1985-03-12

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fraser that Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to make a few comments on the speech of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rai-ny River (Mr. Parry) last evening.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions, comments and answers.


James Douglas Manly: I was very interested to hear the Hon. Member point out that at an earlier phase in his career he had served as a deck-hand on the United Church mission vessel, Thomas Crosby V. Although the Hon. Member has sat behind me for the past several months, I did not realize that we had that previous connection. I also have some fairly extensive connections with the Thomas Crosby V which serves the West Coast of Canada. It moves up and down along the north Pacific coast of British Columbia and visits a great many fishing communities which are very important and can be affected by the impact of this Bill. From the time I was associated with the Thomas Crosby V until now, a number of these communities have suffered a great deal because of different changes which have taken place in the fishing industry. I recall the opposition in many of these communities to the Davis licensing plan which forced many Indian Fishermen out of the industry. It was an attempt, as the Government at that time said, to rationalize the industry. Many people were rationalized and pushed right out of it. Communities like Klemtu which used to have a cannery no longer has one. We find more and more that the industry has been concentrated at Prince Rupert and in the lower mainland. In the last few years, the Port Edward area has suffered a great deal as more and more of the industry has been concentrated in the lower mainland.
This is a very important consideration in terms of this Bill. We would like some assurances from the Minister that the provisions of the Bill, which give almost absolute and total authority to the Minister and his Department, will not be used
in a way that will work against communities up and down the coast. The New Democratic Party is basically asking the Government to take a second look at the legislation. We are supposed to have a Chamber of sober second thought. We in the NDP do not really believe that we need that Chamber. We believe the Government can take a sober second look at legislation within the House of Commons. We do not need the Red Chamber to do it. This is why our Leader yesterday moved a motion to abolish the Senate. It is unfortunate that the Conservative Government backed down from its claims of last week that it was prepared to move on the issue. We are asking the Government to take a sober second look at the legislation.
We recognize that, as a result of the Collier decision last summer, there are certain things which the Government has to do to bring its fisheries legislation into line with what needs to be done. The Department of Fisheries needs to have the power to regulate the industry, but we say that if it is to have that power, it should be in a way that safeguards the industry. We do not want it to be an absolute power. It should be a power which the Department will be able to use to manage the industry consistent with conservation and social and economic goals that can be determined by the participants in the industry.
When the Minister spoke on this issue last February, he outlined a series of concerns. At the very top of the list was industry participation in management. He made some very tentative moves in that direction, but we have not seen the kind of assurances that this legislation is going to deal with that in a straightforward manner.
[DOT] (mo)
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are motioning for me to stop. I commend the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) on his speech. I urge that the Minister take a second look at this legislation and give his assurance that our concerns will be met.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act. This Bill has had a fair bit of debate in the last few days, I think with reason. The Fisheries Act has been criticized by some in my Party for not recognizing the need for full consultation by the participants in the industry. Our speakers have pointed out that the new amendments to the Act will rest a great amount of power with the Minister. In fact, he will have absolute power.
There is some doubt as to whether the powers that are being granted to the Minister are good for the industry. It is not clear how those powers will be implemented by the Minister.

March 12, 1985
Fisheries Act
There has been no past practice to provide for the very sudden changes in policy that will be permitted under the proposals in this Bill.
There are some questions as to the relationship between our fisheries and that of the United States, the particular agreements that we work out between our two countries and the means whereby we administer those agreements. We are not certain that those are fair. All of the industry people still are not certain that a consensus has been reached.
The process of Parliament and the activities of the fishery people would be best served if this Bill were given a hoist and if further study went into it. As a consequence, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Alt-house) may continue his speech.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I think, Mr. Speaker, I have made my point that the Bill should be hoisted, and I rest my case.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) speaking on questions and comments or on debate?


Mr. Skelly:: On questions and comments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) made a very wise decision to recommend to the House the hoisting of this legislation for six months. It is apparent that the Government is asking for some extremely wide powers, almost absolute powers, to allocate fish. For many, many years, we in the House of Commons have listened to Conservative opposition Members condemn the abuse of what was virtually absolute power by the previous Liberal Government, only to see them turn around and repeat the sins for which they cursed the other Party.
There is no doubt that we cannot allow a Bill establishing this kind of absolute power to proceed through the House of Commons without having the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) give the House in written form the guidelines by which this allocation will take place. Will he in fact ensure that each of the traditional fisheries now present in the industry will have a place? Will these fishermen be entitled to their traditional shares? Will the Minister make a commitment that there will be an effective consultative process before those shares of the catch are changed? Will this be done by consensus or through some acceptable form of agreement?
These are the kinds of questions the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre has provided the House an opportunity to consider.
In addition, it was a very wise move on the part of the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre and the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) to allow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) an opportunity to put on the record how the Government will honour the election promises it made and how it will develop a set of guidelines for a fair and equitable approach to allocation of the resource. It is surprising that the Government itself has not sought an opportunity to do this. After all, we have witnessed the mismanagement of the fisheries resource for years and years. Many people supported the Conservative Party because of the promises it made in the firm belief that Conservative Members would not repeat some of the sins of members of the previous Government who made decisions in a very arbitrary fashion, decisions which in some cases were very harmful. For many years, the loudest voice and the squeakiest wheel got the grease.
Just for the sake of argument, let us say that every fish is worth $10. We are taking a horrendous pile of S10-bills and allocating them. The Minister would then have the absolute right to allocate that money to the fisheries on the West Coast and even presumably to the fisheries on the East Coast. The Minister would then have the absolute power to determine who receives money, who has the right to earn a living and who has the right to acquire income. I believe the Government has an obligation to give to the House of Commons and the people of Canada an indication of how this will take place.
The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre and the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon made a very responsible and serious move by placing this motion before the House because the track record of the present Government in two extremely important areas, the areas of keeping election promises and of treating people fairly, has not been good. This motion will give the Government an opportunity to justify its activities.
Just to make a few quick points in support of this hoist motion, we know that the Government promised a co-management mechanism. We know that it promised that there would be a $200-million salmon enhancement program. We know that it promised a buy-back program worth $100 million. Those promises have fallen by the wayside, or at least we know nothing of them because the Minister refuses to appear before the committee to lay any guidelines before us. He just allows this Bill to roll merrily along through the House. It is known far and wide that the Conservative Government has an overwhelming number of Members. Those Members can stomp into the earth any initiative which is taken by the Opposition to obtain some equity and fairness for the people of Canada. They can do that and they have demonstrated it.
There are three examples of broken promises in this one industry. I would like to speak about the question of fairness.
March 12, 1985

On the West Coast of Canada fishermen must pay moorage fees. Those fees are becoming excessive. The Government recently doubled those fees. However, on the East Coast of Canada there are very few fishermen who pay moorage fees.
We are debating whether the motion to hoist is appropriate. In the presentation of the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre it was made very clear that the motion was appropriate. It will allow the Minister a chance to explain what guidelines and co-management mechanisms will be created. We have allowed the Minister and members of the Government an opportunity to explain why the lapses in fairness exist, such as the horrendous discriminatory situation of the moorage rates. It is absolutely untenable that an inequity which was placed in position by the previous Government would be continued by a Government whose sacred trust was fairness and openness. That does not exist.
On broken promises and fairness I believe the Government has failed very seriously. Government Members sit in shock wondering at the reason why a simple Bill such as this one would not be passed like fishery Bills have normally been passed. Normally there is a speaker from each Party, the Minister is open and forthright and we understand what the import of the Bill is, therefore, it goes to committee. Not this time. To bring to the attention of the House the recent salmon-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I would like to check to see if there are other Members who wish to speak during this period, as only ten minutes are allowed.


Mr. Fraser:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser).


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) has moved that this Bill be hoisted for six months. He knows absolutely nothing about West Coast fisheries, Atlantic fisheries or northern fisheries, but I understand he has several sloughs in his riding. He was brought in-


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on a point of order.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, that is an assumption which cannot be sustained. I think it was an attempt to insult the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre and the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon. I think the Minister should probably withdraw his reference to the slough.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think that is a question of debate and not a point of order.
Fisheries Act


John Allen Fraser: That remark was certainly not intended to cast a slur on the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre, it was intended to cast a slough. Of course, that is what I mentioned.
The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) has risen again in indignation-because that is what is mostly contained in that gentleman's thinking capacity-and has asked the House to delay passage of the Bill for six months. The Hon. Member ought to know-although it will not surprise me if he does not-that the powers which are being asked for are powers which have always been deemed to have been in the Act but were found not to have been there as a consequence of the Collier decisions. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River is playing games on a subject about which he knows extremely little.
He spoke about the fact that the Government has not been prepared to come to the House and lay down guidelines which will govern for all time the exercise of powers under the Act. The Hon. Member must be the most ingenuous of newcomers in his approach to the difficulties and problems of ordinary Government if he_Thinks that under any circumstance he or anybody else could submit a set of guidelines which, in all cases, would look after the concerns which he has mentioned. The proposal to hoist the Bill for six months is irresponsible and is done deliberately. I would hope that the motion has been put with the full knowledge of how silly it is. I am prepared to concede to my hon. friends in the NDP that it may well have been done out of plain silliness and lack of understanding. It reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of the silly member of the New Democratic Party in the Legislature of British Columbia who on Friday went to the press and said that we were cutting the salmonid enhancement program by $10 million. When it was pointed out to him what was in the Estimates, he, of course, had nothing to say. The disease of misconception, irrelevance, ignorance and foolishness, whether it flows from the NDP in this Chamber to the Legislature of British Columbia or whether it has spread from the NDP in the Legislature of British Columbia to the NDP in this Chamber, seems to be a communicable disease among our hon. friends.
[DOT] (U25)


Raymond John Skelly: May I put a question or make a comment, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, the time for questions and comments has expired. We will resume debate.


Raymond John Skelly: In speaking in debate, Mr. Speaker, I can say that I am actually extremely pleased that the Minister rose to his feet and commented on the fishing industry in this country. Before we proceed any further I can tell the Minister-and I don't know whether his officials have taken the time to inform him of this-that a prominent group of users on the coast of British Columbia, when asked in committee last night what they would recommend the House should do with this Bill; would they prefer that the House pass this Bill without guidelines or should it
2914

March 12, 1985
Fisheries Act
remain in the House until the Minister rose in his place and explained what was happening, no matter how long it took, these people replied, yes, they would like to see it stay in the House until they know whether they are going to have a guaranteed place in the industry. It is regrettable that a Minister of the Crown can stand in this House and make such a blatant, I think, misrepresentation of what is actually happening and what the wishes of the user groups are, every one of whom has been contacted and everyone of whom has said unilaterally across the board, "Don't let that Bill go through until the Government gives us an idea of who is going to be pushed out of this industry and who is going to remain in it".
The Minister knows full well that he has made private deals-or suggested information which would have led people to believe they had private deals-on the allocation of fish. We are not going to tolerate that. No responsible legislator would tolerate that kind of thing.


John Allen Fraser: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is really a point of privilege. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River has every right to debate. He has no right to accuse me of making private deals which have not been made.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond John Skelly: On the same point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that there have been groups who have come before the Minister and have left thinking there was a deal. It may not have been a deal in the Minister's mind, but certainly the kind of information which has been imparted to certain groups has left them with the impression that they do have a deal, something to fall back on.


John Allen Fraser: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River is compounding his sin. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not have to stand here and take accusations which literally call me a liar. That is what the Hon. Member is doing. I suggest that he withdraw his accusation, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair rules that this is not a point of order. I would ask the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) to continue on debate.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Government must provide guidelines. The user groups are telling the Minister and the Government very clearly that they recognize the seriousness of this problem and that chaos could develop in the industry, but the chaos is not of their making. The chaos is of this Government's making because it has failed to adopt a base line of operations, some simple guidelines which would assure everyone a position in the industry, a guarantee that they could maintain the type of proportional shares which have been available in the past until a mechanism can be developed which would allocate that resource fairly and equitably.
That is the issue in the House. There is no attempt in reality to insult the Minister and no attempt to cast a slur on the Government. There is no point in standing up in this House and kicking opposition Members. What we want to see is
co-operation. We want to see the Minister laying down guidelines from which user groups can benefit. We want the Minister to come before the committee to tell us what is going on, even if he is not prepared to tell other people in the public domain. That would lead to better communication in this House.
It is the user groups, Mr. Speaker, the people we represent, who are saying, "Hold this Bill". It is not an irresponsible move, it is something that any responsible legislator, especially in opposition, would do. When we asked some questions about the salmon treaty, when would we see it and get it before committee, the Government said it had already agreed to it. It was outrageous that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should have stood up in this House and criticized the NDP for asking questions about this treaty and then, down the road, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans admitted that there are serious problems with the treaty but that the Prime Minister wants it very badly. We then found out that the Prime Minister never even read the document. It went through Cabinet in 30 minutes so the Prime Minister would have something to give away to his new found friend in the United States. That is totally outrageous and unacceptable. I see the Minister is dancing around in his chair. I would love to have him jump to his feet and comment on that particular act of faith.
This motion to hoist the Bill provides the House with an opportunity to look more calmly at the question. There are other points of view which both government Members and the Opposition can put on the record. This motion is an excellent idea, it gives us some time. There is no point in taking the Bill before a committee until we have some idea of what the Minister's game plan for the fishery will be. We all know the Minister to be an honourable gentleman of good intentions, but he has been somewhat constrained and confined by his colleagues who have a philosophical fixation which is alien to this country. They want to cut money from a basic resource of the coastal provinces of this nation. They want to cut personnel from the departments involved. In reality, the Prime Minister simply wants to trade off with the President of the United States something which he sees as being of little value in return for something he sees as being of major value. But we as Canadians still do not know what that is.
Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that second reading of this Bill means- approval in principle, and we will then not have a chance to change its elements substantially. Given the Government's overwhelming majority, it is very hard for the Opposition in committee to resist arbitrary changes. We know the Bill is out of the public eye when it is in committee. Time allocation is much easier to impose in committee. If we pull our finger out of the dyke, we might as well approve the Bill all the way through.
The Minister has said he will take all the responsibility for what happens on the salmon treaty. Well, we know there are some problems with the treaty. Could he come before the
March 12, 1985

committee to explain his intentions to us? We know that during the election there were some candidates from his Party who roamed the coast of British Columbia promising a salmo-nid enhancement program. Could he come before the committee to tell us what his intentions are? He criticized a provincial colleague of mine from British Columbia for possibly having a different interpretation of that program and the time frame in which it would operate. If he came before the committee, he could clear those problems up, but it seems he would rather sit here in his ivory tower.
What about the buy-back program? Allocation will be on the basis of the fishing vessel. Who will have fishing vessels and who will not? Is there a buy-back program costing $100 million or is there not? We have a serious dilemma because we do not know what is doing on in the fishing industry. We do not know what the new directions are. We know there are broken promises, we know this Government is adopting, maintaining and embellishing the sins of the previous Liberal Government in some fishing areas. We know there is some blatant unfairness. What is the Minister going to do to clean up those particular problems?
I raise again the question of moorage fees. There is no way in the world to justify the fact that fishermen on the West coast must have their moorage fees jacked up by 100 per cent when at the same time fishermen in the Province of Prince Edward Island and the Province of Newfoundland pay no fees. It was pointed out in committee by department officials that there are 40,000 fishing vessels in Canada. Some 32,000 of those are registered from Quebec east into Atlantic Canada. About 90 per cent of these vessels do not pay moorage fees, the bulk of which are under 45 feet in length. I see the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) is in the House. Why is he not screaming from the rooftops for equity and fairness in this matter? We are not advocating that eastern Canadians have their income further diminished. Trying to eke out a living on the East Coast of Canada is just as hard as it is on the West Coast. But why are people in the Government not on their feet telling the Minister to go before the committee to explain why he is doing this or else to get rid of the inequity. Let the people in British Columbia have a fair chance at earning a living. No one is getting rich out there, it is a tough time.
One of the most outrageous things I have ever heard in my life, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the Government is contemplating getting out of the business of supplying insurance for fishing vessels. The Government knows that private companies will not insure all those vessels. It knows that in some cases insurance rates have gone up 100 per cent. Yet the deadline is drawing closer, April 1 is approaching. There are a large number of fishing vessels which, if we believe the Minister's officials, are going to lose their insurance. Yet the Government is going to wait until March 20 before it makes a decision. Someone who needs to go fishing on March 22 will suddenly find his insurance is gone. One of the conditions of the lending institution is that the vessels be insured. When the insurance is gone, the loan is foreclosed, he loses his vessel and the ability
Fisheries Act
to earn an income. To go and find an independent insurer, the fishermen will have to pull their boats out of the water, have a marine surveyor come along, assess the boat for insurance purposes and then they have to wait to see whether they will be accepted or rejected.
It is not irresponsible to ask that this Bill be hoisted for six months, Mr. Speaker. Certainly there are other options. User groups want it postponed until we get the guidelines. The House wants the Minister to appear before the committee to tell us what the over-all game plan is. Surely that is not too hard to do in respect of the Estimates and the annual report, just out of courtesy to the committee. Fishermen are facing very serious deadlines with regard to moorage and insurance which will affect their livelihoods. The Minister has an obligation to tell them what is happening.
I would suggest that my language was certainly harsh. But the Minister knows that that is not a personal thing. It comes from a feeling of frustration. I know, as we all do, of the overwhelming task with which he is faced. However, there are certain things which must be done. In executing the duties that fall to him as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, he has responsibilities to Canada, the Government and fishermen which he must live up to.
That is the reason the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre and the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon moved the motion in the House. The Minister could stop this debate immediately by appearing before the committee, laying guidelines before the House on allocation, and giving us some indication on the record of what the game plan is to be. Unless this is done, he leaves us very little option. A responsible Opposition cannot allow a Bill such as this to be passed.
We recognize that when the Government wins a majority of 211 seats such as it has, it overwhelms the Opposition completely. We know that there are options. The Government can drag out any decision by having the Opposition talk it out until it has essentially bled it white and by not putting forward any opposition to a Bill such as this. We know that there is closure. However, in the past the Government has criticized that mechanism severely. It would be useful if the appropriate route to resolving this impasse were taken. The Minister must appear before the committee, give us some guidelines on how that allocation process is going to take place, and give us an indication of how the people who have used the resource are going to have a place in it. Will they maintain, as a base, traditional shares? Or has he in fact, through the salmon treaty, placed himself in an awkward position?
The Minister knows full well that there is a native dimension to this issue. There are a great number of native people on the coast of British Columbia who share in the industry. I will use rough figures as an illustration rather than absolute figures. Many user groups are saying that native people should have a participation rate at their traditional level. We all recognize that it is complex, but we want to know that the Minister is working on it and that he has a game plan to bring

March 12, 1985
Fisheries Act
people from a participation rate of around 5 per cent to a rate of 20 per cent. Further than that, native people at the 5 per cent participation level are in danger of losing their vessels. Will they be taken out of the native fishery? Will their participation rate be reduced? We do not know any of this. We must know what direction the Minister is taking.
There are communities on the coast of B.C. which depend on the resource. The previous federal Government was doing enormous harm to those communities that could have been prevented, or at least those communities could have been prepared for the shock of financial change. The Minister recognizes that communities on the coast of British Columbia are tremendously dependent upon the fisheries. When the Minister makes a decision on who will receive the fish and how those fish will be taken, he determines whether those communities will live or die. As he moves the fishing plant, the local bank does not receive business so it leaves town. Local businesses leave town and gradually there is an implosion which blows the community away.
I recognize that my time is nearly up, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to recap the last point, which has been made many times in the House. I hope that my colleagues from the Liberal Party will comment on this hoist motion and on the issue of promises and fairness as related to Atlantic Canada which I have not had an opportunity to develop in my presentation. I hope that they will rise and comment on this as well.
The Minister must appear before the committee on the Estimates and on the annual report to give us an idea of what is happening, what his intentions are, and what direction the new Government is taking. I am hoping that that will occur very soon. Let us have some indication of what is going on in there. Let him give us an indication, and perhaps on that basis this Bill can be moved to committee and we can get this legislation in place so that it can be applied to the fishing plan which is under development. We will see this summer whether it will hold up constitutionally.


John Allen Fraser: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my hon. friend from Comox-Powell River that I sensed in his remarks some softening of what he called the harshness of his earlier comments. I will accept that as an indication that perhaps we can have a dialogue. I will use this procedure to communicate with him through you, Mr. Speaker.
More than any Fisheries Minister in a number of years, I have met with all of the various groups on the West Coast. I see that my hon. friend is nodding because he knows that. 1 have been in his riding on several occasions and have accepted his invitiation to meet with groups which he co-operated with me in seeing. The Member knows that I have met with a great many groups on our West Coast. I am confining my comments to the West Coast except to say that I have been in every province in Atlantic Canada twice and in Quebec three times.
I have been meeting equally there and will be returning there. Any suggestion that I have not been out and about where the fish and fishermen are is not valid.
Through the Minister's Advisory Committee in British Columbia, the Sports Fishing Advisory Board, the Vessel Owners Association, the Pacific Trollers Association, the UFAW, and a host of other organizations, I have spoken repeatedly in the last six months and given my views on the fishery in the Province of British Columbia. Put very simply, they are, first, the maintenance and re-establishment of the salmon runs. Second, the continuation in a viable form of what we would call the commercial fishery on the West Coast, keeping in mind the lifestyle there. Third, the recognition that there is a growing commercial sports fishing interest which must be recognized. Fourth, that never again after the treaty will any federal Minister of Fisheries be able to set down fisheries policy on the West Coast without consultation with the provincial Government.
There is now a realization that the fishery is of great economic value to the economy of British Columbia, especially in these dreadful times when we have 15 per cent unemployment. The Hon. Member knows also that I am committed to having the Minister's Advisory Committee evolve into an industrial board. He knows also that I have made a commitment that any recommendations that the Minister's Advisory Committee gives me, or the board if it is to be formed at the wishes of the Minister's Advisory Committee, will all be made public at the wish of the board or the Minister's Advisory Committee.
The Hon. Member knows all this, so the suggestion that I am somehow operating behind closed doors or behind some shield of secrecy is not accurate. It is not true, it is not my style, and it is not so.
My hon. friend has suggested that I could come before the committee. I have never refused to come before the committee for any reason at all. I will come before the committee on Estimates or any other matter that the Hon. Member wishes. He says that no one has talked about the fishing vessel insurance program. There was a delegation here from Atlantic Canada yesterday meeting with the officials of the Department. There was a delegation before the committee yesterday talking about this issue. An associate deputy minister will be on the West Coast on Tuesday discussing it. Contrary to what my hon. friend was suggesting-and I do not blame him for suggesting it-we are very much aware of the difficulty with the vessel insurance program if the federal Government should abruptly withdraw from it. As I have said to many other groups and I say to the Hon. Member-and I am sure he will accept this-I have no intention to proceed in such a way as to leave any fisherman in Canada unable to get insurance.
Coming back to what I take are some mollifying words from my hon. friends, if my hon. friend is suggesting that 1 come before the committee immediately to expand on what I just said, I am prepared to do so. If that would assist the Hon. Member and his Party in moving this legislation along, I will be glad to do that.
March 12, 1985

I do want the Hon. Member and the House to understand that in discussions with my hon. friend, in perfectly appropriate discussions before the Bill was debated and afterwards, my friend made the suggestion to me that I write down fixed guidelines within which any Minister would operate under the powers the Bill would have with these amendments. I even considered doing that until I heard my hon. friend talking about absolute guarantees of traditional percentages. The moment my friend says that, it puts any Minister of Fisheries in an almost hopeless position because traditional percentages have been adjusting and changing on the West Coast. They have been adjusting and changing by agreement among the different user groups. There will have to be some adjustments in that. 1 say to you with all frankness, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot come in front of the House and write down a guideline that makes promises that I think will be almost impossible to fulfil in their exactitude.
If my hon. friend wants me to come before the committee and be questioned-it is an unusual procedure, ordinarily this would happen only when this Bill goes to committee-but if my hon. friend is asking me to speed up the process by adjourning this debate and going before the committee to be questioned, I am only too ready to do that.
1 want to say through you, Mr. Speaker, that I know the Hon. Member well. We have a high regard for each other, I believe. It was necessary for me, perhaps, to be a little bit acerbic this morning, but myhon. friend has, in the best traditions of the House of Commons, come back with a soft answer and now perhaps he can consider the comments 1 have made. I will be very interested to hear what his Party and, of course, what my friends in the Official Opposition have to say to that.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I think progress has been made. 1 would like to make a brief comment on the guideline situation. We were not looking for fixed guidelines, in the sense that they would bind the Minister forever, or to have a totally fixed framework. What we were looking for is the acknowledgement that traditional user groups in the industry would continue to exist and that their rough percentages of involvement would be maintained until by agreement with the user group committee, that could be changed. Therefore, no one would be forced out and they could anticipate, in the short term at least, an acceptable level of presence based on the historical frame.
I do not hear a lot of difference in what the Minister is saying. The other suggestion is that maybe this debate could be adjourned for a period of time, leaving the Government to move on to the Bretton Woods Agreements Bill or whatever its second order of business is, so we could move this Bill to committee and take a quick look at what the Minister has in mind, might be a very useful process.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) referred a couple of times in his remarks to my being in the House and he wanted to know why I had not objected to the policies concerning fishing of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser). I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is the most available Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
Fisheries Act
1 have ever seen in my experience in this House. I have spoken to him so often during the past six months about fisheries matters on the West Coast that he used to pick up the phone and say "Hello, Allan" every day. He has been co-operative to a very reasonable degree.
The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River comes from a commercial fishing area and knows little about sports fishing, 1 suppose, although he should know because Campbell River is in that region as well as a lot of our commercial fishing fleet.
Around my area, the Victoria constituency, there is mainly sports fishing. We came to what seems to me to be a reasonable compromise between the first cast at the rules for sports fishing this year, which were pretty unacceptable to sports fishermen in my region and the compromise with which the Minister eventually came up that we will be allowed to catch two Spring salmon or Chinook fish each day and 20 per year. I had hoped that during this debate someone would state or be able to question the Minister as to whether that rule would supersede the rule about the 285,000 pieces that can be caught by the trollermen plus the sports fishermen in a year. When that 285,000 has been achieved, does it mean that the person who then has bought a sports fishing licence for $10 can still go out and catch two per day and 20 for the balance of the year?
The purpose of this Bill, which the NDP has been filibustering for several days now and which it now wants to hoist for six months, has been simply to bring some order out of the chaos in the fishing regulations at the present time. The NDP, as is its wont, objects to order. Members of the NDP prefer chaos. They do much better if they can find a chaotic situation about which to complain and grieve and so try to engender some support.
If you look at the clauses in this Bill, Mr. Speaker, each item here is simply to correct a very woolly part of the existing Fisheries Act. 1 certainly think that the Bill-it is not the end of the legislation-cannot provide a thriving and totally orderly fishing industry, but it goes a long way toward that laudable aim.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over. We shall now resume debate. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the official critics in the Opposition are now meeting with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) with the hope of arriving at some mutual agreement on the progress of this Bill. In the meantime, perhaps 1 could address some of the questions that have been raised. The hon. gentleman who spoke a few moments ago put to the House the problems of the sports fishermen that perhaps by the time the fishermen had obtained their licences, all the pieces of salmon would be gone. That is precisely the problem, Mr. Speaker. It also applies to the commercial fishermen who are saying that when the time of the year has arrived for them to go fishing.

March 12, 1985
Fisheries Act
perhaps the sports fishermen will have caught all the fish, and as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans says he is going to abide by the U.S. agreement, the season might have to be closed.
I would like to take some exception to the remarks made not only by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a few moments ago, but to the remarks made by the official critic of the New Democratic Party. Perhaps this is an appropriate time to do so since it appears that we are reaching an agreement behind the curtains.
First, the official critic of the NDP was talking about the moorage fees, as he called them. 1 believe the Minister of Fisheries called them berthage fees. Fishermen call them wharfage fees. There is quite a difference. A berth is an area where you usually fish, or an area that you have reserved for purposes relating to the fishery. Moorage could be out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Wharfage is when you are tied up to a wharf, either directly or indirectly. In other words, a boat could be tied up to another boat which is tied up to a wharf or to several boats which are tied to the wharf, or a boat could be tied to the wharf itself. I just wanted to clarify the terminology. We are actually talking about wharfage, not moorage, as the NDP says, or berthage, as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said.
When the official critic of the NDP spoke a few moments ago, he said that the doubling of moorage fees or wharfage fees, which is actually what he was talking about, was unfair because in certain provinces no fees were paid, and that this came to light last night in the standing committee. He is correct that it came to light last night in the standing committee, but I have to take exception to the reasoning. I do not believe there should be any wharfage fees at all. Perhaps that is what he should modify his position to be. There should not be any wharfage fees across the country. I understand what he is talking about. He is angry because fishermen in British Columbia have to pay to have their boats tied up. For the life of me I cannot understand why fishermen in B.C. ever put up with it in the beginning. We heard evidence which indicated that a fisherman had to pay $60 a month to tie up his boat, and it was not even tied up to the wharf. It was his home port. The fees will now become $120 per month for him to have the right to tie up his boat to a wharf. I do not understand the Fishermen in British Columbia or the unions representing them, I do not understand how it was put into place in the beginning.
I take exception to the Minister saying that he is looking into the question of the fishing vessel insurance scheme. He has said to several people, I believe behind the scenes, that he will make sure no fisherman will be in a situation where he cannot get any insurance at all. That was the general tone of the Minister's remarks. The fact of the matter is that any fisherman can obtain private insurance on his boat. There is no doubt about that, but the problem is how much he will have to pay for it. The leakiest boat in Canada, the oldest boat in
Canada with a rotten bottom, could be insured, but how much will the premiums be? That is the problem. When the notice went out to fishermen that the fishing vessel insurance scheme would be cancelled, that is the government-sponsored scheme, they had to look ahead. March 31 is coming and many of them will have to renew their insurance. They will go to private insurance companies and will have to pay perhaps three times the premiums they paid last year. In some cases, for large boats it will amount to $20,000 or $30,000. The Minister's argument has to be one way or the other, either he will cancel the scheme or he will not.
I should like to give the Minister a word of advice. He cannot cancel the fishing vessel insurance plan which was instituted for a particular purpose. It is serving its purpose well. The Government says that it will save money by doing away with the scheme. It should look at the facts, at the balance sheet which shows a $5 million profit in the scheme since it was instituted in the early 1950s. Where is the saving? Yes, the Government will save in salaries, because everyone who works with that particular Department will be laid off, but it will not be gaining in the long run. Yes, the scheme lost money last year and the year before, but as witnesses from British Columbia pointed out to the committee last night, over a period of time it does not lose money on the scheme. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should announce immediately that the ill-advised policy inflicted upon him by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) will be reversed and the fishing vessel insurance scheme will be reactivated. He should tell the fishermen of Canada that they need not worry, that they will not have to pay two or three times the amount they paid last year for insurance.
I have heard certain Hon. Members point out that fishermen can obtain insurance at the same rate and sometimes even at a lower rate. Those fishermen are free to do so. There is no argument there. If they can obtain just as good a deal from a private insurance company, they would be crazy to stay under the federal scheme. Let them get the better insurance. However, the fishing vessel insurance scheme was put in place for people who could not afford the insurance schemes of private companies. It was put in place so that there would be a fast turnover of money in case of accident. It was put in place for many boats in northern areas of the country, in far-flung areas. It was extremely difficult for those owners to obtain insurance from private firms because the boats would have to be inspected up north in small communities. The Minister should announce the immediate cancellation of that policy statement of the President of the Treasury Board.
The motion before the House today moved by the NDP deals with the authority of the Minister. Of course, matters such as the fishing vessel insurance scheme and wharfage fees being imposed and doubled across the country were mentioned in this debate as they relate to the authority of the Minister. We should not forget that other things were done under the authority of the Minister since the Government came into power which were really not good at all. I refer to the outrageous cost of charts to fishermen. This was imposed by
March 12, 1985

the President of the Treasury Board upon the Minister of Fisheries.
I will refer to another matter which we should never forget. It was brought home last night by fishermen from British Columbia. I asked them whether they realized they would have to pay for telephone calls to the weather office. They said that they did not have to pay for them. I indicated that it was a new policy of the Government of Canada, the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), and they said they had to call the weather office every day for updates, it is an example of something which will have an effect right down the line. That charge is being imposed upon the Canadian public, supposedly to increase revenues to the Government of Canada by some $2 million. The fact of the matter is that fishermen in British Columbia, in Newfoundland, on the East Coast, in the Great Lakes and in the freshwater systems, will hesitate to telephone the weather office when they know they will have to pay. That is what is wrong with this policy. We do not want to discourage them from telephoning for weather updates because their safety is involved. If they pause before making that telephone call because they have to pay for it, and perhaps cannot afford it, we are into a very dangerous area. However, that subject has not been discussed to any great degree in this Chamber. Perhaps it is one of the most important matters relating to fishermen.
The authority being requested by the Bill is not a new one. It is an authority which the Minister of Fisheries thought he always had. There are some new areas included in the Bill, but its general thrust is to give the Minister authority for something he has always done but did not know he could not do legally. As members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry know, fishermen appearing before them are not happy with the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans or with the Minister. They are not happy with resource allocation or with the distinguishing between gear types which brought on this Bill. The court judge said, "Minister of Fisheries, you cannot allocate fish according to gear types". That is a sore point with fishermen right across this country.
For the benefit of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, let me say that it varies from area to area. It has been a big problem over the last 10 or 15 years. That is why the Ministry of Fisheries is asking for authority under this Bill to impose quotas on gear types of social and economic reasons, not for conservation and protection of the stock. It is a very unusual area with which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is dealing. Fishermen right across this country will bear out the truth of that statement. I will give just two short examples.
A few years ago when you talked to fishermen dealing with the cod fishery, they said that the Government of Canada and the provincial Governments were saying that they should have a new gear type, commonly referred to as the Japanese cod trap. They were saying that because it gives better quality fish. It is a trap with a bottom, a side and a top. The fish come in and swim around continually. They are alive. When you open
Fisheries Act
the top of the net, you just tip the fish into the boat. Regardless of how long that net is in the water, the fish are alive.
This was promoted. The Japanese cod trap in the early 1970s cost $8,500 made up. Some fishermen were given nets by the Government. They were given to fishermen in selected areas of eastern Canada. It was a great thing for fishermen to have, no doubt about it. Better quality fish were caught.
But along came the problems associated with that gear type. The mesh was small. The holes in the net were small. When the fish got in, they could not get out, not even the small ones. When the salmon got in, only the very small ones could get out. Along came the problems of the salmon fishery. Fishermen were not allowed by law to keep the salmon in the net. They discovered that they were not allowed to sell any fish under 18 inches to a fish plant. The fishermen said, "We were told that this was our salvation, that this was the best way for us to get good quality fish and to get a better price for them".
When you talk about gear types today, you are not talking about Japanese cod traps, which were heralded as being better than a gillnet on the bottom of the ocean, which killed the fish by drowning them. We do not talk about Japanese cod traps any more. They are now a bad thing. Every conservation group, every fisheries officer and the fishermen agree that it is a bad thing because it catches small fish that cannot be sold. In some cases it kills fish in the leader of that Japanese cod trap.
Where has the Department of Fisheries gone now? Now it has gone to trawls. They now tell the fishermen the gillnet is no good any more because it drowns fish. The Japanese cod trap catches small fish which cannot be sold. It traps salmon, sometimes kills them, and they have to be thrown away. That is a bad gear type. Now the fishermen are to go to trawls.
Trawls are hook and line. That is bait. They say you get a better quality fish with a trawl. The fisheries people across this country today are being told that the salvation is the trawl. They have gone from this gear type to another gear type to another gear type.
This Bill talks about gear types. The Government of Canada was promoting different gear types and asked fishermen to catch herring through the ice. They were paid $4.20 a hour. That was only four years ago. They were encouraged to put out gillnets. In those same areas of Canada today, there is no quota. The scientists claim that all the herring are gone. However, it was only a short time ago that the Department of Fisheries was paying people to catch herring. They were encouraged to catch that particular species.
When you talk about gear types and the allocation of a resource to gear types to fishermen, and the fact that this Bill gives this authority, the fishermen say, "What about this and what about that? Why was this mistake and that mistake made? Don't talk to me about gear types. Don't talk to me about the Minister of Fisheries allocating gear types to fishermen in this country because the Government has a pretty poor record to go on".

March 12, 1985
Fisheries Act
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating that I have run out of time. In conclusion, the authority being sought by the Minister in this Bill is suspect to fishermen in Canada. That is the first point. I do not see anything wrong with the Minister getting that authority. Obviously he has to have some authority. The new authority which he will get under the Bill, according to some Members in this House, is not a good thing. I cannot see that much wrong with it. I simply point out that in legislation such as this, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should remember that the fishermen of Canada have some very legitimate points to make. Those points should be taken into consideration when dealing with new legislation in this Chamber.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I just want to remove any suggestion that we were not asking for fairness in the question of moorage rates in British Columbia. If the previous Government and other Governments which preceded it did exempt people in the fishing industry in eastern Canada from moorage rates, those exemptions should apply on the West Coast of Canada the same as they do in Atlantic Canada. No person in this House would disagree with that statement. After the incredible statements that came to light in the committee last night, I am sure that justice will be done and that that in fact will happen on the West Coast. I am convinced if this does not happen quickly, there is going to be a very rough fight over this issue.
I think the Hon. Member will be with us fighting that cause, the whole principle of fairness which I talked about with regard to those moorage fees being lifted on the West Coast of Canada. In many respects that infrastructure is like that of the highways. Commercial activity has to be viewed in that manner. I just want to pick up that one small point. I enjoyed the Hon. Member's speech very much. I expect he and his colleagues will be fighting with us to have that principle of fairness observed.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of fairness. The question is one of abolition. It should not be in place. Wharfage fees should not be charged in this country. I agree with the Hon. Member that a fisherman with a 38-foot boat will now have to pay to tie up. If it is a rickety old wharf or a brand new wharf in the Province of British Columbia, he will have to pay $120 a month. It is not fair that he has to pay that money. That is what I dispute. It is true, as the Hon. Member says, that all fishermen should have to pay the same, regardless of what province they are in, if it is a federal Act. My point is that it should not be charged at all. There should be no fee.
I wish to say something for the benefit of the Hon. Member from New Brunswick who is about to speak in the Chamber. I always refer to this Hon. Member as being the Hon. Member from New Brunswick because of the speeches he has made over the years in this Chamber. He is going to take exception to something that I said and I will not have a chance to reply until the end.
Last night, some fishermen appeared before the Fisheries Committee. I wish the Member from New Brunswick had been there to listen to those fishermen. They explained why we must keep the Fishing Vessel Insurance Plan. They said that there are groups of fishermen who go to private insurance companies but that there are other groups of fishermen who cannot afford to go to those insurance companies because they cannot get comparable rates. The Fishing Vessel Insurance Plan of the federal Government is much better than the private insurance plan because of the turn-over time involved in settling accounts and because the fees are much cheaper.
The Member from New Brunswick will say that there is this group of fishermen and that group of fishermen who go to private insurance companies and have no problems at all and if they can do it, then why can the rest of the fishermen not do so as well. I only wish he had been at the committee meeting last night. He could have had a good argument with the fishermen from British Columbia who were present.


Mr. Gass:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member from Newfoundland has referred to the Hon. Member from New Brunswick. The Hon. Member from New Brunswick wanted to speak but unfortunately, because of an agreement that we made to adjourn this debate and move the subject matter of the Bill to committee, I think the time has come when there will be no more speakers on this Bill.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make the comment that that is unfortunate. The Hon. Member to whom I was referring, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), is probably one of the most knowledgeable Conservative Members in this Chamber regarding fishery and forestry matters. He is the most knowledgeable Member I have seen on that side of the House in the past 10 years. I would suggest to members of the Conservative Party that when they are arranging debates on forestry and fishery, they make sure that that Hon. Member speaks.


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Speaker, there has been an agreement made today to adjourn this debate and to put the subject matter of the Bill before committee. The Minister has guaranteed us in the House that he will meet with us regarding the Bill itself. We in the Official Opposition agree with that and would like to show the necessary co-operation.
We realize that the Bill gives to the Minister powers that he thought he already had until the ruling of Mr. Justice Collier of British Columbia. However, there are a great many unanswered questions that can be asked of the Department of Fisheries. That is why we wanted the Minister to meet with us before this Bill went through second reading in the House. The Minister has agreed to do that, and we in the Official Opposition agree that we should now adjourn this debate, move the subject matter into committee for further discussion, and then return it to the floor of the House of Commons to complete second reading.
March 12, 1985


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment. Some of us in this House have particular industries at heart, and as the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) has stated, this is one of the industries I have at heart as it is one of the industries he has at heart. However, I would like to point out one thing. The position in which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) presently finds himself is one which he inherited. Many of the things with which he must deal are things which I have opposed.
On the other hand, I must say that the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate, whose positions and opinions I very highly respect and for whose kind remarks I am thankful, found himself voting for things which put the fishery industry in the position in which it presently finds itself. How this will be corrected, I cannot say.
I do not have an idea of how the errors of the ways of 15 years of Fisheries Ministers under Mr. Trudeau can be corrected in any short period of time or how one can get the people in the Department to recognize that there has been a change and that some of the old methods do not work. For instance, the appraisal of stocks must be revised so that when there are fish in the sea to be caught, our processors do not have to go to the Baltic to buy fish while our own fish swim away under uninhibited fishing restrictions.
These are the things with which the Minister finds himself faced. He inherited these things. I hope that the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate and the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) will be as helpful in trying to reconstruct a fishing industry and a Ministry with a progressive and constructive program as they were in supporting the legislation which put the present Minister in the position in which he now finds himself.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, in the limited time available, I have two brief comments to make. It is quite correct that the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did inherit certain things. He inherited the fishing vessel insurance scheme with which he is now doing away, research stations which he is now closing and scientific fishery experts whom he is now terminating. I would have to agree with the hon. gentleman in that respect.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the constructive things that has come out of this rather arduous debate is the development of a new method. In the short period that I have been here, I do not recall too many other occasions on which we have managed to find a way around an impasse. I think the Government has made a unique and very constructive offer to find a way around this impasse. I know my Liberal colleagues are interested in co-operating with the Government to see if we cannot begin to work on the problems away from the Chamber while allowing the House to continue its business. I am extremely pleased by the offer that has come forward from the Government and we certainly appreciate the opportunity to look at the matter in committee.
Bretton Woods Agreements Act


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I have been apprised of the situation which has developed during the course of debate. There have been discussions with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) and the critics of the opposition Parties. I have heard them address the issue of how we may deal with this Bill. Therefore, although I believe it requires the unanimous consent of the House, I am quite prepared, on the basis of that understanding, to propose that we adjourn debate on this matter and deal with Bill C-30.
It is the undertaking of the Minister to appear before the appropriate committee to have a full discussion with members of that committee regarding the questions that have been raised by members of the Opposition. After the appropriate committee hearings, I will then take the advice of and consult with opposition House Leaders about further discussion on this Bill.
I therefore propose that, on that understanding, we adjourn this debate and move on to Bill C-30. The Minister will indeed appear before the members of the committee and discuss the points that have been raised during the course of this debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to agree to the House Leader's proposition?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well. It is agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENTS ACT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and to repeal the International Development Association Act and amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) is unavailable at this time so I call upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) to make an address regarding second reading, and then we can carry on with debate.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting Bill C-30 on second reading. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, and it does so in three ways. First of all, it provides the necessary legislation to authorize participation by Canada in the International

March 12, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act Finance Corporation, a branch of the World Bank whose activities are directed toward the private sector; second, the Bill consolidates legislation relating to all member institutions of the World Bank group; and third, it modifies the procedure for obtaining the approval of Parliament for financing these institutions.
The Bill's main objective is therefore to legislate the necessary authorization for Canada's participation in the International Finance Corporation, usually referred to as the IFC.
The IFC was created by the World Bank in 1956, with a special mandate to promote private sector investment in less developed countries by seeking out investment opportunities and bringing them to the attention of local and foreign investors. Using its own staff and consultants, the IFC seeks out and promotes investments that are not only commercially viable but will also contribute to the overall economic development of the country in question. In this respect, the International Finance Corporation complements very considerably the World Bank's development activities.
The International Finance Corporation, which has a capital base of SI.3 billion, expects to invest $4.5 billion over the next five years in projects estimated at a total value of $30 billion. Although the majority of the Corporation's investments will take the form of loans, the IFC also uses part of its resources to acquire an interest in a company when there is a lack of private venture capital. Since the IFC is able to underwrite part of the investment, it has also been possible to set up joint ventures and to help investors obtain commercial loans. Furthermore, the IFC has been active in promoting the expansion of capital markets in developing countries to create both national and foreign sources of investment capital.
Although Canada has been a member of the IFC since its inception, our legislation does not provide any authorization for Canada's participation in the Corporation. As is the case for many other programs, the necessary authorization was considered to have been given by tacit agreement when Parliament approved the payments after the Estimates were tabled. In 1982, the President of the Treasury Board decided that legislation would have to be passed in the case of each program. Last year, another increase in the Corporation's capital, totalling $650 million in U.S. funds, was negotiated to enable the IFC implement its new investment program. If Canada is to be able to contribute like other member countries towards increasing the capital of this important development institution, official approval must now be obtained through legislation.
The second change I am proposing would consolidate, in a single Act, the legislation concerning the three institutions that constitute the World Bank group. Besides the IFC, these institutions include the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, better known as the World Bank and the largest institution in the group, and the International Development Association-the IDA-which is responsible for providing the poorest countries with loans on more flexible terms.
The World Bank was created in 1944 to help finance the reconstruction of a Europe destroyed by war. Once the reconstruction of Europe had become a reality, the World Bank shifted its attention to the economic development of the Third World. Today the World Bank, which has over $80 billion in subscribed capital and some 143 members, is the largest single development agency in the world. Together with the International Monetary Fund, it plays a vital role in maintaining international economic and financial stability. In 1984, the World Bank approved some 130 loans valued at about $12 billion to more than 43 developing countries.
The World Bank finances its loans through two kinds of contributions it receives from member countries. A small amount, recently just 8.75 per cent of the Bank's capital, is provided in cash and in the form of demand notes. The remainder 91.25 per cent of subscribed capital is available in the form of callable capital guaranteed by the governments of member countries. The World Bank borrows funds, usually by selling long-term bonds on the international capital market which are guaranteed by its callable capital. The funds are then lent to developing countries on terms that enable the World Bank to recover 100 per cent of its costs and to constitute a prudent level of adequate reserves.
Although World Bank loans are granted under the best possible commercial terms, some countries find that even these rates would place an undue burden on their resources. Since as a result of loans granted to countries with a low solvency level, the World Bank's AAA credit rating might suffer, in 1960 World Bank member countries set up the International Development Association in order to expand the World Bank's activities in the poorest countries. Unlike the World Bank, the resources of the International Development Association are provided directly by governments of member countries in the form of regular replenishments. The IDA then uses these funds to grant long-term loans on very concessional terms to developing countries with annual per capita incomes below $790. However, IDA projects must maintain a very high quality and provide a high economic rate of return. The IDA-excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but this is of course the English abbreviation and although I realize that the French abbreviation would be in order, I shall continue to refer to the Association as the IDA-therefore, the International Development Association also finances technical assistance to ensure that the objectives of the projects are achieved.
In 1984, IDA approved 106 loans valued at over $3.5 billion to 43 countries. About 32 per cent went to African countries south of the Sahara. In future, the proportion of IDA loans directed to Africa will be increased to 37 per cent, as the World Bank is now concentrating even more of its attention on the very serious problems confronting this region. An increasing proportion of IDA resources is being used to help revamp
March 12, 1985

policies and institutions, to ensure that the resources provided by Canada and other donor countries within the framework of emergency measures and long-term development financing are indeed utilized as efficiently as possible.
To enable IDA to renew its efforts, Canada recently advised the World Bank that we would contribute $100 million in Canadian currency to the American $1.1 billion special assistance fund for sub-Saharan African countries. The fund is administered by IDA whose specific purpose is to implement political reform and structural adjustment programs to correct the weakening trend which now besets African nations. More particularly, IDA is attempting to boost agricultural production in that region.
The third amendment introduced would change the way Parliament approves Canadian financial assistance to those institutions. Instead of providing exact figures in the legislation itself, as the practice has been so far, the amount of Canada's contribution to each institution would come under parliamentary scrutiny each year after the estimates are tabled. Parliament would no longer be required to amend the legislation everytime we want to make an additional contribution under special agreements such as the special assistance fund for sub-Saharan African countries. At the same time, Parliament would be legally authorized to assess the payments made to each institution along with those made to the World Bank Group as a whole and other aid mechanisms, with a view to judging their advisability when the estimates are tabled.
This amendment would also make it possible to standardize the over-all process of payments made to the World Bank Group, along the lines of a special process approved by Parliament in 1982 in the case of regional development banks.
Canada was party to recent negotiations on a selective increase in IBRD capital stock-the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development-whereby Canada may acquire additional shares.
The total cost of additional shares would run up to about $320 million in current Canadian currency. However, only 8.75 per cent of the shares' norminal value-roughly $28 million in Canada dollars-are to be paid over a four-to-five-year period.
The remainder of our subscription is callable and represents a real debt of and a possible disbursement by the Canadian Government. Acquiring that interest will make Canada a shareholder of 2.92 per cent of the total capital stock of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, as such entitled to appoint a Canadian to the World Bank board of directors. This will enable us to scrutinize World Bank policies and projects, and make sure that its financial standing remains high.
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
Under the recently concluded agreement to double the capital stock of the International Finance Corporation-it must be paid in full-Canada is entitled to buy enough shares to maintain its interest at the current level of 3.85 per cent. This increase would cost Canada $25 million in American dollars payable over the next five years.
The seventh IDA replenishment negotiated last year calls for a payment of $9 billion for the three years from 1985 to 1988. Canada has agreed to contribute $500 million, or 4.5 per cent of the resources.
Most payments to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Finance Corporation and the International Development Association will be made through callable non-interest bearing notes issued by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the coming four years. However, the notes will be called over a longer period of time, as the institutions finance projects and programs in developing countries. That is why the replenishments and increases in capital stock will have a minor impact on our annual budgets. The latter appear in the Government estimates and will be submitted to Parliament for approval when the annual budget is introduced.
Mr. Speaker, since the above-mentioned amendments require a change of title in the Act, a number of consequential amendments must be made to five other acts under which the World Bank is granted authority to make borrowings in Canada.
Since those acts needed to be amended anyhow, we also brought forward other changes in order that the International Finance Corporation be allowed to make borrowings in Canada to the same extent as the World Bank is. Just like the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and as provided for in its Articles of Association, the International Finance Corporation is required to obtain official approval from the Government of Canada before it will borrow Canadian dollars or make borrowings on the Canadian markets. Since the International Finance Corporation does not make significant borrowings on the international money markets, there is little likelihood that it will attempt to arrange borrowings in Canada in the near future.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, we would like to point out that we are proposing in Clause 7 to amend the requirement for the Minister of Finance to submit to Parliament an annual report on aspects of the World Bank operations that directly concern Canada. That amendment tends to further specify the contents of the report, including the procurement of Canadian goods and services for World Bank funded projects.
With respect to those procurements, although Canada's help to member countries of the World Bank Group is predicated on the efficiency of those development institutions, we have to make sure that Canadians have access to that very significant market. Until now, Canadian suppliers of goods and services

Bretton Woods Agreements Act have actually received payments amounting to 75 per cent of Canada's contributions to those institutions. The share of procurements in Canada that have been financed by the World Bank is equal or greater than our share in OECD exports to developing countries. Nonetheless, we believe we can do better. Therefore, Canada's trade office in Washington has been strengthened and our procedures in Ottawa streamlined to better help Canadian firms cope with the World Bank's procurement needs.
Mr. Speaker, we are experiencing trying economic times, but the sad conditions which are particularly severe in developing countries and what actually goes on in those countries have a direct impact on Canadians with respect to our exports, our employment situation and the stability of our financial structures. The world economy has never been so closely interrelated.
Some of the recent incidents have made it crystal clear to us that we simply cannot ignore those problems. Television screens brought into our living rooms telling and striking scenes of hardships caused by drought and the resulting famine. Canadians reacted with unprecedented generosity, fully aware that we cannot remain indifferent to the woes which are the lot of other human beings.
The Bill under consideration today confirms once again that Canada does not intend to let developing countries fend for themselves when they most need assistance. It reaffirms as well Canada's strong support for multilateral endeavours-the World Bank Group is a shining example-which have done so much to maintain peace and guarantee the well-being of nations through these trying times.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, we urge all deeply concerned Members to support the Government and confirm the sincere Canadian commitment to those international institutions. We hope they will quickly and efficiently consider this very important piece of legislation.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, this particular Bill will consolidate legislative authority for Canada's participation in three affiliates of the World Bank group. Thus the Bretton Woods Agreements Act is to become the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act.
Bill C-30 also proposes a change in how Parliament is asked to approve Canada's participation in these international financial institutions. It is proposed that authority for expenditure be sought annually through the Estimates. The practice until now has been to amend the Act, that is to bring a Bill before the House. So with the new proposal the House will lose an opportunity each year to debate a Bill dealing with international development, but Members will be able to see from year to year in the Estimates that Canada is indeed meeting its obligations to these institutions and that our commitments remain strong. Of course, there will be opportunity for discus-
March 12, 1985
sion of these matters in committee. In 1982, a similar provision was adopted by this House with respect to the regional development banks, the Asian Development Bank, the InterAmerican Development Bank and the Caribbean Development Bank.
We in the Official Opposition see no particular reason for a long debate of this Bill. Canada is a co-founder and major player in the institutions with which the Bill deals. The World Bank and its affiliates are the most important multilateral institutions in the world dedicated to fostering economic health and well-being, and we would like to see Canada's contributions go forward in a timely fashion. But because we have relatively few occasions to bring the subject before the House, we would like to talk about these institutions today and while the Bill remains before the House.
International finance is a complex subject indeed, but Canadians are entitled to know where their money is going and why. Our own well-being is closely linked to the economic security of other countries in the world. Behind the technical language of a Bill, we see evidence that Canada is truly interested and committed to helping alleviate if not resolve the problems of a large number of developing countries in varying degrees of financial difficulty. In this Canada has had a long and honourable tradition.
As Hon. Members will know, the name Bretton Woods refers to the village in New Hampshire where, in the summer of 1944, representatives of 28 nations, including Canada, met. All were deeply concerned about the adequacy of the international monetary system after the chaos created by the Great Depression and World War II. Following that war, Europe and Japan found their economies in a shambles. The capital needed to maintain even a minimal standard of living was lacking. Countries which had not experienced massive wartime destruction still had to face the difficult task of converting wartime economies into peacetime and consumer-oriented economies.
A number of economic conferences took place in the immediate post-World War II period to address these problems. The Bretton Woods conference is significant because it established the key institutions of a new international system. GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; the IMF, the International Monetary Fund; and the IBRD, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, also known as the World Bank, were born at Bretton Woods. The founders of these institutions recognized that the prosperity of the world would depend on an orderly and flexible trading system. The IMF was created to provide stability to the global monetary and financial system. The World Bank was created to provide long-term financing to member states in need of it, first, to help in rebuilding post-war Europe, and then to promote economic development in developing countries. GATT was instituted to bring a more liberal trading system to the world after the insular and destructive beggar-thy-neigh-bour policies of the post-World War I years.
This new international monetary system had as its task to provide exchange rate stability and a greater degree of mone-
March 12, 1985

tary co-operation among member states. For a number of years this was accomplished. By the mid-1970s, however, the post-war practice of fixed exchange rates had given way to a new system of floating exchange rates, a response to the growth in world trade and the entry of major new players in the world trading picture. Being far less structured than the previous system and therefore less easy to control or operate, the floating rate system has all the advantages of flexibility and all the disadvantages of volatility. The search for a happy medium, more stable than at present and less rigid than the Bretton Woods system, has been seriously complicated by two phenomena; the energy shocks which resulted in extreme fluctuation in balance of payments movements, and the world recession. So what we have had in the last decade or so is an imperfect system operating in very difficult circumstances. What we also have, however, are institutions that have come to be acknowledged as extremely effective multilateral bodies dedicated to helping raise the standard of living in developing countries. That is the very essence of development assistance. Development assistance does not mean handing out money. What it means is that we in Canada, as members of an international community, living in a country which is one of the more privileged trading nations, have a stake in fostering the stability of the international financial system.
In a time of international financial stress we have a responsibility and an obligation to promote multilateral co-operation. The practical application of this obviously is a reaffirmation of our commitment to these multilateral financial institutions.
The World Bank group, with which Bill C-30 is concerned, is composed of the IBRD and two affiliates, the International Development Association and the International Finance Corporation. All three have the purpose of raising standards of living in developing countries, and this is done by channelling financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The IBRD's capital is subscribed by its 147 member countries, and the Bank's lending operations are mainly financed through its own prudent borrowings on the world's capital markets. Every so often the Bank carries out general capital increases in order to expand its lending programs. Most of the Bank's subscribed capital is in the form of guarantees by members and only a small portion is actually paid in. IBRD loans are made on commercially related terms and only for productive purposes where economic growth would be stimulated. Projects are carefully chosen and evaluated by the Bank's staff with local authorities and client countries to ensure that they will be effective and that the repayment prospects are high. IBRD's loans are made to Governments and must be guaranteed by those Governments.
I note it is almost one o'clock. May I continue after the recess, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has 30 minutes left in her speech.

It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p. m.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) is quoted this morning by the Canadian Press as saying that Citizenship Court Judge Geraldine Copps of Hamilton was denied her appointment by him because; "You check the record. What her daughter had to say about this Government", referring to my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).
This disgusting comment is an insult, and an infringement on all of the rights of elected officials in this country, whether they be federal, provincial or municipal. This vicious attack by the Secretary of State on the right to freedom of speech, which is protected by Canada's Charter of Rights, is a totally unacceptable abuse of the public trust the Minister has sworn an oath to defend.
The rights and privileges of all Hon. Members in this House are under attack today by the Secretary of State. The very foundation of Parliamentary democracy is being undermined by the degrading and humiliating comments of this man who is the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) personal appointee to oversee the status of women in Canada. In the absence of the Prime Minister, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) to demand immediately the resignation of the Secretary of State who is unworthy of the high office that he holds.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, there are 3,000 aluminum grain hopper cars available for use on light rail branch lines in the West. The use of these cars increases the movement of grain from those branch lines by almost one-third for the same number of cars loaded, as well as having other advantages. In the last few years the railways have not switched out the aluminum cars for particular use on the branch lines which need them.
I call upon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to insist that railways use these cars for the purpose for which they were purchased, and so increase returns to farmers for their grain sales.

March 12, 1985
In the process of rehabilitation of branch lines would the Minister also assure us that upgrading will include heavy steel so that all kinds of hopper cars can be used without the inconvenience and extra cost of switching? The Henribourg-Paddockwood branch line in my constituency is a good example of the need for such assurance.

[ Translation]



ACID RAIN


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the new government policy on acid rain announced last week by the Minister of Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) is an historic step. Canada thus becomes the first industrialized country to take concrete action to show a firm intention to control acid rain.
I am especially pleased to see that the Minister will allocate up to $150 million for research and the modernization of plants.
Mr. Speaker, the co-ordinator of the Canadian coalition against acid rain has welcomed the news that Canada has finally assumed its responsibilities. In my constituency, Mr. Guy Leclerc of the standing committee on environment in Rouyn-Noranda said on the CBC that the federal government has done its part and that the province and Noranda Mines should now act with the same determination.
Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, I had promised my fellow citizens that the Progressive Conservative government would promptly react to improve the quality of life in our environment. After only six months in power, the Progressive Conservative government has shown that the protection of the environment is indeed one of its priorities.
This is, Mr. Speaker, a clear signal that our government is abiding by its election commitments made to the Canadian people.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a communication from the Right Hon. John Turner, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, with the salutation "Dear Friend". In the same envelope a memo was enclosed from one John N. Turner which reads: "As a valued Party supporter your opinion is important to me and to the Party as a whole". He goes on to say that my answers will help him to gauge opinion on several of the key issues, and will provide him with valuable direction. He assures me that my reply will
be kept in the strictest of confidence and he will see to it that I am kept informed.
This is confusing, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted that the right hon. gentleman considers me to be a "Dear Friend", but become concerned when he tells me that I am a "valued Party supporter". Of course he does not say which Party I am a valued supporter of, so perhaps that explains it. Nonetheless, as he has asked me as a friend to provide him with my opinion of what he should be doing, I am pleased to do so. Throw away the cue cards, be nice to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), expand your peripheral vision to your right, and learn to enjoy being Leader of the Opposition.
Sorry I didn't have the $30 you seek to bail you out, but that is your predecessor's fault. Do keep in touch, and don't worry about keeping this confidential.



EMPLOYMENT


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative government demonstrated its propensity for prospective. In its Equality in Employment program, it has indeed failed to impose mandatory compliance on companies and Crown corporations. With initiatives such as this, equality in the workplace for the handicapped, the visible minorities, the Indians and women generally will certainly not be achieved within the 21st Century.
The aim of this program is certainly commendable, Mr. Speaker, but the means to achieve it are certainly debatable. It has been demonstrated many times that voluntarism does not produce much. To this day, the voluntary programs implemented within the Civil Service for women have hardly changed the manpower structure. The fact that Crown corporations will only be required to report on their progress in the promotion of the four groups identified within the workforce comes down to making public opinion the ultimate instrument of control.
The lack of penalties for non-observance of the Equality in Employment program makes it voluntary, for all practical purposes. That is the impression the government left last week. That is unfortunately the message which it has sent to Crown corporations and companies which compete for government contracts.
March 12, 1985



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Government gave its first response to the Abella Report on Equality in Employment. The response promises that a degree of employment equity is to be achieved in the federal Public Service and in some companies entering into government contracts.
At the same time the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) announced that a survey is to be conducted in April to examine the employment situation within the Public Service of members of ethnic and racial groups. Such a survey was first announced in June, 1983. The previous Government said last June that it would collect and analyse the necessary data by December, 1984. Clearly there have been difficulties within the Public Service in carrying out this essential survey.
As well, the President of the Treasury Board has said that he has advisory committees for women, native Canadians, and the disabled, but not for racial and ethnic minorities in the Public Service. This fact raises questions about the determination of the Government to address the employment concerns of Canada's multicultural community.
Fifteen years of implementation of the Official Languages Act demonstrates that the Public Service can respond to the public will. Members of our ethnic and racial groups expect that the Public Service will come to reflect the multicultural reality of Canada as it now reflects the bilingual nature of our country.



EXPO '86 A WORLD-WIDE INVITATION

Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, Expo '86, next year's World's Fair in Vancouver, can be a tremendous economic, social, and psychological boost, not only for British Columbia but for our entire nation. The international spotlight will shine on the world's most beautiful city as Vancouver becomes a magnificent showplace for more than 30 nations and 50 provinces, states, and corporate exhibitors. Expo '86 can be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Canada. It can be our chance to welcome the world to a new Canada, our chance to create a new prosperity.
The communications and transportation themes of Expo '86 "World In Motion - World In Touch" will provide a unique focus for Canadian technology and ingenuity. Our nation can reap tremendous benefits from this six-month extravaganza. A new era of economic growth can dawn in British Columbia.
I urge all Members in the House to take a real interest in this century's most spectacular Canadian event, and join with the people of Vancouver and British Columbia in inviting the world to Expo '86.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, very often and perhaps too often unfortunately, Members from remote areas, including my own constituency of Jonquiere, are prompted to rise in this House to claim jobs and investments.
The case on which I would like to report today is a rather fortunate one. It is indeed a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to inform Hon. Members that the Abitibi-Price Company has just decided to invest a total of $138 million in its Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean paper mills, of which $110 million will go to the mill in my constituency of Jonquiere. Those investments will allow Abitibi-Price to undertake the manufacturing of specialty papers of a higher grade. Those new types of paper are in stronger and ever increasing demand on international markets.
Mr. Speaker, with the announcement of those strictly private investments, Abitibi-Price is asserting its determination to remain the world leader in newsprint manufacturing while improving the quality of its production. But Abitibi-Price did much more than that. It is showing the whole country its confidence in the social and economic future of our remote areas. It is bringing out the skill and expertise of our regional manpower by strengthening its presence and its employment platform.
Mr. Speaker, Jonquiere welcomes that major investment and I am convinced-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the House of Commons that there is a very major concern among all Greek Canadians in Canada. I would like to call the attention of the Secretary of State to a decision made by this Government to send planes to Turkey, contrary to the representations now being made across Canada by Greek Canadians.

I am rising on behalf of thousands of Greek Canadians who are extremely concerned about the decision of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to send to the Turkish Government 20 renovated fighter planes when none in fact are being sent to Greece. I will have a chance later on following

March 12, 1985
Question Period to present in this House a petition which reads as follows:
We, the undersigned Canadians of Greek descent, are very alarmed at the intentions, of the Canadian Government to give 20 renovate fighter planes to Turkey and none to Greece.
While there might be good reasons for Canada to support a NATO ally, Canada should not side with Turkey against Greece.
What we are seeking is in fact justice and fairness for all our NATO allies, and I think it is a petition with which the Minister would certainly agree.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE PROPOSAL

Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, the issue of free trade between Canada and the United States is as old as Canada itself. It has been proposed and rejected several times by previous politicians. However, within this last year there has been a renewal of interest in this subject.
Canada-U.S. trade is greater than that between any other bilateral trading partners in the world. Almost one-third of our gross national product results from our trading activities. Total trade between our great nations is likely to exceed $150 billion for 1984. Therefore, it is highly apparent that the time has come that this country's best interest may be realized by forging closer ties with the U.S.
As an Albertan, access to the U.S. market is most inviting. A relationship of this sort will allow for significant growth, both for Alberta and the Canadian economy. The benefits far outweigh any negative aspects.
A closer relationship with the U.S. will enable our industry to restructure itself, and consumers will benefit from increased product selection. Costs to Canadian businesses will decrease when purchasing in U.S. markets; and finally, the important sectors of our ailing economy, such as the oil and gas industry, will be given a new incentive.
The time is ripe for Canada and the United States to consider seriously the mutual benefits of a free trade arrangement.



FISHERIES


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call to the attention of this House a matter of serious injustice. This House has learned that moorage rates for fishermen in western Canada are already very high and that the Government has proposed to increase them by 100 per cent.
We have also learned that in eastern Canada in many jurisdictions fishermen pay no moorage rates whatsoever.
Although this serious discriminatory situation was put in place by previous Liberal Governments, it is clear that the Conservatives intend to continue the discrimination. In fact they intend to make it worse by charging western fishermen a 100 per cent increase in their rates, while continuing to charge fishermen in eastern Canada nothing.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised this country that people in western Canada would be given a hearing by this Government. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) made the same promises. The Tories have outdone themselves. They have taken a Liberal abuse of western Canada and made it worse.
The NDP calls upon this House to abandon and abolish changes for moorage in western Canada, and to give western Canadians some equality with their confreres on the East Coast.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. I think the Canadian people would want to express outrage and sorrow at the tragedy at the Turkish Embassy today. All of us in this House are sickened by the despicable actions of terrorism and, indeed, cowardice.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I would be grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister if he would give the House a report on the matter as he understands it as of this moment.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as just a moment ago indicated, all Members of the House share the description of the incident at the Turkish Embassy that transpired this morning expressed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
I think we would all wish at the outset to express our deep regrets to the Embassy and our deep condolences to the survivors of Mr. Claude Brunelle whose life was forfeited. Mr. Brunelle was single and 31 years of age. His next of kin have been notified of the tragedy.
Second, I think all Members of the House would want to join me in commending, to the highest possible degree, the RCMP, the Ottawa Police Force, and the various federal Departments that were involved immediately in dealing with the situation.
March 12, 1985

The Turkish Embassy itself has indicated that it expects the Canadian authorities to deal with the matter, which we are doing with determination.
The hostages were Ambassador Kirga, his wife, and daughter. The details of the incident are now under investigation by the police, and the suspects have been arrested. They are at this moment being interrogated. The RCMP, of course, and the Ottawa Police have been in close co-operation from the moment they learned of the incident and this co-operation is continuing in the on-going investigation.


PROTECTION OF EMBASSY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is the third incident at the Turkish Embassy. Is the Deputy Prime Minister yet in a position to tell us whether there was a gap in security procedure, and in the procedure for protection of that Embassy? Has the Turkish Government been in touch with our Government relating to this incident on the degree of protection afforded the Embassy?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first part of the question, the Turkish Embassy has indicated that it expects Canadian authorities to deal with the matter.
With respect to security generally in that and other embassies in Ottawa, the question of the security arrangements of our embassies here was under consideration today, and it will be under intensive review at a very early time. That review will benefit from today's events in assisting the Government in coming to an assessment of its over-all security arrangements for all embassies in the area.


REVIEW OF SECURITY PROCEDURES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will let the House have the benefit of what that review reveals as to whether there was a gap in the protection or the security in front of that Embassy. I second the Deputy Prime Minister in congratulating the police officers who quickly brought the situation under control this morning.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how that police effort was co-ordinated between the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police, and the Ottawa Police Force? Was there co-ordination? Which police force or entity was in charge and in control?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I don't think it would be in the interest of security itself to engage in an exchange with respect to details of the security provided to our embassies, but I would be very happy to undertake to discuss that matter with the right hon. gentleman and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, at their and my convenience.
Oral Questions
With respect to a gap, obviously there was a gap; it was penetrated. But, by the most excellent standards which we have been assured exist in Ottawa, the security arrangements were those that could best achieve security for the embassy. In light of the events of today, a review of those arrangements is obviously imperative. That review will be undertaken, assessments made and conclusions arrived at, at the earliest possible time.


ROLE OF CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in his commendation of police action, the Deputy Prime Minister made no reference to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I should like to ask him whether the Canadian Security Intelligence Service had a role and responsibility in relation to bringing this incident to a relatively successful conclusion.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, it certainly did. That was one aspect of the question of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition which I did not address. As the former Solicitor General well knows, there was a role played by that Service. As he knows, there is machinery within Government to assure central coordination of the responses necessary to meet emergency situations of this kind. That machinery went into action as soon as the emergency was known, and with very efficient and good results apart, of course, from the loss of life which occurred, and the injuries that I neglected to mention which were sustained by the Ambassador. Mr. Kirga who is alive and well and currently being treated for those injuries.


SURVEILLANCE OF ANTI-TURKISH TERRORISTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the main role, in relation to this type of incident, of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service would be a counter-intelligence gathering role, a role which should be fulfilled before an event of this nature. I want to ask whether surveillance of anti-Turkish terrorism continues to be a priority of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I think that gap has been left in the answers of the Deputy Prime Minister.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it certainly has been left and, as I am sure the former Solicitor General will appreciate, it would not benefit the security process itself if I were to respond in detail and directly to that question. It does nothing to enhance the security of the Turkish, or any other embassy, if I discuss, on the floor of the House of Commons, what arrangements are in force with respect to surveillance, or any other activity concerning those whose interests might be inimical to the very security we discuss.


ARMENIAN THREATS-PROVISION OF SECURITY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question also concerns the events of this morning. I want to say

March 12, 1985
Oral Questions
how happy we are that this incident has been concluded, at least with a lesser loss of life than might otherwise have been anticipated. With regard to our involvement in protection, and given that the international community has been aware for some time, at least since the recent trials, convictions, and sentencing in France, that Armenians had made threats against Turkish communities around the world, did we contact the Turkish Embassy here to discuss with them the possible necessity of additional security being provided for them during this rather high alert period?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is very short. Indeed there had been communication between the Government of Canada and the Turkish Embassy prior to this incident, at which time-that is the time of the discussions- the Turkish Embassy expressed satisfaction with the existing security arrangements in place at the direction of the Government of Canada.


EMPLOYMENT OF SECURITY OFFICERS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, given that we were aware there were threats, was there any discussion between the Government of Canada and the Pinkerton company, which provides service to various embassies around Ottawa, to determine whether or not they felt their operative in that area was capable of dealing with the additional threats which were quite clearly in place over the course of the last three weeks?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think the prudent limitation to the response there, so as not to compromise security arrangements, would be to explain to the hon. gentleman and Members of the House that the arrangements made with respect to the employment of Pinkerton security officers are by way of contract with the Pinkerton organization and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, at the direction of the Department of External Affairs.


EMBASSY ATTACKERS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a double-barrelled supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Perhaps he could answer whether or not the Pinkerton agency was made aware of the rather higher alert situation which existed, particularly for the Turkish community at this point in time. Has the Government ascertained the nationality of the two individuals who were arrested at the embassy today and determined whether or not they are residents of Canada, or residents of some other country and entered Canada for the purpose of their attack on the Turkish Embassy?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to those who are now in custody, under arrest, I think the Hon. Member would
agree at once that it would be quite inappropriate for them to be identified at a point in time when the information and charges being laid have not even been decided.


Ian Deans: I am not asking for the names.


Erik Nielsen: With respect to the details of any investigation which is at this very moment under way, it would be totally inappropriate to be discussing the nature, extent, and details of any such investigation, because that in itself would be inimi-cable to fair treatment of the individuals involved, having regard to our system of justice in this country.


SPACE WEAPONRY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the forthcoming meetings this weekend between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. We recognize that two hours of formal meetings are not sufficient time to cover all the vital issues, but I think the Minister would share with us the belief that, with the beginning of the Geneva arms talks today, the issue of arms control should be a matter of vital concern, particularly the position taken by the Americans.
With reference to that issue, I want to ask him about the statement made by the U.S. Undersecretary of Defense in front of Congress where he said that negotiators could discuss how to co-ordinate the deployment and phasing of strategic defence systems, but not negotiate about giving them up. This really runs very much against the policy of the Government that star wars should not go ahead. I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Prime Minister intends to raise with President Reagan the issue of arms control negotiations and the American position. In particular, will he make the case that the Americans should put the star wars proposal on the bargaining table and attempt to negotiate a ban on any star wars deployment?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, of course the question of arms control will be part of the discussions at the historic summit to occur this weekend in Quebec city. As the Hon. Member will know, if his concern is about weapons in space, that matter is already on the negotiating agenda in Geneva, put there explicitly by Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Shultz.


GENEVA ARMS CONTROL TALKS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Secretary of State for External Affairs clarify this because it is quite clear, according to the
<v'
*M-rf.

March 12, 1985

U.S. Undersecretary of Defense, that the most important, crucial, and dangerous part of development in space is the star wars defence initiative. The Americans say they are not prepared to negotiate it. I ask again, will the Government undertake at that meeting to pressure and press the President to have his negotiators discuss star wars and put it on the table, so there will not be any development of that initiative in outer space and so that we can come to an agreement that will provide further stability?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, for all who wish to know the facts and wish to be guided by them, they are clearly on the table. If the Hon. Member is concerned about weapons in space, as we are, and as the Secretary of State of the United States and Mr. Gromyko are, he should know that that item is already on the agenda for discussion at Geneva.


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Government insists there is no connection between the Strategic Defence Initiative and the North Warning System. Why then are the U.S. Air Force and NORAD merging their missile, air, and space warning systems, under a new NORAD space command at Cheyenne, Colorado?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member would know that those arrangements have been in place for some long time, well before there was discussion of the Strategic Defence Initiative.


NORTH WARNING SYSTEM-REVIEW BY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the only way that we can clear the air on this is not by putting questions back and forth in the House, but to follow the former Prime Minister's suggestion of five years ago that we beef up the committees around this place, as they are in the United States. Any foreign treaty in the United States has to be ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs ask his Prime Minister if all the recorded minutes of the negotiations with respect to the upgrading of the North Warning System and the outcome of those discussions will be placed before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence so that we, as the people's representatives, can find out exactly what is going on, the people of Canada will know what is going on, and they will be protected against any future entanglement with star wars?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the record should be quite clear as to the approach this Government has taken in practice by putting the facts before parliamentary committees. For years, the Liberal Government refused to let there be any public discussion of negotiations on the North Warning System. This Government took the initiative of putting the North Warning System publicly before a Standing Committee for review. This Government also agreed that we would accept the unanimous report of a Standing Committee of this House to allow a review of NORAD arrangements a year before the renewal of the treaty. That was our own example, not one we took from the former Liberal Government, which was not at all open to Parliament.
The Hon. Member talked about the reform that is under way under the chairmanship of the distinguished Hon. Member for St. John's East, with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, and others, on the committee. I believe that there will be reforms coming forward. Certainly we on this side of the House hope that, in designing reforms effective to this Parliament, we should not blindly follow the American example. We should establish Canadian examples, and not blindly follow the American example as the NDP want to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF PARKS AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES OF THE PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the proceedings to advise Hon. Members of the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Colin Maxwell, Minister of Parks and Renewable Resources for the Province of Saskatchewan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs will know that we asked them to appear before the committee this week. In spite of the answer the Minister of National Defence gave me last week, he is not going to appear. He gave me a positive answer last week, and the steering committee requested his presence.
Yesterday the Minister made a statement about 1,200 Canadian troops going to Europe to join the Fourth Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group based in Lahr, West Germany. Unfortunately, the Minister did not choose to make a statement in the House, in order to give Members an opportunity to

March 12, 1985
Oral Questions
clarify certain questions. I want to ask the Minister whether the $50 million to cover the cost in 1985-86 is already in the Defence Estimates, or in this new money? From where will the 1,200 military personnel be transferred? Will this require the purchase of more Leopard tanks and other support materiel?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the questions concerning cost, if the Hon. Member will refer to yesterday's press release he will have the answer. The measures will cost $50 million in the first year and about $100 million per year when the full complement has been transferred to Europe. I would think that the Hon. Member would be the last one to suggest that we should fly in the teeth of all established courtesy and make a statement publicly, with respect to this additional deployment of troops in order to fulfil our NATO commitments in Europe, without first having discussed the matter with, and having informed, the Ambassadors of our NATO allies. That took place yesterday. It was not until about 1.30, or thereabouts, that the matter was made public. Pre-distribution of the release was made to himself and his opposite number in the NDP. I really think he has nothing to complain about with respect to the manner in which the announcement was made.


PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer my question. I asked him if this is new money or whether it is in the existing Estimates. He chose not to answer. I want an answer on that question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, we are living in an open Parliament. We should have the answers. Can the Minister assure this House and all Canadians that no purchase of new equipment to which we have already committed ourselves will be adversely affected, and will the Minister put back into the Estimates, now that he is doing something about-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has put two questions in his supplementary, and I suggest that is enough.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the equipment, I believe that the answer is in the affirmative. I will make doubly certain of that, however, and be in touch with him. With respect to the financing of the move, I have asked officials in the Department to determine what resources can be identified there in order to-


An Hon. Member:: Do you know?


Erik Nielsen: I hear a heckle across the way indicating that I do not know. I would invite the Hon. Member, if he were to have the responsibility of a Department with expenditures of some $10 billion, to identify at once where each dollar for each
howitzer comes from. Where those resources cannot be identified within departmental references, yes, it will mean new resources.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
We have been informed that the Minister has promised to look into the concerns of the Association des gens de fair du Quebec.
Could the Minister confirm, here in the House, that he will look into the matter of job transfers from Montreal to Toronto and ensure that Francophones are given a fair deal by Air Canada? What is his schedule for completing this investigation an when will the Minister be ready to submit his report?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we met with the Gens de fair du Quebec, and we gave them the assurance that we were going to approach Air Canada and take the necessary steps to ensure that both aspects of the question are considered. We are asking Crown corporations to be viable, but we must also consider principles such as bilingualism. I believe this is something the Government is anxious to maintain.
In evaluating the matter concerning Air Canada, we shall consider all aspects and take the time the corporation, the Gens de l'air and the Government will need to negotiate and formulate the best possible response to a matter which I think the Opposition would do well to consider very carefully.


AIR CANADA-FRANCOPHONES
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, we want to know when the Minister is going to meet his commitments. The matter of jobs being lost requires urgent attention, and fair treatment of Francophones by Air Canada is fundamental to maintaining our national unity. When is the Minister going to complete his investigation?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, bilingualism is not something that is going to disappear during the weeks it will take us to submit a report. We are going to give the House a full report as soon as we have the assurance that all parties have been consulted and that Air Canada has been acting without ulterior motives.
March 12, 1985


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue in his capacity as the Minister in charge of Canada Post. Will the Minister confirm or deny reports that, although Canada Post in Metro Toronto refuses to supply application forms to Canadians looking for work, those forms are obtainable by Canada Post employees for use by their friends and relatives? If this reported practice is in effect, will he assure us that this form of corporate incest will be stopped?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for asking that question. Since he first raised the matter with me some weeks ago, I have had the opportunity to speak to officials of the Canada Post Corporation who have informed us as follows. First, application forms for positions being filled through internal competitions are available only to existing post office employees; second, casual work is assigned through Canada Employment Centres for persons listed with them; and third, for members of the public who wish to obtain information or application forms, they may do so by contacting the Canada Post employment centre in each division. The employment centre for the York division is at 21 Front Street. In the Toronto area, forms may also be obtained from one of the three plants in cases of competitions that are open for outside intervention.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister could have written.


CITIZENSHIP COURTS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Scretary of State. Why are he and the Government attempting to intimidate Members of Parliament who use their rights of free speech by having the Government exert retribution on members of MPs' families as was done when the Government did not reappoint Citizenship Court Judge Geraldine Copps? The reason given for that to the press by the Secretary of State was, in the Secretary's words:
You check the record. What her daughter has had to say about the Government.
Why are the Government and the Minister operating in contempt of Parliament when it comes to the rights of Members of Parliament to speak freely in the way one has spoken in this particular case?


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to-


An Hon. Member:: It's not funny.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I presume Hon. Members meant the question seriously and would like to hear the answer.


An Hon. Member:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Then stop yelling.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite the Hon. Member to pose a serious question to which I could give a serious response. If the Hon. Member thinks that I am in any way about to restrict Members of Parliament, or cast any aspersions on their rights, then the Hon. Member would surely like to lay a charge of some sort. However, an innuendo which appeared in the news media is hardly a source on which to lay such a serious charge. Under those circumstances, I think that is the only response I wish to make.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, when the Kitchener-Waterloo Record sent reporter Phil Bass to interview the Minister yesterday to see if he would clarify the remarks I have just quoted, why did the Minister add this comment:
-just have a look at her comments-
He was referring to the words of the Hon. Member of Parliament for Hamilton East. How can the Secretary of State find it possible to rise and speak of innuendo while I am speaking about his direct quotes, as reported in the papers, indicating that he and the Government are carrying out a policy of retribution against family members of Members of Parliament who use their rights of free speech, to which they are entitled as Members of Parliament?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will be aware that there has been a campaign mounted and there have been a number of representations made from all sources regarding appointments which Government has the responsibility to make. In the process, in relation to the subject matter about which comments are made, a great deal is said. In the case at hand, I have indicated that the appointment of Judge Copps was terminated-or rather was not terminated but came to-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Franklin McLean: If Hon. Members will allow me to continue, her appointment expired. On behalf of the Government, I thanked her for her services. I personally have seen the quality of her experience throughout the years and I feel that it is very unfortunate that, through the pages of the news media, such a fine record of service should somehow be impugned.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 12, 1985
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The Prime Minister said last week that he intends to help Domtar by means other than a direct federal subsidy. Yesterday the Minister ruled out any possibility of financial assistance. Can the Minister be more specific and tell the House whether his Government will help Domtar by purchasing company shares, or by other means, such as extending a loan?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure most Members of the House would agree that these questions are becoming most repetitive. I dealt with the subject yesterday. There is nothing further to add.


DEFINITION OF CROWN CORPORATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. We will keep asking questions until we get answers.
Yesterday the Minister contradicted the Prime Minister when he said that his Department would not reconsider the definition of Crown corporation, a Bay Street-inspired definition which discriminates against Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that preambles are not permitted in supplementary questions. Would the Hon. Member please put his question?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Can the Minister explain to the House the contradiction between his position and that of the Prime Minister with respect to this important question of the definition of Crown corporation?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would again say to the Hon. Member that there is no contradiction. 1 made that clear yesterday. I would ask the Hon. Member to please read Hansard before he poses the same question that another Member put yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETRO-CANADA SALE OF COME-BY-CHANCE OIL REFINERY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. She will know, in response to an invitation by Petro-Canada, that six companies have posted a $100,000 bond to bid on the sale of the Come-By-Chance oil refinery. Will the Minister please tell us when Petro-Canada will decide on the successful bidder for the sale of that refinery? As well, will she confirm that Petro-Canada is in the final stages of negotiating the sale of that refinery to a company whose intention it is to dismantle the facility and take it out of the province?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this question was raised yesterday. I wish to assure the Hon. Member that the process of tendering will not close until May 1. Clearly, in a commercial transaction such as this, no decision would be made until Petro-Canada analyzes the bids after May 1. I can only assure him, at this moment, that all options are open for the Come-By-Chance refinery.


REQUEST THAT SALE BE HALTED
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, until the provincial election is over, all options will be open. The fact of the matter is that six companies have posted bonds, and all of them will dismantle that refinery.
If all options are open, will the Minister consider-because every single bidder wants to dismantle the refinery-placing a freeze on the sale of that refinery until such time as a study has been done to determine whether or not it is feasible to rehabilitate that refinery to ensure that Hibernia oil is used, and refined, in order that jobs will be created in the Province of Newfoundland? As Clause 54 of the Atlantic Accord now stands, Newfoundlanders will see Hibernia oil lost forever to the province, just as the hydro power in Churchill Falls is now lost. Will she answer?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am rather at a loss to decide which question, of the three or four questions I was asked, to answer, and I hope that I have your indulgence in attempting to do that.
First, Clause 54 of the Atlantic Accord does not do what the Hon. Member suggests. It was negotiated at a time when, of course, the Come-by-Chance refinery was there. The word in the accord is "facility", which takes into account the capacity of Newfoundland to process 100,000 barrels a day. There is a facility.
In terms of the analysis about which he spoke, that has already been done by Petro-Canada. An analysis of the refinery has been done. On the basis of that analysis, Petro-Canada has invited tenders to determine the future of the refinery. As I have already said, there is no information which would indi-
March 12, 1985

cate that everyone wants to mothball the refinery. The information I have is that all options are open, and they will remain so after the Newfoundland election.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister is aware of the public concern over the decision of Canada's immigration service to compel a Somali refugee claimant, Mr. Abdul Mussa, to return two days from now to Somalia, where he claims he will be persecuted. Will the Minister tell the House why-if Mr. Mussa's relatives in Somalia are recognized by Amnesty International as prisoners of conscience, and his tribe is known to be persecuted there, and he has demonstrated publicly against his Government-he has been denied refugee status?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this case, the individual in question has been ordered deported through the normal processes. I cannot interfere with that deportation order. Therefore, the individual will be required to leave the country. He can reapply, from wherever he happens to be, to come back into the country. At that time, his application will be considered.


REQUEST THAT DEPORTATION BE DEFERRED
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister arrange for the deferral of his removal so that he can go to a third country, and not to Somalia, from which he could make his application?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, certainly that could be considered, and I will undertake to look at it.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister will know that he has been under pressure from the City of Mississauga, and others in the Toronto area, to increase terminal capacity at the Toronto international airport. Has he any plans to allow a third terminal to be built? If he has no plans for his own budget, will he allow private investors to build a third terminal on a lease-back basis?
Oral Questions


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, that issue is currently being considered by officials of Transport Canada. As well, all options are being considered.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, and I may add that this time it is an entirely new question. As a result of his rigid and arrogant attitude, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion may be giving away $1.2 billion to the Americans. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that Domtar is being wooed by its American friends who are promising the company guaranteed access to American markets, lower interest rates, lower construction costs and some very attractive inducement, as high as 20 per cent. Has the Minister considered the fact that Domtar has the option of investing in the United States if he persists in refusing to see the light?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member no doubt knows, that type of possibility was raised by Domtar. Domtar told us about the type of inducement which might be offered in various areas or States in the United States. Frankly, there is no reason for them to do that. As I indicated yesterday, we would welcome the plant being built. I would only suggest to the Hon. Member that he should be patient. If there is further news on the matter, we will certainly advise him. But, as of now, the matter is in the position which I indicated yesterday.


DOMTAR-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, there may be no connection, but the Minister must be aware of the fact that Great Lakes, MacMillan Bloedel Limited and Abitibi-Price have made considerable investments in the United States in recent years. I do not see why Domtar would not be interested.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister. Could he give the House the assurance that his Government will never let Domtar leave Windsor to go to the United States, considering the fact that the Americans are offering inducements?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that when there is new news on this question he will be one of the first to hear.

March 12, 1985
Oral Questions VIA RAIL


MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR WORK
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister will be aware of the concern of railway shop crafts regarding the present and future of VIA repair work. At one point it seemed that there was an option that VIA would contract repair work to Bombardier. Could the Minister of Transport confirm that that is no longer an option and that railway workers, who are concerned about the present and future of VIA repair and maintenance, can be assured that they will continue to do that work by an arrangement between CN and VIA?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give the Hon. Member that assurance. The option of contracting service work to Bombardier was considered by the Rail Passenger Action Force and, indeed, the management of VIA Rail. But I believe it is fair to say that that option has now been dropped. It is clear that VIA Rail will want to take over a greater percentage of the maintenance work on its own. Clearly, Transcona is situated in an area, strategically and geographically, where the bulk of CN traffic is generated. As a matter of fact, 70 per cent of the tonnage which is shipped on CN occurs west of the Lakehead, so I think that Transcona has a promising and secure future. I share the concern of my hon. friend, but I can assure him that all steps will be taken to ensure that it remains a key maintenance facility in the CN network.


WINNIPEG REPAIR SHOP PROPOSAL
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: On the same topic, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister could also indicate to the House whether it is his view that the building of the new VIA Rail repair shop, which at one point was scheduled to be built in Winnipeg, has not been completely foreclosed? Does it still remain a possibility down the road, if not immediately, that Winnipeg being the logical place for such a facility will eventually be recognized?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I believe I can assure the Hon. Member as far as the future of VIA Rail maintenance facilities is concerned. It is fair to say that the project originally scheduled has been deferred. That does not mean that it is cancelled for all time. I think the most promising and encouraging fact is that this Government is taking positive steps to expand the services of VIA Rail across Canada and to restore a number of the services which were cancelled by the previous Government. That should be the most encouraging signal which has happened to date.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) on Monday, March 11, 1985, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I have received notice of two questions of privilege. I intend to take them in the order I received them. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East had a question of privilege. I understand that now the Hon. Member withdraws his question of privilege. The second question of privilege is from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Miss Copps).


ALLEGED THREATENING REMARK OF MR. McLEAN
Sheila Maureen Copps: I am rising on a question of privilege arising from the attempt by the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) to punish me for, or intimidate me from, the exercise of freedom of speech in Parliament, thereby committing what I believe to be a breach of the privileges of this House.
In today's Ottawa Citizen-an original of which I have here for your examination, Mr. Speaker-in responding to a question about the decision not to reappoint my mother to her position as citizenship judge, the Secretary of State replied, "You check the record. What her daughter's had to say about the Government". In other words, the Government has decided to punish me for my criticism of it in Parliament and has given this as a reason for me to avoid the same mistake in the future.
This is clear intimidation of the House, not just of one Hon. Member, but of any Hon. Member whose relatives may have dealings with this Government, in other words, every Hon. Member.
Citation 71 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition is very clear, and I quote:
Direct threats which attempt to influence a Member's actions in the House are undoubtedly breaches of privileges.
The Minister clearly stated his threat in a direct quotation. I believe his threat affected not only my privileges but those of the House as defined in Redlich and Ilbert's Procedure of the House of Commons', Vol. 1, page 46, which reads:
The sum of the fundamental rights of the House and of its individual Members as against the prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of the ordinary courts of law and the special rights of the House of Lords.
I believe I have established a prima facie case of breach of privilege that the matter has threatened my free speech and that of all Hon. Members, and I await the Speaker's ruling. If
March 12, 1985

you find a prima facie breach of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. I think it is quite clear that while the Government certainly has the prerogative to name whomever they wish to positions which are Governor in Council positions, by linking an appointment, or in this case the termination of an appointment, to the actions or words of an Hon. Member of this House, the Government has overstepped the bounds of propriety. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it has overstepped the longstanding rights of Hon. Members of this parliament to speak out without any fear of intimidation, whether that intimidation be direct or indirect.
It is not a question of dealing with the merits of any given appointment. Certainly the Minister himself has recognized that in this particular instance the appointee has served with distinction on the Citizenship Court. One can have one's own views with respect to the methods of appointment to that court but, Mr. Speaker, by linking, as the Minister has done, an appointment which is in the discretion of the Government, with the outspokenness of a particular individual, we in this caucus believe that the Government has potentially threatened the rights and privileges of all Hon. Members of Parliament. I support, therefore, the Hon. Member in calling for this matter to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question of privilege which has been raised, I would like to indicate that I have at no time, in any way, threatened the freedom of speech of the Hon. Member or made a threat against her. In the process of taking words which are said in a new context, I would indicate that with respect to the subject at hand there were many representations. In fact, there was great freedom of speech surrounding the subject. The news media had been filled with it. There were ample opportunities for freedom of speech, including those opportunities in the House of Commons, and these representations had been brought to the attention of the Government. I would subscribe, however, Mr. Speaker, that far from threatening, one was affirming the open process around the appointments and the fact that these were brought to the attention of the Government.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the request for a ruling that there is a prima facie case of privilege which was raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). I quote from the article in question which appears in today's Ottawa Citizen.
Asked in an interview whether the Cabinet decision to not reappoint Copps-
That is Mrs. Geraldine Copps.
-was politically motivated, McLean-
That is the Secretary of State.
-replied, "You check the record. What her daughter's had to say about the Government".
Privilege-Ms. Copps
Mr. Speaker, in rising a few moments ago to comment on the request by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East that you rule that this matter involves a prima facie breach of privilege, the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) was very careful not to deny the accuracy of the press report in question. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I submit that privilege is involved in this matter, but not as a result of the Government's decision as such not to reappoint Mrs. Geraldine Copps. As the Secretary of State has suggested, he received a lot of advice on the matter, including advice from the Mayor of Hamilton and the senior Member of Parliament from the area, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Wentworth (Mr. Scott). It arises from the statement of the Secretary of State-which he has not denied-to the effect that the decision not to reappoint Judge Copps was as a result of the judge's daughter's attempts to fulfil her responsibilities as she sees them as an Hon. Member of the House of Commons. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Government has decided to punish the Hon. Member for Hamilton East for her criticism of it in Parliament and has given this as a reason for her and others to avoid the same mistake in the future.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a clear intimidation of the House, not of just one Hon. Member, but an intimidation of any Hon. Member whose relatives may have dealings with this Government, in other words, every Hon. Member of this House.
I would again like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 71. It is very clear, and I quote:
Direct threats which attempt to influence a Member's actions in the House are undoubtedly breaches of privileges.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is important that all Hon. Members listen to the point of privilege being raised.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Redlich and Ilbert's Procedure of the House of Commons gives the accepted definition of privilege. It reads:
The sum of the fundamental rights of the House and of its individual Members as against the prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of the ordinary courts of law and the special rights of the House of Lords.
Erskine May's Twentieth Edition goes on from this point at length to establish the ancillary nature of privilege and to develop the meaning of immunities.
Freedom of speech is clearly established as one of the privileges assigned through the House to its Members. Any attempt to punish or harm a Member for using this freedom of speech or to intimidate a Member from using it is a breach of privilege.
So I say, in conclusion, that the action of the Government, through the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean), taken on its own, may not look like a retribution regarding any activities in Parliament by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms.

March 12, 1985
Privilege-Ms. Copps
Copps). However, the words of the Secretary of State, which he has not denied although he has been given opportunity to do so in this House, indicate that they were intended to be such. In making the statement on the record for the press, or even if he did not make it on the record, it was clearly intended that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and all other Members should be intimidated from speaking in a negative manner about the Government. Therefore I submit, on the basis of the facts and, more important, on the basis of the precedents, that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East has in fact created an argument justifying your finding that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be relatively brief in connection with this matter because I think we all appreciate that the right of freedom of speech in this Chamber is paramount. I simply draw your attention to a couple of what are I think very germane points.
It has not been our habit, practice or tradition to base questions of privilege on newspaper reports. They are not affidavits. We all understand that they are interpretative pieces with respect to alleged statements and they are put into a certain context in an editorial sense. Having said that, I think nothing can be clearer than the statement made by an Hon. Member in this House, namely, the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean), a distinguished and Hon. Member of Parliament. In that statement he categorically and unequivocally stated, when confronted by this alleged statement, that it was not in fact true, and there was no statement made, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of intimidating the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: When did he say that?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is precisely what the Hon. Secretary of State has said. I am sorry this may offend the sensibilities of members of the Liberal Party, but I simply say that one has to listen to what the Secretary of State has said. He said that there was no intention to intimidate, the statement was taken out of context, and it was absolutely incorrect and false. Furthermore, the Secretary of State went to the unprecedented length of conveying directly to Mrs. Copps his congratulations for the manner in which she had carried out her duties. What could be a better and more direct example of the bona fide of the Secretary of State with respect to this whole matter? He had no intention of doing anything but praising Mrs. Copps for the work she had done. I think this is admirable.
The point I am making is very simple. In order to determine that there is a question of privilege, there has to be evidence of a direct attempt to thwart freedom of speech in the House of Commons by a Member of Parliament. Clearly this is contrary to the facts we have here. We have a Secretary of state who has clearly indicated that the matter was taken out of context and that he has done nothing. He stood in his place in this House and made that statement. As you will fully appreciate, the rule is that we are to accept a statement made by a Member when he stands in his place and makes a statement
with respect to the fact they have taken a certain course of action and there was no malice intended and no malice in fact occurred. So I say to you that if an Hon. Member does stand in his place, regardless of which side of the House he is located in, it is a tradition of this House that we accept his word. We do not go around in a mealy-mouthed way to try to interpret him in a way which suits our purpose. This is an Hon. Member, he has stated his position, I stand behind him, and I think Members of the House should stand behind him as well when he has withdrawn categorically.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I think Members will know from the length of time I have allowed these presentations to go on that I regard it as a serious matter. As Members would expect, I want to read and examine very carefully exactly what has been said in the House today prior to rendering a judgment. For that purpose I intend to reserve my judgment on this matter.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-3, an Act to implement conventions between Canada and the Republic of Zambia, Canada and the Kingdom of Thailand, Canada and the Republic of Cyprus, and Canada and the Federative Republic of Brazil for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 46(2), I am pleased to table in both official languages a document entitled A Report to the Minister of National Health and Welfare from the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Committee on the Funding of the Canada Pension Plan.

March 12, 1985


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-228, an Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention today to introduce a Bill which will establish a separate geographic riding for the area known as Labrador. Labrador is a distinct geographical entity with clearly defined boundaries. It stands historically, culturally, socially, logistically and politically apart from the rest of the province. I believe that this legislation is supported by the people of Labrador and I hope this House will send it to committee for further investigation and study.


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

James Douglas Manly: for leave to introduce Bill C-229, an Act to amend the Railway Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Railway Act to require all railways operating within the provinces to comply with the environmental and safety standards of those provinces. Specifically it would require seeking provincial authority for any spraying that takes place on rights-of-way.


[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. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 44, 215 and 264.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: Did the Government undertake, or has it initiated in the current fiscal year, any studies relating to the effect of child battery syndrome and, if so (a) are the studies to be carried out by outside consultants and in what time frame (b) was any amount allocated to the studies and, if so, what amount?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am
informed by the Departments of Justice and National Health and Welfare as follows:
The Department of Justice has not undertaken in the current fiscal year, any studies relating to the effects of the child battery syndrome. Nevertheless, the Department had allocated a contribution of $23,395 to the Canadian Council on Children and Youth for the purpose of conducting a national consultation on the Report of the Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youth. The allocation covered the time period from March, 1984 to October, 1984.
The following projects have been carried out by private organizations in the fiscal year 1984-85:
1.	A three-year $2.2 million National Study on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youth, (chaired by Dr. Robin Badgley), was carried out by an outside consultant from 1981 to 1984. The Department of National Health and Welfare's contribution in 1981-82 was approximately $22,000, and 198081, $68,000. The findings of this study were released by joint press release on August 22, 1984, by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Justice.
2.	"Parent Enrichment Project". A project funded by the National Welfare Grants Program intended to demonstrate how support to parents can prevent the incidence of recidivism of child abuse. Duration: 1979-85 (approximately). Funding in 1984-85: $7,000.
3.	"Intervention for Women Sexually Victimized in Childhood". Project designed to assess which therapeutic models are best suited to reinstate mental health and social functioning in victims. Funded by the National Welfare Grants Program. Duration: 1983-87. Funding in 1984-85: $50,400.
4.	"Parent and Child Therapy". The purpose of this project was to demonstrate an intensive long-term treatment program for abusive parents and their pre-school children. Funded by the National Welfare Grants Program. Duration: 1979-85. Funding in 1984-85: $7,000.


Mr. Howie: As of the last date for which information is available, what proportion of the employees of the Department of Agriculture were women?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: 26.2 per cent.

March 12, 1985
Order Paper Questions PROJECTS BUILT BY ROGER DAVIDSON


Mr. Heap: 1.	What is the total capital cost of the buildings Roger Davidson has built under Section 56.1 of the National Housing Act?
2.	How many units did he build?
3.	Did he specify a development fee in respect of each such project and, if so, what was the total of such fees?
4.	Who are the members of the board of directors of each non-profit project?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: I am informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	Roger Davidson has not personally built any projects under Section 56.1 of the National Housing Act. However, construction companies have acted as contractors on a number of projects sponsored by various credit unions on whose behalf Roger Davidson has acted as a consultant. The total capital cost of these projects is $177,119,445.
2.	Three thousand, one hundred and fifty-seven units have been built or are being built in projects in which Mr. Davidson is involved.
3.	No.
4.	See list below. The board members shown are the most current listings available to CMHC, but may not represent the present board members.
Section 56.1, NHA projects which have been built or arc under construction involving Roger Davidson
Name of project and sponsor	Board Members
Ridgcmount/Mountmuir Co-Op Hsg Corp. Hamilton	Original Members: Michael Fenner, Bernard Hinklcy Sr.. George Harrison. Dennis Marsell. Joseph Campbell
Ridgeleigh/Winklcigh Co-Op Hsg. Corp. Hamilton	George Harrison. Bernic Hinklcy. Don Chapman, Ken Rogers. Margaret Bryanton. Dennis Heuser
Wcstlcigh Gardens Homes/ Southlcigh Charitable Foundation Kitchener	Dennis Marsell, George Harrison. Albert Whitlinslall
Broadoak Charitable/ Ontario Teamsters Cr. Union St. Catharines	George Harrison, Dennis Marsell
Coral Co-Op/Barric Community Cr. Union	Original Members: Paul Meehan, Donna Gamble. Tina Grant. Bruce McClean. Paul Shortheed
Pretty River Villas/ Collingwood Community Credit Union	Original Members: Eva Priscilla Bcauprie. Been Reitsma, William Borrison Day, Lancelot Rivers, Jean-Paul Proulx
Domus Charitable/Credit Union Central. Canada Packers Credit Union Mississauga	Original Members: Bob King, Stanley Hall. George Harrison, Al Whittinstall
Domus Charitable/Halton Hills Credit Union Halton Hills	Bob King, Stanley Hall, George Harrison, Al Whittinstall
Archipelago Charitable/ National Defence Credit Union Ottawa	Norman S. Freeman, Kenneth A. Kearns, Donald J. O'Donnell, W. J. Mclndoo
Artisan/Canada Packers Empl. Credit Union Toronto	Stanley Hall, George Harrison, Donna Gamble, Paul Meehan, Kenneth Barger, Robert King
Southover/Canada Packers Emp. Credit Union Toronto	George Harrison, Donna Gamble, Robert King, Stanley Hall, Faye Masson
Brenyon Way 1 & 11/ Secul Credit Union Toronto	Alfred Strathdee, Paul Meehan. John Mackintosh, Kenneth Stewart, Lance Porter, Kenneth Webster. David Edge, Bob Crowe
Stanchester/Ontario Teamster, Our Lady of Victory Parish Cr. Un.. Canada Packers Cr. Un. Toronto	Stanley Hall, George Harrison. Donna Gamble. Robert King. Lois Strong
Widworthy/Toronto Board of Education Credit Union Toronto	William Harper, Stanley Hall, Robert King, Patricia Todd. Dennis Drake
Kcnfinch Co-Op/Toronto Board of Education Credit Union Toronto	A. Lwyn Gilkes, Willis Carter, Ruth Gopaul, Ken Transom, Yvonne McEwan, Nancy Pithwalla
Bruckland/Ont. Teamster Credit Union Toronto	George Harrison. Robert King, Stanley Hall, Donna Gamble. Joan Banning
Parkfarm Co-Op/IBM Toronto Emp. Cr. Un. Toronto	Original Members: Dorothy Ridley. Ariel Fordrey. Kimberley Colaccico, Wendy Scott, Clifford Boulch
Ridgcford/Secul Credit Union Toronto	Alfred Strathdee. John Mackintosh, Paul Meehan. Lance Porter, Kenneth Webster, Kenneth Stewart, David Edge, Jennie Mitchell
Heathcrcross/Toronto Board of Ed. Cr. Un. Toronto	Stanley Hall. Robert King. William Harper, Patricia Todd
Ashprior/Canada Packers Employees Credit Union Toronto	Original Members: Walter Currie, Isobel Henson, Margaret Carroll. Philip King
Compass/Jet Power Credit Union Toronto	Original Members: Merle Bodenham. Donna Gamble, Paul Meehan, Tina Grant
Churchstation/LC BO Credit Union Toronto	Original Members: Dorothy Ridley, Ariel Forsbrcy. Kimberley Colaccica, Wendy Scott. Ruth Brockcst, Dick De Mann
Yarford/Canada Packers Cr. Un., LCBO Credit Union. IBM Toronto Empl. Credit Union Toronto	Original Members: Robert King, Walter Currie. Isobel Henson, Dina Rumolo
Coral/Barrie Community Credit Union	Paul Shortheed, Bruce McLean, Donna Gamble, Paul Meehan, Tina Grant
Coral/Barrie Community Credit Union	Paul Shortheed, Bruce McLean, Donna Gamble, Paul Meehan, Tina Grant
Coral/Barrie Community Credit Union	Paul Shortheed. Bruce McLean, Donna Gamble. Paul Meehan. Tina Grant
[English]


John B. Stewart: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 12, 1985



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn for Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and to repeal the International Development Association Act and amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned earlier today I was saying that loans made by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, otherwise known as the World Bank, are made on commercially related terms. In 1960, the International Development Association was established in order to enhance the work of the World Bank in the least developed countries of the world. Again, Canada was a founding member. The purposes of the International Development Association are generally the same as those of the World Bank, but because the assistance is directed at the poorest countries, the terms of IDA loans are more concessionary. Low income countries cannot afford commercial loans or the near-commercial terms of the IBRD, so IDA credits are made to member governments with a 10 year grace, a 50 year maturity, no interest, and a small service fee.
The International Finance Corporation was established in 1956 to assist the economic development of less developed countries by promoting growth in the private sector of their economies and helping to mobilize domestic and foreign capital for this purpose. The Bill before us will also allow the IFC to borrow in Canada on the same basis as the World Bank. As the world has changed, the activities of the World Bank have changed too. In the past, the World Bank financed capital infrastructures such as roads, railways, telecommunications, ports, power facilities and so on. Its present development strategy places more emphasis on investments that can directly affect the well-being of the poor people in developing countries by making them more productive and by integrating them as active partners in the developing process.
Since 1980, the bank has also carried on a program of structural adjustment lending. This program was developed in response to the severe economic difficulties in developing countries and supports specific policy changes and institutional reforms designed to achieve a more efficient use of resources in the client country, and thereby lay the basis for future growth while also contributing to a more sustainable balance of payments.
All this good work, like any human endeavour, does not go smoothly all the time. Under the IDA rules there is an agreement whereby if the United States does not meet its full share of the requirements of IDA, other countries do not have to contribute their full share. That is, they can cut back on a pro rata basis comparable to the United States. In 1982, the
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
United States cut back very significantly. If other countries had cut back on a similar basis, the result would have been very serious indeed. However, the consensus at the World Bank meetings in Toronto in September of that year was that the amount IDA requested was appropriate, and so other countries scrambled to maintain the system.
I had the honour of being a delegate to the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1981. That particular session of the United Nations was on where the conflict between the views of the newly-elected Reagan administration and those of some underdeveloped countries was very sharply delineated.
The differences of opinion continued, and in September, 1983 when the discussions began at the IMF-IBRD meetings in Washington about the seventh replenishment of the International Development Association, the United States again contributed less than expected. Some American officials have expressed fears that if countries already in difficulty find it easy to borrow, this will distract them from making necessary changes to improve efficiency in their own domestic policies. On the other hand, the poorer countries which suffered particularly during the world recession became more frantic and angry in their demands that the industrialized countries help them. This indeed was sometimes difficult for people in industrialized countries to understand since they themselves were having a difficult time.
It has been said that a "dialogue of the deaf' is now going on between the so-called North and South, with the industrialized nations wanting to give less money-Mr. Speaker, I am having a little trouble hearing myself. I wonder if the gentlemen on your right could reduce the noise by a few decibels?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask Members to please listen to the Hon. Member's speech.


Aideen Nicholson: They don't have to do that, Mr. Speaker. They can just continue their conversation in slightly lower tones of voice.
It has been said that a "dialogue of the deaf' is now going on between the so-called North and South, with the industrialized nations wanting to give less money with more conditions and requirements while the less developed countries want more money and fewer conditions. I think that those of us who have travelled in Third World countries generally come back with the feeling that the need surely is for more money and more guidance and assistance in using it to their best advantage.
As the world emerges from a recession, recovery has been particularly slow for the heavily indebted middle-income countries and for the impoverished nations of Africa. Clearly the existing problems of debt and poverty will remain as long as capital flows to developing countries remain inadequate, trade barriers remain high, and inefficient domestic policies remain untouched.
Multilateral financial organizations are in particularly favourable positions to link capital flows to developing countries with performance requirements and assistance to meet

March 12, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act those requirements. Money alone will not help developing countries, although indeed they badly need additional financing. However, financial assistance without performance requirements and monitoring, as has happened both in commercial lending and with bilateral or country-to-country assistance, has led to inefficient investment. Sovereign nations do not usually easily accept attempts by other nations to influence their policies, hence it is difficult to put conditions on bilateral aid. Commercial bank lending to developing countries which increased so rapidly in the seventies, was also not sufficiently buttressed by performance requirements. Commercial lenders evaluated the credit worthiness of their borrowers for individual, often short-term, loans, but did not adequately monitor either how the funds were used or the countries' long-term policies and prospects.
The multilateral financial institutions, however, have proven that they can design, evaluate, and supervise adjustment in the developing countries in ways which are acceptable to the country concerned. Every World Bank loan and IDA credit has conditions and is also complemented by a more general macroeconomic dialogue with each borrowing country about its economic prospects and policies. Now when so many developing countries are struggling to revive economic growth, the Bank's dialogue with borrowers on broad issues of economic policy has become more important than ever.
The Bank today is keenly aware that attempts to revive economic growth without attention to income re-distribution can result in little improvement for the poor, and could lead to widening gaps between rich and poor in the recipient countries. In its lending and its research, therefore, the Bank has worked toward improving the situation of the poor. Approximately one third of all World Bank loans now focus on projects that especially benefit the poor. These loans too are stringently monitored and are subject to conditions.
In April 1984, I heard Munir P. Benjenk, Vice President of the World Bank address this issue at the Lisbon Conference of the Council of Europe as follows:
Obviously conditionality implies hard, sometimes hot disagreements. But what makes World Bank conditionality work as well as it does is that our borrowing member countries consider the Bank a friend and partner in their development efforts. The Bank's conditions are associated with long-term finance, are a natural complement to the IMF's conditionality and its short-term finance. This is particularly true of the Bank's non-project lending for structural adjustment and sectoral development, which recognizes that major reforms in developing countries can only take root if they are implemented gradually over a number of years, and are financed in parallel with closely monitored implementation.
The World Bank's size, experience and global perspective give it some advantage in analysing a country's economy, and increasingly now we are seeing some other investors, the Regional Development Banks, and the Commercial Banks sometimes, use the World Bank's analysis to help in decision-making.
I would like to refer now to the debate on the Bretton Woods Bill in this House in 1982. The Present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who was then the Opposition critic, said:
1 believe the Government of Canada should assess its position very carefully on an on-going basis. Can we continue to play as large a role as we have in supporting these multilateral institutions. If our economic performance continues the same, if we continue to have a weak economy ... we in Canada may have to cut back.
I have nothing against the Hon. Minister's suggestion that the Government of Canada assess its position very carefully on an on-going basis. Obviously situations change and it sometimes is necessary to modify policies accordingly. However, I sincerely hope that the Government will not consider cutting back on foreign aid at this particular time.
Nearly 800 million people are living in absolute poverty; more than 600 million will still be in this condition as the world enters the next century. We have a moral obligation to help tackle the problems of poverty, hunger, and lack of education, which are all too prevalent in our world. Not only do we have a moral obligation to help, but it is clearly in our own interests to do so.
Because of our interdependence, we need to work for recovery in the world economy so that the benefits of the recovery can spread to all countries. Clearly, resumption of sound, lasting growth among industrialized nations will help developing countries.
But we, too, are helped by increasing prosperity in poor and distant countries. The North-South Institute here in Ottawa, for instance, estimates that the economic malaise in Third World countries has played a large part in a drop-off of Canadian exports and a loss of 135,000 jobs here.
Finding the correct balance between aid, trade and investment is a matter on which the international community can and must work together.
Aid, whether bilateral or multilateral, is still essential and will be for some time.
Trade is at least as important as aid in the promotion of development. Export earnings account for the major part of most developing countries' international purchasing power. During the recession from which we are emerging, these earnings were particularly badly squeezed between a contraction of the market for exports and the fall in the prices of the commodities on which so many developing countries rely heavily. This squeeze, bad enough as it would have been by itself, took place at a time when high interest rates have been the norm and when, unlike their impressive economic performance after the first oil shock of 1973, the developing countries were finding it particularly difficult to cope with high oil prices prevailing since 1979. Many have been faced with mounting debt repayments.
We all recognize the importance of maintaining an open and orderly international trading system. This will be promoted by assisting the developing countries to build up their economies and invest in the future so that eventually they will be less dependent on external assistance. Foreign investment and bank lending are of course extremely important to many developing countries.
We must not forget, however, that no matter how helpful, and indeed invaluable, aid, trade, and investment are, there
March 12, 1985

can be no real and sustained economic progress in developing countries unless their own governments pursue appropriate policies. As I said earlier, it usually proves more acceptable for the multilateral institutions than for a donor country to discuss policy issues with a recipient but still sovereign nation. The process of negotiation is all important so that obstacles to progress are removed with goodwill by mutual agreement.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the interdependence between arms reduction and development. As the international arms race is brought under control, resources can be freed for international development and other productive uses.
I know that Hon. Members on all sides of the House will join with me in the hope that the talks in Geneva will be fruitful and that when we next discuss Canada's contribution to the World Bank it will be in the context of a world where progress has been made toward armament reduction and toward peace in the future.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Brett on Woods Agreements and to repeal and amend other Acts as a consequence.
The Bill actually deals with three closely affiliated international development institutions. One is the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, commonly called the World Bank. Second is the International Development Association which is basically the soft window of the World Bank. Third is the International Finance Corporation.
In particular what the Bill is doing, and with this we really have no quarrel, is to provide legislative authority for Canada's participation in the International Finance Corporation. This legislative authority had never been provided before. Pursuant to the June 12, 1981, ruling of Madam Speaker Sauve regarding budget items in the 1981-82 Estimates, it became necessary to provide legislative authority for the International Finance Corporation. Of course, we have no quibble with that.
A second purpose of the Bill is to consolidate legislative authority for the three organizations and the one statute, that is the World Bank, the International Development Association, and the International Finance Corporation. We have no difficulty with that. Indeed we are grateful that the Bill should be brought before the House at all. Therefore, we are happy for the technical reasons, for it being brought before the House. It provides Hon. Members with an opportunity to assess the value of our participation in the World Bank and other organizations, to take stock of their activities, and to determine to what extent they are providing real development assistance to developing countries and promoting a more equal balance between North and South.
We in this Party feel that this kind of reassessment is fundamentally important and particularly crucial now in view of the vast changes in the international economic order over the last decade. Because of these changes and the crucial
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
importance of international financial institutions and Canada's role in them, we are very distressed by a third aspect of the Bill which will possibly make this the last occasion on which we will be able to debate these matters.
As was pointed out by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), although she does not seem as worried about this as I, the new Clause 6 alters the means by which parliamentary approval for providing funds to these organizations is obtained. Formerly, an amended Act had to come before the House of Commons for approval to be granted in the provision of funds for these organizations. These approvals would now be sought annually by virtue of Clause 6 through the Estimates rather than through amendments to the Act itself. I gather this would not apply to the International Monetary Fund. It is not included because there is no need to increase its special drawing rates in this legislation. What is included and is of particular concern to us is the World Bank, the International Development Association and the International Finance Corporation.
I wonder how many Hon. Members realize that this is in effect what was done with regional development banks back in March 1983. Instead of having to come every year or two years to the House of Commons for replenishment, enabling us to have a debate and enabling us to go to committee and discuss many aspects of the operations of regional development banks, after Bill C-130 was passed that was the end of Parliament having any opportunity to discuss the operations of regional development banks and such related funds as the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the Common Fund for Commodities. From that moment on, the provision of funds to the banks and other funds was through the Estimates, not through special amended Acts of the House of Commons. In retrospect it was a mistake. We should not have allowed it to take place in 1983. We should learn from that mistake and try to rectify the situation, not exacerbate it by making provisions, as the Bill we are discussing today does in Clause 6, that change the way in which moneys are approved for the World Bank and the IDA.
I have heard some people in finance and elsewhere argue that it is more efficient this way, that one can get the money more surely and rapidly. However, I think it must be tongue in cheek because they know the House cannot hold up this kind of Bill for very long. Compared with what goes on in other parliamentary systems, we give incredibly little attention in this House to international financial matters. We should not forego the small amount of influence we can exert through debates in the House.
I hope we will bring forth an amendment in committee which will ensure the continuation of periodic debate in the House on the World Bank and related institutions and bring back the possibility of debate in the House on other international financial institutions in addition to the World Bank, the IMF and, in particular, regional development banks.
The Government knows that we in this Party have always been very supportive of Canada's participation in multilateral institutions which share the burden of international develop-

March 12, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act ment. As a rule we have approved very strongly in the past all multilateral approaches. However, we are increasingly concerned about what has been happening in many multilateral institutions which most Members of the House have supported in the past.
For example, we are concerned about the trend to withdraw support from these institutions. We see it being initiated by the Reagan administration in the United States. I note with particular concern Canada's position at the recent UNESCO meeting in Paris at which, it seemed to me, Canada hardened its stance, hinting that it was following the U.S. lead and possibly giving some consideration to withdrawing from UNESCO. We would be very troubled if Canada should fall in line with the trend we see taking place in the U.S. administration. If it is, it is even more important that there be a full parliamentary and public debate on all legislation affecting our participation in multilateral institutions. If we do not have that kind of debate, specifically returning to international financial institutions, then we as a Parliament will not be able to address seriously reforms which are needed in these institutions, not only to enhance the stability of industrialized nations but, even more, to enhance the economic survival of the least developed countries of the South and the political stability of all.
I hope it is not the intention of the Government to avoid altogether public and parliamentary discussion of these vital issues. In making this change in Clause 6 I think that is effectively what it is trying to do. A part of my fears is engendered by some of the references of Conservative Members in previous debates in earlier years, including the Hon. Member who is now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), suggesting or implying that Canada did not need to give, should not be giving nor continue to give support to international financial institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and regional development banks. We certainly have many criticisms of the operation of these banks, but we do not want to see the Government move out of Canada's involvement in multilateral affairs.
We are worried about removing the possibility of any parliamentary debate after this debate. That is exactly what the Government may be doing. I would urge it to look at the comments of a former Conservative Member, Douglas Roche, in the House of Commons on March 25, 1983. He did not want Canada to withdraw from its international commitments. This was during the debate on the International Development Continuing Assistance Act. That debate related to the replenishment of the funds of the regional development banks. Mr. Roche said:
One of the reasons for the importance of debating this legislation is the fact that it is a very rare occasion when the House is seized of any sort of debate on these matters, let alone dealing with legislation having to do with Canada's role in international development. As we know, C1DA has been operating through the years without an Act of Parliament. The only time we deal in any substantial way with Cl DA does as the main proponent of Canada's role in international development, is at the time of the Estimates. 1 am afraid that all Members of the House are too well aware of the inadequacy of the rules concerning the
examination of Estimates that preclude the full treatment that important spending programs require.
I recommend to the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), in whose name this Bill stands, that she look again at those comments of a former Conservative back-bencher.
Let me ask a very serious question. Is it the intention of this Government to abstain from addressing in any meaningful way the vital issue of international development, as it seems to be doing in failing to address our concerns about the North Warning System and star wars?
Is has been very clear for some time that reform of the international monetary and financial system is essential. It is long overdue. The creators of the Bretton Woods Agreements, could not, of course, have foreseen the extent of the changes in the world economy, the vast capital movements, the major imbalances and external payments, foreign debt, the operations of the multinational banks and corporations and the extent of global interdependence which now exists.
A great deal has been written on these matters. One book I found most interesting and helpful is entitled Towards a New Bretton Woods. The report is by a Commonwealth study group. I believe it came out in 1983. It is an excellent series of essays addressing the challenges for the world financial and trading system.
As I pointed out in previous debates, the activities of the commercial banks have undermined the developing countries through, in my view, the banks' totally irresponsible behaviour throughout the 1970s in the expenditure of their petro dollars, almost begging many of the developing countries to take easy loans, to the point of enormous over-spending with huge profits for themselves in the process. The resulting burden of debt, the effects of the world recession and the ultimate withdrawal of commercial lenders forced developing countries into almost total reliance on the International Monetary Fund and, for different purposes of course, on the World Bank.
According to the North-South Institute Review, an outlook for 1983-84, the outstanding external public debt of developing countries now exceeds S600 billion, more than double that of five years ago. Of this, 80 per cent is owed by 20 countries and fully one-third by the three largest borrowers. The balance of payment problems and the repayment of many low income countries are almost insurmountable. The debt servicing obligations and new financial outflows over the next three to four years is a net transfer of resources out of developing countries, threatening economic, social and political stability and making development and growth an impossibility.
The developing countries are now at the point where an IMF agreement has become a crucial seal of approval of credit worthiness. It has become a precondition for gaining access to other sources of finance. The growth of IMF quotas on which members' access is based have not kept pace with demand. Expressed as a percentage of world trade, IMF quotas have fallen from a peak of 13 per cent in 1959 to a low of just under 4 per cent in 1982.
March 12, 1985

Furthermore, the lending policies of the five major Canadian banks, with an estimated $10.3 billion outstanding in loans to Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, reflect this trend. All now attach high priority to restraining outstanding developing country loans and to expanding their lending activity in such high growth areas as the United States and the Pacific Rim. Also, and this is as important as either of the two previous points I have mentioned, no new issues of IMF special drawing rights have been allocated to members since January 1981. In fact, a decision not to issue special drawing rights in 1983 was taken due to U.S. opposition.
Along with inadequate IMF resources, more stringent conditions and performance criteria have been placed on developing countries seeking assistance. The IMF harsh stabilization programs are designed to correct chronic balance of payment deficits by reducing demand for imports while simultaneously boosting exports. Reduced internal demand is sought by demands to cut wages, reduce state subsidies on many goods, including food, thereby raising prices and a whole host of other measures designed to reduce living standards in the developing countries.
Measures to increase exports include, among others, currency devaluations to make exports more competitive and imports more expensive, concessionary tax laws for export industries and the creation of export processing zones designed to lure export oriented multinationals looking for a cheap, tightly-controlled labour force to exploit. In many instances, these conditions have led, as we all know, to severe social consequences such as high unemployment, as well as creating artificial distortions in the balanced growth of the domestic economies. There are many cases where less developed countries that were previously net exporters of food are now net food importers because the resources have been deliberately drained from the agricultural sector.
The austerity related unrest in Brazil is a serious threat to political stability in that country. The so-called IMF riots in Jamaica are also well documented. An uprising five years ago killed 800 people. A more recent public protest left several dead. In Jamaica, the current average wage is about $12 a week. Unemployment is close to 30 per cent and inflation is also about 30 per cent. Is this what we are supporting the IMF for? I would remind Hon. Members that IMF is an integral part of this debate. Undermining its own stated purposes of promoting international monetary stability and co-operation, is that what we are doing? The big question of the IMF today is, the development is for whom? It is most probably not for the developing or lesser-developed countries of the world.
This brings me to one of the lesser amendments in the Bill before us which so far has escaped previous speakers. It is the amendment to Clause 7 which adds certain words. This clause provides that the Minister of Finance shall table reports of the agencies covered by this Bill and details of their operations which directly affect Canada. The amendment adds:
-including the resources and lending of the World Bank group, the funds subscribed or contributed by Canada, borrowings in Canada and procurement of Canadian goods and services.
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
We have no objection to that addition to the clause, but I am curious to know why it applies only to the World Bank group, the IDA and the IFC. Why does it not also apply to the International Monetary Fund? Just because there was no need to mention the funding of the International Monetary Fund in this particular Act does not mean that the Government could not have included the IMF in that rather more detailed reporting system provided by the amendment to Clause 7.
Turning now from the IMF to the World Bank, criticisms similar to the ones I have just made about the IMF can now also be made of the World Bank, which formerly was not subject to this kind of criticism to the same extent. Now the World Bank seems to have underwritten the approach of the IMF.
Hon. Members will know that the World Bank has developed really innovative structural adjustment loans which are a form of balance of payments support. However, it now appears to be making these loans conditional upon a borrower's acceptance of an IMF adjustment program. If my understanding is correct, then it is basically underwriting the approach of the IMF.
Second, regarding the IDA window of the World Bank, it seems to me that replenishments to the International Development Association of the World Bank are becoming increasingly uncertain. In 1981, the Reagan administration reduced the U.S. contribution of $3.2 billion to the sixth replenishment, commonly known as IDA-6, by deciding to stretch payment over four years rather than three. This resulted in a 35 per cent slash in lending in 1982. Fortunately, the non-American IDA deputies agreed to bridge the shortfall until IDA-7, this year, by contributing an additional $2 billion. I should like to note that this $2 billion was actually placed in a special fund which restricted procurement to the contributors and other developing countries as a symbolic show of disapproval of the position of the United States. This was quite remarkable since IDA donors only contribute in proportion to the contribution of the United States, pursuant to the 1980 agreement.
Nevertheless, the U.S. breach of the principle of burden sharing continues. At the negotiations for the seventh replenishment, the U.S. proposed a replenishment of $9 billion in response to the Bank's stated minimum amount of $16 billion. Canada and other donor countries sought a compromise of $12 billion but without success. This has precipitated the creation of another special fund for sub-Saharan Africa of $1.2 billion with $100 million coming from Canada.
The downward pressure on IDA funding levels will continue to have its most severe effects on the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, countries in which the average annual income, excluding Nigeria, was only $330 in 1979 and has since fallen .5 per cent each year in real terms. The drought-stricken countries of Africa will have little chance of escaping the tide of famine that individual Canadians are now trying to stem.
Finally regarding the World Bank and IDA, it seems likely that a modest interest charge will be levied quite soon on IDA

March 12, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
lending, something which has never been done before, and that maturities will be reduced as a means of supplementing resources.
Surely the Canadian Government must see that the Canadian public is concerned, that many members of the Canadian public recognize the crucial nature of the problems of the developing world and the less developed countries and that they are anxious to see the Government take a leadership role by addressing these problems in Parliament. Just as Canadians have demonstrated their concern about the nuclear threat, they have also demonstrated their willingness to respond to the poverty of the Third World by donating millions of dollars to the starving in Ethiopia and the Sudan.
Another very important question relating to international lending is that of human rights. We in this Party have repeatedly urged this Government and the previous Liberal Government to require Canada's directors, and in fact all Canadian representatives at international financial institutions, to consider human rights abuses when handling loan requests. Just last month I urged the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to live up to the Government's recent endorsement of a U.N. resolution condemning human rights violations in Chile and by advising Canada's representative at the Inter-American Development Bank to vote against a $ 130-million loan to that country's repressive military regime. The Minister claims that he does not want to politicize the Bank's lending criteria. The fact is that he is politicizing it when he declines to look at the human rights record of the governments in question. The Government is effectively copping out on the human rights issue, as did the Liberal Government before it.
Interestingly enough, although I was earlier critical of the Reagan administration, even the Reagan administration, under congressional pressure, abstained from voting on the loan to Chile in compliance with its own human rights legislation on international lending. Canada voted in favour of the loan. Obviously there is a need for similar Canadian human rights legislation on international lending.
A major concern of the New Democratic Party is the increasing political interference in international lending. We are particularly concerned, as I have indicated, with the frequent role of the United States in pressuring the IMF, and indeed all international financial institutions, to take a harder line with countries whose political persuasions are deemed unacceptable to the Reagan administration. That is the kind of politicization about which we and the Government should be worrying. Surely this kind of activity is in clear violation of the fundamental principles on which the international financial and trading system was founded; multilateralism, non-discrimination and openness and special concern for poorer countries.
At the World Bank, the U.S. expressed concern not over these principles but over subsidizing utopianism in reference to a loan for collective farming in Tanzania. A confidential internal bank study recommended a squeeze on funds to Nicaragua until more concessions were made to the private
sector. I was appalled to learn recently that the United States Executive Director at the Inter-American Development Bank recently threatened to walk out of any meeting that even considered a loan to Nicaragua.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: That is what worries us, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure it worries the Secretary of State for External Affairs who, I am pleased to see, is present in the House. A country which has just had a democratic election with the participation of opposition parties in which the Sandinistas received almost the same percentage of the popular vote as did President Reagan, President Reagan is now calling undemocratic and the Hon. Member from the Conservative back-bench is saying "hear, hear" when I point out that the Executive Director of the IADB threatened to walk out of any meeting that even considered a loan to Nicaragua. This $58-million loan to Nicaragua is one of the most investigated loans made in IADB history and one which every other country at the Bank has approved for consideration.
I was even more startled to learn yesterday that U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz has taken the unprecedented step of personally interceding to block this loan on the grounds that it might be used to finance aggression. This kind of intervention is setting a most dangerous precedent for all multilateral institutions and for the whole concept of multilateralism. Of course, the United States administration-though I would hope not the Conservative administration in Canada- would never admit that its $1-billion cover war against the democratically elected Government of Nicaragua, together with its economic blockade of that country, is what has undermined the real economic and social reforms the Sandinis-ta Government has struggled to achieve.
Do Hon. Members not agree that Nicaragua's land reform and literacy programs are among the best examples of a developing country which is achieving significant economic progress for its people? I would say that the Secretary of State for External Affairs agrees with that. Indeed, as we all know he has been very concerned about Canada giving assistance to the possible peace plan in the region and the Contadora process.
Nicaragua is a country which deserves not only assistance from the international financial system, but an increase in Canadian bilateral aid, which continues to be paltry in comparison with other countries in Central America which Canada aids where human rights violations continue to be an enormously serious barrier to development. It is development in the less developed countries with which we should be concerned. I am still concerned about the restoration of Canadian bilateral aid to El Salvador, because there is no evidence that the human rights situation in that country has improved. In fact, most objective observers feel that the situation has worsened.
As I said at the beginning, the international community seems to be moving further and further away from the original
March 12, 1985

goals of the Bretton Woods Agreements. This, together with the weakening support for multilateral development institutions, must continue to be addressed, not only by Government but also by Parliament. 1 was beginning to detect that when the Conservative Party was in Opposition, and particularly in the words of the Hon. Member who is now the Minister of Finance. Of course, I do not detect that in the words of Ambassador Roche, and in the weakening support for multilateral development institutions on the part of the Reagan administration. Therefore, I would urge that this not be the last debate we have on any international financial institution.
The amendment-which I would say is the only one with which we are having serious problems-will no longer make it possible to replenish funds in international financial institutions by an Act of Parliament. From now on those funds will only be authorized in the Estimates. That is a backward step. I am sorry that step was taken in connection with the regional development banks in March of 1983. 1 would like to see that rectified. I hope when this Bill goes to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, that we will move to restore the Act to its earlier form, as far as parliamentary approval is concerned. I know that a member of the NDP will propose amendments to that effect.
There is not a lot we can do in this Parliament to improve the operation of the international financial institutions, the World Bank, the IMF, the regional development banks and so on. However, we can draw to the attention of Parliament some of the deficiencies which we feel exist in the operation of those institutions and some of the problems which they are creating for the developing world. In addition, we can urge the Canadian Government to do everything it can, not only to participate in and strengthen the institutions, but to ensure that those institutions are working for the well-being, growth, development and advancement of the less developed countries of the world.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre)-Regional Economic Expansion (a) Domtar-Negotiation of solutions between Prime Minister and Premier Levesque (b) Domtar-Minister's position; the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson)- Agriculture (a) Potato inspection fees (b) Request for postponement; the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy)- Federal-provincial Fiscal Arrangements (a) Size of equalization payments (b) Request for changes in formula.
Bretton Woods Agreements Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and to repeal the International Development Association Act and amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to address my comments in support of Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and to repeal the International Development Association Act and amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof.
The Bill has three main parts. The first part is housekeeping, concerning the consolidation of legislative authority for the three affiliates of the World Bank group; that is the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Development Association and the International Finance Corporation, to be brought under one Act. In fact, this Bill repeals the Act which relates to the International Development Association and incorporates all the references and agreements to that association into the Bretton Woods Agreements Act.
The second matter dealt with in the Bill is the question of providing legislative authority for Canada's participation in the International Finance Corporation-the IFC. Of course, that is something, as the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) raised a few moments ago, which is in question in the House; that is, the authority for the Government to raise money in that connection. That goes back to a very old principle. In fact, it relates back to the time of King Charles I of England and the whole issue of who had the right to rule-the King as a divine right; or Parliament. The principle enshrined in this bill is that of the Government being accountable to the people of the country through its representatives, the Members of the House.
The third matter dealt with in the Bill, which the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam also raised as a matter of concern, is the modification of the means by which parliamentary approval for providing financial assistance to the World Bank groups is obtained. The authority for those expenditures will now be done, on an annual basis, through the Estimates, rather than through amendments to the Act. Of course, that will not eliminate the right of the Opposition or Private Members of the House to examine the amount of money being allocated for that purpose. The Estimates will still go before committees of the House. This will give Members of Parliament an opportunity to examine them closely. If there is a substantial change in the direction or policy of the World Bank group, obviously it will require a further amendment to the Act. That will mean that another Bill will have to

March 12, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act be brought before the House, and of course that will provide an opportunity for the Opposition and all Members of the House to debate the matter.
What interests me in particular about this Bill is not the items set out in the amendment-and perhaps they could be called housekeeping items, with the exception of providing additional funds in the Estimates-but the fact that we are talking about the Bretton Woods Agreements. I think this is an appropriate time for all Members of the House to reflect on the significance which Bretton Woods had, not only in Canada but in the whole international scene. The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) has outlined a number of those facts.
The Bretton Woods Agreements, which emanated from the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944, were aimed at bringing international order to the international economic chaos. The whole conference, which was one of six conferences that took place towards the end of the Second World War, between 1943 and 1945, tried to sort out all of the international problems, not only economic but political, which faced the world at that time. Of course, those six conferences culminated in the San Francisco Conference which enshrined the Charter of the United Nations and the United Nations Organization itself. It is rather interesting to note that in the 40th anniversary year of the United Nations, and having heard just last week from the Secretary General of the United Nations, we should be talking about one of the very significant agreements which was encompassed in that whole international scheme which we now refer to as the United Nations; the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and so on.
The Bretton Woods Agreements created two institutions. One was the International Monetary Fund and the other was what was then called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, now the World Bank.
Hon. Members of the House will recall that prior to the First World War the whole of our international trade and trading arrangements were based on something which we now feel is a little strange, the gold standard. All monetary currencies were related to the gold standard and all international exchange depended on the gold standard. That system broke down, of course, during the First World War. After the First World War, between then and the beginning of the Second World War, there were attempts to re-establish the gold standard. That caused a great many difficulties as well, and as the world slipped into the Great Depression we came into a period where in order to try to seek some individual economic advantage one country after another devalued its currency as a stimulation for its economy, to the disadvantage of the other countries of the world. Of course, once one country tried that, every other country tried it as well, and that led to a period of economic international chaos.
In the process of recovery after the Second World War, the nations of the Western World tried to establish, or re-establish, some sort of international economic order. That, of course, was what the Bretton Woods Conference and Agreements was all about. That was a conference between 44 nations, as I understand it-Canada was one of those nations-that came to the agreements which are now enshrined in this Bill with which we are dealing this afternoon.
The International Monetary Fund, as has been pointed out, has had its ups and downs over the years. It has had to be modified, its policies changed in order to adapt to continuing world conditions. At the same time, the basis of all of that is the conference and the agreements which were reached at Bretton Woods in 1944.
As far as the World Bank is concerned, other Hon. Members have outlined its activities since it was founded. It was originally founded to give aid to our western allies who had been ravaged by the war. It was then expanded to give aid to some of our enemies in the war. Then it was expanded to look after Third World countries. That really was the beginning, in my mind, of all of the international aid and assistance given to underdeveloped countries in which the developed countries of the world are now involved.
This Act and the agreements which it enshrines and the conference which reached those agreements, all have a very important and significant place, not only in the history of the world but in the history of Canada. I feel we should be very proud that we played a major role in the development of the agreements. In that respect, I believe the debate today gives a good opportunity to reflect on the role we have played, not only in the international economic trading and banking communities but in the entire area of assistance to Third World countries. 1 hope we will pass this Bill in a hurry, Mr. Speaker, but in doing so, I do not feel we should ever forget the true significance to this world of the Bretton Woods Conference and the Bretton Woods Agreements.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I had to leave momentarily as I may have missed hearing the Hon. Member speak about something I am going to ask him. Does the Hon. Member realize that if the Bill remains as it is now this will be the last chance we will have to debate IMF, World Bank and International Development Association matters in this House?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member had not left the House because I did comment on that point. I indicated, first, that while there would not be an opportunity to debate individual increases in funding as amendments to the Act, there certainly would be an opportunity in committee to discuss the estimates themselves. In addition, if there is some major policy change, that obviously would have to be brought forward as an amendment to the act. In so doing, there would be a chance to fully debate any major change in the structure or policy in that way.
In my view, while I understand what the Hon. Member is saying, it seems to me that there will be an opportunity for that in the future. In fact, I believe all Hon. Members of this House hope that the committee or the task force on reform may also have some thoughts about providing a more meaningful way of dealing with the estimates. In all of those ways
March 12, 1985

we will have an opportunity to deal with this issue, I am sure, on many more occasions.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I share the Hon. Member's hope that the committee system and particularly the examination of estimates will become much more effective than it has been in the past. However, with respect to the larger concerns we all have about the international development, about which the Hon. Member was speaking, he surely is putting it on pretty flimsy ground when he counts on some day having an amendment which would have to come before the House. I would hope that the Hon. Member would prefer some assurance that we would have that opportunity at periodic intervals.
I wonder if the Hon. Member has had a chance to read an earlier speech I made when he was doing his background work for his own speech today? It was a couple of years ago. In my speech I asked for a series of very explicit reports which would be made to the standing committee on the operations of not only the World Bank and the IDA but also on the regional development banks such as the Inter-American Development Bank. Would the Hon. Member join me in some other forum in encouraging that the fuller reports which are now going to be made possible from the World Bank be extended to the other development banks?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I did not have the opportunity beforehand of either hearing or reading the Hon. Member's comments in her previous speech. However, I understand the point she is making. In her own remarks she referred to Clause 7 of the Bill which does provide for the tabling of a number of different reports, those particularly from the World Bank Group. While it does state in Clause 7 of the Bill that those annual reports in particular should be tabled in Parliament, it indicates that it does not exclude other reports. In fact, the wording is "including" the resources and lending of the World Bank Group. It does not in my view exclude the ability to table all the other reports as well. So I think that even within the wording of the Bill as it now stands that opportunity should be present, and hopefully all that material will be tabled on a regular basis. All of us will have an opportunity to discuss it at that time.
I am sure the Hon. Member does not suggest that at some stage we should be holding up funding by having to present an amendment to the Bill which might be delayed. The Estimates certainly are a speedier method of providing the funding which I know the Hon. Member wants to see for these international banking institutions.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has shown not only great enthusiasm for the World Bank Group, but also an obviously considerable background of information. He says that if a policy change were made it would of course come before this Parliament. I would like him to comment on a policy shift which has been noted by many commentators, such experts as Professor Cranford Pratt of the University of Toronto who commented that the IMF
Bretton Woods Agreements Act part of this Group has departed a long way from Article 1 of its Charter which says that its purpose is to facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade, and to contribute thereby to the promotion and maintenance of high levels of employment and real income, and to the development of the productive resources of all members as primary objectives of economic policy.
As Professor Pratt has pointed out, it is well known that the IMF imposes conditions on countries borrowing from the World Bank which contribute only to the prosperity and well-being of the lender countries and have no regard for the well-being and prosperity of the borrower countries. That is a serious shift in policy and I am asking the Hon. Member if he can tell us when that shift was debated in this Parliament.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take issue with the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) on the shift in policy of the Bank and the IMF with respect to trying to favour the lender as opposed to trying to favour the borrowers.
I am sure that if you were a borrowing nation you would feel that you were hard done by by the international banking institutions and their policies. On the other hand, the lending nations, as all of us know, have gone far out on a limb over the last few years for many of the developing nations and created some real potential difficulties for the economic stability of the more established and developed nations. 1 think all of us have some great concern here, hopefully not justified, about the loans which many of our own banks have made to underdeveloped nations and the jeopardy in which that puts major institutions. The widows and orphans which I and my friend are so concerned about are thereby placed in potential jeopardy. A lot of them have their money in those Canadian chartered banks.
There is obviously a balance which has to be struck here, but I think we have to take into account that there are two sides to the coin, and it will not benefit the underdeveloped nations to have the developed nations sink under the surface. The only thing that will benefit all of us is the strengthening of all our economic basis so we can all prosper, all have the employment and benefits which I know the Hon. Member would like to see right across the world on an equitable basis.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned about the position reflected in the last remarks of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). I am also concerned about the shift that my colleague from New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam has spoken about in the handling of the approval of money for the World Bank Group. Until now the Government has come to Parliament every year to ask for more money for the World Bank and its affiliates. It appears that there is now a decision to hide that from view. The Hon. Member for York East and others do not want us to continue to have a full opportunity to examine the workings of these banks. They want it squeezed into the extremely narrow confines of the Estimates debate. He admits that the present system for handling those debates is not satisfactory and he sort of hopes that everything will be all right in the future.

March 12, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
That confirms my uneasiness at this attempt to hide the shift in the policy of the International Monetary Fund which in fact has been quite well documented by quite a number of authorities.
The World Bank and the IMF have been shifting their policies. There is one other shift that my colleague from New Westminster-Coquitlam mentioned. The World Bank recently decided to require that its borrowers should submit to the more stringent requirements of the IMF. Previously the IMF was for the more affluent countries and the World Bank for the less affluent countries. Now the less affluent are being required to meet the same conditions as can be met and dictated by the more affluent. That is a shift in policy, open and overt. The Hon. Member for York East, who does not want to listen to it any more, is mistaken when he says there has been no shift.
There is a policy of changing the role of the IMF in the World Bank to the disadvantage of the poorer countries, and now a policy of this Government of hiding what is going on by taking it further away from public scrutiny. It will no longer be practically possible to point out, for example, how President Reagan has abused the World Bank in the ways that my colleague from New Westminster-Coquitlam just described. It will not be possible to point out how Part II of Article I of the IMF Charter has been completely disregarded. When you examine the IMF conditions applying to Jamaica you find that they provide for cutting wages, cutting public services, raising telephone rates, indeed raising all the costs the people of Jamaica have to pay and reducing their incomes. That is utterly inconsistent with the states purpose of the International Monetary Fund.
The kind of game the IMF and the World Bank are playing is not really very new, Mr. Speaker. It goes back at least 3,200 years. You find it described in the Book of Exodus in the story about how the Pharaoh, dictator of Egypt, took control of the farms, animals and even the bodies of his own subjects. We have been hearing about famine lately in several countries. The Pharaoh took advantage of a famine; he had cornered the grain in the country during the fat years, stored it up, guarded it and then doled it out to his own subjects in return for mortgages on their houses, their farms, their animals and next year's crop. They finally sold themselves into slavery to Pharaoh. That is the pattern of some 3,200 centuries ago, Mr. Speaker. It is clear in that respect that the main governors of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have read their bibles. There are some other parts they skipped, but they read that part.
The problem with the operation of the World Bank and the IMF has been that from the beginning it was supposed to promote, as a public bank, the reconstruction and development of countries, post war and in the modern period since then. In fact, it generally serves to maintain trade agreements and to create the conditions that favour the profit oriented multinational corporations of the developed countries, and the banks
of the developed countries which are the founders of the World Bank.
For example, with regard to agriculture, Robert McNamara, formerly governor of the World Bank-who should know, and whose words I wish the Hon. Member for York East would consider-said, "Throughout the developing world the rural poor have neither shared adequately in their country's programs, nor been themselves able to contribute toward them". He is saying that the development process which was guided by the World Bank has actually contributed to the destitution of the poor. In many countries the change-over from food production for local consumption to the production of cash crops for export has caused the best lands to be reserved for coffee, sugar or cotton to be exported to us, while the desert land is left to feed the people. That pattern has been repeated in the countries of Central America, in the Philippines, and many of the poorer countries in the world, under the guidance of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. It is not just under their guidance, but at their insistence.
The credit arrangements for introducing new techniques of farming, mechanization and fertilizer, squeeze out all but the largest farmers. The small farmers cannot compete. They are forced to sell their land and become tenants, shareholders and sharecroppers on the wealthy estates, or move to the cities and join the growing ranks of the unemployed squatters to whom the multinational manufacturers come to recruit their 25-cent an-hour labour.
A related pattern is seen in manufacturing. The World Bank supports the extraction of raw materials and the creation of export processing zones, which is simply another name for an arrangement to evade such laws as may have been established for the protection of labour, the environment, or even the national economy. These measures have mainly benefited the multinationals and banks of the First World countries and their agents, the elite of the Third World.
Another person in a position to know was Mahbub el Haq, former director of policy at the World Bank. He stated that in Pakistan it was discovered that, "rural urban divisions were sharper than ever and the wealth was still concentrated in the hands of about 22 families". Mr. Speaker, that is what Mahbub el Haq, former director of policy at the World Bank, thought of the effect of the World Bank on his own country.
This trickle-down effect which was supposed to come out of the capital intensive projects just did not result. According to McNamara, it is "pointless and offensive to lecture starving, illiterate, diseased people, with absolutely nothing to sell, about the magic of the marketplace". The marketplace that Mr. McNamara rejected is now being advocated by the present governor of the Bank, A. W. Clausen, a supporter of Reaganomics.
Proponents of the World Bank claim that the export earnings of countries receiving its aid and investment have increased. That may be true, however, they take care not to advertise the fact that the foreign debt of those countries has generally increased even more because of currency devalua-
March 12, 1985

tion. That has not stopped with the invention of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, as the Hon. Member for York East would have us believe. It just means that the poorest countries are forced to devalue their currency. They are forced to import capital goods; oil, trucks and machinery, and manufacturing components, and are forced to allow the profits of that to be repatriated to countries such as the United States, which control the whole process. Countries already heavily in debt must spend more money to buy the equipment from the multinationals in order to export their own or someone else's raw materials, reworked, to these same multinationals who may then process those materials into manufactured products in still another Third World country where they can force the wages down with the help of dictators such as those that rule in the Philippines and South Korea.
The workers in both the resource producing countries and the manufacturing countries of the Third World too often must work without minimum wage, without unions, without environmental protection, without health and safety laws and with no social services under governments which arm themselves, through the good offices of the United States, against their own people to ensure that the wages and other conditions stay low.
The Hon. Member for York East referred to the danger of bankruptcy among Third World countries. He has implied that our banks loaned them those huge sums of money out of some kind of altruism or generosity. That is nonsense. Our banks loaned them the money because they could get higher rates of interest from those desperate countries than they could get from Canadian people who are not yet quite so desperate. They shopped around and begged those countries to take their loans. Countries such as Brazil, South Korea and the Philippines were considered miracles a few years ago, but recently faced bankruptcy. With the money of taxpayers of Canada and other working people of the First World the World Bank then bails out those Third World governments with a loan that they use to pay the interest on the debts to the First World banks. It is great business for our banks, and for no one else.
The World Bank requires the Third World governments to impose austerity, reducing the buying power of their workers and peasants in order to draw off greater revenues for debt repayment. I call them our banks because they have their head offices in Canada. That is the only sense in which they are our banks, because they do not serve the interests of Canada any more than they serve the interests of the Philippines, Brazil, or Mexico. As a result of that, exports from the First World to the Third World are reduced. They just cannot buy our products anymore. That in turn causes some of the unemployment experienced in countries such as Canada and the United States.
The short-term result is very often growing misery and riots or civil war in the Third World countries. That, of course, leads to another round of fiinancial crises. Bankers are understandably lacking in confidence in investments in countries where there is civil war. Therefore, they raise the interest rates even further and further reduce the buying power of the Third
Bretton Woods Agreements Act World people. This can only be maintained by increasing the armaments of their governments; arms not to defend those countries against the Soviet Union, but to defend those governments and banks against their own people.
Selling arms is presented to First World countries such as Canada as a remedy for unemployment among our people. The long-term result is growing unemployment and a drift toward war for the people of the First World countries such as Canada and the United States. If that is what the Hon. Member for York East considers aid to those Third World countries, who needs a disaster?
The IMF has taken control of World Bank loans by dictating more harsh conditions than the World Bank imposed before. This Bill removes the operation of the World Bank from public scrutiny and puts it into a corner from which I doubt that even the Hon. Member for York East, despite his goodwill, will succeed in rescuing it.
I hope that when this Bill goes to committee there will be two amendments. There is an amendment that I called for last year, or similar to what I called for last year, that Canada as a participant in the IMF and the World Bank should call for a return to the original policy as reflected in the section that I read. I will read it again, Mr. Speaker: "The World Bank and the IMF are to facilitate in the expansion and balanced growth of international trade and to contribute thereby to the promotion and maintenance of high levels of employment and real income and to the development of the productive resources of all members as primary objectives of the economic policy."
Second, I hope we can have an amendment so that Parliament will still have direct control over the very large sums of money that the working people-our taxpayers-through this Parliament are contributing to outfits like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the remarks of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). They took me back to a period a few months ago when he and I were on a panel at Upper Canada College. Some of his comments were comments that might have been made at that time. Also, some of his comments are those I have heard before on other occasions in other places. He cited a number of problems that the developing world has, problems they have had for a long time. They are not new. They are problems that have been with them and with us since the beginning of time. I am sure a good many of us, if not all, would like to see safety and health regulations in those countries; he would like to see minimum wages, and I am sure many of us would like to see the trade union movement established there more firmly. All of these things will hopefully come with time.
There have been some examples of success it seems to me in the Third World. I suggest to the Hon. Member for Spadina that perhaps Japan and Singapore might be an examples of that success. I know it may shake him to the very foundation of his soul, but notwithstanding the political systems, perhaps

March 12, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
Taiwan is an example of some success; perhaps Hong Kong and perhaps South Korea. I know the Hon. Member would rather see some other types of political organization and political administrations in those locations, but, notwithstanding that, I am sure the Hon. Member would agree that all of those countries are somewhat better off than they were in 1944 when the Bretton Woods Conference was held.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I will take the Hon. Member's remarks, if I may, as asking whether I do not credit the World Bank and the IMF with improving the condition of impoverished countries. 1 do not consider what has happened in the majority of cases as typical. Granted, even countries such as Great Britain may get loans from the International Monetary Fund. The main operations of the IMF and the World Bank are not exhibited there or in Japan. They are exhibited in a country like the Philippines where during the 1970s, under the direction and control of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and American banks, real wages were cut in half. The price that workers would pay for rice grown by the local farmers was cut in half. Farmers were driven off their land. These problems have been with us for a long time says the Hon. Member, but that is false. The people in the Philippines were feeding themselves before the World Bank got there. The people in Jamaica were feeding themselves before the World Bank got there. The people in Ethiopia were feeding themselves before the World Bank got there. Their number one problem is the World Bank and the IMF.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I was just listening to my hon. friend. Would he not also agree that many of the so-called rapidly developing nations like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore are basically within the ambit of U.S. strategic needs and doctrines? Would he not agree, at least as I read the history of the last many years, where either super power determines that it is necessary for a nation's own security in strategic terms that it will help make possible a certain kind of development, inequitable though it may be, that that seems to make the country more advanced than the way in which the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) was talking? For example, Peru is not seen by the United States as necessary for the implementation of what it feels to be its security. Therefore, Peru gets no help at all. Would the Hon. Member not agree with that?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, countries such as the Hon. Member has quoted which are not a strategic area are also areas of competition between the two super powers for influence. But one of the super powers has the World Bank at its disposal; that is to say the United States controls the World Bank. This has been demonstrated by documents from the World Bank itself, and also in documents from the American Congress which point out that 85 per cent of the decisions in the World Bank went in the direction the United States asked. This was pointed out in order to answer some extreme far right America-Firsters who said that the United States should not put any money in the World Bank. The Government answered them by pointing out that the World Bank was a far more
powerful instrument of foreign policy in the economic field than any direct intervention by the American Government itself. Through the World Bank they greatly multiplied their effects, using the money contributed by Canada and other countries. The United States Government itself has admitted that the World Bank is an instrument through which it uses the poor countries for strategic purposes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) who has one minute.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I had just thought that I had yet another speech I could put in my file entitled "the greatest speeches I have never delivered". As I sat here listening this afternoon to the many interesting and informed comments, I was reflecting on a number of points, some salient, that I wanted to make with respect to the Bill before us. However, the hour now being five o'clock at least this day will pass without me delivering this speech.


An Hon. Member:: Better luck next time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Member's Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to item number 43?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of convening a constitutional conference to explore means of reforming the Senate of Canada in order to ensure that representative, responsible, and democratically-elected institutions have sufficient primacy in Canada to allow them to fulfill the mandate they were elected to implement.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on my first Private Member's motion, the subject matter of which has been the centre of controversy over recent weeks. In the time available today I should like to talk a little about why we are having this debate, about the history and significance of the bicameral system of government under which we operate in Canada, about the need for reform of the Senate, about some of the options which have
March 12, 1985

been put forth, about convening a constitutional conference, and about my own suggested plan of action.
I know there was a debate last Friday on a similar motion of my colleague. Some Hon. Members participated in that debate. It was certainly most enlightening in drawing out some of the significant issues respecting Senate reform. My motion carries on from that motion on Friday to the next step. It asks for a constitutional conference to provide an opportunity to discuss Senate reform with our colleagues from the provinces.
Why are we having this debate? Almost since its inception in 1867 there has been debate and some criticism of the Upper House. I guess our present day crisis with the Senate is not unusual. Recent criticism has been levelled specifically against the Senate for its finance committee's delay in referring Bill C-l 1, the Borrowing Authority Act, to the Upper Chamber for final approval.
Constitutionally the Senate is well within its right to delay such legislation while it revises and amends a Bill. However, that was not the case with Bill C-l 1. In that case the delay was not for the purpose of amending the Bill, because the Bill was eventually passed by the Senate without amendments. I think we can only be led to believe that the Senate committee's delay of Bill C-ll was for what appeared to be purely partisan reasons. The Liberal dominated Senate conducted a politically motivated campaign of destruction, frustrating the people's will, as the Bill was passed through the Commons with the unanimous consent of all three Parties. We all know the cost of those of kinds of tactics and the necessity of cancelling some bond issues. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has advised us that something in the order of $10 million was incurred as a result of that delay.
As a result of that effort and what appeared to be the partisanship of today's Senate, it attempted to exert its power over the Government which has an overwhelming mandate from the people of the nation. That was not the function which the Fathers of Confederation envisaged when provisions for an Upper Chamber were made in the British North America Act, 1867. It was clear in 1867-and I think it is clear today- that there was to be no equality between the two Chambers. Cabinet was to be responsible to the Commons, not to the Upper House. In the words of our first Prime Minister, Sir John Macdonald, the second assembly would "never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people". I think we have seen some denial of that basic principle in the past month.
Essentially the Senate was designed to balance judicially the power of the Commons, based on the principles of popular representation, by safeguarding the legitimate interests of the people of the less populous provinces. Over a hundred years ago the Fathers of Confederation were suspicious of the virtues of unqualified democracy. It is interesting to note what George-Etienne Cartier called "a power of resistance to oppose the democratic element". Therefore the Senate represented and was responsible for the protection of several minorities, the people of less populous provinces and the French or English-speaking people of Quebec.
The Senate
Since Confederation the regional role of the Senate has been less significant than anticipated in 1867. This has been due to a number of factors. Certainly the highly centralized set-up under the British North America Act, 1867, no longer exists and protection for the regions has been provided by other bodies such as the courts, the Cabinet and regional caucuses.
I think we are all very familiar with the dean of constitutional issues, the Hon. Eugene Forsey and the article he wrote about reform of the Canadian Senate. He pointed out its functions, and the third one envisaged in the early days was as follows:
To provide a "sober second thought" in legislation, a check on the "democracy" which the Fathers of Confederation mistrusted, a bulwark against "radical" legislation passed by a House of Commons swept by gusts of popular passion.
That is how they envisaged us acting over a hundred years ago. That really has not come to pass, either. Perhaps that role is no longer significant.
However, the Senate is responsible for the study and revision of government Bills in that it can simplify, clarify and take the time to study meticulously and to scrutinize Bills so as to ensure they meet the needs of Canadian society. The Senate is well equipped to handle this task, as it has a vast reservoir of talented and experienced members as well as the time to devote to comprehensive study of Bills.
The Senate also functions as an investigative body, delving into public questions which the Government may have neglected. Senate committees have been known to do this job very effectively and often at a fraction of the cost of royal commissions or task forces. I feel there is a role for the Senate, performed properly. It can be very effective in the refinement of legislation. That is perhaps the most important function of the Senate at present. Any proposal to reform the Senate must take this factor into consideration. Refining legislation takes experience which can only be gained through some form of continuity in dealing with various forms of legislative processes.
Recent examples of the work of the Senate in this respect have been its reports on poverty, unemployment, inflation, aging, land use, science policy, Indian affairs, trade relations with the United States and so forth. I believe the standing committees of the Senate, in addition to doing this very important work, have also introduced a fairly innovative approach in the pre-study of Bills. I think that is something which should certainly be encouraged.
However, as I mentioned before, there are concerns. Obviously there is a need for change. What are some of the options which have been put forward and about which we have heard in the last few months particularly? One was the proposal to abolish the Senate. This came up again yesterday. Personally I cannot support that. I really feel that the Senate has potential and is a safeguard. If it is working effectively it can perform a very important function. I am not of a mind to get rid of it, and I can support this by two reports-the Lamontagne report in 1980 and the Joint Committee Report on Senate Reform in 1984 which, after extensive hearings and consultations across the land, reached the same conclusion. I know some Hon.

March 12, 1985
The Senate
Members will not agree with me, but I do not think what has happened in the past month, the kind of fury which has occurred, provides justification for such a radical change. We do not throw out the baby with the bath water. We try to examine the purpose and deal in a constructive way with the potential for change.
Perhaps the second most popular touted reform has been to have the Senate as an elected body. Again commissions have reviewed various options, and various configurations have been put forward. When I started to look at this issue I think that was my first inclination. One of our present Senators, Peter Bosa, indicated in an article he wrote several years ago on this subject that he started out as an advocate of an elected Senate but after some thought and consideration he too had rejected that.
Again, I look at an article by Professor Burns of Queens University who has done a lot of writing in this area. I found his writing most constructive. He wrote:
There is a good deal of support for the direct election of the second Chamber... More often than not, this seems based more on democratic sentiment than on any base of functional understanding. What has not yet been clarified or perhaps even considered sufficiently in this debate is whether we are seeking to develop another level of representative Government or what is essentially an instrument of control within the governmental structure that is already in place.
We can look at other jurisdictions, Australia in particular which has an elected Senate, and some of the great difficulties there and the frustrations they have been through with Bills. We would have exactly the same kind of problems, indeed worse with an elected Senate than we now have. Professor Burns went on to say:
The life of a Government could be one of continuing uncertainty, if it were to be responsible to two elected Houses.
A lot of people say that an elected Senate could move us more toward an American system of Government, but there is a sense of confusion. We do not have an American system in this country. I do not think we should be working toward that. We would get into greater difficulty with an elected Senate than we have with our present institution.
There have been a lot of recommendations for changes in the way that appointments are made. There have been suggestions of a House of the Provinces or that the provinces actually appoint some of the Members of the Senate. They would almost be servants of the provinces. The basic purpose of the Senate was not to represent the provinces per se. It was to provide a representation of regional interest. If we introduced that kind of system, we would be creating more difficulties for ourselves. I do not think that is the forum in which we should be discussing federal-provincial relations. From the recent efforts in Regina, we see that there are other ways which the federal and provincial Governments can get together to share and come together with constructive ideas. Having the Members of the Senate appointed by the provinces and, therefore, feeling a sense of accountability for the provincial Governments would not be a particularly constructive option.
Reforms are required. Some are legislative and some are changes in the character and in the attitude of the Senate which would result in a change in public opinion of the Senate. It is important that we have a Senate that does not frustrate the will of a democratically elected Government. That has to be the first and most important issue that we address.
There have been suggestions, suggestions that I would like to support and propose, that certainly the veto right of the Senate should be changed. They should only be entitled to a suspensive veto, short term on money bills and perhaps a longer term on other kinds of Bills. They would have the opportunity to discuss and debate constructively, but could not totally obstruct the will of this House. That is certainly one of the reforms that I would recommend. That of course requires legislation. Although there is not a clear indication, it probably requires the consent of seven of the ten provinces, including 50 per cent of the population.
As well, we should support the recommendations made both by the Lamontagne committee and the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform to go to a fixed term. Personally, I rather liked the suggestion of a 10 year term, with a possible renewal for a further five years. I do not think people should view appointments to the Senate as a sinecure or a reward for life. We should be looking for people who are in their middle years, their vital years, people who are prepared to give up some time to be a part of public policy formulation in this country and who can look at it from a longer term view than perhaps we can in the House, and from a thoughtful point of view. A change in the term of appointment of Senators would certainly be an important change in this respect.
I also support the recommendation that the Senate should be given the power to review regulations. As a Member of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Statutory Instruments, I feel it would be very interesting if a lot of that work was done by Senate committees. They probably have the time. They have the people with the interest in that area to do it more effectively than perhaps Members of this House who are so busy with the myriad of issues with which we have to deal.
Items which would not require legislation but require a change in the way that we do things would be, first of all, the way in which appointments are made, the type of person. Originally, the concept was that the type of person to be appointed to the Senate would be persons of considerable experience and wisdom who would make a commitment to this work. They were not considered to be strictly partisan appointments.
As it was originally conceived, the Senate was not considered to be a purely partisan body. If they are going to receive public acceptance of their work, they have to move in that direction and view issues, not from a partisan point of view, but from the kind of experience and background that each brings to the task.
We need to be assured that appointments are made in a speedy way, that we do not leave vacancies, that there are requirements for attendance in the Senate. Therefore, we would not have the continued public criticism that they do not
March 12, 1985

do their job because they are not there. It should be made a more lively and interesting place than it obviously is now. That kind of life thrown into the Senate might make it possible for it to be televised. You might find somebody who wants to televise it.
Those are the kinds of reforms I would like to see involved with the Senate. As I said, some of these reforms require legislation. Some just require action on the part of Government, some by the Senate themselves and some with the consent of the provinces. This brings me to the point of the necessity of calling a constitutional conference.
Because of the interest that the provinces have shown in this issue and the concern they have, it is important to involve them in the changes that we are going to be putting forward. What better way than calling a constitutional conference? It does not have to be an expensive, fancy thing. It is a matter of bringing together the Premiers and their designates to talk about this issue, to give them a chance to put their views forward and have a thorough public understanding of the proposals that we are making. It is also consistent with the kind of consultative and co-operative approach that this Government is undertaking with the provinces and the people of Canada.
Let me just summarize my points. First, the time has passed for study. We have had lots of them. What we need now is action. Recent events have reminded us that changes are required. As a Conservative, my inclination is and my recommendations are that we should make these basic kinds of reforms, test them, see if they work and ensure that they will maintain the primacy of this House and enable new life and new vitality to be felt in the other place.
My plan of action includes legislation to be introduced to curtail the powers of the Senate, to provide limited terms of appointment, to provide for their right to review regulations, to introduce practices, to encourage Bills to go to the Senate, to invite them in joint task forces, to have Bills sometimes go there before being debated here so that they have time to study them, to ensure that appointments are made of people who will truly contribute and reflect minority views in this country and understand regional concerns, to call a constitutional conference and to ask the Senate to look at itself, to become less partisan and more hardworking and get out and do a little public relations work.
I echo the sentiments of Senator Bosa, who said that Canadians are basically small "C" conservatives. I believe they would prefer and would support a moderate approach to the reform of the Senate. After sober second thought, so do I. We must take care as well that our system of Government does not become too complex and too weighty so that the people of Canada do not understand, and that we lose a sense of accountability. It not only costs more to have a complex system, but there is a loss of public understanding. As Alexander Pope said:
For Forms of government, let fools contest, Whate'er is best administered is best.
Hon. Members, I ask for your support here in this House, to join together from all Parties with our colleagues in the
The Senate
provinces, with our friends in the other place, to make the kinds of reform and kinds of improvements which will serve the interests of all Canadians.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member on her knowledgeable remarks to the House and tell her that, hopefully, the sentiments she expressed before her colleagues are shared by the members of her own political party. She ought to consult the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and explain to him how she envisages the Senate reform, for he seems to be taking this issue rather lightly. He is just bluffing, but I know that the Hon. Member takes it a lot more seriously than her leader does, and I expect she will impress on him the importance of Senate reform.
Mr. Speaker, I find it rather interesting that Hon. Members opposite would raise the issue of Senate reform precisely when, for once, the Senate exercised its prerogatives. As Lord Acton once said: If power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Mr. Speaker, this Government was elected with an overwhelming majority-211 Members-but it has been slightly put off by a responsible Senate, that has been frustrated as the Hon. Member is, so it chose to show off for the galleries. Looking very pleased with himself, the Prime Minister rose in the House and said: We can abolish the Senate first thing tomorrow morning. The day after, of course, on second thought and-

-sober second thought-

-he realized that his joke was not funny at all and that his provincial colleagues were beginning to get impatient with him. Senate reform is much too important to make jokes about it in the House of Commons, they said.
Mr. Speaker, why would the Hon. Member take the floor today to advocate Senate reform? Because, in recent weeks, the Senate has played its true role. The Senate told this political Party and this Government: There are rules and a parliamentary principle which must be respected, a very simple principle whereby the Government should have sought borrowing authority after tabling the estimates.
I should think that is not expecting too much from the senators and the House. The Hon. Member said earlier that it was sheer partisanship, but I would suggest that the senators acted with utmost impartiality.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance reported-unanimously, so Conservative Party spokesmen were in agreement-and recommended that the Senate remain reluctant to approve any request for bor-

March 12, 1985
The Senate
rowing authority if such a request is not supported by a budget or by main estimates for the period for which the borrowing authority is being requested.
This message of caution was conveyed to the Government by all senators, including Conservative senators, who said that the Government did not show respect for traditions. Conservative and Liberal senators in the other place said that this was a case of tyranny by the majority. They chose to exercise their powers under the Constitution, precisely to prevent such tyranny by the majority. Perhaps such are the principles endorsed by-

-small "c" conservatives-

-as Senator Bosa put it, but the minority must be protected.
The Government may have a strong majority and may be facing a reduced Opposition, reduced in number and not necessarily in quality, Mr. Speaker, but I find them rather ridiculous to be put off and frustrated to the extent that what they decide as a Party must become reality, that they must get rid of any potential opposition, particularly the Senate which happens to be the only Chamber in Canada capable of standing up to the Government now and then and bring it back to its senses.
The Secretary of State gave us a good example today, Mr. Speaker. He cannot stand any kind of opposition. The Secretary of State took revenge on the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and fired her mother who was guilty of upholding the rights of the minority. That is telling us something, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: On a point of order. The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) just mentioned that the Secretary of State fired the mother of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but that is not a point of order. A point of order would have been that the Hon. Member's comments were not relevant, but I made it clear to the Hon. Member that he should speak to the motion and I think he understood.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think we hit a sore spot.
What the Hon. Member is proposing today is a constitutional conference. I realize she is new to the House of Commons and may not have had an opportunity to read the 1981 version of our Constitution, since otherwise she would have known she does not need a constitutional conference if her Party has any political will.
According to Section 46(1) of the new Constitution, the amending procedures provided under Sections 38, 41, 42 and 43 may be initiated by the Senate, the House of Commons or a legislative assembly. Thus, Mr. Speaker, such procedures may be initiated by the House of Commons. Today, the Hon. Member is suggesting that we try to accomplish everything in one fell swoop, and she ought to realize that past attempts to reform the Senate have been fruitless.
Mr. Speaker, I remember a number of discussions, including several on the Committee on the Constitution, about the Senate's veto powers, and I must admit I was opposed to the idea. I even made some rather impetuous remarks at the time, and do you know who voted massively in favour of veto powers for the Senate? Our hon. friends opposite, when they were on the Opposition side. I remember the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) when he was extolling the virtues of the Senate and the fact that the Senate had veto powers. He was on the same committee as I was, Mr. Speaker. Now they are on the other side of the House and are worried about opposition anywhere in Canada, they have decided to create a diversion by talking about Senate reform.
Mr. Speaker, I think if this Government intends to propose some kind of reform and it has any political will and is not just acting out of a spirit of revenge or on the spur of the moment or out of frustration, if it has the political will to propose some changes in the powers of the Senate, we would welcome such proposals. After all, the true reformers in this House are in this Party. In the past we have shown our determination to reform the Senate. We would be delighted to consider a Bill or a draft resolution, to examine all the details of a draft resolution that would give the Senate powers that differ from the ones it has now. However, this does not mean the Upper House should become strictly a rubber stamp for the House of Commons.
The Hon. Member said there should be non-partisan appointments, and so forth. That is all very well. We are all for virtue and motherhood, Mr. Speaker. But she will have to persuade her own leader to make non-partisan appointments. We have a list of the Senators who have been appointed since this Government came to power, and I must say their curriculum vitae are most eloquent, especially where they enumerate services rendered to the Progressive Conservative Party. That is why I think the Hon. Member either did not see this list or else she is being totally unrealistic. Actually, her own leader gave the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) a bit of a dressing down when he told him the reason he did not understand why the Senate was important was that he was not the Prime Minister. That should have been some indication to the Hon. Member that her leader did not intend to carry out a reform. What he does intend to do is to change the balance as soon as there is a vacancy and to replace a Liberal with a Conservative.
March 12, 1985

And it is my view, Mr. Speaker, that if the Government is serious, if the Progressive Conservative Party is serious, if that party is truly progressive, if they intend to propose to this House a general process of consultation of all parties as called for by the Hon. Member, then I can give her the assurance that this party will very seriously consider any proposal for Senate reform. We are convinced that the Senate must be reformed, and certainly my friend for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) might agree with me that if we are to bring in a reform of our national institutions, we might as well discuss the monarchy, if our friends are as progressive as they claim! To the extent that the Hon. Member has referred to institutions that have no democratic reality, I would have like to hear her discuss the monarchy. I think this could be a most interesting subject, especially in the Conservative caucus.
Concerning her suggestion that regional representation is ensured by regional caucuses, I am doubtful about that. And not wandering from the subject, I say we now have a clear-cut case being discussed during every question period. And regional representation does not come from that side of the House either, Mr. Speaker. There is no basis to suggest the Conservative caucus is very active promoting the interests of Quebec in the Domtar case for instance. To that extent, suggesting that those regional caucuses are effective instruments for regional representation, I think the Hon. Member should look at what is being done in the actual world. She might lose a good deal of her illusions.
As far as the constitutional conference is concerned, there is a question of priorities, Mr. Speaker. We are open to Senate reform, we have always been open to that kind of reform, but I would rather have a federal-provincial conference that would deal with the real problems facing Canadians. If you would make a survey in your constituency, Mr. Speaker, and ask what is more important, unemployment or the Senate, I think the answer would be obvious.
If the Hon. Member for Duvernay talks to his constituents and asks them what is more important, the price of gas or the Senate, they will tell him: the price of gas. I am sure that if the Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Marin) were to ask his constituents what is more important, the Senate or fisheries the answer would be obvious, the people in Gaspe are concerned about fisheries.
Mr. Speaker, I could name all the Hon. Members of this House. All of them without exception, including the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier). He would tell you that in his constituency the Senate is not a bread and butter issue for his constituents. He would tell you he is amused by the debates on Senate reform in this House, but this is not why he was elected. He never made that many election promises concerning the Senate, and he realizes that if the Government wants to waste its time discussing the Senate, they will lose touch with Canadian men and women.
The Senate
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think it is academic, amusing, and enlightening to hear the Hon. Member discuss a Private Member's Motion over which her leader does not seem to agree at all. We will see today if she is taken seriously by her colleagues, because the test of the Private Members' hour, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is quite simple. But I can assure the Hon. Member that even if I wanted to, I would not have an opportunity to speak until 6 p.m., because my time would have expired, but I can assure her that no Liberal Member will frustrate her, no Liberal Member-


An Hon. Member:: You are alone!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Anyway, there is no problem with that! I can assure her that her motion, Mr. Speaker, will become fact if it depends on us alone. I can also tell her she should persevere ... I see the Hon. Member opposite who hopefully will contribute to the debate so we may know what the people in his constituency are thinking, whether they favour Senate or forestry. I know that in Abitibi, in those areas, certainly the Senate does not concern that many people, and Canadians everywhere think along the same lines.
Mr. Speaker, the amending formula is quite simple. I think a constitutional conference might succeed if the federal Government took the initiative. There have been dozens of unsuccessful attempts, and if she talks to her caucuses from the other Provinces, because she says they defend regional interests, she will find out easily that the cosmetic changes she is proposing for the Senate are clearly not enough to ensure true regional representation. She will soon find out that the Mari-times, the Western Provinces are fed up with a kind of representation that is strictly based on the number of constituents, as we have in the House of Commons. They expect a different kind of representation for another House of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, there was a suggestion at one point that the Senate might object to its own reform. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) tried to have us believe that. But the Minister of Justice has no knowledge of the Canadian Constitution. Whether there is a Liberal majority in the Senate or not, if the Government is determined to bring about a true reform, Section 47 of the Constitution allows the House of Commons to pass a resolution, it allows Provinces to pass their own resolutions according to the proportion set out in the amending formula. Because after all Section 47 provides that an Amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under Section 38, 41, 42 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within 180 days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution.

March 12, 1985
The Senate
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, nothing stands in the way of the tyranny of the majority. If our colleagues on Government benches want to change the structure and powers of the Senate, we agree with them that it might be a good initiative. We would like to have more details. The suggestions made by my colleague fall somewhat short, but it might be a starting point. In any event, I hope she will not spend weeks and months talking about Senate reform. We have no intention of doing that, nor do most Members who are more concerned with the needs of their constituents. In my opinion, the Hon. Member should have taken the suggestion of her leader with a grain of salt because, as I said earlier, he was just showing off.
I rather doubt that he is seriously determined to change the Senate. Her leader must come to grips with spiralling interest rates, Canada's weakest dollar ever, and an unacceptable unemployment rate, so he buries his head in the sand, like an ostrich, and uses the Senate in a diversionary tactic. But I repeat that if the Prime Minister, Hon. Members and the Minister of Justice have the political will to do something about it, we are open to suggestions, we are prepared to consider new ideas, and you may rest assured that we will not thwart the reform nor the initiative of the Hon. Member. We fully expect her Conservative colleagues to let the clock strike six o'clock without one of them rising to commend the efforts of the Hon. Member who introduced the motion, who thought her leader was serious and who wants to make a worthy contribution. The next few weeks will tell us whether she was right to take the matter seriously. She made a very good speech, we congratulate her and we hope that Members of the Cabinet will give the issue of Senate reform as much consideration as she does.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have had an opportunity to discuss this subject. I was the New Democrat who served on the Joint Committee which studied the Senate last year. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the longer I served on that committee the less respect I had for that institution. I am not speaking about individuals who are in the Senate; individually they are quite acceptable and have great personal track records. However, collectively, the Senate is something which really does not belong in a democratic society.
The image of overpaid Liberal and Conservative fund raisers, campaign managers and defeated or retired candidates who "work"-and I put that word in quotation marks-three days a week and do very little of value, is not too far from the truth. Not too many people realize that in an average week the Senate only sits three days. An average day is usually not a full day.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that we are never going to get reform of that institution as long as it is in its present state. The very fact that the Senate exists means that we cannot have adequate reform of the Senate because there are too many vested
interests in keeping the Senate. There is the vested interest of the Senators themselves, who obviously do not want to do away with what could be called a very "cushy" position. There is the vested interest of the Prime Minister who can obviously use the Senate to reward the political faithful as well as keep some people in line, because some day they may be offered some type of patronage award such as the Senate.
I notice that one of my colleagues who sat on the committee which studied Senate reform the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Peterson) is in the House. I remember that he was one of the Members of the Committee who had the courage at the end of that process to say that we really didn't need the kind of Senate reform which was envisioned and planned last year. What we got after months of study, and after thousands of dollars spent on transporting that committee from province to province across this land, was a report which indicated how difficult and how impossible it is to reform the Senate of this country. The report was supported by all of the Senators, most of the Conservative Members of Parliament and, of course, most of the Liberals-who were the Government at that time-on the committee. It made one of the most ridiculous suggestions in terms of reform of the Senate. It suggested that we have Senators elected for one nine-year term and that they would not be eligible for re-election. I would like to quote from the report itself. The full committee report stated:
We realize that Senators who serve for a single term would not be obliged to account for their actions to their electorate at a subsequent election.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, one of the values many of the Senators say, as well as the majority of the Conservatives and Liberals, was that these people would be elected once and would never be accountable to the people again. Is that democracy? Is that what we are talking about in this country?
It is even worse than that, Mr. Speaker. I am going to refer to one of the earlier drafts of that Senate reform report which indicates that attitude, and I quote:
The committee recognizes that Senators would "not be obliged to account for their action". Earlier versions of the report talked of the "threat" of not being re-elected-
The whole concept of that committee was that the Senate was some kind of elitist body that should not be accountable to the public. Other recommendations were just as objectionable. Instead of clearing out the hundred and some Senators who are appointed at the present time, it was suggested that they be phased out so that in three years time we would elect one third of the new Senators; the other two thirds of appointed Senators would stay. And they would have control of the new elected Senate. How can one actually accept reform when the very nature of the reform about which you talk guarantees that appointed Senators would have control of a new and a more powerful Senate? That would scare anyone who believes in democracy.
One of the Senators who did not agree with the recommendations suggested that the report itself was sabotaged, that the report itself was made to guarantee that it would never be accepted by the Liberal Government at that time, or any other Government, and that it had so many holes in it that anyone
March 12, 1985

who studied it would recognize that it would be unacceptable to the Canadian population. So when I say that as long as we have the present Senate we are never going to have reform, I am speaking from some experience of what has happened over the last few years.
We did a study. We did go out and talk with provincial governments in each province. We let learned academics come before us with all of their different ideas. We talked with ordinary Canadians, with labour leaders, with business leaders and various regional groups. We did all of that study. So it has been done and it has been done time after time. However, the recommendations which come forward are not the types of recommendations which talk about real reform. The report we received in the past proves that the Senate does not really want to reform itself and, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are Hon. Members of this House-as is evidenced by Hon. Members who previously spoke on this issue-who really do not want to reform the Senate.
Much has been said about the value of the Senate and the fact that because we have people with great backgrounds, former Premiers, former Members of Parliament, former Cabinet Ministers, and so on, there is a lot of value in keeping a Senate to do all sorts of things. For that matter, the report of the committee from last year emphasized the Senate's reputation as a legislative and issue review body whose research and hearings have produced good legislative proposals. The committee used this function as a raison d'etre for continuing a second chamber.
However, that committee deliberately ignored the fact that in the past number of years it has been all-party House of Commons committees and task forces which have done the real research into such issues as Latin America, disarmament, bank profits, minorities, federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, and so on. These committees have done all of those studies which are so important to the actions of this House and to the directions taken by various Governments. These studies were not done in the Senate. Each and every one of those task forces were House of Commons task forces. I think the people who have served on those task forces recognize that they do the yeoman's work for which the Senate has the reputation. They do the in-depth analysis of some of the controversial issues on which the Government wants more research before it comes forward with a legislative proposal or Government policy paper. That is being done and has been done by the House of Commons. It is 20 or 30 years since we have had the Crow report on poverty in this country.
When people talk about the research capacity of the Senate, they are really talking about something which has not been a function of the Senate in the last little while. Other people who have talked about the value of the Senate refer to the fact that it was the Senate which did the study of the security legislation. They say that the security legislation which was introduced by the Liberals-which was unacceptable-was studied by the Senate and found to be unacceptable. Those of us who were in the House of Commons at that time realized that the Government deliberately sent that Bill to the Senate for study
The Senate
because it did not want the House of Commons to study it. The Government sent it to the other place because it did not want us to reveal the holes which existed in that legislation.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the elected representatives of the people of Canada could have done a much better job of showing just how weak that legislation was. That was a deliberate Government move to keep the legislation from the people who were elected to study legislation. So the Government cannot use that as an excuse for keeping the Senate.
The Senate is elitist in its very nature, Mr. Speaker. It is there because of a lack of trust in a popular mandate. We had an election on September 4 for the purpose of letting the people of Canada decide who they want to govern and what mandate they want to give. We do not always agree with the choice of the people; sometimes we do not even like the choices they have made, but we have always maintained that they have that right. To then create another body to control the elected representatives of the people of Canada is completely and obviously undemocratic.
That body is also elitist because of the very nature of the people in the Senate. Two thirds of the Senators, at last count, were either corporate executives or corporate lawyers. Fully 40 per cent of Senators are on board of directors. Certainly most Canadians are not on boards of directors. The very fact that Senators, who are paid full-time salaries, are doing other work would indicate that they are not truly representing the people of this country.
I have heard some of the debate about how the Senate could be wonderful, how it could represent the provinces, how it could solve the problems of regional disparity and somehow protect the French-speaking minority. I remember that that was the original purpose of the Senate, but it has not done that over the years. It has been the provincial Governments which have protected their own interests. It has been provincial Governments with French-speaking populations which have protected language rights. It has been the federal Government which has worked to protect language rights, not the Senate of this nation.
I know there are others who would like to speak on this proposal, but I would like to remind the House of the motion presented by our Leader in the House yesterday which the Government did not allow to go forward for debate. The motion was that this House recommend the abolition of the Senate. I believe that is the only reasoned course we could ever take.
Do people in this Chamber remember that we used to have second Houses in some of the provinces? Does anyone miss them? Does anyone really feel we have lost something by no longer having second Houses at the provincial level? I do not believe we need the Senate. For that matter, for most purposes it has been dead for the last 100 years. It has served no useful purpose, and when it does exercise its powers we all wish it was not there. So we have not had a useful Senate. In some ways I would have to say that at the present time we have a dead

March 12, 1985
The Senate
body sitting a few hundred feet over there and we have not had the decency to bury the corpse. Instead, we have been looking for a purpose for that corpse. That does not make any sense at all. Let us bury the corpse, and if after that we want to create some new institution, let us do it, but let us get rid of that dead body first.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a word or two in connection with this motion. It is somewhat similar to the motion on Friday, which I had the chance to speak to, asking the Government to present a motion for reform. Today we have another motion asking that the Government convene a federal-provincial conference to deal with the whole question of Senate reform.
On Friday I outlined my views with respect to the whole question of reforming the Senate. Those who were here or read Hansard will know that I felt the whole issue turned on the question of democracy and accountability. I suggested that there were four ways the Senate could be reformed. The first would be to tinker with it and change the powers of the Senate. That of course would not create accountability on the part of the Senate, and for that reason I rejected it. The second way was to change the method of appointing people to the Senate. Once again that would not create any accountability on the part of Senators and therefore I rejected that as well. The third method was election to the Senate. I pointed out that if we had two elected bodies we would run into a great problem as far as our constitutional form of democracy is concerned. We would create a situation of instability, a situation which existed in France before former President De Gaulle came into power. We do not want that. So that led inevitably to the fourth option, and that was-
[ Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you might take it upon yourself to explain to the new Member what happens to the motion if he speaks until six o'clock. I should like to have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, so as to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It must be assumed that the Hon. Member is aware of the Standing Orders of the House.


Alan Redway: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The fourth option was abolishing the Senate altogether. That certainly is the option I would go for. I think the only way to deal with the Senate is to abolish it.
The motion we have before us today has to do with the method of actually amending the Constitution in order to deal with reforming the Senate. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is a procedure set out in the Constitution to deal with this situation.
The first step was referred to by the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre). He referred to a different number, but I believe Section 38(1) of the Act talks about the method of amending the Constitution, requiring that there be a proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada authorized by a resolution of the House of Commons, a resolution of the Senate, and by resolution of the Legislative Assemblies of at least two thirds of the provinces having an aggregate of 50 per cent of the population. My friend pointed out as well that Section 47 of that same legislation refers to the fact that the Senate cannot hold up that resolution for more than 180 days. My friend referred to 280 days but the legislation actually says 180 days.
First of all we start off with the proposition that an amendment can be made with a resolution of this House and a resolution of the Senate. The Senate cannot delay the resolution for more than 180 days. Then we require the resolutions of some seven legislatures representing 50 per cent of the population. That proposition has been questioned recently in the press and, as I understand it, by lawyers with the Department of Justice. They suggest that we would require the unanimous approval of all the legislatures and the Senate because we are talking about changing one of the elements of approval itself, that being the Senate. It is my feeling that that is not the case, particularly when you look at Sections 41 and 42 of the Constitution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate during the time set aside for private Members and to tell the House how disappointed I was in the answer I was given by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) on March 11 of this year, upon his return from his trip around the world. I was disappointed, because he appeared in the House and repeated the press release he had issued before he left.
Mr. Speaker, I have the impression, as the Hon. Member opposite says, that the Minister has not understood.

March 12, 1985

From the Minister's reply we got the impression it was as though nothing had happened during the two weeks he was away. However, during that time, his leader, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), had given the House the assurance that he was going to look into alternatives for Domtar.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a short history of the Domtar case to show how badly the Minister has failed to understand what is going on. The Minister has no feeling for the interests of the region, the Province of Quebec or of this country.
Mr. Speaker, a project like Domtar which represents an investment of $1.2 billion would mean that the Eastern Townships would be able to save nearly 5,000 jobs. We are talking about 700 employees at Domtar but we are also talking about 2,500 lumber producers and the very existence of the Town of Windsor, which is a single-industry town. Turning down a request just like that is patently irresponsible. It is intolerable for a region like ours which has been suffering from the structural weakness of its economy as a result of its dependence on "soft" sectors such as textiles, clothing and footwear.
Mr. Speaker, we have here an industry that is viable and that is viable this year. The Prime Minister is using this year's profits as an excuse to say Domtar does not need a grant.
Mr. Speaker, remember that in 1982, Domtar lost $10 million. It was not making hundreds of millions in profits.
Remember that in 1983, it worked hard to improve its performance up to $45 million. This year was reasonable, but considering the extent of Domtar's investments, Mr. Speaker, that is still quite good.
In any case, the pulp and paper industry is a cyclical one. When I see the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion blaming the company because it is making a profit and telling the Eastern Townships: Well, you have a company in your region that is making a profit and we are certainly not going to help it. We are only going to help the lame ducks.
If that is how the Minister sees regional economic development, I think he should hand in his resignation "P.D.Q.". Mr. Speaker, to us, regional economic development means having profitable and viable companies. It means that the Canadian Government is willing to participate. This Government has been very fond of talking about partnership and the rest, but they are very reluctant to put their money where their mouth is. That mouth is now accusing the company of ulterior motives. They even want to use the profit concept to destroy Domtar's credibility.
They are even claiming the company is making threats. They even said, and the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Charest) repeated it, that Domtar did not present its case until January.
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion received a letter from Domtar, at least a letter was sent to him, on the day he was sworn in as Minister, which was September 17 of last year. And now the Minister jumps up like a jack-in-the-box and says they do not accept ultimatums! But he has had the case on his desk for months! Of course he did not bother to share his information with his Cabinet colleagues or with his Quebec caucus. We know that they were kept completely in the dark about this project that is so very important to the future of Quebec's economy.
Mr. Speaker, today we are informed that the City of St. Paul in Minnesota is willing to offer Domtar 20 per cent of the grant amount if it decides to set up a factory there. I am aware of the Americans' underhand practices. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) said: We cannot subsidize Domtar for fear of antagonizing the Americans. But these same Americans are quick to take advantage of the situation and offer Domtar a substantial subsidy, much lower interest rates and garanteed access to the U.S. market. And of course they offer the company a cheaper labour force, for we have back home some people who have faithfully served the company for 35 years. And all the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion can say is: "I have made up my mind and I will not change my stand!"
Mr. Speaker, I had received from the Prime Minister the firm assurance that he would review the situation and I thought that I could take his word for it. I thought that when a prime minister made a formal statement in the house, that meant something. And I know that many of his colleagues within the caucus have lost their remaining illusions over these past few days. I hope, however, that the Minister will change his attitude and that his Parliamentary Secretary who is aware, I am sure, of the interests of both the province of Quebec and the region which are at stake will provide us with a more brilliant answer than her minister who knows nothing of the situation, nothing of the region's dynamics and nothing of the need to create employment opportunities within the Eastern Townships. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will do a better job of it than the Minister himself.


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my hon. colleague for his question, and I shall be delighted to provide an answer.
First of all, it should be clear that the Government is fully aware of the importance of the forestry products industry to Quebec and Canada. This sector employs about 300,000 Canadians across the country. In 1984, shipments were estimated at some $28 billion and exports at about $15 billion. Incidentally, the industry developed its potential through private sector financing. They have never expected subsidies. In

March 12, 1985
Adjournment Debate
fact, they built up their superiority through private sector financing.
Today, some people adhere to the principle that an investment project cannot succeed without a direct financial contribution from the Federal Government. However, this Government's confidence in the private sector is too great to subscribe to such a concept.
Mr. Speaker, if we get into the specifics of the Domtar case, the project in question is supposed to triple the production capacity for fine paper at the Windsor plant in Quebec. Basically, Domtar intends to instal integrated facilities to replace its obsolete plant, a project that will greatly enhance its competitive position on Canadian and international markets.
Domtar is one of Canada's seven fine paper producers and one of three producers established in Quebec. However, there is a very real danger that its expansion project will aggravate market problems within the industry and lead to overproduction of fine paper in Canada.
I agree the industry expects to fight competition on the market, and it is prepared to deal with that. But if the Government intervenes, this tends to change the rules of the game. Through its various enterprises, associations and the forestry industry's advisory committee, the industry made it clear to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion that it was opposed to any direct assistance with a view to increasing capacity, if such assistance threatened to distort the market situation.
Mr. Speaker, according to the rules of the Regional Industrial Development Program, the Government must consider the repercussions its assistance may have on other members of the industry.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary but her time has expired.


AGRICULTURE-POTATO INSPECTION FEES. (B) REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity this evening to discuss further the implications of the inspection fees as they relate to farm products, specifically potatoes, as a result of the economic statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) last fall.
For the past few months Canadian farmers have been made aware of just how severe the federal cut-backs will be. They will be asked to pay an exorbitant fee for inspections. Also they will be hit with fees for services such as agricultural input quality insurance and records of livestock performance. When the Minister of Finance brought down his statement last fall, I do not think they realized exactly what it would do to them. Now they know they are being asked to pay not only a heavy
inspection fee but virtually the full cost recovery of those programs.
Last month I received a copy of a letter which was sent by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture to the P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board and the P.E.I. Potato Producers Association. I will not read the entire letter to the House, but I will outline briefly what it indicated to potato farmers of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, in fact potato farmers across the country. It probably affects the farmers of P.E.I. the most, followed by the farmers of New Brunswick. He indicated in the letter that fees were to be charged for the services provided by the Food Production and Inspection Branch of Agriculture Canada for the inspection of table stock potatoes and for seed inspection. Of course this affects all potato producers. The charges were to go into effect on April 1, 1985. However, the Minister indicated in the House and at a general meeting and banquet the other night of the Horticultural Council of Canada that they would not affect this crop year, the 1984-85 crop year.
The charges outlined are very dramatic-33 cents per hundredweight for inspection or certification of table stock potatoes; $130 for registration or licence fees for shippers; for seed stock the charges are to be $25 per hectare for field inspection and seven cents per 50 kilograms for tuber inspection.
A problem is created in that many potato producers, certainly in the Province of Prince Edward Island, grow about 65 to 70 per cent of their potatoes as seed potatoes, because their main market is the shipment of seed potatoes offshore. In times when the market situation offshore is not good, those same seed potatoes go into what we call table stock potatoes. They are shipped either within Canada, to Toronto, Montreal and other destinations, or to destinations in the United States. Thus there could also be a double charge.
If the Government goes ahead with the announced inspection fees, every farmer in Prince Edward Island who grows roughly 200 acres of potatoes will be faced with a cost of $13,000, and that is a minimum. That is a lot of money to an industry which is selling its product in the market-place today at between 1.5 cents and 2 cents per pound below the cost of production. The farmers of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick will be devastated by those costs. They cannot absorb them.
The farmers of this country would like a clarification from the Department of Agriculture as to what is going to take place. For many years, I have believed that inspection fees should be borne by the consumer, not by the producer because inspection fees are a protection for the consumer. My friend from Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) agreed with that statement the other day.
This Government is looking blindly at our agricultural industry, as it is looking blindly at our fishing industry. The other night the Minister made a statement to the horticultural society saying that they inherited a tremendous deficit. The
March 12, 1985

deficit is large, but what did this Government do to impove that deficit situation? The first thing it did was appoint 40 Cabinet Ministers, the largest Cabinet this country has ever had, minus one, since one resigned. It announced an extra $2 million for the Prime Minister's Office and $50 million for new uniforms for the armed forces. These additional expenditures could have been use to eliminate the need for any cuts to our primary industries in this country. The Government could have looked at some of those areas, as well as at other areas.
We agree that we have to control the deficit. You will not get any flak from us on that issue. The question is how to control the deficit. It should not be done on the backs of Canadians who can least afford it. I want whoever is answering the question today to give the farmers some assurance that there will be some sympathy, and some common sense used in the approach that this Government takes toward the primary producers of this country so that they will not be faced with any charges whatsoever on inspection, either in agriculture or in fisheries.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I am well aware of the concerns being expressed by Prince Edward Island potato producers regarding our proposed fees. As the Hon. Member mentioned in his question, officials from our office and from our Department have met with representatives of the provincial Government and the island potato industry to discuss these proposals. On the national level, we have consulted with the Canadian Horticultural Council on how our proposals may affect their industry, including of course the potato industry.
On the whole, these meetings have been very positive. We have been very impressed with the extent to which industry shares the Government's concern over the federal deficit. There is a willingness to work together so that the agricultural sector can do its share to reduce the deficit.
This is not to say that there have not been concerns brought to our attention by the various commodity groups during this period of consultation. One of the major concerns that emerged was that we would be charging the new fees on some of last year's crops still moving through the marketing chain. This was never our intention and I can tell the Hon. Member right now that the new fees will not be applied to 1984 crops. [Translation]
Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is very sad that the twenty years of great darkness we have just lived through-fortunately, they ended last September 4-have left us with such a huge deficit that we are now forced to ask all sectors of the economy to make their war effort.
Still we want to find a solution most likely to bring mutual and acceptable satisfaction to the people involved. If, in some cases, the process should take more time than expected at first, we will assume our responsibilities. What we aim to do is to come up with an acceptable solution which will help lower the deficit and with which we can live.
Adjournment Debate
A few days ago, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced that we would do our best to soften the impact of the measures and propositions which have been under consideration. But the Hon. Member must realize that we have to operate with a heavy deficit and that we expect to recoup $32 million. That we will try to do while keeping damages to a minimum.
These past few days and again yesterday the Minister held a meeting with national associations to discuss the best ways to put into effect the new procedures which have been proposed.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS-SIZE OF EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS. (B) REQUEST FOR CHANGES IN FORMULA
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to continue a series of questions I started to ask almost as soon as the House began after the election. They have to do with the effect of the formula brought in by the previous Liberal Government regarding federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. I am speaking specifically of the equalization formula which we now know will provide less money next year than it did in the past for four provinces. These are the Provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, four of the have-not provinces. Four of the poorer provinces of the nation will actually be receiving less money in equalization payments next year than they are receiving at the present time.
This is not a new issue. We warned the then Liberal Government in 1982 that the legislation would have the effects we are now seeing. We said that Quebec and Manitoba would be receiving less money and that we suspected that there would be other provinces in Atlantic Canada that would also suffer as a result of the Liberal Government-imposed formula for equalization.
At that time, members of the Conservative Party were in opposition. They supported us, and to support that I can quote the words of a number of them. One of them was the now Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer). I will quote the words of the now Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). He was speaking specifically of the Province of Manitoba as he is the Member of Parliament for Provencher. On March 23, 1982, he said:
-I am questioning whether any government in Manitoba has the ability to provide the service for Manitobans.
He was talking about health care and about the various essential services provided by the province. That was the position he took when he was in opposition. He went on to say:
-on this issue the members of the NDP and the Progressive Conservatives from Manitoba are united.
That was the position of the Hon. Member for Provencher when he was the health and welfare critic for the opposition Party. He is now the Minister of National Health and Welfare and money is still not being provided to the people of Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

March 12, 1985
Adjournment Debate
Members of the Conservative Party were quick to complain about members of the Liberal Party when they introduced this program. However, I think it is essential that we all know that it is the Conservative Government that is in power now, and it has the power to act. I hope that it will act quickly.
Yesterday when I asked the Minister of Finance a follow-up question on this issue he said that the Government would be acting shortly. The Government has been in power since September 4. It has had the power to act. Every day it delays makes it that much more difficult for the Governments of those four provinces to act on matters that are of concern to them.
Yesterday I mentioned that the Province of Manitoba must bring down its budget very soon. Obviously the Province of Quebec must do its planning. The Provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island must have the ability to plan their fiscal years. We need to know from the Government what it intends to do.
I was very displeased and depressed when I heard the Minister of Finance yesterday say that he thought the federal Government was in a worse fiscal position than the four provinces which are affected by the equalization program. I was asking a question about four have-not provinces. The very purpose of the equalization formula, and the reason equalization is mentioned in the Constitution of Canada, is to provide money and make it possible for the provinces in the poor sections of Canada to provide services. They need money from the federal Government, and the federal Government must realize that when those provinces receives less money in the future than they receive at the present time, obviously they will not be in a position to provide the same level of services for education, health care, welfare and other services such as job creation.
It is very important that the Government act and that it act very quickly, otherwise those provinces will have to make cuts in essential services.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, as a Quebecker, I sincerely thank the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for entrusting me with the task of replying to the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) who has raised a question about an important federal
program, the equalization payments. Under that program, the government unconditionally grants to the poorer provinces some funds to help them provide satisfactory services. This federal program began in 1957, some thirty years ago. Since then, it has been almost automatically extended every five years by the government of the day under fiscal arrangements with the provincial governments.
The equalization program now in effect will end on March 31, 1987 and must be extended by the government before that date. The government considers the renewing of this program a high priority and feels that it is most important to ensure that the new program will attain effectively the original aims of equalization. To this end, extensive consultations will be held within a few months with the provincial governments. Frequent meetings will be held with the representatives of the ten Canadian provinces.
Those federal-provincial meetings will be held at various levels, at the ministers' level as well as the officials' level. All provinces will have the opportunity to state their views on the type of equalization program Canada needs.
Our government will take into account such views when the time comes to make a decision on the kind of equalization legislation that should eventually be tabled in Parliament.
Moreover, those consultations and decisions will be made in a wide context including the entire range of federal transfer programs to the provinces and will confirm the necessity of preserving and even strengthening our Canadian federalism.
Our federal government will indeed help the Canadian provinces through all sorts of transfer payments, including the financing of established programs and the Canada Assistance Plan. Our Estimates for the fiscal year 1985-86, which were tabled in Parliament on February 6, provide for up to $20 billion in cash transfer to the provinces over that period, while the total transfers, including that of income tax percentage points, will exceed $27 billion. These are very large amounts, considering the difficult Financial situation which this federal government has inherited from the previous one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
:
[Stage Direction]


Wednesday, March 13, 1985