we can ask, as supporters of the Government of Canada, is for a fair judgment by the people of Canada.
There has been an honest effort on the part of the Government, through the medium of Bill C-79, to restore the confidence of Canadians and all other investors in the Canadian banking system. That is what this Bill is, pure and simple. There has been an attempt by the Government of Canada to protect the confidential relationship which all Governments should have with people who involve themselves in transactions with Government or government agencies. Those are the two principles upon which this Bill is based. I would defy members of the Opposition to argue seriously with the merits of those two propositions: confidence in the bankins system and the confidence of the people in dealing with the Government of Canada.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: I have listened with considerable interest to the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) who, on numerous occasions, has spoken out on issues which are of concern to him and to his region. He has also spoken out on some of those issues which transcend, if you will, regional concern. He uses the phrase, "Everyone knows about the Northland Bank". He uses the term "everyone". But not every Canadian knows who the uninsured depositors of that particular bank are. That is the purpose of this debate and of the amendment which has been put forward by my Leader.
It seems peculiar that members of the Government, who were adamant while in opposition about having access to information, now want to hide pertinent information from the Canadian people. You could argue with great justification that there is a cover-up. Why are they so afraid of producing the names of individuals and corporations who are going to be the recipients of millions of taxpayers' dollars? Why the cover-up? Are there certain individuals associated with those two banks who have strong Tory connections? Is that what it is? Is it because the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has a particular sum of money deposited in one of those banks? Is that why? Or is there some other reason for which they do not wish to disclose the names? The fact of the matter is that this Government is stonewalling the Canadian people and Parliament on releasing the information we seek. That is why I ask that Members from all political Parties vote unanimously for the amendment put forward by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).
The Government has refused to answer the following questions, both in this Chamber and in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Why did the bail-out
group not consult the CCB's external auditors? Why did the bail-out group not look at the minutes of the CCB's audit committee? Why did the Government turn down the bank's offer of a full audit of the CCB's books? We know the answer to that question despite the reluctance of the Government Members and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDou-gall) to provide the answer. We have concluded that a political decision was made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), and he did so without meaningful consultation with the players involved. It was done at the beginning of a weekend during which the National Economic Conference took place here in Ottawa.
This whole deal stinks. It is absolutely worse than the tuna affair. Millions of taxpayers' dollars are being requested of the Parliament of Canada in order to bail out individuals and corporations, whether domestic or foreign, and we do not know who they are. The Minister of State for Finance has the audacity to stand in this Chamber and say to Members of Parliament and the Canadian people that there "may be" a legal opinion which says that she ought not to release the names. Therefore, the Government is in breach of one of the most fundamental rights of Parliament, the right to know. We have a right to know the names of those individuals and corporations who are going to receive large sums of taxpayers' money.
I will go one step further and charge the Minister of State for Finance with a cover-up in its worst possible form. The Government is breaching the traditions of Parliament and nullifying Parliament's duty to scrutinize every Government expenditure. However, what do we hear day in and day out from the back-benchers opposite? Somehow this is supposed to be a good move for the Canadian people. Why do Members opposite persist in allowing this cover-up to continue? The only conclusion I can reach is that they may have more information than they are giving the House of Commons and the Canadian people.
As well, Mr. Speaker, it is not fair for Members opposite to suggest that Members on this side are in any way against western institutions. That is simply not the case. The simple fact of the matter is that more than $870 million of taxpayers' money is being provided to pay for the utter incompetence of the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). I could not support in good conscience the Government on this issue because there are other areas of this country in great need of financial assistance. Whether it be farmers, fishermen or people in the forest industry in British Columbia, or the people of Atlantic Canada, whom this Government has written off completely, the money should be spent there. What about daycare facilities? What about providing assistance to the thousands of municipalities across this country who have come to the Government on bended knee seeking financial assistance for such necessities as water and sewers? Those problems deserve a higher priority than the ego of the Prime Minister of this country.
It is for those reasons that I urge all Members in this Chamber, regardless of political affiliation, to examine the
October 22, 1985

amendment put forward by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and then vote in favour of it. If not, they will be breaching the traditions of this and of previous Parliaments of Canada.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, this Bill now before the House provides Government money to those people whose deposits in these banks in excess of $60,000 were not insured. That is the purpose of the Bill. The hon. gentleman says: "We know that". I want to drive that point home because it means that the Government of Canada is guaranteeing something which was not guaranteed before. That is the point. Well, right is right and wrong is no man's right. The reason I say that is that the Government has programs whereby it guarantees money loaned through the banks. However, when this Government took over we saw those guarantees lifted in the case of some of our primary producers. Where is the rationale for that? The poor fishermen in eastern and western Canada have this year received letters from the banks saying that the federal Government no longer guarantees their loans and therefore the banks are going to take these people to court and seize their possessions. That sounds absolutely atrocious, doesn't it? Let me read for you a letter from a bank manager to a poor Canadian fisherman concerning a loan guaranteed by the federal Government. What does the bank say? It says:
Dear Mr. Elliott,
We advise that the Federal Government is paying no further claims against Fishery Improvement loans advanced between 1977 and 1980. In this regard, we regret to inform you that your loans are now excluded from the Federal Government Guarantee, and as such, the accounts now revert to your sole responsibility.
The bank then lists the outstanding amounts. I have another letter here from a gentleman who says:
Today the sheriff brought a paper from a law firm, from St. Johns. They are going to take legal action. So what will I do?
He says:
Now, a few days ago, the bank manager phoned me. It was concerning this loan. He said if I didn't pay, that they will put the "for sale" sign on my house.
I have another letter which says:
Several years ago one couldn't walk in a bank, at least in this area, without noticing big signs saying something like, "See us for Fisheries Improvement Loans Guaranteed by the Federal Government", etc. So I, like a good many others, fell for it.
I am glad that the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) is back in the Chamber. Federal Government guarantees on loans to individuals, poor men and poor women, were lifted this year. Why? I have an official response from the Minister concerned to a constituent in Nova Scotia. He says:
While I recognize the financial difficulties you are currently experiencing, you must understand our role with the Fisheries Improvement Loans Program is that of a guarantor in the event of default by borrowers on loans registered under the
Act.
The Bank of Nova Scotia, as a result of its heavy losses, has reached its full entitlement for reimbursement by the federal Government on fisheries improve-
Depositors Compensation
ment loans for the period in which your loan was registered, and therefore we can no longer be responsible for your debt.
The federal Government of this country is turning around and getting out of federal Government guarantees that were given on loans to primary producers in this country. It is backing out. However, the Bill before the Chamber is for the Government to back in. In one case it backs away from the poor man, and in another case it backs in for someone who has quite a bit of money. It backs away from a poor man, and backs in for investors. It backs away from the poor man, and backs in for municipalities and everyone else.
However, Mr. Speaker, we are not even disagreeing with that. We are asking for the names, but the Government will not even do that. Over and above all of that, Mr. Speaker, there is a basic principle involved here. Some Members in this Chamber are very angry about this Bill because of what I mentioned before; that right is right and wrong is no man's right. It is not the right of the Government to bring a Bill into this Chamber which backs in on a certain guarantee while it moves away from guarantees that were given to primary producers in this country.
Primary producers in Quebec, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are today receiving letters from banks and lawyers saying that they are going to put a sign on their houses because they took out a loan with the bank that was guaranteed by the federal Government but, as the bank manager says in his letter, the federal Government has now backed out of these guarantees. In the summer of 1985 the federal Government is backing out of the guarantees which it provided on the loans that were taken out. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we in this Chamber are debating a Bill to back in on a guarantee to people who had over $60,000 in the bank.
The Minister of State for Finance, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should think twice. If they are going to do this for a certain group of people, they should do it for our poor primary producers as well rather than letting them hang out to dry, letting them lose their property, homes, and everything else and being dragged into court because they took out a loan guaranteed by the federal Government.
The great philosophy of the Government of Canada is to try to cut down on the deficit and to say that there will be no more giveaways. Therefore, why will the Government of Canada not tell us who is getting this $875 million? At the same time, why will it not tell us why it is backing out on its guarantees of bank loans given to primary producers in this country?


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to follow my eloquent colleague and add some more facts to the list. I congratulate him on his excellent address because these messages are going to be carried across the country and the Canadian people will be fully informed of what the Government is up to.
I had a call from an elderly couple here in Ottawa who invested $6,000, a large part of their lifetime savings, in shares

October 22, 1985
Depositors Compensation
in the Canadian Commercial Bank. They did that because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) told them it was a great investment and was secure. They are asking me what will happen to their $6,000. They want to know whether they will get their investment back because, after all, it was this Government which promised them that it was a good investment and they invested $6,000 on the Government's say-so. Now they have lost that part of their life savings. It is not wonder that Canadians are upset.
We have a Bill before us for the amount $875 million to pay off people who made an investment on Tory philosophy. The Tory philosophy is that when you make an investment, you take your risks. When the people on the Government benches were on this side of the House in opposition all we heard was, "Let free enterprise loose, it will do the job". Now that free enterprise has been let loose the Government has encouraged people to invest their money in something that has gone bad. The Government now says that people do not really have to risk their money after all because the Government will bail them out.
Approximately five years ago a Liberal Government passed a Bill to increase the insurance for depositors in banks from $20,000 to $60,000. That is the law today. That is why we have this special Bill before the House. My hon. colleague who spoke before me spoke about the fisheries and about the banks putting peoples' houses up for sale at a time when we are bailing out investors to the tune of $875 million.
Yesterday I had meetings with several municipalities about small craft harbours. There is all kinds of room for investment in the tourist industry. The people who are now sitting on the Government benches promised during the last Parliament that if they were elected they would put all kinds of money into tourism, small business, and the farming community of this country. What are they doing now? They are using the money to bail out their friends. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, there is no money for small craft harbours in this country. The smaller communities are being left out of the picture. I see an Hon. Member from Atlantic Canada pointing to me. Maybe he knows of some money in the Budget down there; I don't know. However, I do know that I was told yesterday that if we wanted money to pay for labour to put a small craft harbour in we would have to apply for labour under Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act because there is no money for small craft harbours in Ontario. How many Conservative Members from Ontario are there in the House today who are not supporting our small communities?


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


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I will call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) will have five minutes left when Orders of the Day are called. It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: would like to inform the Members of this House that the survival committee held its second meeting yesterday in Montreal, to save 5,000 jobs that are threatened in Montreal East. I would like to point out that this meeting was attended by people from every social, economic and socio-political sphere. There were Conservative Members from Montreal East, federal Liberal Members, members of municipal councils belonging to the Parti civique and the RCM, provincial Members of the Liberal Party of Quebec and Parti quebecois Members, people from union headquarters as well as members of the business world and the Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Speaker, I can inform Hon. Members that all these people were unanimous in asking both levels of Government to make Montreal East a designated area, so that it can benefit from the advantages arising from such designation, which include funds to subsidize companies and prevent the shutdown of the Gulf refinery, Canadian Vickers and Bombardier. Furthermore, all parties present were unanimous in supporting the authorities of the City of Montreal and their invitation to the Hyundai company to build a plant in Montreal East and thus ward off this impending disaster.



INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the structure, length, complexity and application of the Income Tax Act has virtually destroyed any faith Canadians once had in the equity and fairness of Canada's income tax system.
Wage earners resent the bonanzas and breaks created for and used by large corporations. Farmers and small-business people seethe with frustration at the incentives and giveaways that seem only to go to enterprises large and wealthy enough to hire specialist advisers.
Bright accountants, who could be best employed advising clients on the improvement of their operations and finances, are instead applying their talents to the exploitation of socially
October 22, 1985

counterproductive loopholes which generate substantial tax savings and, therefore, larger fees.
I call upon the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Mackay) to take his sword to this Gordian knot. All the public relations, training, and procedural improvements introduced by his predecessor, worthy though they are, are only nibbling at the edges of this problem.
Canada needs a fair tax system, one in which the super rich bear more of the burden presently falling on middle-income groups. Canada also needs an Income Tax Act written in terms that small-business people and wage earners can understand.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, during the weekend I attended the Outstanding Young Farmers program which is a grassroots project initiated by the Canada Jaycees for the purpose of honouring young farmers who accomplish significant achievements throughout the year. The 1985 outstanding young farmers are: Earl Kidston of Kings County, Nova Scotia; Pierre Carbonneau of Coaticook, Quebec; Owen Legge of Spring Bay, Ontario, Bruce Wood, Campbelleville, Ontario; Harry Lepp of Elm Creek, Manitoba; Garry Stevenson of Melfort, Saskatchewan; Clarence Jensen of Abbots ford, British Columbia, and a Bow River riding farmer, Horst Wiever, of Acme, Alberta.
This is the sixth year of the program. Mr. Gordon Bussey of Airdrie, who won the honour in 1982, and who is a prominent Bow River farmer, extended congratulations on behalf of the alumni. Reuben Hamm, the proprietor of an agriculturally oriented radio station, CHRB in High River, was a most genial chairman and he interspersed the contributions by speakers with film slides of the farms of each of the winners.
These eight Canadians demonstrate the value of the family farm. Too many of these farms are disappearing and we need new programs designed to provide prices for farm produce that will provide a profit and thus keep our young Canadians on the farms. I commend the Canada Jaycees and the supporters of the program, and I am sure every Member of the House will join me in extending our heartiest congratulation to these eight outstanding young farmers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Now it is becoming a congratulatory
message.



ABORTION


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an abomination and a true miscarriage of justice to allow Dr. Mortgentaler and his associates to continue their murder of
unborn human beings at their human slaughter house at 85 Harbord Street in Toronto.
The activities of this group have consistently violated Canada's Criminal Code, by performing abortions on demand.
The Attorney General of Ontario has been derelict in his duties by refusing to exercise the powers of his office, not setting bail conditions on the accused and restraining them from further breaking of the law as they are charged pending the result of the Crown appeal of their acquittal on a similar charge.
This can be construed as the Attorney General of Ontario having no objections to Dr. Mortgentaler continuing his daily slaughter of innocent unborn human beings who cannot defend themselves or speak out on their own behalf. Each day of delay in settling this whole question means that more and more unborn babies will have their lives snatched from them. This must stop.
The most positive way in which this whole problem can be rectified is to introduce an amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that will in fact recognize, once and for all, that unborn babies are indeed persons, indeed human beings in every sense of the meaning of those words, and have the same rights, privileges, and protection under the Charter as other human beings. This action is long overdue and I therefore call upon the Government to initiate positive action in this regard as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 must advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, this week the all-Party committee established to ensure federal conformity with Section 15 of the Charter of Rights will table its recommendations. Recent comments made by members of the Conservative Party provide an interesting insight into the Government's feelings for women.
The Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) is quoted this morning as announcing: "I am not anti-woman. How could I be? My mother was a women, and 1 married a women". He explained his stand against women in combat roles by stating: "Where I come from down my way, we relegate certain positions to women, and others to men. That is not because we are machoistic, it is because we are sea-going people". He then recounted having recently witnessed a United States Coast Guard ship arriving at Halifax harbour skippered " ... by a pert thing, no more than 30 years old".
May I remind the members of the Government that this is 1985? The comments of the Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House belittle the women of Canada and are a sad

October 22, 1985
indication of the Government's lack of respect for the ever expanding role that women should play in all fields of Canadian society.



APARTHEID


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the majority of South Africans are engaged in a struggle against racism in which increasing numbers, including children, are sacrificing their lives to prevent the murder of their souls.
They seek the achievement in their own land of a democracy based on the ideals founded on the Magna Carta, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens, and the American Declaration of Independence. They seek help from those who claim to be the defenders of those ideals of freedom and equality.
Now the Commonwealth has responded to their pleas. How much did they get? "A tiny little bit, a tiny little bit". Such is the measure of Great Britain's, and now the Commonwealth's, commitment to justice.
"It does not amount to a great deal", we are told with a pride that must not be shared by this country or its Government. We must do more than participate in merely symbolic measures or in another contact group destined to increase even more the level of frustration and resentment felt toward the western democracies.
Without the support of increased mandatory sanctions, the lip service of the West may well be replaced by the weapons of the East and the future hostility of black Africa toward the West would then be assured.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, it really took the Carrefour de la sous-traitance de I'Est du Quebec to make people finally discover and recognize the true potential of our businesses in the Lower St. Lawrence region.
Last week, during the three-day Carrefour de la sous-traitance at Riviere-du-Loup, we were all able to see for ourselves and make others realize that Eastern Quebec has plenty of resources and entrepreneurship. After attending this fair, I realized that Eastern Quebec is developing a definite taste for business.
As for buyers from large companies, Governments and Government corporations, they were all astonished at the variety and quality of products being offered by Eastern
Quebec companies involved in sub-contracting. Both exhibitors and participants agree that the fair has provided a focus for consolidating economic activity in Eastern Quebec.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the Canadian Government was right to provide funding for the Carrefour de la sous-traitance de I'Est du Quebec held in my riding of Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-PROSPECTIVE BENEFITS

Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a crucial issue which affects all Canadians.

On September 26, the Prime Minister announced that Canada would be interested in seeing a new trade agreement between Canada and the United States.

Many Canadians are wary of changing the status quo, but 1 would like to assure them, and the residents of my home Province of Alberta, that a new trade agreement will improve the economic well-being of all Canadians.
In Alberta, the provincial trade situation with the United States is suffering from instability. Countervailing duties on red meats and petrochemicals are threatened against our products. More than 75 per cent of Albert's petrochemicals are sold abroad, and both the United States and Canada impose tariffs ranging from 10 per cent to 18 per cent.
Alberta exports in 1984 totalled $10.6 billion, which equalled $4,500 per capita. Of this total, $9.3 billion went to the United States, which equalled $4,000 per capita.
1 conducted a survey last spring in my own riding of Edmonton South and found that 65 per cent were in favour of freeing up our trade arrangements with our neighbour to the south.
I applaud the Government's initiative. Not to conduct these negotiations would be to shy away from our responsibility to enhance the prosperity of our nation. 1 can assure not only Albertans but all Canadians that a new trade agreement with the United States will benefit us all.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY WELLAND CANAL BLOCKAGE-EFFECT ON GRAIN EXPORTS

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Government's cut-backs in funding to the St. Lawrence Seaway in last May's Budget threaten this vital transportation link be-
October 22, 1985

tween western Canada and the eastern seaboard. Prairie grain producers depend on access to world markets through the St. Lawrence Seaway system.
The recent wall collapse in the Welland Canal, the second major disruption of the Seaway in a year, demonstrates the need to maintain the Seaway properly. This week over 70 ships are trapped in the system. The Government must move quickly to see that the disruption does not affect the delivery of millions of tonnes of grain on its way to customers abroad. The Government must take action to assure our grain customers abroad that Canada continues to be a secure supplier of grain to the world market-place.
The current Welland Canal blockage places hundreds of farmers in financial jeopardy at a time when farm incomes are at a record low. In the May, 1985 Budget, the Government announced that it was taking $30 million away from the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. This action demonstrates the Government's irresponsible attitude toward this vital transportation link.
I call upon the Government to reverse this decision and to take every action necessary to get these grain shipments moving to the world market.



HOUSING


Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about the tremendous vitality of the housing co-operatives in my riding of Verdun-Saint-Paul.
Since our Government came to power, a grand total of 208 housing units, spread over twelve projects, have been completed under the Public Housing Assistance Program of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In addition, 151 units were able to benefit under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, also sponsored by the CMHC.
I would like to pay special tribute to the Verdun Community Planning and Housing Service. This non-profit organization originated most of the renovation and new construction projects in my riding and, thanks to the dedication of its members, has made an impressive contribution to the wellbeing of the people of Verdun. Their efforts and those of all other community agencies-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!
Oral Questions



MEASURES SUGGESTED TO STIMULATE EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, all of Canada commends the excellent energy agreements the Government has concluded-the Western Accord and the Atlantic Accord. There is increased activity on provincial lands in the fields of exploration, development and production, and this means jobs, jobs, jobs.
On behalf of the industry I should like to urge the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) to give priority to the following areas of concern. First is the elimination of the 25 per cent back-in and all associated provisions. This has amounted to confiscation, and results in disincentives. The Canadian ownership rate, or the COR content, should apply only at the development stage, not at the exploration stage.
Royalties should be lowered or forgone on Canada Lands until pay-out is reached. Due to the extremely high cost of exploration and development, this would result in accelerated growth. Stimulation for activity on the Canada Lands is necessary and should take the form of a tax credit which does not discriminate on the basis of ownership.
I know the Minister is consulting with the provinces and with the industry. I applaud this approach and look forward to hearing the results of her consultations and deliberations.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. At his latest press conference the Prime Minister stated flatly that, in negotiating the tax ruling in favour of the purchase of Gulf Canada, it was handled completely by bureaucrats in the Department of National Revenue. However, the former Deputy Minister of Finance stated categorically that both the Minister of Finance and his Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of tax policy were intimately involved in the deal.
What was the role of the Minister of Finance in negotiating the purchase of Gulf Canada? What was the role of his Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of tax policy?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my role is to act as Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 22, 1985
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As a former Minister of Finance, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows the role which I play in relation to various matters that are under review. I should say to him that the entire Gulf Canada, Petro-Canada, O&Y transaction was a very wide-ranging one. Obviously 1 have an interest in those, but this is a matter for Cabinet discussion. He knows very well that those matters are not discussed in the House of Commons.


FORMER DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE-CONFLICT OF INTEREST POSSIBILITY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
The former Deputy Minister of Finance informed the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance of his conflict of interest in connection with the largest real estate corporation in Canada and even in the world. Why, in those circumstances, did the Minister of Finance keep Mr. Cohen as his Deputy Minister? Did he discuss Mr. Cohen's situation with the Prime Minister?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the circumstances described in the question put by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition occurred at a time when the old conflict of interest guidelines were in force. They are not much different in that narrow respect from the new guidelines which were tabled very recently. However, from the newspaper accounts which I have read of Mr. Cohen's statements, he not only sought compliance with those old guidelines but indeed, if I recall correctly, stated in his press accounts that he sought independent legal advice to that effect and was assured that he was in compliance with the guidelines.


ROLE OF FORMER DEPUTY MINISTER IN PREPARING BUDGET
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have elevated this question to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I want to direct a question to him. If Mr. Cohen felt it sufficiently vital and if the Minister of Finance felt it sufficiently vital to exclude Mr. Cohen from any negotiations relating to the Gulf Canada purchase, why was Mr. Cohen left in charge of a Budget which was bound to affect all major companies in Canada, including Olympia and York? Why was he not reassigned or relieved of his duties after that conflict of interest had become known to the Minister of Finance and to the Prime Minister?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, first, I do not at all accept the premise embedded in the preamble to the question of the right hon. gentleman. Second, I do not at all accept the assumption he has made that there was a conflict of interest.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Cohen says there was.


Erik Nielsen: I have seen no account where Mr. Cohen has said that there is a conflict of interest. Indeed, I have read in the newspaper accounts quite the contrary, even to the extent where he obtained an independent legal opinion advising him that he was not in any conflict of interest situation.
As to his having reported his job offer, that is quite normal. It undoubtedly had occurred during the time of the right hon. gentleman when he was part of a Government where that was expected conduct. Indeed it was in the guidelines that were in force when the Member opposite was a Minister and that course was followed precisely in this instance, so Mr. Cohen says, in the accounts that I read in this case.


PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENT
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: I am
tempted to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether there is an informal guideline that senior bureaucrats should excuse themselves to go to the bathroom to avoid discussing conflict issues, as Mr. Cohen allegedly did.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. This tax gift that was subject to the ruling required a very elaborate partnership arrangement to have any chance of obtaining a favourable ruling from the Department of National Revenue. Was the Minister of Finance aware that such a partnership arrangement was required, and did he discuss with anyone the participation of Norcen as a partner in that particular partnership?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted to respond to that question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: A cover-up.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You do not want an answer anyway.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The Member opposite has certainly the knowledge and the background to realize the fallacies in asking a question such as this, and he knows full well that the taxpayer in this case could very well have proceeded with this transaction without asking for any ruling. He had that right. So the question cannot be answered on the floor of the House of Commons. The Member opposite knows that.


PUBLICATION OF TAX RULING
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it appears that Mr. Reichmann is more forthcoming than the Government, certainly than the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, or the Minister of National Revenue. As
October 22, 1985

you know, Mr. Reichmann gave an interview and it is published in The Globe and Mail this morning.
Would the Minister of National Revenue advise Mr. Reichmann that the Government has no objection to his making that ruling public? Would he advise him to that effect so that these unanswered questions can be clarified?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: No, I certainly would not give Mr. Reichmann any advice in respect to a matter such as this. It is not the role of this government Minister to advise a taxpayer on what he should do. To advise a taxpayer to waive the protection of the provisions of confidentiality, which not only affect the particular taxpayer but which could very well affect other taxpayers, would not be a responsible thing to do.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. As the Deputy Prime Minister knows Mr. Cohen took a job with Olympia and York in October and the revised guidelines produced by the Government came out in September. Is the Deputy Prime Minister saying to the House that as he understands the guidelines there is no contradiction at all between those guidelines and the position that Mr. Cohen took?


Erik Nielsen: My recollection could be faulty as to the time at which Mr. Cohen left his employment. I believe it was June. At that time the old guidelines were still in effect. That is what I was saying a moment ago.
With respect to the particular provision which would be applicable to these circumstances, there is not much difference between the provisions of the old guidelines and the new, but I have explained my understanding of the extent to which Mr. Cohen went in order to ensure that he did comply with the guidelines.


JOB OFFER ACCEPTED BY FORMER DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely the consistency between the old and the new guidelines that concerns me, also in terms of what the Deputy Prime Minister said. The guidelines, if they are applicable, now say with reference to future employment by people in Mr. Cohen's position that they should not within the period of one year:
(c) give counsel, for the commercial purposes of the recipient of the counsel, concerning the programs or policies of the department with which they were employed-
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this, and it refers to the job that Mr. Cohen took. Would the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that the job that he took is in complete contradiction to what the guidelines prescribed?


Erik Nielsen: No, I cannot agree with that at all. I have
Oral Questions
turned up my copy of the guidelines and the requirement is a cooling off period for public office holders of one year before accepting an appointment with a company, "with which he had significant direct official dealings during the last year of his employment-or two years in the case of appointments to directorships", and so on.
I have not spoken to Mr. Cohen but it is my reading of the press account that he indicated that he abstained from any activities relating to Olympia and York, or which might have application to O&Y, during the relevant time period.
I am prepared to accept that. Indeed it was on the basis of that actual account, I understand, that he sought and received the legal opinion which stipulated that he was in compliance with that particular provision of the guidelines.


DUTIES OF NEW JOB
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has quoted actually from subsection (a) of the guidelines, and if that is all we were talking about then he would be absolutely correct. But what I quoted from was subsection (c) which refers to his general duties in new employment, and the kinds of general duties that he has surely are in flat contradiction to what the guidelines prescribe. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister will he look into this with care and seriousness and report back to the House.


Erik Nielsen: I certainly will review the interpretation that the hon. gentleman has put on that particular section of the guidelines. I have already reviewed it once in the light of the circumstances as I know them and I see no problem accepting the description of his activities given by Mr. Cohen as related in newspaper accounts. I can see no problem with the guidelines but I will, as requested, look at it a second time with even greater care than I already have looked at it.


APARTHEID
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the tragic situation in South Africa which goes from bad to worse, yesterday the Prime Minister of England, Madam Thatcher, said that she had to move a little bit to sign this accord. We are very happy that there was an accord. Virtually at the same moment the Prime Minister of Canada said that Madam Thatcher had moved enormously in order to sign the accord. Whom are Canadians to believe, the "little bit" of the Prime Minister of England or the enormous movement mentioned by the Prime Minister of Canada?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He doesn't believe in the Commonwealth.

October 22, 1985
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: However, Mr. Speaker, one wishes to describe it, from whatever particular vantage point which one might wish to view it, it would seem to me that what we have achieved here is quite a major accomplishment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: What we have achieved through the offices of our Prime Minister and others with whom he worked in the Commonwealth is unanimity on a position with respect to sanctions which sends a very strong signal to the Government of South Africa. I think the unanimity is a remarkable feature of those meetings which might at least be acknowledged in some small way by the hon. gentleman.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Could the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether the Government intends to set a date soon, after which Canada will break off its relations with South Africa unless it has devised more acceptable policies in connection with apartheid in that country, a suggestion I made to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who told me that the Government might well take this kind of action if there were no movement whatsoever? Does the Government intend to set a deadline for the South African Government or break off relations?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that question has been answered in the past by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The situation will be monitored by the Secretary of State and by the Government. That option is open. The Hon. Member will be interested to know that the Prime Minister will be returning to Canada at the end of this week and will be seeking the first opportunity to explain to Hon. Members in the House of Commons the events that took place at the Commonwealth Conference and to provide a report to the House.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General of Canada. Yesterday, he confirmed that he personally intervened in the RCMP investigation of allegations of unlawful election expenditures
made by his former Cabinet colleague, the Hon. Member for Frontenac.
Does the Solicitor General of Canada not realize that such action may be perceived as an attempt to interfere with the RCMP investigation, for the purpose of exercising political pressure on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, my instructions to the RCM Police were to ensure that the investigation was carried out with the highest possible professional standards. I would expect that even the Hon. Member for Burnaby would support that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: One would hope it would not take a phone call from the Solicitor General to make sure that that was done in the first place.


MINISTER'S ACTION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, does the Solicitor General not recognize that the minute he picked up the telephone to call the Commissioner of the RCMP regarding an inquiry into one of his former Cabinet colleagues, he compromised the integrity and independence of the office of the Solicitor General in an apparent attempt to take some of the heat off his former Cabinet colleague?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend surely knows better than that. What I did was to draw to the attention of the Commissioner of the RCM Police published reports in the newspapers in which there were allegations of the-


Mr. Deans:: Can't he read?


Henry Perrin Beatty: If the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain would get a grip on himself for just a moment-


Ian Deans: 1 don't have to.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Perhaps you are incapable of doing so.


Ian Deans: What I have to do is get you to do your job.


Henry Perrin Beatty: If the Leader of the NDP could get a grip on the House Leader of the NDP-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please.


Henry Perrin Beatty: There were printed reports in the press alleging that there was harassment by the RCM Police. I drew those reports to the attention of the Commissioner of the RCM Police and told him that the Government expected that the work of the RCM Police would be done professionally and thoroughly, something which the Commissioner assured me would indeed be done. Surely even the Hon. Member for Burnaby would not argue that there should be any lower standards.
October 22, 1985


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Transport).
Can the Minister confirm the statements made by the Hon. Member for Gamelin yesterday to the effect that within two to three weeks the Government of Canada will propose that Bombardier management manufacture something other than locomotives at their Montreal East plant? If so, what will it be and does that mean the 400 workers who have been laid off can expect to be rehired in the near future?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of State (Transport)):: In answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, I did not have an opportunity to talk to the Hon. Member for Gamelin about the meeting he had yesterday, but I will do so as soon as possible.
I think I can repeat what I said to the Hon. Member a couple of weeks ago, namely that Bombardier management are now trying to develop new markets, and an announcement will probably be made in the coming months. I am convinced that Bombardier will remain as dynamic as ever.


BUY CANADIAN POLICY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
André Ouellet: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister ought to monitor her files more closely. Her assistant attended yesterday's meeting and we would have expected him to report to her immediately. My question is direct: Will the Minister intervene and promote a Buy Canadian policy in Montreal East so that companies manufacturing locomotives and related products might be awarded Government contracts through Crown corporations?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I find it all the more easier to answer the question that we have already implemented a buy-at-home policy. Nearly a year ago we got in touch with Montreal contractors to tell them how they can do business with the federal Government. That is what we call a buy-at-home policy.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Deputy Prime Minister consider it to be an appropriate action on the
Oral Questions
part of the Solicitor General to call the Commissioner of the RCMP to discuss with him a matter which is being investigated by the RCMP during the time the investigation is taking place?


Mr. Fulton:: We asked you the question, Erik.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I could certainly-


Ian Deans: You could say no.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I would be glad to respond to the Hon. Member's question. The Solicitor General is responsible to the House of Commons and the people of Canada for the conduct of the RCMP and its activities. When serious allegations are made that there may be harassment by the RCM Police, I think it is appropriate that the Solicitor General of Canada draw those allegations to the attention of the Commissioner of the RCM Police and indicate to him that he has seen those allegations and hopes the inquiry will be carried out in a professional and competent way. I am satisfied that that is being done and I think the sort of innuendo which the Hon. Member is seeking to cast in this matter does nothing that brings any credit to the RCM Police. Rather, it attempts to hold up for criticism the conduct of the RCM Police. I am satisfied that the inquiry is going well and professionally.


MINISTER'S ACTION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Given that I think we all would believe that the Commissioner of the RCMP can read, is it appropriate for the Solicitor General to call the Commissioner of the RCMP to discuss with him a case that is currently being investigated by the RCMP?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has heard the very reasoned and measured response of the Solicitor General. The Hon. Member does not accept that response, for his own political reasons. He chooses not to accept it. I do accept it and I am sure that the majority of the Members of the House of Commons do as well.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. I understand that the Minister met over the weekend at Meech Lake with his counterparts from seven industrial nations and that they discussed initiatives to share technologies in Canada. I am wondering if the Minister can assure the House today, in view of the importance of research and development to Canada, that the Government is funding
7874

October 22, 1985
Oral Questions
research and development in Canadian universities so that we can participate in the sharing of technologies.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, this important meeting of international science heads which was not only a first for Canada but for western industrialized leaders, brought evidence that the first priority of most of the nations in the western industrialized world appears to be the active support of university research and the production of first class scientific talent, which is the secret weapon that western industrialized nations will be using to compete in an increasingly technological world. This also must be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the Hon. Minister may have something to say under Statements by Ministers.


ACQUISITION OF MONTREAL EAST GULF REFINERY BY PETRO-CANADA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would like to ask her whether she can confirm that Petro-Canada wanted to buy the Gulf refinery in Montreal East, but that with her Cabinet colleagues she prevented Petro-Canada from going ahead, knowing full well it would result in 455 workers being laid off?

Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer to the question is no. 1 did not oppose any move anywhere of the nature the Hon. Member describes.


INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER CONTACTED THREE POTENTIAL BUYERS
Jean-C. Lapierre: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister whether she can now reconcile her remarks with those of the Hon. Member for Duvernay who told the Gulf workers yesterday that his Government did oppose the purchase of the assets of this Montreal East company.
We happen to know that there are three potential buyers of the Montreal East refinery. Can the Minister confirm that she is in contact with the three potential buyers and that her Government will do everything it can to help one of them save the 455 jobs?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, our Government did what the former Liberal Government did not. There has been something in the order of 13 refinery closures in Canada over the last few years, several of which have been in the Montreal area. When the former Government was asked to assist-


Jean-C. Lapierre: What are you going to do?


Pat Carney: -in this matter, it turned down all requests for assistance. 1 personally asked Mr. Reichmann to keep the refinery going for a few more months so that there would be an opportunity to assess if there were other buyers or not. We did something that the former Government refused to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. We have learned today that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the Bahamas, after a year-long royal commission, has alleged that Canadian banks are involved in financial activities in support of the illegal drug trade in that part of the Caribbean. This calls into question the reputation and integrity of the Canadian banks which represent Canada's most visible and significant presence in the Bahamas and other islands. When the matter was brought to the Minister's attention, what action did he take?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I saw the same article in the paper this morning. We are still trying to track down just how this matter was brought to my attention.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am not aware of the matter having been brought to my attention, nor is my Department.


John Edward Broadbent: Someone in Brian's office!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member has any information apart from what is in the press reports, I would be glad to hear from him.


APPLICATION OF BANK ACT PROVISIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, after the Minister has had a chance to discuss the matter with his aides, then perhaps he could make a statement in the House.
October 22, 1985

Can the Minister of Finance confirm that it is the same secrecy provisions of the Bank Act, which the Government has used to protect the uninsured depositors during the bail-out of the CCB and the Northland Bank, that are being used to hide the identity of the illegal drug traffickers who have money on deposit with Canadian banks in the Bahamas?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me caution the Hon. Member about how he throws around these loose allegations. He has no basis upon which he can substantiate those allegations.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It's called a royal commission.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I say to the Hon. Member that he personally has no basis for this. If he wishes to base the statements he makes in the House on newspaper reports, I suggest he step outside the lobby and make those same allegations.
I want to assure the Hon. Member that the Inspector General of Banks has been aware of similar types of situations over the years which have been brought to his attention. He has met with the banks and has received their assurances that they will take great care in how they manage their affairs in different parts of the world.


ALLEGATIONS IN BAHAMIAN ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is on the same matter but it is directed to the Solicitor General. Have the allegations contained in the Bahamian royal commission report about the Canadian banks being deeply involved in laundering drug trafficking funds been drawn to the attention of the Solicitor General? If so, has there been a response from him or the Canadian Government as yet?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, 1 saw the article in this morning's paper. I have asked my staff for a report on it. On the face of it, it would appear that if there were any infringement on any jurisdiction's legislation it would probably be in the Bahamas as opposed to Canada. However, I have asked for a report from my staff.


CORPORATIONS
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and in his absence, to the Associate Minister.
The American Marmon group has bought S.K.D. Technologies de Ville d'Anjou in Montreal East in order to close down
Oral Questions
its only competitor manufacturing suspension systems for trucks and automobiles.
Why is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs allowing competition to be eliminated in this sector, thus leading to the loss of hundreds of jobs in the Montreal area where the industrial base is seriously threatened?


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to take the question under advisement and bring it to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I am sure he will get back to the Hon. Member in the usual fashion.


SITUATION IN MONTREAL EAST-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Does the Minister responsible for Investment Canada intend to allow foreign investors to buy out their Canadian competitors, shut down their factories and thus create unemployment among Canadian workers? What does the Minister intend to do to ensure that the jobs of these 200 workers in Montreal East will not join the long list of thousands of jobs lost in Montreal?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Hon. Member that the objective of Investment Canada is certainly not to encourage non-Canadians to buy businesses in Canada with a view to closing them down and creating unemployment.


André Ouellet: That is what they are doing.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would point out to the Hon. Member that jobs have been created in this country at the rate of 25,000 a month. We hope that will continue. With a bit of co-operation from the Official Opposition it might even go up to 30,000.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture who will know that on August 9 the drought zone for western Canadian farmers was designated. Action for those wheat farmers was delayed pending a report from the Hon. Member for Assiniboia so that Cabinet could decide on what action to take. Since then, we were told on September 23 by the Parliamen-

October 22, 1985
Oral Questions
tary Secretary to the Minister that the announcement with respect to the action to be taken would be forthcoming in a week or 10 days. On October 2 we were told by the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member, I think, has a question to ask.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I am still on the sentence, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Minister tell us today, since we have been waiting for 10 weeks, what that action will be?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question would be no, I cannot tell the Hon. Member today exactly what the details of that action will be.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since it was the platform of the Minister's Party during the election campaign that it would put agriculture first, and since we have waited 10 weeks, in which time business has been conducted for banks and oil companies, why has the Government changed its policy and why will it not put agriculture first?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would examine the record then he would certainly convince even himself that this Government places a very high priority on the agricultural industry. If he looks at the record, he will see that we have passed more agricultural Bills in the last eight months than the previous Government did in the last eight years.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You have killed Bills; that is all you have done.


John Wise: We have taken over 100 initiatives directly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic.


HOUSING
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for CMHC. Has the Government's fantastically successful low interest rate policy rate had an effect on housing starts?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member that the interest rate has had an effect. The seasonally adjusted average increase from September to September is up to 184,000 units.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More, more.


Mr. Speaker:: A set-up has to better disguised than that.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, this is a total increase of 44 per cent in single-family dwelling units.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL SECURITY BILL C-70-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, I have thousands of names signed by people to a petition protesting the de-indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit. And tomorrow, women representing millions of Canadian mothers will be here on Parliament Hill. Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether his Government is going to announce it will immediately withdraw Bill C-70 which is being contested by millions of Canadian mothers?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the Hon. Member after some absence-he was not in the committee. He said he was going to take this to the wall. He has not been doing that. He has been out across the country and he knows he has not been getting the response he has been trying to generate. I say to him that the reason he has not is because people with the lowest incomes know that through the family tax credit they will receive more than they would from the very thing the Hon. Member is suggesting.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Additionally, he should remind those people that if we had followed through on what the Liberals did in 1976 with the six and five, the losses would be much greater than anything he says we are doing-


Ms. Mitchell:: Why do we have to have losses?
October 22, 1985


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In fact, it is quite the opposite. There will be more for those who are at the lower income level.


John Edward Broadbent: You supported the six and five.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of social injustice is scraping the garbage can with his petty politics.
Could the Minister of National Health and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! I cannot allow comments of this kind. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET QUEBEC MOTHERS ON PARLIAMENT HILL
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of National Health and Welfare, willing to admit that all the groups that came here to testify do not, contrary to what he has said in the House of Commons, agree with his Bill, and will the Minister have the courage tomorrow to meet with those mothers on Parliament Hill? Will he be brave enough to do that tomorrow?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is odd that the Hon. Member is raising something in committee when he has not been attending the committee.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Where the hell were you for three weeks? That's a cheap shot.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am saying to the Hon. Member very directly that when he looks at the program he will know that, through the child tax credit, the very people who need it most will be getting the most, and I wish the Hon. Member would start supporting that.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and of the Minister of State for External Affairs, I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. In 1984 the Lubicon Lake Indian Band made a formal complaint to the United Nations against the Canadian Government. In response, the Canadian Government tried to deny that the Lubicon Lake Indians were a people at all but only "a thinly scattered minority group living within the midst of a more numerous population grouping and occupying-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a question?
Oral Questions


James Douglas Manly: I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if that considered opinion applies to all Canadian Indian people or only to the Lubicon Lake Indians?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the most appropriate person to respond to that question in a satisfactory fashion would be the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I will draw the question to his attention and see to it he communicates with the Hon. Member immediately upon his return.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the Government's own negotiator has recommended that there be interim financial payments and has laid the responsibility squarely on the federal Government, when is the federal Government going to give justice to the Indian people at Lubicon Lake, acting on its own negotiator's recommendations, instead of trying to slough this problem off, waiting for it to resolve itself?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will not have gone unnoticed by the Hon. member that in 13 months the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has travelled more, seen more Indian people in this country-


James Douglas Manly: He promised action. We haven't had any.


Erik Nielsen: -and has spoken to more band councils and other Indian organizations and individuals than any other Minister in the history of the Government of this country.


James Douglas Manly: Where is he?


Erik Nielsen: He is in British Columbia at this very moment pursuing that course. 1 would think the Hon. Member would want to compliment the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT-INCENTIVES PROGRAM
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the Minister knows, November 1 is fast approaching and there is still no replacement for the Petroleum Incentives Program. Is the Minister going to listen to the Province of Nova Scotia and energy groups such as the Canadian Petroleum Association, and provide a replacement for the Petroleum Incentives Program by November 1? Or is

October 22, 1985
Oral Questions
the Minister going to allow the offshore and frontier exploration to shut down by 1987?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, this Government always listens to the Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premiers of other provinces.


John Edward Broadbent: New Brunswick, right.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Once too often.


Pat Carney: This Government always consults with industry. As the Hon. Member well knows, I have been working on the incentives program for some weeks now. I certainly hope to be able to introduce something which I hope he will support, within the next few weeks.


REQUEST FOR REPLACEMENT
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said last November that her objective was to prevent a lull in exploration. The energy groups are saying, as is the Province of Nova Scotia and other provinces, that unless a replacement is put in place by November 1 -


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows it is a supplementary question.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Will the Minister provide a replacement for the Petroleum Incentives Program by November 1?


Pat Carney: I am certain that the Hon. Member's question will be answered shortly. And I am certain that he will support the initiatives I will be bringing forward.


FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Yesterday, a Conservative member indicated that he was in favour of eliminating the quota system for the footwear industry in Canada, in spite of the $14 million the Government has just spent to streamline that industry. Could the Minister indicate whether the Government agrees with this Conservative member's position?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member listened attentively yesterday when I gave an answer to the Hon. Member who raised the question, and I am quite sure that
when I hear the supplementary question from the Hon. Member, I will have a better understanding of what his thrust was on the first question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question asked does the Minister agree with his colleague who raised the subject of elimination of quotas yesterday.
[ Translation]


REQUEST THAT QUEBEC GOVERNMENT BE CONSULTED
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this:
Could the Government indicate whether the decision on this difficult issue will be made in cooperation with the Quebec government, for the purpose of preserving these Quebec jobs?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Hon. Member that a decision will be taken very soon. I will certainly weigh his representation along with the representation from my hon. colleague who has made so many representations on this subject.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It concerns the RCMP investigation into the former Minister of Communications. Today the Solicitor General told the House of Commons that he called the Commissioner because there were reports of harassment by the RCMP. Yesterday he said: "The Commissioner reads the newspapers as much as I do". I would like to ask the Solicitor General again why he found it necessary to call the Commissioner of the RCMP to advise him, if not to exert either direct or indirect pressure on the Commissioner? And could he also indicate-


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a long question.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I will try to give a short answer to my hon. friend. It was done for a very good reason. My hon. friend, my colleague from Burnaby, or any other Hon. Member of the House of Commons, could very easily have asked me a question in the House today or yesterday as to whether or not I was aware of the allegations which had been made about the conduct of the RCMP and, if so, whether I had taken any action to ensure that the conduct of the RCM Police was appropriate. What I did was to draw to the attention of the Commissioner of the
October 22, 1985

RCM Police the published reports, and I am satisfied that they are doing their job well and professionally.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, would the Solicitor General have done the same thing if it was any other Canadian-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


John V. Nunziata: -under investigation by the RCMP? Can he also indicate whether he instructed the RCMP to expedite the investigation? First, would he give the same treatment to any other Canadian-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer that. The answer is yes. If there were any evidence or allegation of harassment by the RCM Police against any citizen of Canada, I think I have an obligation to ask the Commissioner of the RCMP to be certain that did not take place.
The Hon. Member asked if I had asked that the investigation be expedited. The answer is no. All I have done is to ask the Commissioner to look into the public reports or allegations of harassment and satisfy himself that there was no impropriety.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of two, presented by Hon. Members on Monday, October 21, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) and the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition of residents of Canada concerning the lack of a provision for property rights in the Canadian Constitution. The House will know that the Canadian Bill of Rights recognized the principle that individuals have
Petitions
the right to own, use and enjoy property and not have it taken away from them without proper compensation. The petitioners call for that right to be incorporated in our Constitution.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition expressing concern about the deindexation of family allowances. It is from Coquitlam widows helping others and shows that senior citizens are very concerned about Bill C-70. They ask that full indexation be reinstated.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of Cape Breton Island requesting the Government to restore full indexation of the family allowance and child tax credit.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of 750 residents of Vernon, British Columbia, who are in favour of repairing and maintaining the present Vernon Airport as a Class D airport. They are specifically opposed to any realignment and extension of the airport runway. They call upon Parliament to request the Minister of Transport to review the decision to provide moneys toward the realignment and extension of that runway.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition circulated in the City of Kitchener by an organization called HOPE. The petitioners state that in their opinion the recent federal budget policy to deindex family allowances is clearly an attack on the working poor and the poor alike, and as a result they strongly urge the Government to restore full indexation of family allowances.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great pleasure to present a petition calling upon the federal Government to reverse its decision to deindex family allowances as well as the child tax credit.

In view of the fact that the Government had promised during the election campaign to take steps to reinforce the family unit.

I also have a petition from the citizens of the riding of Chateauguay who call upon the Government-

October 22, 1985
Petitions

-to maintain such programs as the family allowances and the Child Tax Credit which are a necessity for Canadian families with children.

They call upon the Government to rescind its decision to cut back the increases in the family allowance as well as in the child tax credit.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of Toronto opposing the increase in taxes such as excise tax, income tax and sales tax, and opposing the cut backs in child benefits, and calling on the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from a number of residents of Toronto calling on the Parliament to ensure that all retired employees shall keep their pension benefits and receive their unemployment insurance benefits without deduction of pension income.


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to present a petition from several people in my riding who feel that because pornography is a major cause of crime in Canada, it should be totally banned from our country.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of Canadian citizens from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island who beg the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a large number of petitions from citizens in my own riding and other parts of Toronto who state that the family allowance deindexation will not be offset by the temporary increases to the child tax credit. Even the poorest families will be worse off as a result. Accordingly, these petitioners call on Parliament to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance.
I have another large number of petitions on the same subject. These petitioners come from all over Ontario and they point out that the accelerating cut-backs in child benefits, reaching $600 million annually by 1990, on top of sales tax changes, excise tax increases and stiff income tax increases, are unfair and place an extraordinary burden on middle and low-income households. These petitions also call on Parliament to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition signed by leaders of the women's movement in the four northwestern Ontario federal ridings. They believe that children are everyone's responsibility and that all parents should receive government assistance, the value of which is at least as high or higher than present family allowance levels.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present petitions from over 400 residents of Thunder Bay who protest the unfairness of deindexing family allowances while the tax burden on families is being increased. They call upon the House of Commons to re-establish full indexation for the family allowance.


Miss Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask for unanimous consent to revert to Presenting Reports from Standing or Special Committees?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There being unanimous consent, I recognize the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Pursuant to Standing Order 70(16), the committee requests a comprehensive response to certain recommendations.
[Editor's Note: For above-mentioned report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, you passed directly from Statements by Ministers into Petitions and that was my oversight, not yours. I am wondering if we can revert to that item of business because it concerns the non-smoking campaign launched earlier today.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Statements by Ministers. The Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp).



NON-SMOKING CAMPAIGN-STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its co-operation and I will not be very long.
Earlier today the Government of Canada, along with most of the provincial and territorial Governments and, most impor-
October 22, 1985

tant, various voluntary organizations, launched a non-smoking campaign directed primarily at Canadian youth between the ages of 12 and 19. This national program to reduce smoking is a long-term and comprehensive approach to the reduction of smoking among Canadians. It focuses on both smoking prevention and cessation strategies, with special attention given to high risk groups.
I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are organizations which have been in the lead in this area and have been doing an exemplary job. As I said at the press conference, possibly Government have joined them, rather than the other way around. They have been indicating that smoking and secondary smoke is a major health issue and, of course, the Government of Canada concurs with that. Organizations such as the Canadian Lung Association, the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association and the Canadian Public Health Association had all joined previous to today. I am happy to report that the Canadian Heart Foundation has today agreed to join as well.
I believe this is a collective action, Mr. Speaker. We have proposed an advertising campaign which has been launched. We are using media that will appeal to young people, including rock videos and advertising, which meets head on the issue of others trying to convince young people to take up the habit.
I am sure that Members are aware that approximately
30,000	Canadian deaths per year are directly attributable to smoking and secondary smoking. I am pleased with the cooperation that has been shown by so many. The message will be called "Break Free". I believe that we have to show young people especially that a lifestyle without smoking is acceptable even to their peer groups. We all recognize that that is a major task for us all.
I want to indicate to the House that within the Department of National Health and Welfare we have established a nonsmoking policy today. There are some Departments and some government agencies which have already taken this initiative. Within the Department of National Health and Welfare we took a survey of employees asking them various questions relating to the setting up of smoke-free environment in the national capital and specifically in the Department of National Health and Welfare. The majority of employees wish to have a policy which would minimize smoke in the working environment and also accommodate employees who smoke in certain areas outside the immediate working environment. That policy will come into effect on January 1, 1986. I am also pleased to announce that there is agreement between the employees' associations and the Public Service Alliance.
I think that all Canadians recognize that the Government of Canada must be more involved in preventive measures to maintain health. In my mind, there is no single issue which is more directly attributable to a lifestyle habit such as smoking and I commend the program to the House and to Canadians in general. I am pleased that radio stations, television companies
Statements by Ministers
and some newspapers have taken initiatives by declaring some of their own offices smoke-free areas as well as by not accepting written advertising from tobacco companies. Those are steps in the right direction. I thank them for their co-operation.
Finally, I would like to thank as well Members opposite for their support of this program. We have much distance to cover, but I believe that because what we have launched today is a co-operative effort it should bear results. I thank the House for its time.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. It has been a practice, which we have followed for some time here, for Ministers to notify critics and Opposition Party House Leaders of statements and to provide copies in advance of making them. I do not quite understand what is going on here today.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, what the New Democratic Party House Leader (Mr. Deans) has stated is absolutely correct. I will check my information and if it is wrong I will accept the responsibility. I was informed that this had been done in the morning prior to the press conference at 12 o'clock. The reason for that, I tell him quite candidly, was that as we launched the program with the various organizations today across Canada, I wanted to report to the House at first notice. If that has not been done, it was an oversight on my part and no one else's and I apologize.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, just to save the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) from having to investigate, let me tell him that our staff was informed of the press conference and we did receive the text that was used for the press conference. However, I guess there was some miscommunication because we were not told that there was going to be a statement made on the floor of the House. I think that will save the Minister a phone call.
I do not wish to spend much time on the matter, Mr. Speaker. I think most Canadians would agree that the initiative announced today by the Minister of National Health and Welfare should be well received by the Canadian public. I think the Minister would agree with me that probably the one organization in the country that has done the most to promote the idea of smokeless society is the Canadian Lung Association. It was very instrumental in the latter part of the 1960s in focusing public debate in this country on the need to get Canadians off the weed habit, if I can use the colloquial expression.
They have been resoundingly successful, Mr. Speaker. In 1969, approximately 65 per cent of Canadians were smokers and 35 per cent were non-smokers. Today, in some 16 short years, we have totally reversed those numbers and today only one of every three Canadians indulges in the Filthy habit.
I do know that there is some degree of concern among the non-smoking public that our younger people are being enticed into smoking by ad campaigns. The steps that have been outlined by the Minister of National Health and Welfare this

October 22, 1985
Introduction of Bills
afternoon will go a long way to focusing the attention of that age group on the need to stop smoking.
Both the Opposition and the Government will have to deal with the contradictory demands in our society with the tobacco growers now indicating that they want to have a marketing board for their product. I await with anticipation the decision of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I applaud the initiatives announced today.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I must advise the Minister that, to the best of my knowledge, my office was not contacted about this initiative at all today. That may very well be because I am the new critic for the New Democratic Party and the message could have been confused between offices. Having said that, we in this Party congratulate the Minister for this initiative, which we support. The health cost to Canadians through smoking will no doubt increase over the years, but we hope that due to this initiative the cost will be reduced.
Without having actually seen the document from which the Minister was reading it is rather difficult for me to respond fully. There are a number of question which I would like to have answered by the Minister, such as what will happen with regard to the tobacco marketing board. It seems to me to be contradictory for the Government to be encouraging individuals not to smoke while at the same time it establishes an institution which could have the opposite effect. Tobacco companies have a shrinking market in Canada for tobacco and cigarettes. I would like to hear the Government's response to the possibility of exporting tobacco to third world countries and, through an aggressive advertising campaign, encouraging smoking there.
We are prepared, Mr. Speaker, to take a positive approach to this serious problem. Perhaps once I see the documentation which the Minister referred to in his statement today we will be in a much better position to give a more comprehensive response than the one I am able to provide today.



HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-252, an Act to amend the House of Commons Act (estimates).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, in a very long and detailed report in 1978, the then Auditor General presented a report concerning the administration of the House of Commons. Subsequent Auditors General have supported that and to my knowledge
four Speakers have supported that. The purpose of the Bill is to enshrine those recommendations.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 395 and 431.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	What are the (a) names (6) titles (c) employee status of the personnel responsible for the collection and analysis of herring gull eggs from the Great Lakes area both at present and prior to the November 13, 1984 budget cuts in the Department of the Environment?
2.	Will the Minister of the Environment introduce amendments arising from the current review of the Environmental Contaminants Act and, if so, on what date?
3.	To the knowledge of the Government, did the authorities in the United States ban the antibiotic chloramphenicol and, for what reason is it used in Canada?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am
informed by the Departments of the Environment and National Health and Welfare as follows:
1.	See below.
2.	Yes. In 1986, upon completion of consultation with other federal government Departments, the provinces, industry, labour and environmental non-government organizations and after cabinet review.
3.	In both Canada and the United States, the use of chloramphenicol in humans is permitted with a physician's prescription for certain life threatening diseases. However, the United States has never approved the use of chloramphenicol in food producing animals while in Canada the use of chloramphenicol in food producing animals was banned in July, 1985.
The personnel associated with the collection and analysis of herring gull eggs from the Great Lakes prior to November 13, 1984, and their current status:
Name
Title
Current Employee Status
Dr. D.V. Weseloh Mr. S.M. Teeple Dr. Richard Turle Mr. Glen Fox
Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Technician Analytical Chemist Wildlife Biologist
Co-ordinating collections of eggs from the gull colonies
Technician with Inland Waters Directorate
Chemist with Agriculture Canada
On educational leave
October 22, 1985

Ms. S. Trudeau	Toxicology Laboratory Technician	Administrative Officer with Environment CanadaMs. S. McConnell	Biology Laboratory Technologist	Laboratory Technician on acid rain projectPersonnel associated with collection and analysis of herring gull eggs after April 1, 1985, and their roles on the project:	Name	Title	RoleDr. D.V. Weseloh	Wildlife Biologist	Egg collection, data analysisMr. J. Elliott	Wildlife Biologist	Egg processing, quality assuranceDr. R. Norstrom	Research Chemist	Verification of chemical dataMr. D. Leger	Organic Chemist	Analysis of gull egg, for dioxinMrs. S. Bruce	Water Chemistry Technologist	Analysis of egg homogenatesMiss E. Haldane	Water Chemistry Technologist	Operator of analytical equipmentDr. F. Onuska	Research Scientist	Spectrometry of eggsMr. K. Terry	Methods and Research Technologist	Confirmation of chemical analysis of eggsMr. R. Wilkinson	Methods and Research Technologist	Extraction and clean-up of egg for Dioxin and Dibenzofuran analysisDr. A.S.Y. Chao	Head, Quality Assurance & Methods Section	Implement inter-laboratory analysis of eggs and supervise contracts with non-government laboratoriesMr. B. Lee	Quality Assurance Chemist	Assure reliability of chemical data


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	In (a) 1979 (*) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) 1982 (e) 1983 <J) 1984, what was the total amount of corporate tax paid by Superlux Canada Ltd?
2.	In (a) 1979 (6) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) 1982 (<?) 1983 (/) 1984, what was the total amount received in customs duties on articles imported to Canada by Superlux Canada Ltd?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: 1.
Section 241 of the Income Tax Act prohibits the release of this information.
2. The total amount received by the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, in customs duties on articles imported to Canada by Superlux Canada Ltd. is as follows:
Year	Customs Duties
Oct-Dec. 1979	3,202
Jan.-Dec. 1980	29,183
Jan.-Dee. 1981	25,602
Jan.-Dee. 1982	41,282
Jan.-Dee. 1983	20,493
Jan.-Dee. 1984	4,604
Total	124,366
Note: The above figures are based on the Customs entries submitted by Superlux Canada Ltd. Records of entries for the period January, 1979 to September, 1979 are not available as the Customs Act requires that records be kept for a period of six years.
Depositors Compensation


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I 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.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of ministerial statements, consideration of Government Orders will be extended by 10 minutes this day. Therefore, Private Members' Hour will begin at 5.10 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 7379).
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, prior to one o'clock I was speaking about this Bill, which is a $875 million gift to the friends of the Government of Canada. I also mentioned that there is no money in the Ontario region for small-craft harbours after the Government promised to be of great assistance to the tourist industry in Canada.
Furthermore, at a time when the Government is proposing to pay $875 million to uninsured depositors in these institutions, the farm community and primary producers remain wanting. I recently met with a number of hog producers whose industry is in dire straits in Ontario and other parts of Canada.
It has already been stated today that the House is also considering a Bill to deindex the Child Tax Credit and Family Allowance Programs. The Government promised justice to all during the last election campaign but there is no money to continue the indexation of the Child Tax Credit and Family Allowance Programs to help lower income families.
When one recalls the promise of "jobs, jobs, jobs" during the last election campaign, one can imagine how many jobs $875 million would create if it were used for job creation schemes rather than being doled out to those who took a chance when they invested their money. The Prime Minister

October 22, 1985
Depositors Compensation
(Mr. Mulroney) has proposed to deindex the Child Tax Credit and Family Allowance Programs despite his promise in the House not to do so. Clearly, the biggest problem facing the Government is its lack of credibility as a result of such statements.
At a time when we are discussing hundreds of millions of dollars in this Bill, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) is cutting the security services at small airports in this country, one of which is in my riding. The Government is saving some $27,000 at each of these small airports, which I presume will make up part of the $875 million to be paid to those who took their chances in the free-entreprise system that the Government has espoused.
However, this Bill does not concern free enterprise. When one invests money in a free-enterprise system, one takes a risk, but that is not the case with this legislation.
What has happened with respect to the jobs that were promised by the Government during the last election? The Government is laying off permanent as well as term employees from Department of National Defence bases all across the country. The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) stood up today to talk about the Government's promotion of the brains in this country to encourage development. At the same time it is cutting the budget of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited by $170 million. It is one of the best high technology industries in Canada. Some of our most knowledgeable people in this industry have already left for Los Alamos in the United States. This brain drain of the high-tech industry is similar to what happened with the Avro under a Conservative Government. The Hon. Member laughs. He will not be laughing in 20 years when he realizes that we should have continued with the promotion of high technology and research for the development of energy. This country will require more energy in only 20 years.
The cut-backs at Chalk River will result in the lay off of 400 people, not including those in other parts of that industry. I was asked to send a letter to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) to request a meeting between her and representatives of the industry, of labour and of the business community in the area. Although the Government talks about communication and open Government, 2 months and 22 days have elapsed since my request for a meeting, and no answer has come.
The Government brags about creating 100 jobs before Christmas while at the same time laying off 500 people. That is called Tory progress.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate your recognition on matters of such importance to the Canadian public. During this debate a number of Members from this side of the House have stated their serious reservations about the Government's conduct in this matter which is so crucial to the Canadian public.
This debate in itself proves the value of Parliament because it is giving time for Canadians to absorb fully and understand the enormity of what has taken place as a result of the incompetent way the Government has handled this matter. There is an increasing anger on the part of Canadians about what has transprired.
During the four or five days I spent in western Canada I was interested to listen to the comments about the so-called bank crisis. There is a growing wave of anger about the way this situation was handled. People do not like to see a Government expediently and conveniently deal with a matter so fundamental to their livelihood on the basis of what were obviously political considerations.
As we know, the banking system has been the central framework in this country for a long time. This is particularly true in the last 10 years, since the amendments to the Bank Act were introduced by previous Liberal Governments. This attempt to give opportunities for smaller banks to emerge and provide a different regime of loans for small businesses in regions of the country was particularly appreciated.
The progress we made in developing that new facet or thrust of the banking system has now been lost. Perhaps it has been irrevocably lost, but it has certainly been lost for a good deal of time. There is a loss of confidence, faith and trust. That loss is mirrored in the same emotions which people now have for the Government of Canada, that loss of confidence, faith and trust. For all the other fumbles, bumbles and stumbles committed by the Government during the last several months, the one which goes to the heart of the matter is its handling of the banking situation.
People are angry about it because they suspect that it is a cover-up. They suspect that too much is being hidden. They suspect that too many people may be benefiting for actions which, in themselves, were foolhardy and reckless to begin with. They wonder why the Government is asking for hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money and is reluctant to come clean on who is to benefit. They wonder why there is such a concerted effort to skirt the issue.
Even with the proclamation of the commission under Mr. Justice Estey, it is clear that many areas of vital public concern relating to the handling of the banking crisis will not be covered by that commission. It goes back to what we saw exemplified time and time again in the handling and management of the Government. Perhaps it is what one would call the mushroom theory of Government-throw unto them those products which are most energetically manufactured by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), keep them in the dark and they will grow. People are becoming a little tired of that. Anger is beginning to devleop. They feel that there was a system of protection for those who legitimately had insured investments.
Why is it that suddenly hundreds of millions of dollars are being provided to categories, not to individuals, corporations or entities? We do not know who is responsible or who in fact will
October 22, 1985

be paid off. I think the Government owes it to Canadians to answer that question. It is essential, if the Government is to come before Parliament asking for extravagant sums of money. We are not talking about trifling sums; we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. Surely that, by every canon of parliamentary responsibility, requires a Government to explain itself and to be forthright. It should come before Parliament and explain exactly who is on the receiving end. That is not taking place.
I read with interest a letter which was received in my office just today. It is from a gentleman who lives in my constituency. In fact, he is a former member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba with a very distinguished career. It reads:
I am a director in a small oil company; as you can see by the enclosed copy of our last nine months financial statement we put $6,000 into the Canadian Commercial Bank. You will note the much higher interest rate they were offering than the other banks.
As an aside, I should like to indicate that at the same time Scotiabank was offering 8.25 per cent, Canadian Commercial Bank was offering 10.25 per cent. Its rate was 3 points higher in the same period of time. The letter continues:
I feel people who go for the highest interest should be prepared to place their capital at risk and, if through greed and poor judgment lose, then so be it.
By passing the bail-out Bill before the House now, it will only encourage investors to always go for the highest interest rate because the federal Government by this precedent will always bail them out! Don't let them pass it and let the bells ring till an election is called.
That is the voice of one person, a person who has some experience both in business and in Government. He is saying that the Bill has an implication which goes far beyond-and I know that that in itself sounds extravagant-just the hundreds of millions of dollars which will be taken out of the Canadian economy and passed back into the hands of unknown holders. There will also be a precedent set. How can the Government, from this point onward, deny other financial institutions? Does it not begin to give licence to those institutions to say that they can go for the high roll? Could they not play ricochet with Canadian money? If they are lucky and get a good take, they will be very prosperous. However, if they fail, they can always go to the Government to be bailed out because the Government bailed the others out. Why would it be any different? A precedent is being set.
I find it discouraging to look at the statements made by the Minister who presented the Bill and the supporting words of her colleagues on the other side of the House. They do not seem to seize fully the severity and seriousness of what they are doing. They are really setting in motion what lawyers would call a stare decisis which will haunt successive Governments for years to come.
The only way in which the Government could possibly eliminate that founding precedent is to provide us with a clear justification as to why this is such an exceptional case and why this should be given an exceptional judgment. Yet the Government has not been prepared to do that. It has not given the kind of information which Parliament requires in order to make a judgment. We oppose this amendment with sorrow but we also share in the anger of many other Canadians.
Depositors Compensation
This matter weighs heavily upon the minds of many Canadians. It has had a devastating effect on many parts of the economy. It has created a serious sense of dislocation. Many small investors and small business people in the West are disheartened. We hope that it will be treated in a more open, forthright and candid manner by the Government of the day. We hope that Hon. Members on the Government side will listen to these words and recognize that if they proceed in this manner, they will be putting in motion a very important consequence of various kinds of unintended reactions which no one can predict. They will be letting the genie out of the bottle, and I do not know how successive Governments will ever put it back in.


Mr. Tom Hockin (London West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to speak on the Bill, not to pose questions, although my comments will-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Under the provisions of Standing Order 36(2), we are in the third phase with 10-minute speeches and no questions or comments. The Hon. Member has been recognized on debate.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us is one of utmost urgency. The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) spoke about the urgency of moving to some matter about which he was concerned. However, 1 must say how urgent I feel it is to move to the disposition of this Bill. It is important to relieve the hardship and uncertainty currently being suffered by depositors who feel that the Bill should be passed quickly.
I do not want to prolong the debate, therefore my remarks will be brief. However, I should like to direct them specifically to what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) said. He talked about the unfortunate precedent which the Bill may presage. His comments will end up being irrelevant because we will have a totally different regulatory framework for the future. Precedents of a past period will not be relevant into the future because there will be a new regulatory framework. That is what the Minister and the Standing Committee have been working hard to put in place. A new framework, new rules, a strengthened Inspector General of Banks and a strengthened set of regulations will totally exclude any possibility of these kinds of precedents being directly relevant.
Secondly, the previous speaker mentioned the mushroom theory of Government. This Bill really addresses the mushroom theory of banks. What happened was that in 1980, suddenly mushrooming into the Canadian economy, instead of a handful of banks were 70 banks. They were put in a framework that lacked, in my view, the regulatory parameters and the strength in the Inspector General's office to allow these banks to operate with confidence and with effectiveness. It is the mushroom theory of banks with improper regulation that has got us into trouble, not the mushroom theory of Government.

October 22, 1985
Depositors Compensation
He speaks of loss of confidence and the loss of trust in the Government because of this particular Bill. If western banks are viewed as not being as important as central Canadian banks that would lead to loss of trust and loss of confidence in this country in terms of unfairness.
My riding in London, Ontario is the home of many trust companies and insurance companies. One would think that my constituents would not be interested in the viability of western banks. They are. They believe that, for a united country which is fair to all regions, western banks are important to the fabric of the western economy just as, for example, financial institutions like Canada Trust are vital to the economy of southwestern Ontario. We stepped in and we recognized the importance of that in this legislation.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry also discussed how delicate and how important the banking system is. That is precisely what we are addressing and what we have been addressing for the last few months with the Green Paper on financial institutions, with this legislation and with many other initiatives that this Government has taken in order to strengthen the confidence that people can have in our banking system.
This leads me to my final comment which is that if we follow the advice of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, and his leader, and reveal the names of all the depositors, what would that do to our banking system internationally? What would that to do our banking system and the confidence that people would feel in it? Confidentiality is the bedrock of the Bank Act and if we are going to change that we do not change it in the middle of some sort of episode like this. That is a matter that would have to be looked at systematically and properly, with proper advice. For the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry to insist that this confidentiality be removed, is to insist on particular action that would diminish confidence and trust in the banking system more than anything else.
It is because of all this that I join with the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) in saying that I as well have every faith in the viability and strength of the banking system in Canada and in its national and international reputation. This Bill, together with the inquiry by Mr. Justice Estey, will help to maintain that, and I commend to the House its speedy passage.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Rich-mond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardifj.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I also welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-79, An Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits.
Upon reading this preamble or title of Bill C-79, some Canadians might be inclined to react by saying: That is a good idea, because if I were involved, I would like the Government to compensate me for the loss savings accumulated over 3, 4, 5, 10, 15 or 20 years.
However, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-79 does not in any way concern average depositors who are covered, up to a maximum of $60,000, by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
I may remind Hon. Members here in the House that $60,000 is quite a lot of money. In fact, the vast majority of Canadians cannot hope to save that much in their entire lifetime. Sixty thousand dollars is a lot of money for most Canadians.
And now, not only does the Government want to compensate these people, something I entirely agree with, but it has introduced Bill C-79 in order to compensate all those depositors with accounts considerably in excess of $60,000. In many cases, we are talking about depositors with accounts worth several hundred thousand dollars. And the Government is saying that we need this legislation to cover these fantastic sums of money in order to maintain confidence in the Canadian banking system!
Mr. Speaker, with respect, I cannot agree with this point of view or this philosophy, which I may say I find absolutely repugnant.
My hon. colleague who spoke previously said it was urgent that the House adopt Bill C-79 as soon as possible. I agree that if one shares his point of view, it is very important to act fast so as few Canadians as possible will realize what is happening to them. It is a shame that the Government would introduce such a Bill to provide assistance to people who are obviously very well off.
Such a program should not be implemented on the basis of simple statements and comments. The financial situation of Canada does not allow it. We cannot do certain things to improve our essential social programs, apparently because the Government cannot afford to do so. Yet, Bill C-79 asks the House to approve a blank cheque which will amount to several hundred million dollars.
My colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has been fighting in this House for months and weeks to protect the most needy amongst Canadians, those who lack even the basic necessities. Yet, the Government replies: We must tighten our belts, we must reduce our expenditures and it is impossible to do what you are asking. If we ever succeed in reducing the deficit, we might do what you wish, Mr. Malepart.
On the one hand, that is the reply of the Government to the urgent request made by my colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. This is one aspect of this Government's approach.
October 22, 1985


Gilbert Chartrand: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I forgot to rise simply because I am not used to listening to such lengthy debates, but still I would like to comment on Bill C-79. I think it is very important, for it does provide us with an opportunity to tell the people exactly what is going on instead of spouting inanities about philosophical views which most Canadians do not even understand.
The purpose of this Bill is to repay people who had deposited more than $60,000 in the two banks, so the question is: just who are those depositors? Are they really people who had bank deposits of $70,000 or $100,000, or are we talking about groups and individuals who were anxious to help the economy of a region or of our country by investing their money? When the two financial institutions found themselves in a tight spot last March, the six major Canadian banks and the Government made a decision, as any company would have done, and said: What should we do? Do we drop the investors? Are we going to ignore a region, prevent it from developing, make it stand still-


Alain Tardif: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, here we are debating a Bill involving an outlay of $800 million, yet I notice that there are only five Progressive Conservative Members in the House. We do not have a quorum.

October 22, 1985
Depositors Compensation


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member should not reflect upon the attendance of Members in the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's a quorum call.


Mr. Rossi:: I rise on a point of order concerning the quorum, Mr. Speaker. We lack a quorum!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will count the Members. There are 21 Members in the House and more are arriving. There is a quorum.
[ Translation]


Gilbert Chartrand: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about people who had decided to help the economy of one of the regions of Canada. I am pleased to have the floor today because people know that I like my region of Quebec very much and work hard for my constituents. But there are other regions in Canada and it is important that we help them and stick together for once.
As I was saying, the people got together last March and realized they had to work and help one another. They decided to leave their money on deposit so the system would get back on an even keel, hoping things would turn out all right. These are the kind of people who can be found in my constituency of Verdun-Saint-Paul, people who have invested some of their savings in pension plans, workers and ordinary Canadians who had and still have confidence in the Government. The question is quite simple: Can we really afford to tell those people: "They made a mistake, and because of this you lose all your money; just stay home, there is nothing left for you''. Or should we tell them: "You tried to help, you really tried to stabilize those two banks. We did everything but we will not have the man in the street pay for something which even if it was not a mistake is a situation that would have occurred under any Government.
But there we are. I notice that the Opposition today is constantly criticizing, implying that those people with more than $60,000 are really anonymous people, rich people from abroad, or rich people always trying to put their money in biding. But it may be about time that we tell Canadians, Quebecers, many of whom are wondering: Who are those people actually? Who are those people who invested over $60,000? Well, they are municipalities that need the money to better stabilize their affairs, to do better work, to better invest in their communities.
Look at the City of Verdun again, for instance. Our community is currently going through difficult times. The economy is at a very low ebb, and working capital is hard to get. Are we
going to tell the people of Verdun: Now, you have invested. We asked you to keep investing with us. It did not work, so we are dropping you. What does that mean? It means not just a bank failure, but the failure of a whole municipality, which indeed is a serious problem, not just for a few people, but in my area 70,000 people already are affected. This is all one problem.
There is also the question of foreign investments. I think Canada is recognized throughout the world as having so to speak the best banking reputation, as being the safest place. Could we then afford to tell the world: In Canada, it does not matter, you invest your money, but you could lose it just the same.
There are six other banks, six large institutions which at the present moment depend on worldwide confidence. They really need to be able to tell the world: "You know, we respect our commitments; you invest here and help this country forge ahead, develop new infrastructures. We want you to invest, we are not going to tell you one morning: "Oh, you risked everything! Well you have lost everything!" What do you think would happen one month, two months, one year from now? That money would no longer be in Canada. There would no longer be any investments. And what would Canada do? We need foreign funds, we need to have pension funds invested in our banks because they allow various people to carry out important projects in Canada.
Canada is a free country where everyone enjoys freedom of speech. However, we have to rise sooner or later and tell the Members opposite: "You know that when you speak of such things, you are as much involved as we are." If they say that we should be ashamed, I can imagine how they should feel because of their direct attacks against specific people. Again 1 would like to deal with those who invested in pension funds. You can imagine if they were told overnight that they had lost everything. It would not be just the party in power which would have to pay for that. It would be mostly the Opposition which is trying to make us change our mind saying: "They took a risk and they lost everything, we do not need them." Is that so? This is what we will see.
We Members of this new Government like to become involved. We are not afraid to go forth and tell the people: "Yes, you should invest your money in this country." However, if we lose their confidence, what is the use of working or being a Member of Parliament.
The Canadian people should ask themselves: Has a minority like the one opposite the right to say to the Canadian people: "You took a risk, you lost everything, that is your problem." If I were at home and reading about such things in the newspapers, I can tell you Mr. Speaker, that I would write my representative and tell him: "Stand up in the House and tell them once and for all that the Government is there to help and serve the Canadian people".
October 22, 1985

They must stop saying that we are trying to change everything, that we are going against the wishes of the people. When we came to power, the Government had many problems to face. We are concerned and we want to improve the Canadian system and I know that the Canadian people are backing us. We have an example today. There were two banks which had problems and all the Canadians are ready to stand behind them and say to the entire world: "We support our country, and our economy, and we will manage to get through". The few dollars that this will cost us, each from our own pockets, I am ready today to put them on the table if they want me to do it. Because as Canadians we are proud, we would not want to lose our reputation. Everywhere in the world, the holder of a Canadian passport gets a royal welcome. And were we to pay heed to what the Members opposite are saying and to go along with them, we would be saying: You lose everything. That's it. Goodbye." You could then imagine, when abroad asking for investments, the answer we would get from those countries, those investors, and the answer we would be getting from those who manage pension funds for large Canadian corporations. What then would we be living on?
In the Verdun area, do you think we do not need that kind of investments? The areas where we lack tremendously . .. where that bank money is invested in housing cooperatives, small businesses, because in my area there are no such things as big businesses. But so it is. To sell the idea, I need everybody behind me, both in the Opposition and in the Government. And, for once, we must stick together and tell the Canadian people that what we are doing, the assistance given to those subsidiaries, to those banks, is aimed at keeping our reputation intact. Not only abroad, but at home.
See the kind of publicity we are getting from them .. . Let us suppose that all of a sudden, an Opposition Member rises and says: "The Royal Bank has problems". The next day, I can assure you that the Royal Bank would have problems. But this is not true. We should not even listen to their invidious comments because we are trying to help people. We have been elected to serve, to help and to foster the economy.


Alain Tardif: The rich.


Gilbert Chartrand: Again, I hear the Hon. Member for Rich-mond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) saying "the rich". He did not understand. Those with $60,000, you know, are not special people. They are people like myself, like a butcher in Verdun, like a blue-collar worker in Verdun having invested his money. You think you can tell him: "You made a mistake, you lose your money!" Mr. Speaker, such people have no place in Parliament. I will always stand up to the rights and the interests of the Canadian people.
Depositors Compensation



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please! It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouel-let)-Transport (a) Need to establish "Buy Canadian" policy, (b) Purchase of rolling stock wheels in Canada; the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson)-Banks and Banking ;(a) Minister's letter to shareholder, (b) Position of sharehold-lers; the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-jpart)- Employment (a) Request that Montreal East be designated depressed area, (b) Citizens' committee and union chairmen-Minister's position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits, be read the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee; and the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 7379).
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I know that several Members of our party did not feel very happy about taking part in this debate, because it is really incredible, when we see that in a debate that concerns about one billion dollars that will have to be paid by taxpayers to unidentified companies and individuals, that this Government should use closure to prevent further consideration in the House.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that when the Government House Leader moved his so-called closure, announcing the Government's decision not to let debate continue in the House, he actually said that we had already had eight hours of debate and that eight hours was enough.
Mr. Speaker, what about Canadian taxpayers? Do you realize that eight hours of debate represent more than $100 million paid by taxpayers to those unidentified individuals and

October 22, 1985
Depositors Compensation
companies, $100 million for every hour of debate in the House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker, there are only 40 Members on the Liberal side of the House, but we feel we have a duty to ensure that every cent of Government spending, even the billions that are going to be spent on tax shelters for Gulf Canada, even the one billion dollars that will have to be paid to the CCB, we in the Liberal Party believe that Canadians have a right to know here in the House why the Government claims to be acting responsibly from the fiscal point of view while, at the same time, it is giving one billion dollars to unidentified individuals and companies. That same Government is telling families that are less well off, families earning between $10,000 and $15,000 annually, that same Government is telling these people and these families that it cannot afford to increase family allowances or even maintain them at the same level, it does not have enough money to maintain the child tax credit, but it can afford, and this after eight hours of debate, to give one billion dollars to unidentified individuals and companies, both in Canada and abroad, without having given the Members of this House a chance to speak, a right we all have as elected representatives in this House.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, our party has brought an amendment before the House, and that is why our Party, our Leader, we might as well say our president of Public Accounts since he is doing the work of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall), it is our Party that is doing the job, making sure whether the money should or should not be spent, and for whom. As we were able to see, Mr. Speaker, it was the Minister of State (Finance) who said there was no problem. It was her who went so far as to write to the depositors and also to the people who eventually became shareholders.


Aideen Nicholson: Shareholders is right.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I appreciate the remark of the Hon. Member for Trinity.
Even the shareholders got a letter from the Minister of State (Finance) in July telling them that there was no problem with the Canadian Commercial Bank, that they could rest assured they did not have to worry about their investments. Mr. Speaker, such assurances to the taxpayers, the shareholders and the depositors were given at the same time as the Government was fully aware of the problems experienced by the company, its management problems, and the management problems of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of State (Finance) did not know anything about such management problems in July because she was on holidays. For the first time in 62 years we were witnessing the collapse of a Canadian bank, so where was the Minister of State (Finance)? In Paris, on holidays. Well, Mr. Speaker, one can always make a telephone call, as she said herself in the House. What I want to say on behalf of my Party and ordinary Canadians in my
riding is that they are waiting for the Government and the Prime Minister to honour the commitments they made during the election campaign, they want answers from this Government. We are getting complacency, Mr. Speaker, not answers. What we get, Mr. Speaker, is the leader of the Government in the House saying: Eight hours of debate is enough, more than enough, we are fed up with this debate. Well, they are prepared to spend $ 1 billion of the taxpayers' money, but they think eight hours of debate is enough. Mr. Speaker, do you think that Canadian men and women elected 211 Progressive Conservative Members on September 4, 1984 just to listen to an eight-hour debate on an issue of $1 billion to be paid to nameless individuals, foreign banks and foreign countries, as if eight hours of debate were enough for them? As I said before, Mr. Speaker, with eight hours of debate it works out to over $100 million an hour.

I wonder if the people of Canada could believe today that this Government which has promised fiscal responsibility and which has ranted and railed against the deficits of the previous Liberal Government, could close off debate after a short space of eight hours? We heard the Government House Leader pronounce that there would be eight hours of debate on this bail-out, that that was enough. That eight hours of debate, Mr. Speaker, represents over $100 million for every hour spent debating this Bill. We in the Liberal Party may be small in numbers but we, along with the New Democratic Party, believe that it is our responsibility to fight the battles of the depositors, the battles of the shareholders and the battles of the taxpayers. The Canadian people listened to the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) when she, from her telephone in Paris last August, made pronouncements on the bank. They listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the pseudo-Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) tell them the Government did not have the money to pay for family allowances. They were told me do not even have the money to pay for tax credits for families with children, that we do not even have the money to continue the kind of tax benefit package which tells the people of Canada that we support families.
The Canadian people believed that we were going to provide certain incentives which, in no measure, would pay for the cost of raising a family but at least would be some small recognition of that cost. They expected that this Government was going to live up to its promises to families. They did not expect-perhaps they should have-to see what they are seeing now; the bank bail-outs, the Gulf deal, the million dollars tax advantages given to the multinational oil companies. We are seeing for the first time the true blue Tory colour of the Conserative Party.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) ran across the country as a "let's pretend Liberal" during the election campaign. He said that universality was a sacred trust. The same Prime Minister said that he was not going to touch the pensions of senior citizens. He said he was not going to deindex family
October 22, 1985

allowances. We heard him last September in the House of Commons promise that he would never deindex family allowances even in an effort to reduce the deficit, but at the same time behind closed doors he makes a cozy deal. At the same time he stands before the people of Canada and talks about his grandiose economic statement. That self-same Prime Minister is meeting with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance to put together a $1 billion bail-out which certainly contributed to the situation which led to the collapse of the first Canadian bank in more than 60 years. Then the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance had the nerve to blame the failure of the Canadian Commercial Bank on the previous Liberal Government. They said it was the National Energy Program. In fact, we know from the internal documents which the Government was reluctant to release, but which it had in its possession when it made comments on a daily basis in the House of Commons blaming the Liberals for the fiasco of the Canadian Commercial Bank, that they knew full well that the full responsibility lay on the head and shoulders of this Prime Minister, this Minister of Finance and this Minister of State for Finance, and we are going to fight them tooth and nail on this billion dollar bail-out.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the comments made in the past few days or few hours, I felt I had to make some observations myself, as the Hon. Member would say.
First, I would like to say that I am quite disappointed at the partisan tone of this debate. In view of the fact that Canadians like ourselves, people with good intentions, made certain investments and went through hours of worry because of the problems faced by these banking institutions, the Members opposite will probably agree with me because of their role in this House that it is important to maintain the credibility of our Canadian banking institutions.
In all honesty, Mr. Speaker, I understand the role of the Opposition. I sat on the other side long enough to know all about it, but I also realize that you have to show a modicum of honesty, and I trust that most of the Members opposite do so.
Naturally, we would have hoped that people would not confuse apples and oranges by speaking about family allowances in relation to this unfortunate development, and the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) is well aware that we did not wish for the problems faced by these banking institutions. The Members opposite should perhaps have the honesty to ask themselves, for instance, when these problems began to surface. We have been here for only about 12 months, and I do not think that anyone can accuse this Government of being responsible for this disaster, because it certainly is a disaster.
Depositors Compensation
In view of the economic situation which was prevalent when we came into power, Mr. Speaker . . . Some may smile, but the Canadian people know that, when we took over the reins of power, the country had a debt of $200 billion, and that this is not the time-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: This has nothing to do with the bank.


Roch La Salle: This may have nothing to do with the bank, Mr. Speaker, but it is directly related to what we are doing today. If the Members opposite had acted more responsibly when they were in power, we would not be facing these problems today, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is not true!


Roch La Salle: Millions of Canadians know this and millions of Canadians decided 12 ou 13 months ago to get rid of the type of Government which was leading our country to the brink of bankruptcy. I think that another month would have pushed us over the edge.
All Canadians know this today. I cannot resist the temptation of making these comments in view of the fact that this debate has been overly partisan and intellectually dishonest toward those-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What are you now doing yourself?


Roch La Salle: I am speaking on behalf of all the depositors who were likely to loose a lot of money following the failure of this bank-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Why do you not name them. Rock?


Roch La Salle: -including a number of provincial governments and organizations, various municipalities, colleges, hospitals, charitable institutions, churches, ethnic groups, individuals, businesses, Canadian banks, stock brokers, small financial institutions, central credit unions, foreign banks and trade unions, Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: Not to mention a number of friends of your party-


Roch La Salle: I have just read the list of the depositors, Mr. Speaker. But Hon. Members opposite do not give a damn about these people. They say that we are compensating the rich on the backs of the poor, when in fact we are ensuring the credibility we need to attract the investment capital we badly need.
In such difficult times now, the small bunch of people opposite who conducted themselves in an irresponsible way when they were in a position to govern this country for so long dare blame us for trying to bail out-


An Hon. Member:: Incompetence-

October 22, 1985
Depositors Compensation


Roch La Salle: -for trying to bail out. .. Incompetence was the trade mark of the former administration, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Conservative failure-


Roch La Salle: They are blaming us because we are anxious to help these people who, in good faith . . . some Members opposite could be among them; they may not have chosen to invest their money there, but there are some Canadians who did.
However, Mr. Speaker, the more important thing is, and the Canadians must not forget it, that we should try to preserve the credibility of our banks for future investments, and if we refuse to do what we are doing now, and we are not doing it of our own free will-We were not expecting that disaster. It is our duty and our responsibility to maintain the credibility of our banks in order not to frighten away foreign investors, to also reassure Canadians and protect their investments and their contribution by way of an appeal to the private sector to give a new impetus to the economy which has worsened because Members opposite show no respect, Mr. Speaker, for those who now have problems to tackle.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to bankruptcies, I could speak at length, but I do not have enough time. We should remember that in 1968 when I first came here, the Members opposite had a deficit of $15 to $17 billion and now this national debt has reached $200 billion. Each newborn Canadian is now burdened with a mortgage of $15,000 to $16,000 because of the architects of that bankruptcy who are sitting opposite. This is incredible, Mr. Speaker.
And those people dare to try to lecture us on management and administration. I am fed up, Mr. Speaker. On certain days, I can put up with that kind of arguments, but today I could no longer.
And this is the reason why I want to say to all Canadians that we are taking this step for the sake of our future and to provide all the assurance possible to the wealthy who can afford to invest to help the poor. By their underhand practices, they are trying to have us believe that we are against the poor. It is actually for them, Mr. Speaker, that we have to ensure that credibility to recover the wealth squandered by those people opposite and to distribute it more fairly among the needy.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you understand me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for
the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is the following one. Mrs. McDougall, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank,
CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits, be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee; and on the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra), seconded by Mr. Gauthier, that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor: this House declines to give second reading to a Bill, the principle of which is to permit payments of large, but unspecified amounts of public monies to unspecified persons or corporations, thereby substantially denigrating Parliamentary accountability for expenditure of public funds.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than Jive Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. There has been in-depth consultations with the Opposition and I think there might be a disposition to not proceed with a formal vote on the second reading motion but rather to reverse the vote and indicate that those who had voted in favour of the amendment be shown as being opposed to second reading and those who voted in opposition to the amendment be shown as voting in favour of second reading with the exception of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain), the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) and the Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga). I will allow equal time for any Opposition Members who would like to be shown as voting in favour of second reading.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, after consultations, I am willing to accept the Minister's proposal. I must say that we would have liked it better if the vote had stood in its original form.


Ian Deans: It seems perfectly reasonable to me.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am quite willing to go along with this arrangement, Sir, but 1 would like it to be recorded that I abstained from voting on the main motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it that that is the will of the House. May I therefore try to make it easier for the Clerks at the Table and assure that we know who wishes to be added
Depositors Compensation
to the vote. The Hon. Minister of Labour, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody and the Hon. Member for Pembina wish to be added. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) will not be recorded on this vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the Bill stands referred to a legislative committee.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I will give the House a moment to clear before proceeding.
Order, please. I think I have allowed a fair amount of time for those who wish to hold conversations to go somewhere else to do so. It being after five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   NUCLEAR POWER ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: that Bill C-231, an Act establishing a moratorium on the continued development of nuclear power in Canada for the purpose of establishing a public inquiry into nuclear power that is followed by a national referendum, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to once gain have the opportunity to present a private Members' Bill calling for a moratorium on the development of nuclear power in Canada and calling for a public inquiry to be followed by a national referendum on our nuclear energy future which has so far been imposed upon us undemocratically by the Liberal and now the Conservative Governments. I say that I am happy, but there is a way in which I am unhappy. I would much rather that my original private Members' Bill which I proposed in 1980 had had some effect and that we had gone on to accept its recommendations. That is not the case and so I rise once again to make the case for an inquiry into the entire nuclear fuel cycle in Canada. I do this with the knowledge that when the Progressive Conservative Party came to power in 1979, it held a similar position. At that time, it was about to initiate a parliamentary inquiry as opposed to a public inquiry into the matter but as we all know the Government fell and it never
had the opportunity to bring about such an inquiry. The new Conservative Government has been in power for over a year and it seems to have abandoned that particular policy.
Whether we are dealing with a public inquiry or with a parliamentary one, today is one more occasion on which 1 would like to speak at greater length than I usually can when I have the opportunity to make a statement or ask a question in the House.
First, 1 am opposed to the investment in the nuclear energy option that Canada has made. Second, this energy path is a path with profound implications and one which has been imposed upon Canadians in an undemocratic way by a technocratic elite without adequate public discussion and with the acquiescence of politicians who have been held captive by the mystique and indeed the tyranny of expertise and the so-called value-free advice they receive from such experts.
One of the few value-free facts that attends a debate on the nuclear issue is the fact that most of the so-called facts are laden with assumptions.What is needed is a real debate about those assumptions and values and not the usual frustrating debate that often occurs with AECL or Ontario Hydro types on the one hand who pretend or worse, actually believe that they are objective while patronizing their opponents as being those who bring only emotional arguments to the table and on the other hand anti-nuclear energy representatives who are trying to move the debate to a more fundamental level. As moral agents, we are all equally able to imagine and choose between human futures. At that level, there is no hiding behind a degree in physics or engineering. Today I want to do a little of that kind of reflection, keeping in mind that we are talking about conflicting world views or paradigms and not a phoney conflict between facts and values.
Let us begin with uranium mining, a sore spot for many Members of the New Democratic Party as it is the one link in the nuclear fuel cycle in which the Party has acted out of line with the view that I am putting forward today. Uranium mining in Canada ought to be stopped for a number of reasons. It is unacceptable because it involves Canada in the nuclear arms race. It is destructive and dangerous to the long-term health of the environment. It often happens in areas that are the traditional homelands of native peoples and the mining is done in such a way as to destroy the viability of the renewable resource economy on which they depend for an economically reliable and healthy lifestyle.
The persistent and not unfounded belief that Canadian uranium is making its way into nuclear bombs and/or freeing up other uranium for nuclear bombs should be cause for national shame. It gives the lie to all the ways in which we Canadians like to think that our hands are clean when it comes to the nuclear arms race. Our hands are not clean; they are dirty. Every time any provincial or federal Government promotes uranium mining as an economic benefit they are guilty of falling into the sin warned against by the biblical warning: What shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world, but lose his soul? In trying to build economic prosperity on activities such as uranium exports, knowing full well that we
October 22, 1985

are contributing to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we as a country are selling our souls in a bargain which requires of us increasing measures of oppression, lies and ecological irresponsibility. The alternative vision is to see that an economy based on such moral bankruptcy is no economy at all and to begin now the support of sustainable and ecologically acceptable economic strategies based on renewable resources, renewable sources of energy and fully human development as opposed to the kind of devastating short-lived and short-sighted economic development that has been so prominent in our past.
The CAN DU reactor is another aspect of the Canadian nuclear picture which deserves a great deal of attention. A question by me to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) last fall revealed a great deal about the Government's attitude and lack of ability to ask fundamental questions. I asked the Minister if the new Government intended to live up to the Conservative promise in 1979 to initiate a parliamentary inquiry into the whole nuclear fuel cycle. The Minister replied with no hint of embarrassment that the problem with the nuclear industry might only be a marketing one and that she would check with AECL to see if they thought an inquiry was necessary. This was my first strong hint of the purely commercial plane on which the Minister of Energy thinks. It surfaces again with respect to Canadian research into radioactive waste disposal, which I will deal with later.
For now, suffice it to say that it is not just a problem of marketing. The real question is whether we should be marketing nuclear reactors in the first place, not how we could be better at marketing them. This is something that inquiries such as I have asked for could reflect on and, while doing so, it would be nice to reflect on just how the Candu reactor has come to hold such a privileged position in the Canadian technological pantheon. It often seems to me that what has made the incredible subsidization of the nuclear industry possible is the way in which this technological vanity of ours somehow symbolizes for some Canadians our claim to fame in the modern world. This accommodation to the way of the world is something that should be questioned. I would rather our national sense of self-worth was derived from the extent to which, as a country, we were pursuing alternatives to the centralized technological industrial paradigm that is eating away at the future of our planet and the possibilities for a fully human future.
A third aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle which I would like to deal with is the question of radioactive waste disposal. This is a question which has occuppied me in general for some years now; but I have been particularly involved in it through the debate concerning the Underground Research Laboratory at Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba, near Pinawa, going back to May 1980 when I first raised the issue in the House of Commons. At that time I was asking, in co-operation with the Committee of Concerned Citizens in Manitoba, for public hearings into the underground radioactive waste disposal research project
Nuclear Power
which AECL had begun in that area. The Liberal Government of the day refused such hearings and the project went ahead. Since then, the debate about the URL has centred around the question of whether or not the site at Lac du Bonnet should or could ever be considered as a permanent site for disposal of radioactive waste. The NDP Government of Manitoba has said that in its view this is not an option. Unfortunately, no current Government can speak for all future Governments. Even more unfortunately, the current federal Minister of Energy has been unwilling to rule out Lac du Bonnet as a permanent site. Instead, she has created even more anxiety by commenting in a letter to the Town Council of Gimli, who had written her about this issue, about the possible commercial benefits to Canada if we decided to take in the radioactive garbage of the world and dispose of it deep in the Canadian Shield. I have to suppose that this would be part and parcel of the new improved marketing strategy of the Government. We will provide cradle-to-grave services for all our nuclear customers-only Canada will be the grave, the grave for tons and tons of radioactive waste produced elsewhere by our technologies. What a vision! It seems to me that it must take a particular kind of darkness of the mind to see light in such a picture of the future.
Having said that, I want it to be clear that I am not against such research. We have to dispose of what we already have in the best way possible. I am against research which is part of a general approach oriented toward the goal of making the world more likely to produce more such wastes. We should be worried enough about whether we can safely store what we have already produced without asking for more trouble. For this reason, I think that AECL should be stripped of its responsibility for waste disposal and it should be given over to the Department of the Environment and completely separated from AECL, which, in my view and in the view of many people who have paid attention to this issue, is in a conflict of interest that can no longer be tolerated.
In any event, anxiety in Manitoba has been greatly increased of late by the interest taken in the URL in Lac du Bonnet by the U.S. Department of Energy whose interest, I am sure, is more than purely academic or idle curiosity. In fact, it will be able to explore in Manitoba what it has been unable to explore without the co-operation of northern American states which share a similar geography with Manitoba. I know that there are Minnesotans who are concerned about that as well. Manitoba, with no uranium mining and no nuclear power, should be one of the last places to be considered as a site for radioactive waste disposal. Canada- whatever we finally do with our radioactive wastes-should not get into the business of promoting more waste or the importation of it.
Whether in terms of long-term damage to the environment through uranium mining, reactors, radioactive waste, low level radiation, or whatever, or in terms of the sudden and comprehensive destruction of a nuclear war followed by nuclear winter, the nuclear issue raises moral questions of the highest order-questions of inter-generational morality which have

October 22, 1985
Nuclear Power
been seldom, if ever, raised by previous technologies or available human choices. In pursuing the nuclear option, we are running a risk for the future of our planet that we have no right to take, especially here in Canada where we have the social, economic and political capacity to happily pursue other energy paths, other economic strategies that do not elevate the short-term needs of one generation at the expense of all others to come in the name of a false confidence in our ability to solve all our problems with a technological solution. This false confidence in the technological solution is nothing other than the modern equivalent of the ancient cult of Baal, whereby man sought to manipulate the gods instead of trusting in the promises of God to deliver us from the enemies of life if only we would seek first His kingdom and His justice. The nuclear option is not the only place in modern life where we opt for this kind of unfaithfulness and idolatry. However, for me, and I think for many others as well, it is the central symbol of that idolatry, whether it takes the form of nuclear energy or nuclear weapons. How long we can pursue this idolatrous course without the kind of judgment that those who worship Baal met is not for me to presume. If we do not escape the awful future we are building for ourselves and we do have a nuclear war, it will not be the happy cosmological shoot-out between good and evil which lunatics like Jerry Falwell think it will be. Instead, it will be a judgment on all those who trusted in their horses and chariots instead of justice.
It has been one of the greatest frustrations of my half dozen years here in the House of Commons that I have not been able, along with a handful of others who I know share my concern, to have the nuclear energy question placed higher on the agenda for public discussion and reflection. There has been more debate about nuclear weapons; but even that has not often been enough related to the ways in which the conflict of interest which might precipitate a nuclear war are intimately connected to the false need to protect the way of live which is so well represented by the nuclear energy option-a way of life captive to the domination and exploitation of non-renewable energy resources and a way of life that is ever more captive to corresponding images of national security and the loss of freedom that can flow from the authority of such images.
The nuclear energy option needs to be debated. Canadians are still waiting for an opportunity to say what they think and to reflect together on their common future. I hope that in providing this one small occasion for such a debate, I will have contributed in my own way to that day when we finally wake up to the hidden and, in my view, mistaken assumptions which have made the nuclear industry so sacred in this country.


Mr. Elzinga:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I recognize that it is not proper procedure during Private Members' Hour to ask for the opportunity to put a question. However, I wish to congratulate this Hon. Member for bringing forward what I consider to be a very meaningful issue, and if the Chair would grant me the opportunity-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We must have unanimous consent. Does the House so agree?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Peter Elzinga: The Hon. Member has asked for a public inquiry with a follow-up, being a referendum, on an issue which is very meaningful to all Canadians. I am curious as to whether his views are consistent on the referendum issue as to whether he would support a referendum for capital punishment?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to these issues, 1 do not think it is purely a question of consistency. I had to face this issue of a referendum in Manitoba when there was debate about whether or not we ought to have a referendum on minority language rights. I took the position at that time, and I take it still, that on certain matters which involve the rights of individuals or groups it is not appropriate to put those kinds of things to a referendum because by the very definition, the majority can take a different view than that of the minority.
There are other questions which are questions which affect everyone equally, for instance, policy questions which affect the common future of everyone. I believe energy choices fall into that category. In those kinds of questions I am not against-in fact I am obviously promoting-the idea of using a referendum as a way of determining what the people think.


Peter Elzinga: In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is indicating to me that where his views are consistent with the majority, he is willing to have a referendum, but where they are not, he is not willing to have one.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very pejorative interpretation of what I said. I did not say that at all. I have no reason to assume that in all those questions where I would like to see a referendum, that I would be on the majority side. I am saying that there are some questions which ought to be decided by the public and not by a bureaucratic or technocratic elite, which is what has happened with respect to the nuclear question. There are some times when I believe in having referendums but I am also prepared to take my lumps and be on the losing side, if that be the public will.


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I do think this is an important topic and one which should be debated in a limited way, in any event. It is a matter which brings up a number of issues which have to be addressed over time. I do note, of course, that the Hon. Member passes some kudos on to the Clark Government of 1979 for opening up a public discussion on this matter. At the same time, it should be noted, he voted down that Government. So perhaps he was voting against down on this issue as well as for other reasons. He did not, obviously, want this to go ahead.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Government brought itself down.


Paul Wyatt Dick: No one is foolish enough to think that. You had a vote. Let's not be stupid.
October 22, 1985


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Address the issue.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Obviously, there is some inconsistency in what he is saying as the Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) pointed out.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Stop crying about 1979.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to shut up for a change.


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


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Perhaps you would like to talk about the issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would hope there would be a little more decorum. This is your Private Members' Hour. I would hope that the Hon. Member would be allowed to have his 20 minutes and then we could just carry on.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I listened quite patiently during the speech of the Hon. Member and I believe he raised the subject of the Clark Government and that it raised this subject as a public issue. I believe 1 can discuss some of the things the Hon. Member raised and if he does not like it, that is too bad, but he should be polite enough to listen to other people.
At the same time as the Hon. Member was talking about some things in the past, I think it would be appropriate to ask him if he does not think in proposing this moratorium he is throwing out the baby with the bath water? Does the Hon. Member want to throw out some of the things our nuclear industry has brought us such as the cobalt treatment which is used for cancer radiation? Does the Hon. Member want to stop the irradiation of food which is being carried out in order to preserve life and make for healthier people in the Third World where there is no refrigeration? Does the Hon. Member want to close down the nuclear isotopes factory in Kanata which produces nuclear medicine? There are a number of things which have been promoted and have been very beneficial not only to Canadians but to other people in the world and these things have come about as a result of nuclear power.
This country has been in the forefront of nuclear technology for 40 years. Nuclear power is one of the most complex technologies of the 20th century. It presents great challenges to policy makers due to the wide ranging technical, health, environmental, political and ethical questions it raises. For that entire 40 years Canada has been pledged to the peaceful use of nuclear technology and I believe we have done a very good job, by and large, on that. I do not want to minimize the fact that there are some problems which have to be dealt with and I have some sympathy with what the Hon. Member has to say, especially in the area of waste management. I am not particularly happy with the dragging of the feet in dealing with that topic. I remember back in the 1970s we were promised that matter would be pretty well solved by the mid-1980s. Here we are in the mid-1980s and now they are talking about the year 2000.
Nuclear Power
There are points on both sides but I feel to a great extent the benefits we in Canada have received to date outweigh the negatives with which we must deal. There is the negative in the ultimate use of nuclear bombs which has fortunately not taken place to a degree which has wiped out more than two cities and quite a few hundreds of thousands of people, which happened during a state of war many years ago. Hopefully, we in this world have learned something since then.
I would like to talk about the benefits we have received following a Canadian policy of peaceful use of nuclear energy. The Candu reactor is still one of the star performers on the national and international scene. I believe the last time I looked at the figures I saw that six out of the ten most efficient nuclear reactors in the world are the Candu reactors. Candu provides significant benefits to the Canadian economy of which there are many spin-offs. I know there are over 1,000 people employed in my constituency and many more than that in the constituency to the northwest, Renfrew, Nipissing and Pembroke. In 1984, nuclear power generated 12 per cent of Canada's electricity and will contribute about 20 per cent by the early 1990s. I believe it should be pointed out that in Ontario and New Brunswick nuclear energy today provides more than a third of our electricity requirements. Obviously we cannot just close that down. If we did close it down, what are the alternatives? We have dammed virtually all the rivers we can in Ontario. We would have to go to coal which is the only other source.


Mr. Waddell:: How about becoming energy efficient?


Paul Wyatt Dick: I am sure the Hon. Member will have the chance of opening his mouth at an appropriate time.
Ontario will produce over 60 per cent of its electricity by cost effective nuclear power by the early 1990s. There is no reason to impose a moratorium on nuclear power. It is safe, economical and environmentally benign. The system is working. We can always work to improve it but I do not think we should discard it.
The nuclear power generated in this country has proven safe. We have over 100 reactor years of operation in Canada without a radiation-related fatality. Ontario Hydro statistics show its nuclear workers are safer on the job than when away from work. Nuclear power is economical. Ontario electricity consumers have already saved some $2 billion through using nuclear rather than the only practical alternative, coal. In addition, Canada is saved from having to import almost $1 billion of coal annually from the United States.
A lot of the experts in the field now agree that the disposal of nuclear wastes should provide no problems. In fact the problems have not been solved, obviously to the satisfaction of the Hon. Member who introduced the motion. Nor have they been solved to my satisfaction. I am most anxious for them to get going and work on that problem. I am not willing to listen only to the AECL assessment. However, I believe we have to consider that in Canada we have received an awful lot of benefit from the continuing use of nuclear power. I do not think we have any immediate alternatives. Obviously we

October 22, 1985
Nuclear Power
cannot get rid of one-third of our power supply in Ontario overnight without considering what we have to replace it with, that is coal. Coal will, on the evidence, produce acid rain which will ruin our lakes, our forests, and cause a great amount of concern for those with environmental sensitivities. We would cause more problems with coal.
Why do we need a commission of inquiry? The nuclear industry is probably the most examined industry in Canada's history. The Ontario Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning has looked into this matter exhaustively. The previous and current Ontario select committees on hydro affairs have done the same. Federal and provincial environmental assessment panels have examined proposals for uranium mining and refinery expansion activities and the Candu reactor on many occasions. Various studies have been commissioned by the federal Government, such as the Canadian Nuclear Industry's Marketing Performance, and a strategy for developing and strengthening the Canadian nuclear industry. There have been nuclear policy review background papers, the Nuclear Industry Review Problems and Prospects, 1981 to the year 2000. They go on and on. None of these inquiries or studies has recommended a moratorium on nuclear power. All have recommended continuing the use of nuclear power where it is economically advantageious to do so. It is also interesting to note that previous inquiries have generated very limited public interest. The Hon. Member indicated in his speech that only a limited handful of people in the House supported his views. I must admit that when he said that it struck me that democracy was truly speaking. He does not claim he could persuade a majority of this House or a majority of Canadians to his view.
The Porter Commission, which sat for many years, developed very little public following or interest. The Ontario select committee hearings had virtually zero public attendance. Church sponsored hearings into nuclear issues held last year in Toronto were given little attention by the public and even less by the press. The previous NDP sponsored debate in this House in February of 1984 on the subject of a nuclear inquiry played to an almost empty House, including the press and public galleries. Why, then, do we need to have another commission of inquiry? Why do we need to have a national referendum? The choice of alternative electricity generating modes is based on complex technical, financial and economic analysis and it would be highly inappropriate to have a decision such as that taken by way of a referendum. Furthermore, under our system of parliamentary democracy, I do not believe referendums should ever be used altough some consider they may be used on occasion. I happen to believe that when you are elected as a Member of Parliament, you are elected to make a decision. If you have not been making good solid decisions over your term in office then the people, in their own way, will decide they do not want your decision-making ability anymore and will throw you out at the next election.
Canada has a nuclear record of which we can be proud. Yes, there can be concerns. Yes, we can always fan embers into
flames. However, this is a case where we have to consider all the other options available. We have to consider what has really been done, and not just make inflammatory statements which can be used in a demogogic way. We also have to recognize that the process can be enhanced through the peaceful use of nuclear energy. I do not think we sat back and decided whether we wanted a commission on whether we should use wheels or not. Wheels are also used in warfare and as society moved on we tried to adapt new inventions to peaceful use, at least in the majority of cases. The Candu technology, of which we can be justifiably proud, is one which has received an awful lot of support and accolades from around the world. Candu has been judged to be the most reliable and efficient reactor in the world. The nuclear industry in this country has been supported to a great degree by Governments because of the many beneficial spin-offs which have helped manking. I am thinking of cobalt treatments and the manufacturing of those devices by AECL to be sold to about 60 countries around the world. A process for irradiating food has been developed and it is being used in Third World countries to preserve food in fit condition for human consumption much longer than would otherwise be possible. Then we have nuclear medicine and a number of other uses for nuclear isotopes which are for peaceful purposes and mankind's gain.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if, considering we allowed a short question to our Member, whether the Hon. Member might permit me to put a short question to him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Do we have unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: One short question and one short answer.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In light of the Hon. Member's speech, how does he explain page 113 of the PC campaign handbook in the last election which said that the Conservatives advocated a full public inquiry into the future of nuclear power, and that they opened the nuclear power approval process to the public?


Paul Wyatt Dick: We certainly did not say on page 113 that we were going to have a moratorium and we're asking for a referendum. We have not done all the things we promised during the election campaign in the first 11 months, but I can say that we are implementing them at an awfully fast rate and this can be introduced at any time.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I must say that this Bill is the most retrograde piece of legislation I have ever in this House of Commons. The Hon. Member had some very interesting things to say. He quoted from the scripture: "What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?" Let me say to him that when it comes to energy in Canada the NDP have already lost their soul. It was rather interesting when the Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) put the question to him about a
October 22, 1985

national referendum. He wants a national referendum after his great research into the nuclear industry in Canada but he does not want a national referendum on capital punishment. I suppose he would not want a referendum on abortion or the rest of these moral issues, yet he is talking about nuclear energy as a moral issue. An Hon. Member says "job creation", and I am going to come to that.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) talked about the moral issue. Quite often I have heard speakers from his Party talk about how worried they are about the futur of their children and their children's children with regard to atomic energy. Let me suggest to the Member that the scientists, technicians and other people who work at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited or any other related industry also have children and their children will have children. Is he really saying, in a very moral way, to all those top scientists, researchers, labourers and technicians who work in those plants that they do not care for their children or their children's children? You bet they do.
We had up to 2,350 employees working at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at Chalk River until the axe of the Tory Government fell. Those people are my neighbours. They live in good clean communities. They go to work every day and their health is checked out. There are professional doctors at the plant. They have a biology unit and there are people who take soil samples. I wish the Hon. Member would go into one of these industries once in a while to really find out what they are all about.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I have been there.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: He talks about the emotional argument of Ontario Hydro and the nuclear industry. What could be more emotional, Mr. Speaker, than the speech he delivered today trying to put fear into the minds of people? I totally agree that the Candu reactor is the safest reactor in the world. He got that little piece in there too relating to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy; not really defining them, but relating them to the atomic bomb. That is where he went wrong. If the Hon. Member and his Party do not have the foresight to support the high technology that we have today in nuclear energy in the future, if they want to destroy that industry, they are inviting Canadians to return to the dark ages. All they need do is look at the oil industry and the gas resources of this country.
The Member is talking about alternate energy, Mr. Speaker. Alternate energy is a very, very small fraction of the energy that this country will need in the future.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Because of people like you.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Twenty years from now he will have to live with himself if nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is destroyed in this country because of the kind of argument that we are hearing today.
Let us talk about jobs. If Ontario Hydro had not taken part in the nuclear energy program, one-third of the industries in
Nuclear Power
the Province of Ontario would not have the energy to operate today. We would not have that "golden horseshoe" around Toronto, Oshawa, Hamilton, and Burlington. We would not have the population growth. What does the Member want to do? I always thought that New Democratic Party members were great environmentalists. Does he want to block up every river in this country? Does he want to block up James Bay and flood a large part of northern Ontario? That is one of the alternatives. Yet he says he is concerned about native property and native rights in Canada. He is not concerned about native rights if he is going to try to get enough hydro out of water resources for alternate energy to run this nation because he will not be able to find it. Canadian oil resources will be depleted and we will need something on which to run this country 10 years from now.
I very seriously suggest to the Hon. Member that his children and his children's children are going to ask their grandfather, the former Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill who is here in the House today, where he was when they needed him. We will have to spend billions of dollars importing energy. Since nuclear energy has come into the Province of Ontario it has saved the province in the neighbourhood of $4 billion on the purchase of coal from the United States. That is exported cash. Instead, we are using our own intellectual community, our own health care community, and our own labour resources to develop the Candu reactor which is the safest reactor on the face of the earth today.
The Member wants to represent labour in Canada as a New Democratic Party member. What is he going to say to labour when there is no energy to run the factories? What is he going to say to consumers in any part of Canada that operates a Candu reactor to produce hydroelectric power when their hydro bill increases by 40 per cent? The four Candu reactors at Pickering alone produce more hydroelectric power than it was ever dreamed would be produced by Niagara Falls. If we did not have those four Candu reactors every household in this country would pay 40 per cent more for their energy source.
This has other implications. If the hydro bills of consumers are going to increase 40 per cent because we have not made use of nuclear energy, what will happen to the manufacturing industry in the industrial core of Canada? Imagine how competitive we would be on the world market today if a Bill such as this, which virtually condemns nuclear energy, had been passed? We think we are having trade problems now, but they would be nothing compared to the problems we would have if we did not have cheap nuclear energy from Candu reactors.
I cannot help but feel very sad for people who condemn nuclear energy. They are really condemning the professional community of Canada which works with it. They do not tell us that the cobalt therapy unit for cancer treatment was produced by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. They do not mention that because it is too good an argument. The Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) mentioned medical radio isotopes which have become one of our greatest exports in high technology in this field. We produce many, many of these in Canada and ship them out and it is making money.

October 22, 1985
Nuclear Power
I want to conclude by saying that the people of Canada should not take this Bill seriously. The Porter Commission met for months and conducted hearings. While many people appeared before that Commission, there were very few of the public present. Raising fears and killing the Candu reactor, which is one of the finest high-tech and scientific processes, for energy production is like killing the future of this country.
The New Democratic Party can sponsor Bills like this as long as they want but they are condemning high-tech research in this country and condemning Canadians to higher costs of living, higher heating costs and condemning the industrial community in Canada to higher production costs. They will create a total lack of employment for Canadians in many areas of this country.
I suggest that we should follow the positive thinkers in the House and proceed with Atomic Energy of Canada research. We have the professionals who are capable of looking after our health and safety as we progress in this country. Let us not relate the peaceful uses of one of the finest industries in Canada to an atomic bomb. That is a phoney issue he has raised and does not reflect the serious effects which this Bill would have on the Canadian economy as a whole.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-231, which concerns nuclear power. The purpose of this Bill is to ask the Parliament of Canada to impose a moratorium on the use of nuclear power in order to proceed with a public inquiry on nuclear power, followed by a referendum.
Mr. Speaker, I intend my contribution to this debate to be constructive, realistic and to have a sense of perspective. It is not surprising that a Bill of this kind should be on the Table of the House today. There is ample justification for such a Bill, because we do not want to repeat past mistakes, especially if we recall that this year marks the 40th anniversary of the first time the atomic bomb was used. People are increasingly concerned about the use of nuclear power, and peace movements and environmentalists are making us listen to their concerns, which is a very good thing.
The general concept is of course a very valid one. However, it is very hard to visualize the logistics or the practical ramifications of such a project. Consulting the people is un-doutedly an excellent expression of parliamentary democracy. Given every person a chance to say what they think about a given subject would clearly show that in our political system, there is a very close relationship between the governing and the governed. However, Mr. Speaker, and I am speaking from my experience as mayor and as president of a number of organizations, in this particular case a referendum would be useful on one condition and that is that the subject would have to be simple, clear, and leave no room for any "ifs". The issue of nuclear power is very complex, and in my humble opinion,
very few Canadians would be able to evaluate the implications of a decision made simply by checking yes or no on a referendum slip. I would therefore like to take a few moments to elaborate.
Do Canadians realize that nuclear power is used in medical research to fight disease, to detect anomalies and to sterilize laboratory equipment? Do they know there is a process for preserving food by irradiation? Would people be able to consider all aspects of the issue if a referendum were held or even if a moratorium were imposed to give time to examine the question? Electing to stop research and development in the nuclear field would be tantamount to letting ourselves fall behind at the technological level and losing our position in an area where this country has now gained world recognition. Taking the risk of falling behind and losing our headstart is very risky indeed. Are people really well acquainted with the uses of nuclear power? It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that what we know best about nuclear power are its negative aspects. However, most Canadians know full well that our CANDU reactors are still in the forefront of nuclear technology. Mr. Speaker, 12 per cent of Canada's electricity is generated by nuclear power.
In Ontario, 85 per cent of the electricity is generated by nuclear power.
We should all recognize the value of the CANDU technology. Canada has developed a technologically advanced package that compares favourably on the international market. This remarkable achievement is the result of joint efforts by AECL, Ontario Hydro and other organizations. CANDU-produced electricity has an excellent safety, reliability and cost efficient record around the world.
In the summer of 1982, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources released a federal study on nuclear industry. According to the study, long term prospects for Canadian nuclear industry are excellent.
I should like to remind my hon. friend that nuclear power is the cheapest source of electricity in many areas of this country. Is he against progress? Is he more conservative than we think? In spite of the current low demand, CANDU reactors remain interesting both on the Canadian and international markets. They have immediate spinoffs which should not be ignored.
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., a Crown corporation, is currently going through a transition period. It has suffered because of a decreased international demand for nuclear reactors which make sales difficult. It remains committed to marketing and development efforts of its main product, the CANDU reactor, to make it competitive with other types of reactors.
October 22, 1985

In 1984, revenue from supply and services decreased by 25 per cent, going down to SI46.3 million, mostly because of the few openings in the nuclear reactor market.
In spite of these problems, the CENARVODA project is going forward and Rumania announced a long-term program to build ten CAN DU 600 reactors by the year 2000.
The corporation has signed an agreement in principle with Turkey and is now putting together a comprehensive financing program for the approval of Cabinet. The corporation might also sell other products to Korea, Japan, Yugoslavia and Indonesia, where the AECL has now reached the last stages in its negotiations to supply a nuclear research laboratory.
Mr. Speaker, there is light at the end of the tunnel and we must continue to work together as we strive for it. I am certain that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) has no intention of taking away the bread from the workers in this sector.
It is to be hoped that this marketing problem will solve itself in 1985-86.
To support its commitment to more a business-like approach in financial management, the Government has been taking action to improve the administration of public funds. After assessing the role of the AECL in the nuclear field, and especially its research and development activities, the Government has concluded that the CANDU technology has made its mark and is now quite well-known. This is why it decided to reduce the funds allocated to this corporation in its budget of May 1985.
This reduction will take place over the next five years to bring down the amount allocated to the corporation from the present yearly level of about $200 million to $100 million by the end of the decade. However, the Government will continue to emphasize health and safety research programs since these involve the long-term interests of both the Canadian nuclear industry and the users of CANDU technology. The AECL will have to find other potential sources of financing, particularly from major users of the CANDU reactors, such as Ontario Hydro, to compensate for the loss of financing resources for research and development activities brought about by the reduction of the contribution made by the federal Government.
In its budget of May 1985, the Government also announced the closure of two heavy water plants operated by the AECL in Cape Breton Island since the country already has abundant heavy water supplies and there are other sources of production available to meet all foreseeable needs of the Canadian and foreign markets.
The closure of these facilities should save the Government over $100 million a year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allotted for Private Members' Business has now expired.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty tonight to remind the House of this Tory Government's failure to establish a "Buy Canadian" policy in Canada in the area of transportation.
Last week I directed a question on this subject to the Minister of State (Transport) (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), and I see she is in her place tonight to listen and, hopefully, to try and clarify the very vague answers she gave me last week. I wanted to know whether her Government had a "Buy Canadian" policy in the area of transportation.
Her answer was that she was looking at the situation in order to find out whether there was in fact substitution from Canadian production in Montreal to production abroad. What joke!
Mr. Speaker, there is no need for the Minister to look at the situation to realize and understand that many companies in Montreal East which are directly related to transportation are closing down. Bombardier closed down their locomotive plant, because they had no contracts from the Government of Canada.
The CN has laid off 474 employees due to the closing down of its maintenance centre in Montreal, because of the policies of this Conservative Government. The CSW Ironworks have laid off 130 workers, because the contract for 1,000 rolling stock wheels for CP Rail was awarded to a Brazilian company. And the CSF Foundry, the survival of which is directly dependent upon the federal Budget, has had to lay off more than 500 employees.
What more does the Minister need to end her endless studies and take action? All she has to do is open her eyes and see what is going on in her own and in neighbouring Montreal constituencies.
The president of the CSF Foundry Steelworkers Local Union, Mr. Antonio Pennestri, believes the Minister of State (Transport) lacks interest and is showing great indifference to workers' problems.
Let me quote him:
If the Minister fails to move and to award rail car construction contracts, what will become of us?

October 22, 1985
Adjournment Debate
-this is what Mr. Pennestri is saying. Those words clearly show the concern and the insecurity that company's workers have to face.
As supplementary, I also asked the Minister of State (Transport) whether she would contact the Canadian railways to ensure that they buy rolling stock wheels made in Canada rather than in Brazil. The Minister answered that she was examining this issue to find out exactly how pertinent that matter could be. That was her answer! Ridicule never killed anyone. "How pertinent that matter could be". What does that mean? The workers of the Steelworkers Union do not know what the Minister means. To them, "the pertinent matter" is that under a Liberal Government, they were working, there were contracts for those companies. But now that the Conservatives are in power, there are no contracts and those workers are losing their jobs.
What is quite unbelievable about those 130 people laid off in the CSW Ironworks is that apparently, the contract for 6,000 rolling stock wheels granted to Brazil would save about SI00 per wheel to Canadian Pacific. Six thousand wheels at $100 each amounts to about $600,000. Now, due to the Progressive Conservative Government's inaction, those 130 workers who have been laid off will get unemployment insurance for 52 weeks, at about $275 per week, totalling $14,000 for 130 people. It means that the Government of Canada will have to pay out about $1.8 million. Thus, CP will save $600,000 but the Government of Canada will have to pay three times that amount in unemployment insurance benefits.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I find this situation quite ludicrous. The Minister must take action to ensure that from now on, Canadian railways buy their rolling stock in Canada. Otherwise, if the Conservative Government does not act, there will be more unemployed in this area and we will lose a vital sector of our rolling stock industry, which was established at the beginning of the century in the East End of Montreal, where a skilled and adequate labour force is there to do the job provided they get some help from the Government.
I hope that the Minister who has listened to me will finally take on her responsibilities and find some contracts to bring those people back to work as soon as possible.


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his interest-rather sudden, I must admit-in the workers of Montreal East. I will not comment on what might motivate him.
He seems to be blaming me for taking time to study a rather complex file involving such major railway companies as CN and CP. I met with CSW union president Antoine Pennestri who asked me a series of questions. I told him I would have answers to his questions within ten days, and I will have answers to Mr. Pennestri's questions within ten days.
Here is the latest update on this file. In 1984 the Canadian Government placed an order for 2,460 cars, the total amount of new railway cars for 1984 and 1985.
Projected hopper-car requirements are revised in November each year, but the current situation is somewhat special, in the sense that neither CN or CP, I am told, want to make predictions about the number of cars they will need, simply because the volume of rail freight has nosedived this year and railway companies do not expect it to go up again before two years. They are facing drastic cuts in coal, potash and wheat shipping, and their income has decreased accordingly.
In addition, CN and CP are still improving their rolling stock turn-around cycles, so they are making more special arrangements to avoid return trips with empty cars, thus resulting in greater efficiency and a better use of their rolling stock, and consequently a net decrease in the need to acquire new equipment.
With a net decrease in grain production and demand there seems to be no need for the railroads to increase their car capacity. Moreover they can make their own cars, as has been the case with the CN over the last few years. In doing so the CN now competes with production of hopper cars with companies such as CSW since CN can direct and determine its own production according to its needs.
Of course there are exceptions to that situation. In 1984 for example, CN was able to buy cars on a long term lease arrangement. This was very profitable for the company because it did not translate into an annual debt.
However, under that long term lease arrangement, the CN bought 1,600 hopper cars, which after only five years of use were still in top shape and at a unit price of only $20,000, as compared to the market price of $60,000 for new cars. Obviously, nobody would blame the company for trying to lower its deficit and do it in the most effective way possible by optimizing the use of its rolling stock.
On the other hand CP admits buying wheels from the Mafersa company in Brazil. According to CP, and this is something I was not aware of and I am trying to have it further investigated, the tests on those wheels proved very conclusive in view of the fact that according to CP they are of a higher quality and longer-lasting. We are obviously dealing with companies that have to be very competitive on the market place and which must do whatever they possibly can to remain so.


BANKS AND BANKING-MINISTER'S LETTER TO SHAREHOLDER. (B) POSITION OF SHAREHOLDERS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on October 10, I asked two questions of the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) concerning assurances she had given in a letter of August 9 to a worried shareholder of the Canadian
October 22, 1985

Commercial Bank. In that letter she assured the shareholder that the CCB was viable and could be expected to be profitable. If the shareholder had sold his shares at that point he might have received approximately $5 for each one he held. He had originally paid $25 for each one. However, on the basis of the Minister's assurances he held on to his shares and on September 1 the Canadian Commercial Bank closed its doors. This man found he had lost everything. He is not a particularly rich man. The money he had used to buy these shares was part of his retirement planning. He is a farmer who had begun to sell off some of his assets as he tried to relieve himself of some of the hard work of farming in preparation for his retirement.
I also have a letter from a 70-year old man, who is not rich either, who sold his home and was strongly advised that the Canadian Commercial Bank was a good place for him to put his money. He was told it would be a safe investment. He, too, by September 1 had lost everything.
I talked to a widow today who had $5,000 in shares in the Canadian Commercial Bank. This is not a large amount of money to everyone but it is a large amount to her. That money is now gone.
Closure was moved on a Bill which was before the House with respect to reimbursing uninsured depositors. These are depositors who, in any case, will receive up to $60,000 from the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation. A person with more than one account in the bank, perhaps a current account and a registered plan of some type, may receive more than $60,000. The Government is then moving to reimburse them fully for the difference between what the CDIC will pay and the amount of their total deposit.
Apparently, the Government is taking that stand because of statements made between March 25 and September 1, when Government officials made many, many public declarations that the Canadian Commercial Bank was safe, secure, viable and would be profitable in the future. March 25 was the date the Government arranged a bail-out for the bank and injected some $255 million into it. September 1, of course, is the date the bank closed its doors. The Government has, therefore, taken the line that there is some kind of moral obligation created by the statements to pay out all depositors in full. But the Government is not taking the same position with respect to the debenture holders or the preferred shareholders.
My Party takes the position that any moral obligation there may be to pay out uninsured depositors-and perhaps it is a little grandiose to call it a moral obligation-was created by Government incompetence and should not be be binding on the taxpayers of this country. We would not be opposed to setting up some kind of hardship fund for which people could apply, but it seems that some of the shareholders might have just as much claim on a hardship fund as some of the depositors.
The banks who participated in the bail-out on March 25 are also taking the position that if the Government has a moral obligation to depositors, it has the same moral obligation to the
Adjournment Debate
banks. We must remember that this is a wholesale bank so the depositors are not, by and large, small individual accounts. The depositors are businesses. And while the breakdown we have been given of categories of deposits shows some individuals, it also shows at least two individuals in for very large amounts-in the nature of $1 million. So we are not generally talking about very poor depositors. We are talking about a lot of commercial paper. And some of the banks are taking the position that the Government by its statements has created an obligation to depositors, therefore there is a similar obligation to the banks who participated in the bail-out.
The banks asked for, as a condition of their bail-out, a letter saying that the bail-out would make the Canadian Commercial Bank viable. They received such a letter dated April 26, signed by the Inspector General of Banks. Between the time of the bail-out and April 26 the banks had been pressuring the Government to do a closer examination of the situation of the Canadian Commercial Bank.
The Bank's original request to have this done on the weekend of March 22-25 was refused. Nothing happened before April 26 when they received the letter saying that the Canadian Commercial Bank was viable. Again, this was a letter clearly based to a large extent on faith. At some point after April 26 a more serious look was taken at the assets of the Canadian Commercial Bank. At the end of June, Mr. Hitch-man was appointed and we know the results. Therefore, 1 would ask the Government to explain what responsibility it is prepared to undertake for its many misleading statements, not only to depositors but to shareholders and to the participants in the bail-out?


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and answer the question raised by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) concerning our Government's decision not to reimburse ordinary Canadian Commercial Bank and Northland Bank shareholders.
The Members of this noble institution are aware that Bill C-79, which was finally adopted this afternoon, will provide adequate compensation for the regular depositors of the banks that went bankrupt. As the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall) told the House, the Government feels it would be unfair if the depositors who left their money with the banks, thus contributing to efforts made to keep the two financial institutions on an even keel, were to see their money go up in smoke, whereas others who withdrew their deposits during the summer got all their money back, under quite similar conditions.
Our Government is prepared to compensate the depositors of the institutions that went bankrupt. However it does not intend to extend that support to other categories of investors, that is creditors and ordinary investors, including the debenture holders and shareholders of those banks. Investors should know that debentures and ordinary shares involve a higher inherent

October 22, 1985
Adjournment Debate
risk than simple deposits. Prior rank investors who bought bank debentures did so in the hope of getting higher interest than those granted to ordinary depositors. In return for this higher yield, the holders of those debentures voluntarily assumed part of the risks that come with any commercial undertaking.
Other junior rank investors who bought shares of those banks, in order to participate without limit in the profits of those two institutions, rank equally. They acted in the hope of getting a higher after-tax yield than that given to the depositors of those banks. Shareholders of any private commercial venture, be it a bank or a small business, must be willing to accept the risk of a bankruptcy in compensation for higher gains they would have pocketed if the business had done well.


EMPLOYMENT A) REQUEST THAT MONTREAL EAST BE DESIGNATED DEPRESSED AREA. (B) CITIZENS' COMMITTEE AND UNION CHAIRMEN-MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, what I have just heard from the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) and from the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) is a shame.
Mr. Speaker, my speech tonight has to do with the incompetence, the lack of understanding, the failure of the Conservative Government, in the face of the 5,000 jobs which will be lost in the East End of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the answer of the Hon. Minister of State (Transport) (Mrs. Blais-Grenier)- usherette and porter; yesterday I had to defend the Minister in committee. I thought there was someone on the Conservative side who was human enough to think of those workers and I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance in waiting, the Hon. Member for LaSalle, stands up for the rich.
Mr. Speaker, my question was put to the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). The situation is tragic; 5,000 jobs will be lost by Christmas, which means that 5,000 fathers will not be able to buy Christmas baskets, as the Hon. Member for LaSalle will be, gifts for their children, not mentioning the consequences of this situation in the East End of Montreal . . . and I hear inhuman answers from the Minister of State (Transport) and Hon. Member for Rosemont, and from the Hon. Member for LaSalle, Minister of Finance in waiting; they do not understand at all the problem of the unemployed and of the workers, Mr. Speaker.
I would hope that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Hudon) who has a problem of plant closing in his own constituency, will not give an answer as stupid as those we got from the Hon. Minister of State (Transport) and from the Hon. Member for LaSalle, and say: The deficit ... if everyone wants to make
money, there will not be any workers left in Quebec and in Canada, and companies will close their doors.
At the rate at which the Conservative Government . . . and my answer to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration is the following: Why,- and I hope that, unlike his colleague from LaSalle, he will not read from a text prepared by officials-why is the Government not prepared to declare the East End of Montreal a disaster area and offer the best possible program which would give grants to any firm wanting to modernize and early retirement to all the workers in the East End of Montreal who want to retire. Why was this Government able to find $1 billion when it came to bailing out banking institutions, Mr. Speaker, in order to help a small gang of depositors with $1 million in bank accounts? We have never been told that those depositors were not the fat cats of the Conservative Party in western Canada. Why is his Government not able to find money to save jobs in East End Montreal?
I would like the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to tell me whether his Minister is willing to declare East End Montreal a disaster area and grant it better programs rather than keeping institutions alive. We on the Liberal side are concerned with people. Those are working men and women, Mr. Speaker. And I sincerely hope that, contrary to his two colleagues who spoke earlier, he will reply with his heart, because he has the same problem in his constituency.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat what my hon. colleague said right at the start when he rose to speak. What we hear is an absolute shame. It is outrageous, Mr. Speaker, and it is true that in my constituency of Beauharnois-Salaberry, I also have similar though slightly different problems, as they relate to the textile industry.
But it took the elections of September 4 for my hon. colleague opposite to find out that East End of Montreal existed.


Jean-Claude Malépart: They were not closing down, Mr. Speaker!


Jean-Guy Hudon: No, they were not closing down, Mr. Speaker, but thirtheen refineries were shut down in Canada. And how we have all that fuss because one is closing down. History is repeating itself, Mr. Speaker.
During the debate on the de-indexation of Old Age Security pensions, Mr. Speaker, I reminded my hon. colleague of the speeches he made in 1982. It was a shame, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Claude Malépart: We won, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Guy Hudon: You lost Sir.
Mr. Speaker, isn't it also outrageous that the Hon. Member has just discovered that some people benefit from the indexa-
October 22, 1985

tion of family allowances and yet he knows thousands of people. I am glad to know that they are people with incomes of $25,000 or more, because they are the ones who are going to get it, the ones who will lose. That, Mr. Speaker, is outrageous.
Mr. Speaker, nothing is more easily done than to declare a designated area. Some existing programs deal with the adjustment of workers. Not the former CMAP program, but there is an adjustment program, some kind of assistance. I am referring to the notes submitted by the officials, my hon. colleague-


Jean-Claude Malépart: You see, he has no knowledge of the facts.


Jean-Guy Hudon: I am aware of the conditions, Mr. Speaker. I worked with the manpower adjustment committee and I know how it operates. But it takes a unanimous support and 1 think that we are getting it from both the federal and provincial Governments, local communities and private institutions. And the federal Government pays up to half of the expenditures to
Adjournment Debate
relocate the workers. This is what is happening in my constituency.


Jean-Claude Malépart: They want to move in the West. They want to work.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Well, Sir-
As for the paper and the questions raised by my colleague, the programs are now in effect and they will continue to be implemented as well as the new programs for the development of employment or the whole area of community development and, secondly, the whole area of innovation. This is how we will save the East End of Montreal, and we were aware of the situation before he was, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the house is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 23, 1985