1985-10-07

Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the legislation the Government is proposing intends to compensate uninsured depositors of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank as well as the CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation if this institution cannot resolve liquidity and other problems resulting from the failure of the CCB, and to arrange the appointment of new advisers.
Before I address the Bill more fully I want to make perfectly clear that it is not the Government's intention to set a precedent in compensating uninsured depositors in our financial institutions. We are compensating these depositors because the situation facing these two banks reflects unique and particular circumstances.
Although these two banks accounted for less than 1 per cent of the Canadian banking system they provided important support to economic activity in western Canada at a very critical time. Depositors who stayed with these banks shared the Government's view that regional financial institutions can play an important role in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, as I said last week, the problems experienced by the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank reflect a set of unique and particular circumstances. The Canadian banking system is and remains one of the most stable in the world. In fact, as I indicated earlier, the assets of these two institutions represent less than 1 per cent of the total assets of the Canadian banking system.
Both banks had their beginnings in Western Canada in the middle of the seventies. Both were located in a region that was
experiencing rapid economic growth as a result of the energy boom, and both grew substantially during this period.

The economic recovery in western Canada is still fragile. The boom came in the late 1970s for western Canada, and Alberta in particular was a vibrant and buoyant market-place. It was in that environment that the CCB and the Northland were born and prospered. The bubble burst in the early 1980s when world energy market conditions and the National Energy Program depressed the economy of Alberta. Through the depression those institutions, and those who kept deposits with them, helped cushion the serious economic impact of the recession on western Canadians.
My colleagues and I consider this legislation a matter of the highest priority. It is a high priority because of the importance that we on this side of the House place on easing of financial and economic problems of municipalities, small businesses, charitable organizations, credit unions, labour unions, hospitals, colleges and particularly individual Canadians. These problems are a direct result of the collapse of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank.
The major elements of this Bill will come as no surprise to this House. They have been the subject of some considerable discussion over the past few weeks. The circumstances surrounding both the Canadian Commercial and the Northland Bank have been put forward to this House on many occasions and most recently in a statement made here last Monday.
Let me say again that the action our Government took last March regarding the CCB was on our Government's recognition of regional financial institutions and also in recognition of the importance of the CCB to the western economy. We also based our decision on the international circumstances last March.
Our Government examined all the options at that time and in consultation with two provinces and six chartered banks we went forward with the support package. These facts are well known to the House.
Let me now also outline the key elements of this legislation so we can all speak from the same point of reference on the matter.
First, this Bill would authorize the Government to compensate all the depositors of the two banks who maintained deposits in excess of the $60,000 amount protected through the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Second, the Government is proposing that the uninsured depositors covered under the legislation be paid in two installments. The First installment would be paid as quickly as possible following Royal Assent to this Bill and would repre-

October 7, 1985
Depositors Compensation
sent 60 per cent of the total amount payable to each depositor. The balance, 40 per cent of the outstanding deposits, would be paid on April 1, 1986 through a post-dated cheque which each depositor will receive with the initial payment once the legislation has been adopted by Parliament and given Royal Assent.
As Hon. Members may be aware, the payments in respect of insured depositors are made by the CDIC under the CDIC Act. The payment of the uninsured portion of the deposits is to be made under Bill C-79 following the coming into force of the Act.
Accordingly, all that is now required is that the Act be passed by Parliament. The ruling of the Manitoba court has no effect on the process of compensating all depositors.
Depositors will receive full compensation for amounts on deposit as of September 1 but they will receive no interest between September 1 and the date of actual payment. This decision reflects a careful balance between the Government's desire to compensate uninsured depositors in this particular case and the need to ensure continuing market discipline with respect to financial institutions.
This Bill also provides for the offsetting of deposits where possible. In such situations, depositors who have outstanding loans with the banks may have their cash payments reduced by the amount of those loans. This action is normal practice in a liquidation.
That is the essence of the Bill, Mr. Speaker. I would urge Hon. Members to give the elements of this Bill their full consideration. However, I would also urge them to do so expeditiously.
There will be many questions relating to the circumstances surrounding the demise of the CCB and the Northland Bank. I would like to remind all Members that those circumstances surrounding the failure of both banks are currently being examined by Mr. Justice Willard Estey. Therefore, today we are talking about the imperative to help those organizations and individuals across the country who have been adversely affected by the closure of the two banks. The debate today should focus on the elements of this legislation. I ask Hon. Member opposite to put the needs and concerns of Canadians above partisan politics so that this House can meet those needs in a fair and expeditious manner.
Over the past few weeks, Members of the House have voiced a number of concerns with respect to the legislation the Government has proposed. I want to address those concerns because I believe that once concerns like these are laid to rest, we can move quickly to approve the Bill.
Hon. Members opposite have demanded that the Government release the names of the depositors who will be compensated under the terms of the legislation. I have said on many occasions that the privacy of individuals must be protected and that the laws of this country do not appear to permit the publication of this information.


Mr. Cassidy:: They do in a bankruptcy.


Barbara Jean McDougall: To violate the confidentiality of the Bank Act would put all depositors in Canadian institutions at peril should any Government in future wish to get access to and publish that data.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Not true. This is a unique situation.


Barbara Jean McDougall: That is the law, and despite the fact that the broad based nature of the depositors would probably help demonstrate that the Government is doing the right thing, the Government must respect that law and principle.
I promised the House that 1 would provide a detailed breakdown of the classification of uninsured depositors which should meet all reasonable requirements for information on the nature and amounts of the payments that will be made. Let me state now those categories of depositors and the value of their uninsured deposits. I shall table in the House as soon as the French version is available a list of the categories and the amounts of deposits as of August 31, 1985. In the meantime, let me tell the House of some of the highlights of that document which we expect to have available shortly.
With regard to the Canadian Commercial Bank, credit unions and credit union centrals and $67,840,043; municipalities, $41,059,682; school boards, schools and post-secondary institutions, $3,102,928; religious organizations, $2,267,241; charitable organizations, $1,499,763; labour unions, $6,510,856; and hospitals, $5,192,054.
With regard to the Northland Bank, uninsured depositors included credit unions and credit union centrals to the extent of $61,921,647; municipalities, $40,707,740; school boards, schools and post-secondary institutions, $216,461; religious organizations, $4,970,452; charitable organizations, $13,172,093; labour unions, $331,496; and hospitals, $4,716,434.


Michael Morris Cassidy: What about the other $600 million?


Barbara Jean McDougall: It will be in the document, Michael.


Michael Morris Cassidy: How much will foreign banks receive? What about Peter Pocklington, is he on the list?


Barbara Jean McDougall: The total amount of these uninsured deposits, the amount being requested under the terms of this legislation, is $414 million in the case of the Northland Bank and $532 million in the case of the Canadian Commercial Bank. The numbers which I have just quoted suggest $946 million for uninsured deposits in the two institutions. However, the liquidator anticipates about $140 million in set-offs, which would result in the Government compensating uninsured depositors for approximately $806 million. As some set-offs are likely to be subject to further legal consideration, the $875 million appropriation figure in the Bill assumes the exercising of only one-half of the anticipated set-offs. Therefore, I believe that the $875 million figure is an overestimation of what will be required.
I would like to emphasize as well that the appropriation of $875 million requested in the Bill will not be the final cost to
October 7, 1985

the Government or the taxpayer. That cost will be lower by the amount of recoveries from liquidation of the assets of the two banks.
The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation has already begun payments to insure depositors of the CCB and is starting to make payments to insured depositors of the Northland Bank. Insured deposits for the CCB and the Northland together total $275 million and $318 million respectively. These funds will be obtained by borrowings by the CDIC which will eventually be recovered, with interest, through recoveries from the liquidation and through premium payments made by financial institutions which are members of the CDIC.
Once this legislation has been approved by the House, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation will act as the agent for the Government of Canada in connection with payments on uninsured deposits. Application forms will be mailed as quickly as possible by the CDIC to all those eligible under the Bill. Depositors may complete these forms and return them to the CDIC which will then issue the two cheques. Depositors will have until April 1, 1986 to file such applications to the CDIC.
I have described some of the classifications of depositors who will be paid under the Bill. These are deposits within the meaning of the definition of "deposits" in the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act. This includes demand deposits, term deposits and U.S. dollar accounts.
The public policy underlying the Bill applies only to depositors-those who have entrusted their money to the banks. Other creditors are more analogous to creditors in a conventional bankruptcy and will rely on the liquidation process. The legislation does not include shareholders of common or preferred shares or debentures, nor does it include participants in the support package which was arranged for the Canadian Commercial Bank last March.
As well, the funds advanced by the Bank of Canada to both the CCB and the Northland are not covered by this legislation. Those advances, some $1.3 billion to the CCB and $500 million to the Northland, are secured by assets of the banks. The six chartered banks and the two provincial Governments which participated in the support package will have, together with the Government of Canada, the right to claim a pro rata share of the proceeds of the realization of the assets of the two banks once the affairs have been wound down. As holders of subordinated debt, the Governments of Canada, Alberta and B.C. will not receive a share from the realization of the CCB's assets.
Under the terms of this Bill, the depositors, in return for compensation of their uninsured deposits, will assign to the Government all their uninsured rights to a share in the assets of the banks following liquidation proceedings. In effect, the Government of Canada will become the major uninsured depositor.
I would like to be able to advise the House of the final cost to the Government of this compensation package. At this stage, though, it is too early to determine what final recoveries
Depositors Compensation
might be. I do not want to tie the hands of the liquidators by engaging in speculation in the House today. Every effort is being made, with the co-operation of the liquidators and the other creditors, to ensure that the sale of the assets of the two banks is undertaken in an orderly manner in order to obtain a maximum value from them.
The decision to provide compensation to the uninsured depositors was not a decision which we made without careful attention to all the factors relating to this issue. 1 believe very strongly in the importance of the deposit insurance system and in the necessity for investors to act responsibly in choosing where to place their money. So the support we are proposing today should not be interpreted as blanket insurance that similar support would be forthcoming in the event that a financial institution faces difficulties in the future. That is why we will move to increase the powers of the federal regulatory authorities and to change the CDIC Act so that the deposit insurance system will have the financial resources necessary to protect Canadian depositors of modest means.
Over the period since the completion of the CCB support arrangement, the Inspector General of Banks has supplemented the resources of his office through the engagement of individuals outside of the Public Service on a contract basis. Following implementation of the support agreement, two bankers were engaged as special representatives to supervise the arrangement.
Subsequently, three recently retired bankers were engaged to conduct an examination of the CCB loan portfolio. Another retired banker was engaged to assist with the review of the Northland portfolio.
Currently, the Inspector General of Banks is finalizing arrangements to bring under contract a number of active and retired bankers to assist in the regular program of bank inspections now in progress. All this followed, Mr. Speaker, a 30 per cent increase in the Inspector General's staff over the course of last year.
At the same time, the Inspector General will be seeking the authority to increase the permanent resources of his office. I have already indicated, Mr. Speaker, that the Government intends to introduce legislation very shortly to increase substantially the power and authority of our regulators. We will continue to do our best as supervisors, regulators and policy makers to ensure that our financial institutions meet the highest possible standards. These changes will ensure that we have the best regulatory system in the world.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, we are proposing to compensate the uninsured depositors of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank because the situation of those banks reflects unique factors. These depositors stayed with the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank as an expression of confidence in the viability of regional financial institutions which we were all supporting. When I say "we", Mr. Speaker, I include the major chartered banks and

October 7, 1985
Depositors Compensation
two provincial Governments in addition to the federal Government.
We are paying these depositors as well because of the serious economic impact which would result, especially in western Canada, from forcing municipalities, credit unions, charities and small businesses, to absorb the total loss of all their deposits in excess of the $60,000 limit insured by the CDIC.
I have already indicated to the House some of the classifications of the depositors, and all Hon. Members can imagine the impact on these organizations and the individuals they serve and employ if the Government were not taking the action proposed today. Many of them would be in serious financial difficulties. We are talking about the domino effect which insolvencies have with lay-offs, permanent loss of jobs and all of the problems which go with business failures of that sort.
The plight of some municipalities which invested their surplus cash in the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank has been well documented in the media. In this part of the country we have heard of the situation facing Kanata which has been forced to defer many of its capital projects and provide only essential services until the status of its deposit has been resolved. Kanata is not the only municipality in this situation. What were we to do in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker? Should this House be telling those municipalities, "Sorry. Tough luck. Raise your property taxes or go to your provincial Government"? Surely we have a responsibility to them, having participated in the March support arrangements.
Hon. Members opposite are openly critical of the decision of the Government to include the deposits of foreign banks as part of the terms of this Bill. However, it would not be a responsible action on the part of this Government to protect only certain kinds of depositors. What kind of signals would we send to the international financial community if we were to take that kind of action? I suggest that any refusal to indemnify foreign depositors would have been seen as a major breach of trust, both at home and abroad, and our banking system would become truly insular if we paid off Canadian depositors while not paying off non-Canadians.
Therefore, the Government had to weigh the impact and the criticism from the other side of the House which it might receive because of our decision to pay all uninsured depositors against the widespread difficulties which would occur across the system had there not been such indemnification.
I mentioned at the beginning that it is the Government's hope that the House will move speedily to pass this Bill through all stages so that it can send out the cheques as soon as possible. The organizations and individuals affected by this problem are very concerned. Over the past few weeks, the CDIC has received over 400 calls a day from people who want to know what their status is and when they might expect to receive their compensation. Many people have written directly to me because they or their companies are facing serious problems.
Let me give a few examples. A small construction company which put its partial payment for a job into a 30-day certificate is now in the position of being unable to pay its workers and sub-contractors and will have to start laying off employees. I have also received a letter from a small western Canadian business which employe 25 individuals. The uncertainty around the status of the company's deposits and the timing of the payments means again that the business must start laying off its employees. I mentioned the plight of the Municipality of Kanata, and it is not the only municipality caught in these circumstances.
I could go on and talk about calls from individual Canadians to many Members of the House and to the CDIC. These are ordinary businesses, ordinary organizations employing ordinary Canadians and engaged in standard investment practices. They deserve the support of the House and its assistance and they need speedy consideration of this Bill so that they can get their lives and their companies back to financial stability again.
In conclusion, let me repeat what I said in the House in May when all Members agreed to the speedy passage of similar legislation with respect to Pioneer Trust. As a Government, we are committed to the responsible management of the affairs of this country. That is a heavy responsibility and one that we take seriously. It is one that carries with it the necessity of making difficult and complex decisions. We have made those decisions and we have concluded that our responsibilities include the protection of depositiors faced with the unique and unusual circumstances surrounding the fate of the Canadian Commercial and the Northland Banks.
I would like to thank Members opposite in advance for their co-operation in this matter. Believe me when I say that they are not helping the Government, they are helping thousands of Canadians who have been caught up in this regrettable matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it was just a Monday morning speech, but that was not a very spirited defence of this legislation. 1 can understand why.
As a matter of fact, I am surprised that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is not in his place today either to present the Bill or to hear his colleague, the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall). He has general responsibility for the banking system and for the financial system in the country. It has been delegated, to a certain extent, to the Minister of State for Finance. However, a billion dollars is a billion dollars and the Minister of Finance should have been here to address the issue and hold himself accountable to Parliament for that issue.
In March, the Government put together a bail-out for the Canadian Commercial Bank. Those of us on this side of the House were skeptical but we-


Michael Morris Cassidy: But you supported it.
October 7, 1985


John Napier Turner: We supported it and we agreed with the Government on the basis of ironclad solutions that the bail-out would be successful and render the bank solvent and viable again. We supported the Bill on the basis of that assurance.
We were told that it was a temporary problem that was a result of a few bad management decisions. Upon review of the history of that bank, it turns out that it was more than a few bad management decisions. That bank was badly managed from its inception.
We were also told that it was an isolated incident. I want to put on the record what the Minister of State for Finance told Parliament at that time. I am quoting from Hansard on March 25. She said: "We are satisfied that this bank is now a viable bank, that it will be profitable in the future, that we will be repaid as will other members of the support group out of the future profits of the bank". That was an undertaking. That was a clear statement. It was not conditional. It was not hedged. She went on to say: "This particular problem was triggered by something that happened within the bank's loan portfolio in California, which then of course created problems with the organization as a whole". That was the position of the Minister at that time. It was not just the western Canadian economic position or the National Energy Program. It was the bank. The fact happened to be that the bank invested very heavily into Texas and California, into loans directed at the oil and gas industry and directed at the real estate in those states. That had as much to do with bringing down this bank as did the economic situation in western Canada.
Then she went on to say: "Indeed the matter must be clearly explained so that Canadians understand that this is an isolated incident due to very particular circumstances, an incident that poses no threat to the integrity of the banking system". Of course we now have a companion piece with the Northland Bank; that is about how isolated the incident was.
We agreed that the $255 million bail-out should be passed by Parliament after being told repeatedly by the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of Finance that the problem had been solved and that there would be business as usual. We also supported the Bill at that time and the bail-out then because we wanted, as did the Government, to restore full confidence in our banking system, a banking system which, despite these set-backs, remains in our opinion among the strongest in the world. We also gave a vote of confidence to the Government at that time because we were giving a vote of confidence to our regional banks and a vote of confidence in the western Canadian economy. Regional banks have been chartered under previous Liberal administrations because we recognized that western Canadians were becoming fed up with having to come to Montreal and Toronto all the time for a loan beyond a certain loan authorization limit. They wanted banks with head offices in British Columbia, Alberta and other parts of western Canada, so that they would not have to board an airplane, come to eastern Canada and lay their
Depositors Compensation
problems before a remote credit institution. I believe that has helped to decentralize and to bring our banking system closer to the people of western Canada. That is why we supported the original bail-out in March. However, the undertakings which were given to Parliament and to us were pretty flimsy and very fragile, indeed. Now, just six months later, we have been told that not only one bank is in trouble, but that two banks have collapsed and that it will cost Canadian taxpayers $1 billion plus to reimburse uninsured depositors.
It is absolutely mind-boggling. We now know, on the basis of evidence before the Finance Committee, evidence given by chief executive officers and senior officers of the chartered banks, that at the time the Government brought the bail-out to Parliament, it did not know the facts. Despite the pleas of the senior officers of the chartered banks to look at the loan portfolio of the Canadian Commercial Bank, neither the Inspector General, nor the Department of Finance, nor any government official, went into that loan portfolio. The chartered banks said to the Government on a Friday night: "Give us a weekend. We will lend you some people, 40 or 50 experts, to go into the loan portfolio of the bank and to examine the assets of the bank". That was not done. That offer was refused. The Government flew absolutely blind. It did not do its homework. It had no idea of the state of that loan portfolio and, as it turns out, instead of $255 million, those loans were sour to the extent of $600 million to $800 million. The bail-out was inadequate. If we are going to bail out, then bail out; and get to the bottom of the boat.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Like Maislin.


John Napier Turner: The Hon. Minister ought to know that this matter is far more serious; it goes right to the confidence of our banking system. She should know that well and not retort in a flippant way, which has really characterized her whole performance on this issue.
The chartered banks volunteered their experts and they volunteered an analysis. All that was refused. We had a situation where the Government was flying blind. On the day before Parliament reopened in September, I called it "amateur night on the Rideau". We on this side of the House were conned at that time. We relied on the Ministers for their undertaking that this bank would be rendered viable once again. We were conned. The chartered banks were sucked in. The Government did not know anything about what it was doing. It was absolute, sheer negligence. None of the homework had been done. It was really "amateur night on the Rideau". Apparently a letter of comfort was also provided to the other chartered banks which participated in the deal. It guaranteed the survival of the bank and guaranteed that the banks would get their money back. In purchasing the proportionate assets of the Canadian Commercial Bank, the banks were guaranteed by the Government that they would be treated as depositors. We will have to look into that more closely as we get into committee.
As I said, it now turns out that about a third of the loans of the Canadian Commercial Bank were rotten, that $255 million

October 7, 1985
Depositors Compensation
were thrown away and that the taxpayers' bill is at least $1 billion. The Hon. Minister said this morning that, in addition, the Governor of the Bank of Canada authorized $1.3 billion against the Canadian Commercial Bank and another $500 million to $600 million against the Northland Bank. She said that those were fully covered by the assets of the bank. We will wait and see. I hope the Minister will eventually report back to Parliament as to what are the set-offs and as to what is the final bill for the Bank of Canada. It ought to be added to the bill.
What we have here is a shaking of confidence in our system by reason of the incompetence of the Government. As a matter of fact, that confidence has now been shaken to such an extent that the market is now in control. Ottawa has lost control. Only the resignation of this Minister and the resignation of the Minister of Finance will restore confidence in the country that there are Ministers who devote their full attention to the banking system, who supervise it with care and who pay attention to the deals negotiated. Only that type of action by the Government, giving the supervisory force a fresh face, will restore what has been lost.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Minister of State for Finance solemnly assured us in March that no other banks were in trouble. Then, seemingly out of the blue, on September 1, she tied the problems of the Northland Bank to those of the CCB. She announced the appointment of curators for both banks. In that September 1, 1985 press release she gave Northland, "a limited time period to seek to reorganize its affairs or amalgamate with another financial institution". That was the kiss of death of the Northland Bank. Once she linked the Northland to the Canadian Commercial Bank, which had then gone into liquidation, investors, depositors and other financial institutions were given a clear warning by the Minister that the Government did not really have any confidence in the bank and was giving it just a limited period of time.
Given the complete irresponsibility of the Government in the CCB collapse in not fully examining the books of that bank, how can we now presume that a thorough examination of the books of Northland was undertaken before it, too, was declared no longer viable?

Mr. Speaker, this is unprecedented. The President of the Northland Bank said before the TV cameras that he had the impression the Government wanted to force the Bank to close, although he felt the Bank could have survived.
We are also informed that a letter delivered by hand to the Minister on September 6 informed her of a rescue operation set up by the Bank, and that the Government has yet to reply to this letter. This raises some pretty obvious questions: Did the Minister actually carry out a thorough examination of the situation at the Northland Bank? Was the Bank really insolvent? To what extent did the Government's intervention contribute to the Bank's collapse? Why was the Canadian Commercial Bank given the benefit of the doubt in March and why was the Northland Bank denied that benefit in September?
We feel the Government committed a serious mistake by giving both banks the same treatment, and it has failed to give us a satisfactory explanation for its decision to act in this way.
These issues ought to be looked into, not only by Mr. Justice Estey in the course of his inquiry but also by a committee of the House. Considering that the courts have now decided to grant the Northland Bank a reprieve, should this Bill even be before the House? Should we postpone this Bill until the courts have had a chance to rule on the matter?
Why, for instance, did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall) not attend the negotiations back in March? Why did the Canadian Commercial Bank decide for itself which loans would be examined by the bail-out group?
According to some reports, officials of the Canadian Commercial Bank got rid of their own shares in the Bank before the Minister's announcement that the Bank would be bailed out, which would have depressed the value of these shares.
[DOT] (U40)

Questions have also been raised about insider information and secret meetings. Why was no evaluation of the Canadian Commercial Bank begun until three months after the bail-out? I have already said that, on the basis of evidence given to the committee, the homework was not done and that the books of the bank were not examined before the Government came to Parliament with the $255 million bail-out package. Even then it took three or four months before George Hitchman, a former senior executive of the Bank of Nova Scotia, was finally commissioned by the Government to look at the books of the bank. It was shortly after his report was received by the Minister in late August that on September 1 the plug was pulled by the Government.
Why was a report of February 14 from the Federal Reserve Board in San Francisco not forwarded by the Inspector General to the Minister? Why did she not see that the Federal Reserve Board system of United States has serious doubts in February about the viability of the bank and its subsidiary, the Westlands Bank of California? These warnings from the American banking system were ignored by the Government.
We are now being asked to authorize the expenditure of nearly $1 billion of taxpayers' money. I venture to say, from what I was able to gather from officials who wanted to speak quietly about the matter, that the Minister of Finance was not too keen about the bail-out in March, and neither was the Minister of State for Finance. They both went to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who said that there was no way he was going to allow the first bank since 1923 to go bankrupt under a Conservative administration. He operatee without the facts. He did not ask for them and, if he had asked, he would
October 7, 1985

not have got them from the Ministers because they did not know the facts. If the story is correct that the Ministers did not want to support the bail-out in the first instance and were over-ruled by the Prime Minister, they may still be in their places because the Prime Minister owes them one. Otherwise it does not make any sense.
This is the first bankruptcy of any bank since 1923. The Ministers absolutely failed to do the elementary homework of looking at the books of the CCB, and they are still around with the price tag of $1 billion to the Canadian taxpayers and another $2 billion outstanding by way of the Bank of Canada. This Parliament is now being asked to authorize nearly $1 billion of taxpayers' money to be turned over to a group of anonymous depositors. The Minister said this morning that this was not going to set a precedent.
However, the people of Canada are entitled to ask the Government if in future all depositors and investors will be bailed out. Is there no meaning any more to the interest rate structure and the market system? Depositors were paid a higher rate of interest because the market presumed that there was a greater risk and now that differential and margin means nothing. Is there now to be an implicit guarantee of the Government of Canada that it will bail out future depositors in any difficulty in any financial institution in the country? The people of Canada are entitled to ask that question.
We know that there are some legitimate claims by native bands, pension funds, municipalities and credit unions. They have been in touch with us. The Minister has read out some global figures. All of these institutions were misled by the Minister in March, by the Prime Minister when he authorized the deal, and by the Minister of Finance in categorical statements before this House. On the basis of those statements, reinforced, it must be said, by statements of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, credit unions, smaller municipalities, and school commissions across the country deposited with this bank for short and medium terms. I suppose that is the moral justification, if there be any, for the Government bailing them out. The incompetence of the Government misled $ 1 billion worth of depositors.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: During our debate on this Bill, Mr. Speaker, we will want to examine the difference between short-term demand deposits and medium-term debentures. A good many of the credit unions and municipalities were persuaded to go in by way of debenture. If the Bill passes Parliament we will want to ensure that there is some equity between deposit holders and debenture holders despite the rather vague reference in the Bill to security under deposits.
We have repeatedly asked the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance for the names of all the depositors of the Northland and CCB. They tell us that under the Bank Act it is illegal to provide the names of depositors and that the confidentiality of deposits is fundamental to the banking system. That may be so, but as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), set forth very
Depositors Compensation
clearly in questions to the Hon. Minister, these institutions no longer fall under the Bank Act. According to the terms of the Bank Act, when a curator and liquidator are appointed, the Winding-up Act takes precedence and under the Winding-up Act the liquidator is entitled to know the list of all creditors and debtors. Among the creditors, of course, are the deposit holders. More than that, not only is there no legal bond in our view, it is absolutely unprecedented for the people of Canada, through the House of Commons and Parliament, to be asked to disburse $1 billion without knowing where a cent of it is going.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We take the position that we will not support this Bill until we know who is being bailed out. This quarter of the House will not authorize any blank cheques from Parliament. How much of the money which we are being requested to authorize is going off-shore, to foreign banks, and to other banks in our own system? How much is going to class A and class B banks? How much is going to wealthy individuals who took a chance of a higher return? It may be that many who are being bailed out are of the same group who benefited from the Budget of the Minister of Finance by getting a $500,000 capital gains tax exemption for a lifetime bonanza of $125,000. How many friends of the Government are on that list? We would like to see that list to know just how coincidental the direction of this Bill is.


Mr. Hees:: You certainly have no friends in western Canada.


John Napier Turner: Now, George.


George Harris Hees: I was just saying that you guys certainly have no friends in western Canada.


John Napier Turner: George, life is long and, as Mr. Diefenbaker used to say, it's a long road that has no ash cans. This is one of the ash cans facing western Canada as a result of that action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Is this the real reason we are not getting the names? Who are they? I think it would be a fascinating list. I am sure the Minister would be intrigued to give us that list. She has a bit of an enigmatic smile on her face. I think we have reached her a bit. Only she and the Minister of Finance know, and I am sure the Prime Minister has taken a look at the list. I have heard of buying a pig in a poke, but never for $1 billion. We believe that it is high time the Government was honest with the people of Canada. [Translation]
The Government is asking us to make the same mistake it made in March, to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money without knowing all the facts, especially the most important fact which is: Who is going to receive this money? Who are the anonymous invisible beneficiaries of the Government's generosity? Are they friends of this Government?

October 7, 1985
Depositors Compensation
In fact, by tabling this Bill, the Government is saying to Canadians: "Trust us, we know what has to be done. There is nothing to fear. Just trust us." Well, we trusted them in March, and six months later, not one but two banks have gone bankrupt!
Canadians, and I say this through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Government, Canadians believed you a year ago when you said that social programs were a sacred trust. And then, in your very first Budget, you attacked the Old Age Security pension and family allowances.

Canadians trusted this Government when it said that it would revise the patronage system. That was one of the great ones. Twelve hundred names later, when every thirsty Tory had been to the trough, not only directly but through uncles, aunts, brothers, and brothers-in-law, when they had satisfied their thirst for patronage, we heard a sanctimonious statement by the Prime Minister and some reference to the committee of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). So where is the reform; where is the trust? Canadians trusted this Government when it said there would be improved standards for Ministers. What are the standards? It is asking for trust here, for a blank cheque of $1 billion. We in this House are entitled to ask, where is the trust? We are losing about $1 billion in taxpayers' money, plus whatever the Bank of Canada is unable to set off against the $2 billion that the Bank of Canada had advanced. That should be reason enough for both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance to turn in their resignations. I believe they contributed to a loss of confidence in the system.
Where is the new morality in this Government? The former Minister of National Defence goes to a questionable bar and he resigns. The former Minister of Fisheries allows rancid tuna on the shelves, but the Prime Minister sticks with him until the Minister contradicts the Prime Minister. There is the morality. The former Solicitor General calls into doubt the whole administration of our justice by having a secret, clandestine meeting in the Chateau Laurier with a potential accused who happens to be the Tory Premier of New Brunswick, and he stays. The former Minister of the Environment, now the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) undermines the credibility of our fight to protect the environment by emasculating her Department, then she takes extended business trips to Europe on questionable grounds, five hours work for a ten-day trip. She stays. Now the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance blow $1 billion of the taxpayers' money through sheer incompetence, and they both stay on the job. That is the new morality; that is the new credibility; that is the new standard of behaviour for Ministers.
Last Wednesday night in which the Tory Government almost refused the emergency debate and almost put into jeopardy your authority and the authority of the Chair, Mr. Speaker. It was only those on this side of the House who rescued the House Leader by reminding him that if they had
not voted against allowing the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) to bring in his motion he would be in effect sapping the confidence in the Speaker and in the Chair of the House.


An Hon. Member:: You all voted for it.


John Napier Turner: Last Wednesday, after we insisted upon a registered vote from every Member on the other side, to restore confidence in the Chair, Member after Member on that side of the House got up and blamed past Liberal Governments for this fiasco. How absurd can one get.


Mr. Lewis:: You just did.


John Napier Turner: How feeble an excuse. In March the Minister of State for Finance did not talk about past administrations. She said then the bank's difficulties had to do with loans into the American market in the southwest and California and Texas. Now the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance are blaming past Governments. We never had a bank go bankrupt under our administration, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: That whole argument is a farce.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The question is not why
the Canadian Commercial Bank found itself in trouble. It found itself in trouble because of world economic conditions but primarily because of bad management.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The issue before this House is, why did this Government come in March with an inadequate picture, with an inadequate factual background, has not done its homework, misled the Parliament of Canada and misled the Canadian people? That is the real issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: On Saturday at Question Period-


An Hon. Member:: The House doesn't sit on Saturday.


John Napier Turner: -I am saying CTVs Question Period on September 20, the Minister of State, even after admitting to the reporters who were interrogating her that the decision to bail out the bank was made on false or at least inadequate information, even though she admitted it was based on inadequate information, said that she would do it again. I refer to CTV's Question Period, September 20. That is an astounding statement from the Minister. We in this Party believe that the banking system in this country remains strong. It is still strong and will continue to be so. We do believe that this unprecedented situation has created a crisis of confidence
October 7, 1985

in the ability of this Government to supervise the system. The system has taken over. The market has taken over. The banking financial system considers Ottawa to be irrelevant in the resolution of its problems. The Government is being ignored by the financial institutions of the country in coming to a stabilization of our system.
In appointing Mr. Justice Estey to investigate the matter the Government attempted to sidestep this House. We are going to use this Bill as best we can to get some answers that relate to the political responsibility of the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of Finance.


An Hon. Member:: And the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)?


John Napier Turner: And the Prime Minister, indeed. These issues go to the responsibility of Ministers before the House of Commons and thereby to the people of Canada. These are not judicial matters. These are matters not properly put before a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Indeed by giving him that mandate, no matter how large, the judge is being placed in an improper, indeed an impossible position. We are not going to allow the Government, Mr. Speaker, to sidestep your House. We are going to continue to press for answers because the people of Canada deserve those answers; and the people of Canada certainly deserve a more competent confident demonstration of supervision than they have received from the two Ministers and from this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I have an amendment
which reads:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "that" and by substituting the following:
This House declines to give second reading to a Bill, the principle of which is to permit payments of large, but unspecified amounts of public moneys to unspecified persons or corporations, thereby substantially denigrating parliamentary accountability for expenditure of public funds.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) on a point of order.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the Government wants full debate on this particular Bill and I know that the Speaker will want to spend some time reflecting on whether or not this motion is in order. At the time that the Speaker makes that reflection, I would ask him to take a look at Beauchesne, Citation 436(2) in which it states that an amendment-


Mr. Gauthier:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: He is circumventing the rules.


Mr. Deans:: That is what he is pulling.


Ms. Copps:: You should learn your rules.
Depositors Compensation


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will read the motion and then will recognize the Hon. Member for Simcoe North.
Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra), seconded by Mr. Gauthier moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "That" and by substituting the following:
This House declines to give second reading to a Bill, the principle of which
is to permit payments of large, but unspecified amounts of public moneys to
unspecified persons or corporations, thereby substantially denigrating parliamentary accountability for expenditure of public funds.
The Chair does in fact intend to take the amendment under advisement and will render a decision as soon as possible.
The Hon. Member for Simcoe North on a point of order.


Philip Derek Lewis: If I may say so, I appreciate that I should have waited until the Chair read the motion.
I would like to point out that I think you, Mr. Speaker, may wish to address yourself to Citation 436(2) of Beau-chesne's which states that an amendment which would produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negatived is out of order. I suggest that the Government has every interest in having this Bill fully debated in order that the Opposition can bring out whatever facts it wishes to bring out and what we wish to see-


Mr. Murphy:: That is not a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair takes note of the representations made by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North. We will resume debate.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on the same point of order.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: I am speaking to the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis). I want to draw the Speaker's attention to Citation 744 of Beauchesne with respect to reasoned amendments. Citation 744 says:
It is also competent for a Member, who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a Bill, to move what is known as a "reasoned amendment". This amendment leaves out all the words in the main question after the word "That" to add other words. A reasoned amendment is in the form of a motion and may fall into one of several categories:
I would particularly like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that the Citation goes on to say:
(1) It must be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the Bill.
I submit that the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) falls squarely within the provisions of the Citation I have just read in that it is certainly declaratory of a principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of the Bill, because the Bill indicates very clearly that the money in question is to be paid without disclosing the identity of those persons to whom the money is to be paid and the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition clearly

October 7, 1985
Depositors Compensation
opposes that fundamental principle. Again, the amendment falls squarely within the long-standing and well upheld and understood provision that a reasoned amendment can be accepted from a Member who desires to place on record special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a Bill. Therefore, I respectfully urge you, Mr. Speaker, to accept this amendment.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my Party to speak unequivocally against the Bill that has been introduced today. It is very clear from this Bill and from the related lack of action by the Government over the summer on whose side the Government is. When a group of municipalities, people in the industry and workers from Vancouver Island asked for some $22-million worth of assistance to provide concrete jobs for those in the wood-producing sector, the Government said no.

In the Province of Quebec, when they have problems with their factories or in their communities, the Government once again says no.

When prairie farmers who have experienced the worst drought in several decades asked for speedy assistance, the Government said no. However, when uninsured depositors, most of whom are wealthy individuals or corporations, came to the Government, then within 48 hours the Government indicated it was prepared to give them millions of dollars and shortly thereafter billions of dollars. It is clear to us on whose side the Tories are. It is time that the Tories started listening to the people of Canada rather than the bankers of Canada.
Having heard the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) say that the Liberals were not going to give, in his words, a blank cheque to the Government today, I would say that it is too bad that the Liberals did not take that position last March. If they had taken that position last March, we might have been able to stop the Government from carrying on with the incredible bungling that has occurred since then.
The Leader of the Opposition says he is not going to sign the blank cheque. None other than the Leader of the Opposition was the co-signer of the blank cheque last March. If the Liberals have learned a little bit since then, perhaps the people of Canada will reap some benefit from that wisdom.
I listened with care to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say. He did not say that the Liberals would oppose this Bill in principle. He indicated that after they received a list of the names of uninsured depositors, something which this Party has showed great concern over in the last week, then they will probably support the Bill.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Who said so?


John Edward Broadbent: Of course he did not say so. I know how the Liberal Party works, however. The Leader implied that they would do again in October what they did last March. When
the bankers call, the Liberals will come to their assistance just as fast as the Conservatives.
The average Canadian, whether a farmer on the Prairies, a steelworker in Hamilton or a bank clerk in the Minister's own riding, probably finds it hard to envisage that which the Minister throws around so casually; namely, $1 billion. To give it some concrete reality, I would say to the Minister that what she is now proposing to put as a charge on the taxpayers of Canada is equivalent to all the groceries required for one week for every family in Canada. It is equivalent to writing off the personal income taxes of every income tax payer in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland combined. It is equivalent to an amount of $80 being paid by every individual taxpayer. As well, after making a rough calculation, $1 billion would be enough to send every man, woman and child in my constituency a cheque for $10,000. In other words, we are talking about a lot of money that this Government is now wasting because of its own mismanagement.
That the Government is wasting $1 billion is bad enough, but we should put this in the context of the other expenditures that have occurred in relation to this mess. The total net effect of this fiasco could be in the neighbourhood of $3 billion. That is the equivalent of three tax-free years for every person in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The other examples to which I referred a moment ago could also be multiplied by three.
Let us add to the $1 billion bail-out the following costs: $135 million was spent in the original bail-out which occurred in March; $1.8 billion was advanced by the Bank of Canada to Northland and the CCB between March of last year and September; and another $420 million is likely to be added to the taxpayers' charges because this amount will be provided by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to the insured depositors, and as the Minister well knows, this tab is likely to be picked up by the taxpayers because the CDIC is currently running at a deficit of $1.2 billion. We are talking not only about a $1-billion fiasco but quite conceivably about a $3-billion fiasco.

Mr. Speaker, the irresponsibility and superficiality of the two Ministers are as great as the amount this affair is going to cost the taxpayer. Just consider for a moment: the bail-out operation for the Canadian Commercial Bank was put together in just 48 hours, back in March, and at that time the Ministers refused an offer from the chartered banks to make a detailed study of the Canadian Commercial Bank's financial situation, which would have taken only two or three days. And during the summer, the Ministers failed to attend some very important meetings on the subject. The Ministers did nothing when the chartered banks, including the banks taking part in the bail out, withdrew $360 million from the Canadian Commercial Bank during the summer.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the President of the Northland Bank accused the Government of sabotaging the Bank's restructuring operations. The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we have here a monumental Government fiasco.
October 7, 1985



I want to indicate briefly why we are against this course of action. There are already provisions in place in legislation making it possible, through the CDIC, to compensate depositors of up to $60,000. Those beyond that were taking a risk and they knew it. Surely, the Minister who practises the efficacy of the market-place in such situations ought to be practising what she preaches. Those depositors above the $60,000 level were making those deposits to obtain additional interest for moving in the non-insurable category. They were taking risks. They knew what they were getting into. I say that, overwhelmingly, people and institutions in that category, whether they be chartered banks, other financial institutions here or banks in the United States, rich individuals or other groups in the Canadian community, were taking risks. It is inappropriate to come to the taxpayers of Canada now and ask them to bail them out.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That is our view in principle.
A bad precedent will indeed be created no matter what the Minister says today. If we are to say now that all uninsured depositors with deposits over $60,000 will be bailed out by the taxpayers, then what type of effect will this have on management decisions in our banking institutions in the future? Will they be prudent in the future or will they simply say: "We had better not risk our capital on that sort of speculative venture in California, western Canada or eastern Canada"? Not at all. What the Government is doing by this legislation is encouraging the opposite of prudence. What the Government will be saying to banking institutions is: "There is no longer a distinction to be made between insured and uninsured depositors. Go ahead and take whatever risks you want; be however irresponsible you want to be. The people of Canada will pick up the Bill". I want to emphasize at this point that it is the people of Canada involved here, not some abstraction known as the Government of Canada or some political Party. We are saying that this is a bad example to set. We will not support it for that reason.
In recent days in the House we have given a great deal of attention to the fact that we will be giving almost $1 billion to a group of individuals, corporate entities or municipalities whose precise names we do not know. I thought it was a great bit of unintended irony for the Deputy Prime Minister who, in the House on Friday, in answer to questions on a different matter, underlined the important principle that the people of Canada as taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going. I say to the Minister responsible for this Bill that if they have a right to know in some categories where their money is going, then they surely have a right to know where the money is going in today's circumstances when the Government is proposing to pay $1 billion out of some taxpayers' pockets into other taxpayers' pockets. They have a right to know where that money is going. That is the important principle.
Depositors Compensation
In the House last week the Minister replied that she could not supply that list because there is a tradition embedded in Canadian law, in fact, in the Bank Act, which says that names of uninsured depositors have to remain secret. How quaint. She does not hesitate as a Minister of a Conservative Government to change another tradition, namely, to use taxpayers' money to bail out uninsured depositors for the first time in Canadian history. She will do that but she will not similarly change this other old tradition with respect to the names of uninsured depositors being released.
To make a point I have made in the past, she cannot have it both ways. She cannot say that we will change one tradition but we are unprepared to change another, that is, with respect to the withholding of names of uninsured depositors. We are saying, quite apart from other points about this Bill, that it is absolutely fundamental to the whole notion of parliamentary democracy that when taxpayers are footing the bill they ought to know where their money is going. If uninsured depositors such as foreign banks, rich individuals or corporations inside or outside of Canada are to be paid off, then we want a list of those names.
I noted some ambivalence on the Government's part on Friday in replying to questions on this matter. In making this proposal we say there are two options. First, there is the option provided by the Conservative Chairman of the House Finance Committee, and also the President of the Toronto Dominion Bank, both of whom have said publicly that the list of all depositors, uninsured as well as insured, should be made known. We would go for that. Second, if the Government is giving this money away and if the Government will use taxpayers' money to pay off uninsured depositors, then, at the very least, it can provide us with a list of the names of the uninsured depositors.
I have made the points I want to make in this debate for my Party today. I want to conclude with these observations. We want a list of names. We do not want it in abstract categories, as I have said. We are opposed to this Bill in principle. This Government was elected on a mandate just over a year ago which promised constructive change. This Government promised to build a new atmosphere of optimism for ordinary Canadians in all regions. Since it has come to power it has increased taxes on the average Canadian by almost $1,000. That figure is before we take into account the impact of this Bill. The Government has ignored the increasing concerns of unemployed Canadians. It has not been prepared to support financially the legitimate concerns of working Canadians, whether they be prairie farmers, those in the logging industry or fishermen. The Government has made it clear whose side it is on. That could not be demonstrated more clearly than through the Bill which is before us. The Conservative Party is quite clearly not living up to its mandate to help the ordinary Canadian. It is living up to its own private agenda with respect to aiding the wealthy and the powerful.

October 7, 1985
Depositors Compensation
We are opposed to this Bill. Unlike the Liberals, we will vote against it, whether or not we receive a list of the names. We think it is bad for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has been informed of the amendment moved by Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra), seconded by Mr. Gauthier-

It meets the requirements of the recent amendment to pages 530 and 531 of Erskine May. Therefore, the Chair finds the amendment in order.
The House has heard the motion. The question, therefore, is on the amendment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During her speech the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) mentioned several amounts of money which referred to either depositors or groups of depositors. Will the Minister table that document today so that we can have access to the figures before we make our speeches this afternoon?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order as far as the Chair is concerned. I understand the Hon. Member has received an informal answer from the Minister.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Have I received an informal answer?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair rules it is not a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will make it a point of order, then, Mr. Speaker. I will make it a real point of order. There is no doubt in my mind that the Minister was reading from a text. If she was reading from a text, then that text should be available to us. I submit to you that I have a real point of order in asking the Minister to table those figures now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair finds that-

-regarding the information to which the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is referring, the Minister- [English]
-would have been quoting a state paper which the Chair believes was not the case.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in my address that I would be tabling the documents with the detailed breakdown as soon as I had a French version. If the Hon. Member would accept an English version, I can give it to him now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that the Minister would like to-
[ Translation]
-table the document now in one language?

Very well. We will wait for the Minister, then.

Resuming debate on the amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier).


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, are we debating the amendment of the Bill itself?


An Hon. Member:: The amendment.


Claude Lanthier: I was not prepared to debate the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I just came in!


An Hon. Member:: Ask your colleague to the right!


Claude Lanthier: Very well then.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate to support the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall) and this important and essential measure to provide compensation to uninsured Canadian Commercial Bank and Northland Bank depositors.
The one and only purpose of this Bill is to repay uninsured depositors, although it is obvious that Members of the Opposition intend to raise many other irrelevant issues which do not relate in any way, shape or form to the legislative measure now under consideration.
I intend to focus my simple remarks on the sound reasons why this measure is both necessary and warranted, as well as on the reasons why the Bill is of utmost significance to depositors and the economy of Western Canada. It is quite clear that Parliament must endorse these repayments without delay. Indeed the issue we are debating has to do with the savings of individuals, the cash flow which small-and medium-size businesses so badly need, the temporary deposits of municipalities, small and big alike, the cash reserves of religious and charitable organizations, and many other such deposits.
Surely all Hon. Members must realize that any undue and irresponsible delay in the consideration of this Bill will have wide-ranging and disastrous consequences. For example, if a businessman were unable to cash in an investment certificate redeemable this month when he needs it to pay suppliers, subcontractors or his employees, the shortage of cash facing the businessman would have an impact on several other branch plants and their staff. This problem could be the source of unexpected and rather heavy additional expenses that are harmful to small businesses and might even lead dependent companies to bankruptcy.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I urge all reasonable Members of the House not to delay for ever the adoption of this Bill. I
October 7, 1985

suggest it would be quite unfair to seek to score doubtful political points in a spirit of shortsighted partisanship by trying to take advantage of the fact that many Canadians would thus find themselves in an economic bind.
Still, some important questions must be raised in their proper context. Some people mention the basic principle whereby it is bad policy to provide financial compensation to the depositors of the institutions, in addition to the payments they receive from the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation on the first $60,000. They gratuitously add that the insurance money is enough and that we ought to reject all other applications for additional assistance, no matter what the mitigating circumstances might be or without any consideration for the impact on the business community.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Finance) was very clear and altogether unequivocal in supporting the existing deposit insurance system. I might remind Hon. Members that last June a private sector committee chaired by Mr. Robert Wyman of Vancouver published a detailed report on ways to strengthen Canada's deposit insurance system. The Minister is actively seeking ways and means to consolidate our deposit insurance scheme and especially to reinforce the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation's ability to protect Canadian depositors of modest savings.
The Government feels that this protection system is fundamental, that it is a crucial and essential feature of our financial system. The bill before us, therefore, should not be viewed as weakening in any way Canada's deposit insurance system.
The Minister has clearly indicated that the Government's decision to grant additional support to the depositors in question had been made in the light of the very special circumstances under which deposits had been made in these institutions and that this additional help is in no way an indication that the Government would take similar action if and when other financial institutions duly insured under the CDIC failed in the future. I should like to remind the hon. members of the reasons why the Government has deemed it necessary and essential to take this major decision and to go beyond the normal limit provided for under our deposit insurance scheme. I suggest that the Government's decision was based on two major considerations. First of all, the very serious financial and economic difficulties which would result if the uninsured deposits were not compensated by the Canadian Government. The sustained profitability and, in some cases, the very existence of a number of small and medium-sized businesses, organizations and other smaller depositors depended upon funds frozen in both these financial institutions.
As I said earlier, a major company unable to recover most of the funds it had deposited in one of these banks might possibly fail, which might in turn cause a number of secondary firms in business with this major company to fail.
Depositors Compensation
It has been repeated on many occasions that both these banks are relatively small. Their cumulative assets account for only 1 per cent of the total assets of our banking system. But everything is relative. The fact remains that within the regional context in which they operated, they played major roles indeed and were major institutions. I urge, therefore, all hon. members, while dealing with this Bill which is to provide for the compensation of all uninsured depositors, to consider the regional problems which would result in the economy of western Canada if the Government failed to act to ensure a proper treatment of the depositors.
In this regard, I should like once again to go over the detailed breakdown list of uninsured depositors of these two banks which was provided by the Minister of State (Finance). I will state the total amounts at stake for each category of depositors.
Religious and charitable institutions, for instance, have nearly $22 million invested in uninsured deposits in the two banks. The credit union movement in western Canada, which is the western equivalent of our "caisses populaires", has about $130 million in deposits of the same type as the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank. Corporations generally hold over $141 million of these deposits, while individuals and non-incorporated businesses hold some $32 billion. The great majority of individuals, or 88 per cent of them, had uninsured deposits under $60,000 in addition to the first $60,000 already insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. The provincial Governments had deposits of nearly $145 million, while small and large municipal administrations had deposits of some $82 million. As for the hospitals, their deposits only amounted to about $5 million.
Obviously, these are the total amounts deposited in both banks. I have only tried to summarize a few details included in the report given today by the Minister of State for Finance. However, these figures show eloquently how significant the impact would be if we did not approve quickly the bill now under consideration.
The second major factor which influenced the decision by the Government concerns the events of last spring and last summer, especially as regards the position of the Canadian Commercial Bank after the Government and its financial partners, the major Canadian banks, implemented their support program to provide assistance to this bank last March.
With such a program, the Government and its financial partners showed their support for the concept of regional financial institutions. As agreed, the Bank of Canada provided the required cash, first to the Canadian Commercial Bank, and later also to the Northland Bank. Depositors who kept their deposits in these banks thus showed their confidence in the action and the moral endorsement provided by a responsible Canadian Government. Unfortunately, despite these well-

October 7, 1985
Depositors Compensation
designed support measures, it finally became obvious that the two banks were unfortunately no longer viable. However, if we consider all the circumstances existing at the time, I believe that any reasonable person will agree that the Government acted responsibly by helping the depositors who had shown their confidence in both regional institutions and who also had confidence in the moral support they had received from the Government.
Mr. Speaker, I am not minimizing the cost of these support measures. Payments to insured depositors will total about $875 million, or perhaps somewhat less when we know the exact amount of the liabilities of the depositors with these banks. In addition, the amounts produced by liquidating the assets of both banks will reduce the total cost.
Uninsured depositors will also incur significant costs. Indeed, their deposits have stopped earning interest since September 1. In addition, they will receive nothing as long as this Bill is not implemented; afterwards, as official trustee, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation will act as quickly as possible to make the first payments, amounting to 60 per cent of the deposits and interest earned until September 1. The second cheque of the CDIC covering the difference of 40 per cent of the deposits will be sent with the first payment, but it will be postdated April 1. In view of all these facts, I once more urge all the Hon. Members to allow this Bill to receive quick passage and not to delay unduly compensation of the depositors by debating at length matters which are irrelevant or only indirectly related to it.
I am not denying the crucial importance of some of these questions. However, they will be settled by other means and we shall have every opportunity to examine them in two ways. First, Mr. Justice Estey has been given the most general terms of reference possible to investigate all the circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy of these two unfortunate banking institutions. I am certain that all Canadians can trust him to make a detailed, careful and in-depth examination of these very important issues. The haste with which he has immediately set down to work is a most encouraging indication of his wish to solve the problem as quickly as possible.
Second, strengthening the system for regulating and monitoring our financial institutions raises major questions. The Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall) has indicated how the Office of the Inspector General of Banks had already found extra resources by calling upon a number of retired bankers to help complete some urgent tasks he had to do last summer. The Minister has also announced that the Government intended to take legislative action as soon as possible to give increased powers to the regulating bodies, in order to guarantee the stability of our Canadian financial system, and in term that of all Canadian citizens generally who are directly or indirectly involved in this country's healthy financial climate.
Third, the working paper on the reform of this country's financial institutions, that is the green paper submitted by the Government refers to significant changes. This green paper is now being considered by the Standing Committee of the
House. It might be useful, Mr. Speaker, to add in that respect that the committee is on schedule, and last week there was a sitting of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade, and Economic Affairs to which members of all parties were invited. It was with great pleasure that we enjoyed the cooperation of the New Democratic Party, however we must point out the noticeable absence of the Liberal Party from those three-day discussions that were held last week.
If Members of the Official Opposition had attended, Mr. Speaker, maybe their Leader would have made quite a different speech today. I therefore give you my word that this second item of the green paper discussion is very important, and it is unfortunate that the Official Opposition did not assume its responsibilities in delegating some of its expert Members capable of playing an intelligent part right where the work has to be done, that is in the Standing Committees.
If I referred to those other questions that will be investigated and considered from a legislative point of view, it was because I wanted to make it quite clear that this Government is not today closing the door to public debate on any of those questions. In fact, we are hoping for a comprehensive and an in-depth study of the facts. Many aspects of that complex issue have to be debated. But I would like once more to urge Hon. Members to realize that the legislation should not be subjected to a protracted debate on those other irrelevant issues, however important. Let us examine the Bill with an objective eye, keeping in mind that we must act quickly so that the depositors do not have to wait unduly for the funds they so urgently need and to which we feel they have an imprescriptible right.
Mr. Speaker, on all those questions we believe that, although the matter is not sub judice, there are two ways of discussing the Bill, and all matters which are relevant thereto or which indirectly, involve this legislation. There are two forums: first, the Standing Committee on Finance, which is now studying in a very positive way the matter of financial institution reform, and, second, a judicial one, where we have a judge with very broad terms of reference was appointed to make an inquiry using all the means left to his discretion. Therefore, with those two points in mind, we feel we must ask the House to approve the legislation within the shortest possible time frame, in order to avoid possibly irreparable harm to small and medium-sized business in Western Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) that if as it seems to me he is only debating a mere trifle, that is a meaningless Bill which will not cost very much, we have to consider the fact that the Bill now before us will cost some $800 million which will be paid through the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and the advances made by the Bank of Canada. I also find it unacceptable that the Hon. Member should have started using information available to the Government concerning organizations and institutions which had deposits at the Canadian Commercial Bank and the
October 7, 1985

Northland Bank, as if he had in his hands the names of those corporations and individuals. In my opinion, this is an improper use of that information. I suggest, judging by the statements made by the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall) and the Hon. Member, that the Government intends to use all the information available on the nature of companies having deposits with both institutions without actually giving out their names.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that I can make my own judgments as all other Canadians can. For example, I find it unacceptable for the Minister of State (Finance) to name credit unions, religious institutions, municipalities without mentioning chartered banks from abroad as well as large financial corporations and other institutions which do not need any protection against market hazards but will also be compensated. Why is the Hon. Member ready to use such information in that entirely partisan and political manner?


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, today we are being accused of disclosing certain classes of depositors, although this was directly in line with a previous proposal by the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall), in which she said she was prepared to table lists of the classes of depositors, but that the Bank Act did not allow here to disclose the identity of the depositors.
The purpose of my speech was to make the Members of this House aware, first of all, of the urgency of dealing with the motion now before the House and second, of the possible repercussions of such a motion. At one point there was a reference to the names of the major banks. It is quite probable, although I could not vouch for this, that the major banks would not be in great Financial difficulty if a postponement were granted. However, there are small institutions, which I do not know by name, and I feel quite comfortable here, I am not hiding them from anyone, but as I said, there are financial institutions acting as sub-contractors or rather secondary institutions, and depending on primary institutions that are unable to pay them, and there is a danger there. My sole purpose in mentioning these classes of corporations or persons in my speech was to make Hon. Members aware of the urgency of dealing with this question as soon as possible instead of using it to indulge in petty partisanship.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the fact that the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall) had already agreed to release, at least that is what she said in a letter she sent me last May, a list of depositors by group.
But that is neither here nor there. We already have such a list. What we are asking now is: Who are the depositors?
My question to the Parliamentary Secretary is this. They are using the Bank Act to say: We cannot disclose that because the Bank Act precludes disclosing the names of depositors. I submit to the Hon. Member ... my question is: This exceptional legislation we are considering today, this Bill, comes under the rule of exception. The Bankruptcy Act should
Depositors Compensation
apply, since we are talking about two banks that have failed. How can he rationalize, how can he go on maintaining the position taken by his party or by the Government, which is to refuse to disclose the names, because this "comes under the Bank Act", while everyone knows that no Bank Act but the Banruptcy Act applies in this case, as well as the exceptional legislation referred to as Bill C-79? How can he reconcile all that?


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, there are two points of view. With respect to the first remark, it stands to reason and I am fully aware of it, but I can only repeat what the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) told us earlier. The Minister did repeat on many occasions that she was prepared to give the list of categories of depositors, and so she did. What Hon. Members wanted however was the list of names of depositors, and again I repeat what the Minister said, namely that legal advice given to her would indicate that she may not be authorized to make those names public.
Still, without giving out privileged information I can say that the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs were public. We heard evidence from bankers who were shaking in their boots. They did not make any bones about it, Mr. Speaker, releasing the names of depositors would undermine the very structure of our banking system. Confidentiality about depositors is the time-honoured hallmark of our banking institutions and it has always been like that. I can assure Hon. Members that the rescue operation launched last March by the partners-the Government and the banks-would have been meaningless if, after earmarking so much money for that purpose, it had been irresponsibly decided to release the names of all depositors. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that there are two principles involved: first the legal principle on which, as a modest engineer, I do not feel qualified to comment, and then the other principle about which I as a depositor can indeed say that confidentiality has to be honoured. I would think that all of us here, and on behalf of our constituents, want our financial system to remain sound, and one of the basic principles in that respect has to be the confidentiality of depositors' names.
Two principles are involved here. I would not dare debate the first one, but I will certainly uphold the second.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a supplementary question.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Hon. Member says that the Minister of State for Finance has had a legal opinion from her advisors to the effect that she should not or must not reveal the names of individual depositors.
My question to the Parliamentary Secretary is as follows: Why not table this legal opinion in this House? We could then read it and draw our own conclusions.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said during the debate that she had received legal opinions to the effect that

October 7, 1985
Depositors Compensation
there were serious doubts about the propriety of revealing these names in view of the Bank Act. As for whether the Minister can table these opinions, it is not up to me to reply for her. 1 am replying on behalf of my Minister, but about issues that she has debated in this House and which are on the public record, and this is what she has said.
If Hon. Members want to ask her to table some papers, there are all kinds of procedures which could be used more appropriately than a request to a parliamentary assistant.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the amendment which was moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). The amendment makes it clear that we on this side are not ready to proceed without having further information about the people to whom this very large sum of money will be paid out. The Government is asking for $865 million to be paid to the uninsured depositors, that is, those people who have over $60,000 on deposit in the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Westland Bank. Let us not forget that those with deposits of $60,000 or less will be fully compensated by the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation. We are talking about people who are not entitled to be compensated for over $60,000 who will have received their full $60,000 back. These people, whether individuals or businesses, will be asking the Government to pay them moneys in excess of that. The Minister wants us to agree to these payments without knowing where they are going.
This is absolutely unprecedented. Treasury Board rules require that payments be disclosed in the Public Accounts of Canada. The Bill itself requires these people to complete an application in a specified form. We will know these names in any case. What on earth can the Government hope to achieve by hiding the names from us now since they will be made public sooner or later? The taxpayers of Canada have a right to know where this money is going. It must be absolutely unprecedented that an amount of almost $1 billion be paid out without public disclosure, although a large number of people will know because the application forms will surely have to be handled by officials at varying levels of seniority in many government Departments.
When we return to the circumstances under which this bail-out was put together, we end up with some very serious questions of trust. The Government assured us, as the Official Opposition, that it was essential to bail out the Canadian Commercial Bank. It assured us of this in private meetings and asked for our agreement to let a Bill go through all stages of the House with remarkably little information. We were assured this as well on the floor of the House.
Let us look at some of the assurances given, assurances which were absolutely unequivocal. Starting on March 25, the Minister in her own speech stated that with the bail-out, the Canadian Commercial Bank would be viable and that it would continue to make a contribution to the economy of western Canada. Assurances were also given by the same
Minister that, with the bail-out which was arranged on March 25, the bank could be expected to be profitable and that some of the moneys put in by the Government might in fact be recovered. Afterwards we found that it was all based upon hope of some kind. The Minister has repeated many times in the House that the decision was based upon "the best information available". I am referring to the original decision in March to put together a rescue operation of $255 million. It was supposed to make the bank viable and profitable and was supposed to get the taxpayers' money back to them eventually. Yet on September 1, the same bank was put into liquidation.
If we look back at the sequence of events, it becomes more and more difficult to accept the Government's word, and I say that with great regret. This is why we could not possibly consider accepting on faith that the moneys would be paid to depositors and that the depositors were all hospitals, municipalities, school boards and so on.
Let us look at what happened. Early in the morning on March 25, we were told that over the weekend the Government had concluded negotiations with six banks and two provincial Governments to provide a major infusion of funds to the Canadian Commercial Bank, which otherwise, we were told, would not have been able to open its doors that day. We were told then that the CCB had sought assistance from the Government on March 14 and that prior thereto there had been no indication of the seriousness of the bank's problems. Later we found that the Government really did not know. We have had the banks concerned say that they had to make their decision based upon a segment of information provided only by the Canadian Commercial Bank, and that when they offered their staff and expertise to go in and make a full examination, they were refused. One bank president said that the only reason given for the refusal was that the Canadian Commercial Bank did not want competitors examining its assets. This was the first time a bank had failed in 62 years. When a bank comes hat in hand to Ottawa asking for $255 million, I have great difficulty understanding why it is in a position to dictate its terms and say that we may only look at the information offered, not at anything more. I cannot understand why the Government would accept that. We have asked these questions in the House and have received no answers.
Afterwards we learned a number of specific things in committee. We agreed to the passage of the Bill because we accepted the Government's word. The Official Opposition should be able to accept the word of the Government. Then we went into committee and found that there were many other problems. For example, we found that the bank was greatly over-extended as a result of imprudent lending practices. The committee found much of concern in the accounting policies of the bank and in its information disclosure. We have increasingly discovered, as a result of information before the committee and elsewhere, that the Government made its decision with inadequate information. We found that the Government did not seek out the opinion of CCB's external auditors in March before deciding to put in $255 million. The Government did not consult the minutes of the bank's own audit committee.
October 7, 1985

The Government did not attempt to inform itself about the February 1985 report of the American regulators on the Canadian Commercial Bank's U.S. agency. As I said, the Government did not insist upon a full examination of all assets but accepted the portion or segment of information provided by the Canadian Commercial Bank as a basis for decision.
At the same time as the Finance Committee was hearing these disquieting facts, and after the initial report of the Finance Committee was released, the Government continued to issue assurances about the effectiveness of the bail-out and the viability of the Canadian Commercial Bank. It was known throughout the summer that the Bank of Canada was providing considerable amounts of money to the Canadian Commercial Bank, obviously because large amounts were leaving the bank. Nevertheless, with the Government's assurances still ringing in our ears, the announcement on Labour Day of the appointment of curators for the Canadian Commercial Bank and for Northland came as a shock to most Canadians. Why had the Government put $255 million of taxpayers' money into a bank rescue, only to preside over its failure six months later? Clearly, confidence in the Government's original decision was badly misplaced. Obviously there were things which the Government had not known when it put together the bail-out.
When the House resumed in September, we asked questions, but our questions have not been answered. Today the Minister offered to table something to which she has referred for weeks, a partial list of categories of depositors. That will not meet our needs. We need full disclosure and exactly who are the depositors for which the Government is now showing a lot of concern, although it showed no similar concern for the shareholders.
Many of the shareholders are little people. I received a poignant letter from a 70-year old man who sold his house and on the advice of a broker invested all the proceeds in the Canadian Commercial Bank following the bail-out, when the Government was telling us that the bank was viable. This man has lost every penny. There is no concern for the shareholders. The shareholders include the pension plans of many Canadians. Air Canada, various teachers' groups and railway workers had invested in the shares of the Canadian Commercial Bank. They have lost every penny.
The Government has an obligation to explain why it is bringing in special legislation to pay out almost $1 billion to depositors whose names we do not know, while it is refusing to consider any special assistance for shareholders whose names we know. We know who some of the depositors are because they have chosen to identify themselves. The municipalities of Kanata, St. Catharines and Toronto have chosen to identify themselves. I have also received letters from municipalities in western Canada; they have made their position known. However, who are the depositors who have not been identified and for whom the Government wishes special legislation to pay out many millions of dollars of taxpayers' money without disclosure? We must have those names.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will have seven minutes remaining in her speech this afternoon.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Department of the Environment suffered several blows last year and this year. In particular, as time passes, the damage caused by the $3.8 million cut from the Canadian Wildlife Service becomes increasingly felt.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the Canadian Wildlife Service is to protect wildlife, to understand the impacts of man's activities on nature, to study the reaction of wildlife to pesticides, toxic chemicals and water pollution, and to recognize warning signals for human health while there is still time to act.
Each fall budgets are prepared for the following year. Today I call on the new Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to use his office to provide the funds required to restore the Canadian Wildlife Service to its full strength. If the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) can come to the House requesting $875 million, the Minister of the Environment can find the $3.8 million needed to restore 82 jobs in the Canadian Wildlife Service. Canadians benefit from the Canadian Wildlife Service. The new Minister of the Environment has an opportunity to prove that he has the political muscle needed to restore the Canadian Wildlife Service. He should act now.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement on Greenpeace.
On September 23 the Vancouver Sun reported as follows, and I quote:
The New Democrats, usually the champions of Greenpeace environmental concerns, have been deathly silent on the subject (of the Rainbow Warrior). Some NDP MPs in fact have been ordered to shut up about the matter. The

October 7, 1985
reason is that the French Government is a socialist Government and socialists never-ever-criticize socialists who make it to Government.
In fact not only did the New Zealand Government, a socialist one, condemn the French Government but on the same day, September 23, on behalf of the NDP I gave a press conference on this subject. This was not covered by the Sun, likely because that was also the day of the resignation of the Fisheries Minister.
Greenpeace was started in Vancouver a few blocks from my house-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -by people who are personal friends of myself and some of my NDP colleagues from B.C. Except for the fur issue, involving as it does the livelihood of many native Canadians, the causes and sufferings of Greenpeace have been our causes and our sufferings. The French Government's sinking of the Rainbow Warrior was an act of international terrorism. The French Government has no business testing nuclear weapons in the Pacific.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The NDP position is clear. I challenge the Canadian Government to speak out as strongly as the NDP national convention which, last July, unanimously condemned French nuclear tests in the Pacific and urged that the South Pacific be a nuclear-free zone.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend more than 400 aggressive, enthusiastic Progressive Conservative women participated in Interaction '85.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mary Collins: Women from all regions, all ages and diverse backgrounds debated such issues as peace and security, employment equity-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: How to pour tea.


Mary Collins: -pornography, aging, and volunteerism. Their opinions and input will prove invaluable as our Government proceeds with policy initiatives in all of these areas.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: The women took pride in the record of achievements on women's issues of this Government in its first year.


Ian Deans: Such as?


Mary Collins: Among them are amendments to the Indian Act, to remove discrimination against Indian women which previous Governments had failed to do; introduction of employment equity legislation to promote equality for women in the work place; new job-creation training programs focused on the needs of women re-entering the work force, and a 67 per cent increase in the number of women appointed to federal boards and commissions.
We applauded the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) statement on Saturday night as he reinforced the Government's intention to move ahead and take new measures on such matters as pension reform and child care.
It is this Government which will provide the environment and the tools for women so they can finally achieve economic equlity and social justice in our Canadian society.



BEHAVIOUR OF CERTAIN PARLIAMENTARIANS

Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, the events of the past few weeks have given our neighbours in the Opposition and even the media an opportunity to exploit a few blunders or human errors with an insolence that at times verged on paranoia. More still, Mr. Speaker, certain star performers in those same Opposition benches have led the Canadian people to believe that politics is a jungle swarming with politicians who have not yet grown out of their frustrations and have become shamefully passionate predators, and this tarnishes the image of this House.
Without wanting to indulge in self-righteousness, let me, Mr. Speaker, point out to you that too often, too many members hide behind the shield of parliamentary immunity to indulge in a language that has nothing akin to parliamentary ethics, where instinct rather than judgment prevails.
On the other hand, we see Members of the Opposition trying to be outrageously harsh to this Government. They try to inject in the population the idea that they can expect just as much from a Government hardly a year old as from a Government that has been in place for years.
In these times, Mr. Speaker, Opposition Members cannot be blamed for not doing their work, but it is no secret that many Canadian men and women are already questioning the dubious quality of their work.
October 7, 1985



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of the country and particularly of Members in this House to the way in which the Government has damaged two very important national institutions that belong to all Canadians, they being Canadair in Montreal and the de Havilland aircraft company in Toronto.
There is a great deal of speculation and, in fact, rumours surrounding these two Crown corporations as to whom they might be sold, to foreign interests or Canadian interests. In fact news story after news story seems to contradict various previous statements, on whether it is going to be Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation of the United States which is going to purchase the shares or whether it is going to be the Boeing Company of Seattle.
I believe that it is time for the Minister responsible for the two Crown Corporations, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), to stand in this place at three o'clock and indicate to the House exactly what is taking place with these two Crown Corporations and whether it is the intention of the Government of Canada to sell these two Crown Corporations to Canadians and, if so, what bids he has received to date.
We have been informed by a number of sources that there are a group of Canadians, particularly workers at those plants, who would be interested in submitting a bid, but because of the reluctance of Government Members to support their cause in purchasing these two Crown Corporations, those bids have not been made public. I would urge that the Minister responsible stand in this place and indicate the Canadian-


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


"OKAY, OKAY! BLUE JAYS, BLUE JAYS!"


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's national passion, the National Hockey League, is due to get under way this week, but for the first time in the history of our country nobody really cares.
The attention of all Canadians is riveted on Toronto, not for the reasons that Toronto usually likes to dwell upon, but because the Blue Jays are about to launch their drive for Canada's first World Series.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iain Francis Angus: On the shop floors and in the boardrooms across the country, and even in the halls of Parliament, the talk is of that last, long fly ball to left field which allowed the Blue Jays to clinch the American League East championship.


Mr. Althouse:: There must be some significance in that.


Iain Francis Angus: There has been a lot of concern amongst our friends to the south about having to play baseball amid the ice and the snow of a Canadian October so I would like to tell them that there is no need to worry. The sun is shining on the Blue Jays and heat generated by the blistering Toronto bats will be enough to thaw the coldest temperatures.
Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House do not allow me to make congratulatory statements under Standing Order 22, so 1 will not take this opportunity to congratulate Bobby Cox and the Blue Jays on their magnificent season and to wish them well in the playoffs. Instead, I would simply ask all Members of the House to join me in saying "Let's go, Blue Jays".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Oberle:: Batting to the left.



THE ECONOMY


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Bank of Canada rate dropped to its lowest level in seven years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Browes: This is not only good news for Canadian businesses, it is also good news for home owners, borrowers, and the country as a whole. Lower interest rates will give business people a new incentive to expand and increase production. Lower interest rates will shave billions of dollars from our federal debt charges, and lower interest rates will help Canadians borrow and finance the projects of their dreams. Above all, lower interest rates will help spur economic growth and create jobs.
Nearly one year ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled in the House a document entitled A New Direction for Canada. In that document the Minister wrote:
This Government must take action to restore fiscal flexibility and by doing so help to create an environment that would allow interest rates to fall.
We, the Government, under the leadership of our great Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), have done just that.



EXCITEMENT OF BLUE JAYS DIVISIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to make a statement which transcends all partisan politics. I know the congratulations that I am not allowed to express would be on behalf of every Member in this House,

October 7, 1985
those congratulations being directed at the Toronto Blue Jays for winning the American League East championship on Saturday.
1 was born in Toronto and have lived all my life in Toronto. Forty-two years ago I used to go to Maple Leaf Stadium on Fleet Street to watch the Toronto Maple Leaf baseball team, a member of the International League. The price of admission was 18 cents to sit in the left-field bleachers. The price of admission has escalated slightly over the past 42 years, but so has the excitement. This year all Canadians have shared in that excitement as they watched and listened to the team which ended the season with the best record in major league baseball.
Being from Toronto, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how you can sit in that huge chair looking so composed when I know that inside you are just bursting with excitement as well. I know I speak on behalf of all proud Canadians when I wish this great Blue Jay team the best of luck, inning by inning, over the next two or three weeks.

[ Translation)



THE FAMILY


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Family Week. This even does not aim at glorifying this institution, but simply at pointing out the difficulties faced by families in a world where children are more a problem than a source of happiness.
The structure of the labour market and our whole social organization do not favour the family, on the contrary.
Mr. Speaker, National Family Week provides me with an opportunity to demand economic equality for women. When women have their proper place in society, it will be because we shall have created social structures to accommodate families, in other words the parents who choose whether to work or not, and the children who are entitled to quality services and who we must not forget are our collective responsibility.
The decreasing enthusiasm of Canadian men and women for having children is indicative of the difficulties which children represent in our society. The best policy to promote an increase in the birth rate is to give women their legitimate place in society and consider the family as a contract between equals.



NATIONAL FIRE PREVENTION WEEK


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, statistics show that 49 per cent of all fires and 90 per cent of all fire
deaths in Canada occur in homes. One-third of those who die in fires are children. Such a grim record prompted fire departments from across Canada and McDonald's restaurants to launch Canada's first national family fire drill as part of National Fire Prevention Week, October 6 to 12.
Families are invited to participate in a home fire evacuation drill called "How To Get Out Alive", on October 9. The intent of the plan is to encourage families to develop their own fire evacuation routes and to educate their children about what to do in the event of a fire in the home.
The promoters of the event aim at reaching as many families as possible in order to increase awareness of fire-related tragedies and to reduce the loss of life that occurs through residential fires. I encourage all Canadians concerned about the safety of their loved ones to join the organizers in their laudable initiative.
Firemen, many of whom are volunteers, as in Nepean-Carleton, have helped to develop this program. They constantly put their lives at risk responding to direct fire alarms. I want to commend these men and women for their contribution to fire safety and prevention, and the preservation of human lives.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, today in Halifax a group of single mothers demonstrated at the provincial Legislature against the partial deindexation of family allowances. These women know that there is a profound discrepancy between what the Government promised and what it has delivered. They know that the Conservative cut-back will take milk from the mouths of Canadian children.
Conservative Members say that they are helping those in need, but these women know that after 1990 even the poorest families will lose money. Conservative Members say that they are helping those who are unemployed, but these women know that cut-backs in the family allowance will increase poverty. They know that 80 per cent of those living under the poverty line, those in the soup-kitchen lines and those in the food-bank lines, are women and children.
Conservative Members say that they can make up for these cut-backs in the family allowance by changing the child tax credit provision, but these women know that that cheque comes only once a year and not at the end of every month when they need the money. Today these women sent a telegram to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) telling him that they are opposed to any changes in the family allowance. They know that, such changes discriminate against women and children. They know that in the Conservative lifeboat, the rich go first and the women and children last.
October 7, 1985



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BELGIAN PATRIOTS

Mr. Speaker:: May I advise Hon. Members of the presence in our gallery today of a very special group of people who, during the Second World War, assisted Canadian airmen in Belgium to escape or evade capture. They are hosted by the Canadian Branch of the Royal Air Force Escaping Society.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On Friday the Deputy Prime Minister attempted to deflect what we believe was legitimate criticism directed against the Minister of State for Transport by using these words, and 1 quote from Hansard:
-I asked myself whether the motivation was not to arouse some kind of racism here-
After saying to him in his own constituency, where I spent the weekend, that those words were inflammatory, divisive and paranoiac, and were reflective of the bunker mentality of a Government in desperation, has he reflected upon those words and would he be willing to withdraw them?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question, Sir, is that indeed I have reflected upon those words. As the Leader of the Opposition himself well knows, certainly it has been my experience in the House of Commons over the years that, upon occasion, Hon. Members react and say things that might better have been left unsaid. I certainly would not want to cast aspersions of racism on anyone.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to accept those words from the Deputy Prime Minister.


THE CABINET
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister should realize that in making this reference to
Oral Questions
racism, the Deputy Prime Minister was inspired by the Prime Minister's own comments on the television program Le Point broadcast on September 4. The House will recall that at the time, the Prime Minister said that his Minister was doing a good job, and to quote what the Prime Minister said, "regardless of what Anglophones have to say on the subject". Will the Prime Minister admit that his own remarks were offensive and make the appropriate apologies?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Deputy Prime Minister made himself quite clear. It is public knowledge that for instance, during the election campaign, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides called me the leader of an Orange Lodge party, and did so in public, and that the Leader of the Opposition accused my candidates, at least three of them, of being separatists. These remarks were not made in the middle of an election campaign for the purpose of spreading brotherly love and national unity. The comments I made were entirely truthful. I did not recall any past problems and like all Members of this House, I accept the excuses and comments of my hon. friend, the Deputy Prime Minister.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is not election time, and I may remind the Prime Minister that we are in Canada's Parliament, and I am still waiting for him to give a clear explanation. So, about the TV broadcast Le Pointl


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is nothing more to explain. I think my comments were crystal clear. It was for instance, deplorable that during the election campaign, the Liberal Member said ... Yes, but just a second! They said that I was the leader of an Orange Lodge party. What is that supposed to mean? I said: This is not an Orange Lodge party, it is a party of Orange Lodges, Knights of Columbus, Filles d'Isabelle, of all Canadians-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Answer the question!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We are speaking on national unity as opposed to people who are trying to sow difficulty.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We talked about national reconcialiation and we are acting accordingly. And when a comment was judged to be unacceptable, the Deputy Prime Minister withdrew it willingly and with good grace.

October 7, 1985
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF ALLEGED STATEMENT BY DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of State (Transport).
Last Thursday evening the Minister made the following statement in Montreal: "I was prepared to produce all my vouchers, but the Deputy Prime Minister suggested that I should not do that because it would create a dangerous precedent".
Then the next day 1 put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister here in the House, namely-


An Hon. Member:: The question!


Jacques Guilbault: Just wait for my question! [English]
The next day the answer of the Deputy Prime Minister to my question was this:
Mr. Speaker, for the Hon. Member to suggest, which he has, that I put a gag order on that particular Minister or any other Minister is utterly false.

Here is my question to the Minister. Can she confirm today that she really stated in Montreal that the Deputy Prime Minister had asked her not to table the documents?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, just so the Hon. Member does not lose any sleep over this matter, I can say that there were no diverging views between the Deputy Prime Minister and me, and that all personal expenses incurred during the personal leg of my trip were personal expenses which are part of my private life. However, given the very peculiar and even bizarre circumstances of my current situation, I am prepared to make them available.


REQUEST THAT EUROPEAN TRAVEL VOUCHERS BE TABLED BY MINISTER OF STATE (TRANSPORT)
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, this being the second time the Minister indicates she is prepared to make these documents public, I would like to ask her a very simple question: Will she table the documents in the House of Commons today?


An Hon. Member:: Yes or no!


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, the trips were made up of official and personal travels. As soon as I have the final statement of the full expenses of those trips, I will table, in the most appropriate manner, a summary of all expenses.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I was very pleased to hear the Deputy Prime Minister withdraw unconditionally the comments he made in the House last Friday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: But I have another question for the Prime Minister.
According to another press report today there is a $3,000 expense which was not declared by the riding of Frontenac nor by Conservative Party national campaign officials. Apparently there has been a breach of the Canada Elections Act in both instances. Is the Prime Minister aware of this fact and what did he do?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will ask the Hon. Member to rephrase his question because, as 1 heard it, it related to electoral expenses of one or more Members of the House. Questions with respect to electoral expenses of any Member do not fall within the purview of the Government. Therefore, they are not matters for Question Period when one is questioning the Government about Government policy. I invite the Hon. Member to rephrase his question.


NEWSPAPER REPORT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Government House Leader was rising to answer my question which simply concerned a report which stated that there was some $3,000 not declared in the constituency of Frontenac or in the national campaign list for the Conservative Party. In either case federal law would have been broken if these figures had been taken into account. We have a bit of a problem in asking questions, as you well understand, Mr. Speaker.
I will put my question in this way. I will restrict it to the national Conservative Party campaign. Is the House Leader prepared to comment on this item? Can he tell the House what steps, if any, the Government has taken to conduct an inquiry-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: What nonsense is this?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member cannot make it a matter of Government policy by calling it a matter of a Party.
I am also in some difficulty since these matters are administered, as the Hon. Member knows, by an officer of Parliament
October 7, 1985

and not by the Government. Therefore, 1 must find these questions out of order. Does the Hon. Member want to try again?


John Edward Broadbent: I understand your difficulty, Your
Honour-


Mr. Dick:: It is your difficulty, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: -and perhaps you will understand mine, Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister-


Charles Joseph Clark: Innuendo is getting tougher.


John Edward Broadbent: Joe's at it again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It will not get any easier if the heckling continues.


John Edward Broadbent: I do not know why the Secretary of State for External Affairs is twitching. I do not think he had responsibility for this matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT MAKE INQUIRIES
John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask the
Government House Leader or the Prime Minister, since last week they took in a serious way an undertaking to make certain inquiries of their own national party office, would they do likewise in this particular case?


Mr. Andre:: Strike three!


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is no Blue Jays' fan.
All I can say in response to the Leader of the New Democratic Party is that my answer has to be, in part, the point which was raised by Your Honour with respect to the appropriateness of the Hon. Member's question. I think the NDP Leader and his Party should be the first to understand that when there is a matter under investigation it is totally inappropriate to speculate at this point in time on those matters until the investigation is complete.


John Edward Broadbent: That is the answer I expected.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. We know that some 450 Gulf employees in Montreal might now loose their jobs following his Government's decision to allow Petro Canada to purchase part of Gulf Canada's assets. We have learned
Oral Questions
over the past weekend that Motoco Petroleum is waiting for Ottawa's assistance to buy and operate this refinery.
Could the Prime Minister assure the House that Ottawa will provide the necessary money to save the 450 jobs he has himself jeopardized?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, Gulf announced the close-down of the refinery in Montreal because of the over-supply of refinery capacity throughout the world, which has led to the shut-down of 13 refineries in Canada over the last few years. Gulf extended the period of the shut-down to ensure that employees could find alternative employment and to ensure that, should there be a buyer, there would be time for one to step forward.


REQUEST FROM MOTOCO PETROLEUM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Two months to find other jobs, Mr. Speaker? That is not what the Gulf employees are asking. They are asking to keep their jobs at the Montreal East plant. What I should like the Minister to tell us is whether her Government will provide the required money and give Motoco Petroleum the S100 million guarantee it is seeking, in order to protect the jobs in Montreal East and nowhere else.
[ English]


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the decision to close down the Gulf refinery-as was the decision to close down all the other refineries in Canada-was a private sector decision because of over-capacity in the refinery field throughout the world. For instance, the residential consumption of crude oil in Quebec has fallen from 50 per cent to 25 per cent because of the efforts of that province to encourage hydroelectric developments, and the efforts of all Governments to encourage conservation measures.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The President of Hyundai Canada, Mr. Park Sung Hak, met with Ministers and clearly influenced the 1984 Budget, and is reported, before the May 1985 Budget, to have met, through lobbyists, with the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Minister of International Trade. Can the Minister tell us, given the way Hyundai has kept duty-free import privileges until 1987 despite low production levels of
7394

October 7, 1985
Oral Questions
Canadian content, who is making automotive industry policy in this country, the Government or South Korea?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor, may I say that I thought he was standing to compliment the Government on getting the unemployment level in Windsor down to 5.9 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That level of 5.9 per cent in Windsor is the lowest unemployment level of any urban area in Canada, and the Government of Canada has done that in spite of the opposition from the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party.


Steven W. Langdon: The Minister has struck out again. If he knew anything about Windsor, he would know that no one in that city believes those jobless figures.


DECISIONS BY CERTAIN OFFICIALS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. We realize that this Minister will not answer questions for the Prime Minister.
Does the Government feel that everything is fine when the senior officials who make decisions concerning South Korea happen to be members of the Canada-Korea Association?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again in reply to the Hon. Member, on Thursday I was at the construction of the American Motors Corporation factory at Brampton, Ontario. It will consist of 2.2 million square feet under one roof and will employ 3,000 Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Believe me, the Government of Canada has a plan. We are working with the auto industry and the parts manufacturers to ensure jobs for Canadians, and we would appreciate a little support from the opposition Parties.


THE FAMILY
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last weekend, he promised to create a new task force on daycare services.
I am somewhat surprised at this decision, Mr. Speaker, as the previous Liberal Government established a similar task
force under the leadership of Mrs. Katie Cook. Its report has been in the hands of the Government for several months and has never been published.
I would therefore like the Prime Minister to tell us when he intends to make this report public and, more specifically, at what date it will be tabled in this House.


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration) and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Hon. Member, who will know that this Government has made a priority of child care, the important report of Dr. Katie Cook will be given to the Government. It is at the moment in the midst of translation. Shortly the Government will be naming a parliamentary task force and this will become an important resource for the parliamentary committee in order for it to do its work.


REQUEST FOR REASON REPORT NOT PUBLISHED
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is this. Why try to reinvent the wheel by creating a new commission? The Government has had this report for several months. Why not publish the report instead and implement its recommendations? Women need action, not another commission.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Hon. Member, the intention of the Government is just what the Hon. Member suggests, that is, action. The background papers will provide the opportunity for the public to be heard through Members of Parliament. As the Hon. Member will know, this issue is of national concern, but largely a provincial responsibility. The importance of that dialogue and moving deliberately carefully and thoughtfully so that we come to a consensus is something about which this Government is principally concerned.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He will realize that if the two allegations made by the members of the Frontenac Conservative Association are true-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -then the federal Conservative Party went over its election expenses-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.
October 7, 1985


Rodney Edward Murphy: Will the federal Government ensure that any investigation also looks at whether or not the federal Conservative Party exceeded the limitations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member heard me make a comment earlier about the propriety of such questions. Does the Hon. Member have a question on a different subject?


Rodney Edward Murphy: My question, Mr. Speaker, is will the Government insist that there be an investigation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Don Valley East.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He has spoken often and strongly about the extreme importance of sovereignty in Canada. Would the Minister tell us what impact there might be on our sovereignty, or on our new baseline relations, when a Canadian team wins the World Series later this month?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members will understand my deep regret at having to rule that question out of order.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. There are again rumours that de Havilland is about to be sold, this time to the Boeing Corporation of Seattle.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We know that in a sale like that, there won't be any true financial consideration-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -with all the Government support programs in the area. Will the Minister assure the House that he will protect jobs at de Havilland, that he will protect the research and development and continuing research and development, and that that company will continue to manufacture its products for world markets?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member for York Centre, who is widely known to represent the "Pessimists of the World Incorporated", I want to assure not only the
Oral Questions
Hon. Member but all Hon. Members of the House that in any negotiations we have with respect to the possible sale of de Havilland, we will keep as an uppermost consideration the eventual employment of the workers at Havilland, the retention of technology, and the furtherance of the aerospace industry in this country.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I represent the pessimists who votes against the Government Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: More.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Perhaps I will ask the Prime Minister what happened to the campaign promise, to that beautiful promise that Canadair and de Havilland would be brought together into a Canadian aerospace company and that that company would be nurtured until a time that when shares could be offered to all Canadians? What happened to that promise?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member who has demonstrated why he will stay in his present seat for a long, long time, let me assure him that all alternatives are being weighed and he should not, in his pessimistic way, jump to any conclusions.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Today, in The Globe and Mail, Michael Dugas, a quality control officer in the Star-Kist plant, indicated that a horror show was taking place in terms of lack of quality control in that plant and lack of protection for the public. Would the Prime Minister undertake to launch an investigation into the operations of that Star-Kist plant, or is he attempting to have Michael Dugas retract his statement?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as Acting Minister of Fisheries I can assure the Hon. Member that one of the first things I did on assuming the acting responsibilities was to cause in-depth inquiries to be made into the quality control of all aspects of the inspection services.

October 7, 1985
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, since the matter is of such a serious nature, would the Acting Minister ensure that this matter is referred to the proper standing committee, with a reference from himself and the Government, to ensure that the matter is dealt with fully and in public? Furthermore, would the Acting Minister of Fisheries indicate what is happening with a federal Government grant of $80,000 which will be paid to this plant, considering the rampant rumours that the plant will shut down? What are the Government's intentions with respect to this matter?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the embedded inference in the second part of that question.
With respect to the first part of the question, I would expect that Members of Parliament will aggressively approach this matter in the standing committee as they do with all other matters coming before standing committees.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. He will know that the report on national water policy that was released last week recommended that the Government join in the fight against water pollution by assisting the provinces and the municipalities with the financing of local sewer improvements. Will the Minister advise the House if he supports that recommendation, and will he be urging the Government to help pay the costs of local sewer improvement programs?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has correctly put his finger on a major national question, given that in eastern Canada, for example, only about 10 per cent of municipal sewage is adequately treated.
I met with my colleagues, the Environmental and Resource Ministers from the provinces and territories, to discuss the Pearse inquiry. We considered the very question raised by the Hon. Member in the context of that inquiry. We will pursue various instruments, including those available to the federal Government, for a joint effort in this regard.


CANADIAN LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns a comment in a statement made by the United States Ambassador to Canada in Saskatoon
when he said that Canadian forest companies should consider voluntarily slowing down the flow of Canadian lumber into the United States market. Does the Minister agree with this statement and, if not, what has he done about it?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with that statement and I think that my view on the statement is well known to the American Ambassador to our country.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister would be candid enough to share with us in the House of Commons what he has indicated to the United States Ambassador in this regard?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to him, through public and private means, that it is the Government of Canada that speaks for the policy of Canada.


AGRICULTURE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who will know that on December 21 last year his Minister of Agriculture said, after paying $10 per acre in matching grants for flooded acreage in northeast Saskatchewan, parts of Manitoba and Quebec: "There will no more ad hoc assistance programs when crop insurance is available to help farmers through the effects of bad weather".
If that is the Government's clear policy, why does the Member for Assiniboia leave the clear impression that he has a mandate to make recommendations for further assistance in this year's drought area, or has the Government's policy as enunciated by the Minister of Agriculture last December been reversed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there has been no reversal or alteration. The Member for Assiniboia, one of the most devoted and knowledgeable people about agriculture in western Canada, has spent the summer and much of early autumn working very closely with farmers and farm organizations in western Canada in putting together a program that would be helpful and beneficial to them.
I believe that all Members of the House, including those in the NDP, would want me to thank the Member for Assiniboia who exemplifies the best dimensions of the House for doing precisely those things.
October 7, 1985


RECOMMENDATION TO CABINET
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since it has been 10 days since that same Member for Assiniboia promised farmers in Regina that a recommendation would be made to the Prime Minister and Cabinet "next week", to quote him, would the Prime Minister tell us what that recommendation is and if it includes assistance for the crop producers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, at an appropriate time that information will be divulged in a comprehensive way.
Let me say that the recommendations of the Member for Assiniboia will form an integral part of that comprehensive plan. Indeed, given all the work that he has done, I would offer a salute to the Member for Assiniboia, except in my family it is unacceptable.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions
answer to questions from the Minister, the Science Council of Canada called on the Government to fund fully the plans of the federal granting councils.
Does the Government support NSERC's five-year plan and, more particularly, will he state now that the Government will fully fund the plan to enable 30,000 university students and researchers to do work that is vital for Canada's future?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I know that 1 do not have to remind most Members of the House of the ad hocery that took place with respect to this council during the Liberal Government's reign in Ottawa. I can assure the Hon. Member that that ad hocery will not continue and that an announcement will be made shortly concerning the important matter that he has raised.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, we have seen the greatest example of ad hocery with the bank fiasco in recent months.


SHOE IMPORT QUOTAS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, most of us are aware that the Canadian footwear manufacturing industry is having a very difficult time mainly because of unfair competition from offshore countries which pay their footwear employees only a fraction of the wages paid by our industry. In order to offset some of this, the footwear industry is requesting that offshore quotas be limited to 50 per cent of the shoe market in Canada to help safeguard some 26,000 jobs. It is a very reasonable request.
Would the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion give this request active and serious consideration so as to keep the Canadian footwear manufacturing industry viable and help maintain the thousands of jobs on which so many people depend for their livelihood?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in acceding to the Hon. Member's request. I compliment him on the way he has been pressing the case for an industry in Canada that I believe the Government of Canada would very much like to see remain viable.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Science and Technology, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Government has had the five-year plan of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council for almost four months now. Recently, in


UNIVERSITY RESEARCH
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Government wasted no time in finding a thousand million dollars for bank bail-outs. Why does it take so long to commit a similar amount over five years for university research which, unlike the bank bail-outs, will do something useful for Canadian jobs?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member that this Government is dedicated to increasing research and development and the development of new technology in this country. I agree that that is where jobs will be created. The jobs we promised in the election are the jobs that will be produced.


NATURAL GAS DEREGULATION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Alberta's Minister of Energy recently said that the November 1 deadline for natural gas deregulation set out in the Western Accord was arbitrary and that negotiators need not feel bound by it. This morning the Minister received a report of the Natural Gas Industry Summit Group which agreed to disagree on the most contentious price issue. Does the Minister agree with Mr. Aaozirny, the Alberta Minister, or is it the intention of the Government to stick to the November 1 deadline?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct in saying that today was the day that I gave the summit group to bring forward its proposals for consideration to find a system of domestic gas pricing which, as I have said, must be accept-

October 7, 1985
Oral Questions
able to both buyers and sellers. I will be reviewing that report this afternoon and I will be discussing its contents with my provincial colleagues later this week. When I have something further to report, I will do so.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I note that the Minister did not answer my question about November 1.


COST TO CONSUMERS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, is it the Government's policy that Canadian gas consumers right across the country will not have to pay more for natural gas than American consumers will have to pay after the deregulation on November 1?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have long been on record as saying that Canadian consumers will never pay more than their American neighbours. That has been central to these discussions between the producers and consuming interests. I cannot add more than that. Once I read the report I will be in a position to comment on it.


MEDICAL CARE
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. Is the Minister going to take seriously the warnings from the provincial Health Ministers of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick that they will have no choice but to cut back on programs in medicare unless the federal Government remains a fair partner and reverses its decision to decrease the number of tax dollars being transferred for medicare and education?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think that I have made it very clear that we take our discussions with our provincial counterparts very seriously. The Minister of Finance has been discussing program funding with them and has reassured them that there will be no cutbacks. Yes, we always take those remarks seriously, Mr. Speaker.


PAYMENTS TO ONTARIO
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware of the discrepancy between the numbers tabled on May 23 when the Budget was produced and those now used by the Treasurer of the Province of Ontario? He now indicates that the losses to Ontario will total $2 billion and as a result the Treasurer will have no choice but to increase the provincial deficit, or to increase taxes, or to reduce services. Whom are we trying to fool?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to fool anybody. I do not know who the Hon. Member is trying to fool. We indicated very clearly in the Budget that there will continue to be an increase in payments to the provinces and that the proportion of federal spending to the provinces will be the same at the end of the decade as it is now.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and I know it is of concern to him. For many disabled Canadians the use of wheelchairs is absolutely necessary. Will the Government move now to remove the sales tax on wheelchair replacement parts?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, all of the measures which were introduced in the Budget have been the subject of further discussion. In terms of some things we have already made some changes.


REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF TAX
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly delighted to know that we have made changes on some things, but the point I want to make is that for many people a wheelchair is an absolute necessity. I want to ask either the Prime Minister or the Minister of State for Finance whether, recognizing that fact, the Government might not move immediately to remove the sales tax on replacement parts necessary to keep wheelchairs operating and effective.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, we have already taken measures designed to be of assistance to the disabled in Canada. I think this was widely regarded as being very helpful. My hon. friend brings to my attention an observation which strikes me as helpful and one upon which perhaps the Government would be well advised to act. I will consult with the Minister of State for Finance and advise the House and my hon. friend as quickly as possible. I thank him for bringing it to my attention.


HISTORIC SITES
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Minister is aware of the Government's efforts to identify new economic initiatives for the Strait of Canso region of Nova Scotia. Development of Grassy Island has been put forward as such an initiative. Can the Minister
October 7, 1985

tell us the status of plans for development of the Grassy Island National Historic Site at Canso?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I share the Hon. Member's high regard for Grassy Island because of the role the Canso area played in the international fishery in the eighteenth, and even in the seventeenth century. There is a management plan which predated my appointment as Minister of the Environment but I have embraced it as one of my own priorities. To date the federal Government has spent approximately $350,000 of an estimated total of $1.7 million. We expect to proceed with some dispatch. I pay tribute to the Hon. Member for his persistent representations on behalf of his constituents.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for the status of women. I would like to ask him whether he believes our Armed Forces are providing equal opportunities by not letting women canvass door-to-door with antiwar plans while members of the Armed Forces have the right to lobby for things like Star Wars and other national and international projects. Does this represent equality for women?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicted, there remains as part of the regulations under which the military operated, a rule that political activity on base is prohibited, by whatever group. As I have also indicated, the question of the definition of political activity is under review. In view of today's circumstances, it may well be that the internal definition used could be subject to change. We are looking into that question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question was to the Minister of State for the status of women. I do not know whether he has had time to consult his wife, but I would like to ask him what representations he has made to Cabinet as concerns the status of women on military bases because women now have no rights there and he should take some action on their behalf.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Hon. Member that this Government has undertaken to review the matter, which the previous Government did not.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Franklin McLean: Second, let me remind the Hon. Member that when the Minister of Justice brought forward his amendments
Oral Questions
coming out of the Charter there were some areas which were not clear and at that moment we established a parliamentary committee to study those sensitive areas. Third, let me remind the Hon. Member that it was this Government that enhanced the Charter challenges to include women. If this is an area which needs that specific definition, there is a provision to undertake it under our Charter Challenges Program.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Minister may remember that prior to the Budget this year the Canadian Federation of Municipalities met with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration to point out the serious condition of municipal infrastructure. The water quality report has said much the same thing.
Would the Minister indicate to the House and to the municipalities of Canada whether his Government will now move to provide the necessary federal funding in order that municipalities can replace their existing sewer systems so that we can have quality water in our country?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know, as I suppose he does, that the federal Government got out of national programs in support of municipal infrastructure largely because the provinces resented what they thought was an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction by the federal Government.
In that connection, the previous Government also abolished the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs for the same reason. I do not hold out much possibility for the resuscitation of national programs in support of infrastructure. However, if the provinces, in individual cases, can demonstrate that they consider municipal infrastructure a priority, then the federal Government would be very open to discussing with individual provinces on a bilateral basis the possibility of federal funding, perhaps through ERDA.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONSULTATION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Perhaps the Minister might want to take some leadership, approach the provinces directly and encourage them to get involved with the federal Government to provide that kind of funding now, when they need it.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, within minutes of receiving the Pearse inquiry report, which addressed itself to this very question, I was personally in touch with every Minister of the Environment in the country.

October 7, 1985
Privilege-Mr. Allmand CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Friday, October 4, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, October 3, I attempted to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) with regard to personnel cuts in his Department. It was supplementary to the principal question put by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).
On that occasion, before I could get four lines of Hansard out of my mouth, I was interrupted on two occasions by Your Honour who asked me to put my question immediately. I finally did not do that because I was completely frustrated, feeling that I could not put the question without a brief outline of the situation leading to the question and the parameters of the question.
I was to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am completely opposed to long preambles to principal questions or to supplementary questions; I might say as well, to long, rambling questions which disguise the same material as preambles within the questions and accomplish the same thing. I submit, with great sincerity, that I feel that many of Your Honour's rulings with regard to supplementary questions and preambles unduly restrictive and without precedent.
I decided to check Hansard of the last Parliament on this matter, and I found numerous, numerous precedents. I started with the most recent dates. For example, on May 18, the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Clearly the Hon. Member has a complaint which he wishes to make to me. That is his privilege, and he may want to come and do that. If he wants to pursue this, he will have to convince me pretty quickly that there is a question of privilege. Therefore, I think he will have to deal with the foundation of his question of privilege, not the issue he wishes to raise.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, the foundation of my question of privilege is that Question Period is one of the few opportunities for Members of Parliament to hold the Government accountable for its actions by putting questions and by putting them in a way which can be understood by the Government, by
all Members of Parliament and by Your Honour. 1 submit that the type of restrictive application of the rules which Your Honour applied to me-and I say "rules" very loosely-or your ruling with respect to me last Thursday was such that it restricted my right to put a question to the Minister in a way in which I could hold him responsible or have him answer on a very important issue of policy which was being implemented by his Department. I felt completely unable to do that in the House and I submit to Your Honour that if that sort of ruling-


Mr. Speaker:: Clearly that is not a question of privilege, nor is it a point of order. The Hon. Member appears to be unhappy with the fact that when I asked him if he wished to put a supplementary question, he said "no" and sat down. If the Hon. Member wishes to discuss with me or to debate with me the practices with regard to Question Period, he is perfectly free to come and do so. As he knows, his House Leader and the other House Leaders do that regularly, as do his Whip and the other Whips. However, it clearly has no foundation for a point of order or for a question of privilege in this Chamber, and that is the end of the matter.


William Warren Allmand: On a brief point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: That is the end of the matter.


William Warren Allmand: On a brief point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: No. I invite the Hon. Member to come and see me to discuss it, if he wishes.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-73, an Act to validitate certain ordinances of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, without amendment, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
October 7, 1985

740!


TRANSPORT
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 47(2), 1 have the honour to table in both official languages the document entitled "Freedom to Move".


BANKS AND BANKING
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 47(2), I would like to table in both official languages the list of the categories of uninsured depositors of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank.


TRANSPORT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the Parties, and I think Your Honour will find that the following Order of Reference will be received now by the House and passed without debate, by unanimous consent. The Order of Reference is as follows:
That the document entitled "Freedom to Move", tabled in the House earlier this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport;
That the Committee examine and report on the proposals contained therein and, in particular:
(1)	the role of transportation in improving Canada's trade position; developing employment opportunities; and complementing regional economic development in Canada;
(2)	the role of transportation Crown corporations in an open and competitive transportation environment;
(3)	foreign control of Canadian transportation companies;
(4)	the ways and means of improving services in northern and remote areas in a new regulatory environment;
(5)	the issue of compensatory rail rates and suggested measures to discourage predatory pricing in a new regulatory environment; and
(6)	the measures to protect and/or enhance services to captive shippers;
That the Committee be empowered to travel within Canada; and
That the Committee report its findings no later than December 13, 1985.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, indeed the House Leader for the Official Opposition has informed me that negotiations have taken place, and we are pleased to give our concurrence.


Ian Deans: Yes, we would too, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Depositors Compensation


Mr. Speaker:: There being such consent, shall the motion carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canada Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 7379).
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was speaking about the reasons we on this side of the House would like information about depositors who will be paid over and above the $60,000 insurance as a result of this special Bill before us which requires $875 million to be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
While 1 was speaking this morning, there was delivered to my office a letter from a group called-

-the Committee for the defense of the rights and interests of Canadian depositors in the matter of the Canadian Commercial Bank's bankruptcy.

This group made a very special plea that individual depositors be reimbursed early on and gave some rather interesting reasons. It also gave a total figure which I have not as yet been able to check because just two minutes ago, in fact as I was rising to speak, I received the list just tabled by the Minister detailing some of the depositors by categories. It shows foreign banks, Schedule A banks, Schedule B banks, trust companies, et cetera. I suppose by adding up all this, separating it from the total, one might arrive at the individual depositors.

October 7, 1985
Depositors Compensation
although not necessarily, because I believe that when the Minister spoke this morning she said this would not be a complete breakdown.
Elowever this group who delivered the letter to me this morning says that it would cost approximately $37 million to compensate fully all the individual depositors for the noninsured portions. In their letter which, as I say, is addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), but of which they have made copies available to some people, they speak very sadly about the fact that they made some of their decisions based on wrong information from the Government. They say in part:

Canadian savers are now being seriously penalized as a result of the bankruptcy of a Canadian bank among others because... the officials of the Tory Government of Canada have ill advised and badly protected them.
We believed you, Mr. Mulroney, when you and your officials stated on several occasions between March and August, 1985, that with the bailing-out plan of March, 1985, the Canadian Commercial Bank was solvent and that investments in that bank could be made with the utmost security.
We trusted you, Mr. Mulroney, we made deposits and we kept our savings in that institution.

It is easy to understand why this group feels that it was misled when one looks at the statement in this House made by the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) on March 25, an I quote from page 3312 of Hansard. The Minister said:
-we are satisfied that this bank is now a viable bank, that it will be profitable in the future, and that we will be repaid, as will other members of the support group, out of the future profits of the bank.
The Minister also said on March 25 that the decision to bail out the bank to the extent of $265 million was, and based on her confidence, I now quote:
It indicates, I think the faith of the Province of Alberta, its confidence and our confidence in the ability of the bank in the future-
That was said by the Minister on March 25.
In view of those assurances, Mr. Speaker, one can understand the concerns of the individual depositors, that they were misled. While I am not necessarily supporting the view expressed by the writers of this letter that individual depositors should be reimbursed first, and while I would like to check their figures, this is however additional proof that we do need more information about the depositors.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Hon. Member who was, of course, a member of the Government Party prior to the last election and who has served in this House for some time and whose interest in these areas of financial responsibility is well known.
My question is this. The new Government has certainly made many errors in this particular area. However, it inherited the Inspector General of Banks; it inherited an office of the Inspector General of Banks which was woefully weak and understaffed; it inherited in fact a can of worms from the old
Government which had allowed the shenanigans of the Canadian Commercial Bank to go on, the playing around, the chairman in California, the shoddy loans, the consorting with people of the reputation of Leonard Rosenberg and so on. I would simply like to ask the Hon. Member where she and her Party were and where her Government was when seeds of the problems, which will cost the taxpayers $1 billion if this Bill goes through, were being sowed under the former Government. Why on earth were not members of the Liberal Party at that time speaking up and saying that something has to be done to make these banks act responsibly?


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, what is at issue in this debate is not the conduct of the banks per se but the conduct of the present Government. No Liberal Government ever let a bank fail, neither did any Liberal Government pump in taxpayers' money to rescue banks. It is no secret that in a similar situation what the previous Liberal Government had done was to ask other banks to arrange a merger or to put their own house in order. I have raised this point more than once in this House. We have never seen fit to put in taxpayers' money to rescue a bank. This Government did, and did it without looking at the facts.
Furthermore, the Government not only put in taxpayers' money to bail out the bank in March and assured us that it was then safe, but in September, only six months later, it is presiding over the failure of the bank and asking us to agree to use more taxpayers' money in order to compensate those people who were led to keep their money in the bank between March and September by the assurances of the Government.
In this debate we deal with the conduct of the present Government not previous Governments.


Mr. Greenaway:: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the Hon. Member in that last statement. As the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) says, if the previous Government had made sure that the office of the Inspector General of Banks was functioning properly-he only has eight people working for him, for heaven's sake-if he had a full support staff-the State of New York has 300 people in such an office-if we had a situation where we had the proper staff, does not the Hon. Member agree that this kind of thing would not have happened?
The Hon. Member said in her speech this morning that this Government was not aware of what was going on until March 14 when the CCB people came to the Government for help. Surely to goodness, when we look back into what has happened, proper inspection would have indicated that this bank was in trouble a long time before that, and the blame lies right in the pocket of the Member opposite, in the previous Government's purview.


Aideen Nicholson: I said this morning indeed that the Government told us on March 25 that it had no indication the bank was in difficulty prior to March 14, but in fact, in response to further questions in the House, it emerged that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had had a discussion with the Inspector

October 7, 1985
General of Banks in September, 1984 in which he was alerted to certain problems.
While I think the Hon. Member opposite certainly has a point in saying that the Inspector General of Banks can use more staff, that does not alter the fact that a political decision was made on March 25; that in fact existing information was not used and, while the Government might very well have arrived at a better decision if it had had additional information, it did not use existing information because it made a political decision and chose not to look at facts and at material which was available.


Mr. Fraleigh:: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), whose knowledge of the financial world I had grown to respect, and I admit my inexperience in that world. I would like the Hon. Member to respond to one straightforward question with a yes or no answer. Does she support her Party's position that individual depositors' names should be disclosed and made public?


Aideen Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) is a reflection of the earlier questions regarding the lack of regulation and supervision that occurred and resulted in the collapse of these banks. Can the Hon. Member explain why, over the years, the office of the Inspector General of Banks had only eight inspectors to do the job of supervising and monitoring the entire banking system? Why was there any hesitation in expanding that office when the banks themselves paid for the Inspector General of Banks and all the people he hired? Why did the Government not go out of its way to expand the size of that office when it was not costing the taxpayers of Canada a red cent?


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why additional staff was not added to the office of the Inspector General of Banks at a time when, following the revision of the Bank Act, the number of banks in Canada greatly increased. There was a rather obvious case to be made for increasing the number of inspectors. However, I still say that that is not relevant to the present situation because there was information available from the Inspector General of Banks which the Government did not look at in making its decision.
Furthermore, no matter how many inspectors there are or what information they can provide, political decisions are the final responsibility of Ministers. The Ministers chose to make a decision based upon very little information. Even if we accept that because of the small size of the staff in the Department of the Inspector General the information presented to the Ministers was inadequate for them to make a responsible decision, we must not forget that the banks concerned offered staff and resources to make a fuller appraisal before the final decision was taken and their offer was refused.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words about
Depositors Compensation
Bill C-79, the famous banking bail-out Bill. It has been referred to in all sorts of ways but I think the people of Canada have now begun to appreciate the seriousness of this situation.
If the last few weeks have been any indication, I suspect that the people of Canada have become rather confused by the Government. There have been statements one day saying one thing and then retractions the next day. For many weeks, we have heard Ministers and other members of the Government say one thing, only to have to reverse their positions within 24 or even 48 hours. By and large, people are beginning to wonder to what extent they can believe what the Government says.
Today we are debating the $875-million bail-out Bill. This is just the first instalment in a long list of pay-outs. I do not want anyone to get the impression that only $875 million will be shovelled out of the taxpayers' sack into the bail-out operation. Much more is yet to come.
Regarding the changing points of view of the Government, do we not all remember when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) rose in the House of Commons to say that the Canadian Commercial Bank was a viable bank, and after he said that the bank failed? The Governor of the Bank of Canada phoned the offices of The Globe and Mail on a number of occasions to say that he had full confidence in the Canadian Commercial Bank, that it was a viable operation and that he would stand behind it. As a matter of fact, at a meeting of the Finance Committee held on May 19, he said that he had a high regard for the management of that bank. Since then, we have come to understand just what kind of management the Canadian Commercial Bank had. Certainly some very questionable practices were being used.
The Inspector General of Banks, time and time again, said that the Canadian Commercial Bank was indeed a viable Canadian bank and that no one had anything to fear. Of course, as we all know, the bank failed. Unfortunately, my good friend, the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDou-gall), was required on a number of occasions to rise in the House to say that the Canadian Commercial Bank was a viable operation in western Canada and that no one had anything to fear. Of course, the bank failed.
We cannot have a viable institution on Monday and a failed institution the next Monday unless the people to whom we look to supervise and monitor the bank did not do so. It cannot have happened unless Governor Bouey and all the other players did not know that about which they were speaking when they made those public commitments.
What has become very clear is that this is an example of group-think. The Minister of Finance, the Minister of State for Finance, Finance Department officials and senior bankers all got together to say that they were wonderful, sophisticated people with a great deal of banking expertise, that the Canadian Commercial Bank is viable and that they would all agree to that. What they forgot to do was their homework. They forgot to ask if they had the facts that enabled them to make those comments. As we now know, they had incomplete information.

October 7, 1985
Depositors Compensation
We are told, and of course we do not know the facts, that the Inspector General went to the management of the Canadian Commercial Bank, a management we now know is highly suspect in terms of carrying out prudent bank management practices, and asked for the facts. The management provided the Inspector General with facts that were not facts but fiction regarding the viability of the assets of the Canadian Commercial Bank.
We did not have the facts. Since the Minister of State for Finance is an experienced Bay Street financier as is the Minister of Finance, I do hope that this is not a reflection of those on Bay Street. Hopefully others are not making decisions regarding Canada's banking and financial future based upon incomplete or even no information.
I would like to make one suggestion today. I suspect that we will hear from members opposite regarding a retraction or explanation of this. We are now dealing not only with the Canadian Commercial Bank failure but the Northland Bank failure. I suspect that one of the reasons for the Northland Bank's failure was that when the Minister of State for Finance made her announcement after the Labour Day weekend, she said that the Government would rescue the uninsured depositors as well as the insured depositors not only of the Canadian Commercial Bank but of the Northland Bank. I suspect that a great many people took that as a very clear message that the Northland Bank was in serious difficulty. If they had not removed their funds already, they certainly did so after hearing that announcement. In a sense, we could say that the Minister of State for Finance began the slow demise of Northland Bank which was trying to rescue itself in the troubled western economy.
I would repeat what the President of the Northland Bank himself said. He called a press conference and said that the Government of Canada was sabotaging western banks. He said that it was not interested in providing assistance to get the Northland Bank back on its feet. Just the other day, one of the directors of the bank said that they were considering suing the Government of Canada because it had not given their proposals a fair hearing. This is a very serious set of allegations.
If the President of the Northland Bank and one of its major directors is saying that the Government of Canada did not do what it could to rescue this ailing western institution at a time when it was experiencing serious difficulties because of the problems in the western economy, that is a very serious case. I assume that the inquiry being carried out by Mr. Justice Estey will bring this out into the open.
The people of Canada have become rather confused by the antics of those on the government benches in the last few weeks. I suspect a great many people are scratching their heads. For as long as I have been a Member of this House, I can recall hearing members of the Conservatives Party prefacing their remarks with the belief in a free market system. They said that they believed in free enterprise and in the invisible hand of the market-place to direct decision making. They said that they believed in the discipline of the market-place. When the previous administration provided bail-out money to ailing
corporations it said that this action must stop, that market discipline must prevail if we want to see a decent economy unfold. What has become extremely clear is that the comments about the free market which are directed at the small business sector, farmers, ranchers, fishermen or Canadian individuals does not hold when it comes to banks. When banks get into trouble they are not allowed to go under. They do not even have the opportunity to go under because the Government steps in to rescue them. It is not like any other bankruptcy where 40 cents, 60 cents or even 70 cents is paid on the dollar-in this case 100 cents will be paid on the dollar. The Government of Canada has made itself the laughing stock of the financial community of the country.
I encourage Hon. Members who sit on the Government benches to stand in their places and say who they believe are recognized financiers in our country who think this move is a good example for the financial community to have placed before it. I do not think we will find anyone who will say that. I believe it was the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank of Montreal who could not help himself from laughing in front of the television cameras when asked: "What do you think about this bail-out?" He said: "I cannot believe it. We cannot believe we are being bailed out at 100 cents on the dollar. We were thinking of writing off those deposits, but the Government of Canada in its wisdom is going to bail us out." The banks could not believe it.
It must be recognized that what we have here is a direct repudiation of the free market-place. What we have here is reward for failure. In other words, the message which has gone out is that if you are an imprudent lender and if you run a sloppy management system with your bank or trust company, do not worry about it because the Government of Canada will come in and rescue you. What kind of message is that to send out to the investment community of Canada and abroad? We are saying that pay-offs for incompetence is the rule of the day. We are telling these investors: "You are an incompetent banker, do not worry because the Government of Canada will stand behind you." I do not think that is the type of message the Government of Canada ought to be sending out at this point in time.
I say that $875 million, which is the amount of money involved in Bill C-79, is only the down payment-it is only the beginning. The Government has already paid out $60 million which some folks may have forgotten. That is what was paid out in the original bail-out scheme. We will also pay out the $60 million which the banks paid out in the first rescue package. Those banks have letters from the Government saying that their bail-out money is to be considered on the same level as a deposit. As a number of bank presidents have indicated, they are expecting a full return on their original bail-out contribution, which is another $60 million. Then, of course, there is the sum of $450 million in the CDIC which is part of the insurance plan to bail out those depositors who have $60,000 on deposit or less. It is obvious that that sum will come from the taxpayer of Canada in the short term. Then,
October 7, 1985

there is the big figure of SI.8 billion which the Bank of Canada has advanced to the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank because of everyone running off with their deposits. They have to fill them up with taxpayers' money. We will not get a good portion of that money back. When it starts to come back it will not be next Friday or next year. It will take a number of years, perhaps even 40 or 50, before all assets can be dumped on to the market in western Canada. That cannot be done all at once. It will take many years for that money to be returned to the Central Bank. Again, it will cost a few hundred million dollars in addition to the sum we are debating here today. When one looks at the total picture, it could involve a billion plus-that plus could be another billion or another billion-and-a-half.
While we were falling over ourselves to get legislation through Parliament originally in this respect the Government was making plans to cut back increases in senior citizens' pensions because it said it could not afford an increase. The other day the Government said it could not afford to increase family allowances to keep up with the cost of living. The Government says it can afford SI billion or $2 billion for the banks but it cannot afford to give any increases to mothers receiving family allowance cheques. There is no help being provided to ailing small businesses in the country. Nor is there any help being given to the drought-stricken ranchers in western Canada. There is no help being extended to those who cannot afford a first mortgage. The Government cannot just afford expenditures of that type. I could go on and on in this respect but I do not want to sound silly by going on for half an hour describing all the things the Government says it cannot afford.


Mr. Thacker:: They are all getting help.


Nelson Andrew Riis: If they are all getting help then tell that to those drought-stricken people in British Columbia. Tell that to small-businessmen on whom the banks have pulled loans prematurely. The Hon. Member is wise enough to know that the banks have moved in on all sorts of small businesses in the country and pulled loans even when those loans are being kept up.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Tell that to the 15,000 public servants whose jobs will be cut.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Government says that it cannot afford to help those whom I have outlined but when it comes to the banks there is not even a bloody murmur. There has not been a single member of the Government stand in his place to disagree with this move. Thus, I am assuming that the 210 government Members are in support of this bail-out package to the banks. The lowest blow of all is the handing over of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to unknown persons, unknown companies and unknown banks.
There is a certain morality involved in the House, Mr. Speaker. We are given the responsibility-nay, the duty-to disburse the moneys we collect from taxpayers wisely. All we have done in this instance is we have created a new financial
Depositors Compensation
black hole. A black hole has been created which we call the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank. The Government has backed up its trucks to the big financial black hole and dumped money in by the hundreds of millions of dollars.


Mr. Malone:: Keep dreaming!


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) says: "Keep dreaming." This is a nightmare and not a dream. This is a bloody financial nightmare. The Hon. Member says that he does not want to know the names of these depositors. He says he wants to give out a $20 million cheque to a numbered account held by a faceless phantom out there.
The Minister of State for Finance has been courteous enough to provide us with a list of categories. I appreciate her gesture. When we look at this list we notice that the largest beneficiaries of this bail-out-Bill-those who will receive in the order of $113 million-are the foreign banks. It will not be the small businesses which will receive this sum. It will be the foreign banks. I am speaking of the Deutsch Bank, the Bank of Singapore, Lloyds International, the Bank of America, the Bank of Tokyo, the poor Chase Manhattan Bank and the Hong Kong Bank. These are the banks which will receive taxpayers' money by the tens of millions of dollars without ever having to come forward to ask for it. That is what members of the Government say they support.
In terms of these banks, we are dealing with some of the most sophisticated investors in the country-in fact, some of the most sophisticated investors in the world. They knew that when they put their deposits in these banks they were not insured. They knew they were risky deposits. They receive higher returns because of that risk. However, in this case there is no risk involved. The discipline of the market-place has been eradicated. In other words, for the big investor there is no risk at all. When one considers that $332 million will be going to large financial institutions of one kind or another and $113 million to foreign banks such as the Bank of America-


Barbara Jean McDougall: You do not know that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Minister of State says to me, and rightly so, that I do not know that for sure. We do not know if it is the Bank of America, the Deutsch Bank, the Bank of Singapore or Barclays Bank. We do not know that for sure because she refuses to tell us. She is hiding behind the Bank Act which she says does not allow the release of those names. I say that if that is the case-and there is some question whether it is-


Douglas Cockburn Frith: It is not.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There is no mention in the Bank Act that this information cannot be provided. There is also no mention in the Bank Act of bailing out banks which get into trouble. If the Minister wanted to introduce legislation today, because of this unique situation, which would allow the Government of Canada to release 100 cents on the dollar bail-out to insured depositors, I suspect that the Liberal Party-although I cannot speak for it-would support us and we would pass the legisla-

October 7, 1985
Depositors Compensation
tion in 15 minutes. There are other ways, of course, Mr. Speaker. One recognizes, perhaps, that there are groups which are experiencing some hardships because they were encouraged to deposit money into an institution-which they should not have done-because of the words of the Minister of State for Finance After all, she is the highest authority in finance except for the Minister of Finance and he said the same things. They said, "we stand behind the bank. The bank is viable". If they say that, one has to believe them. If they misled the people of Canada, if they did not know or made a wrong commitment, that is their problem. If there are some hardship cases, why not put a special hardship fund together to pay out to those folks who are indeed going to be hard hit as a result of their lost deposit? That would cost perhaps $5 million or $10 million but it certainly would not cost $875 million.
If we are going to hand out money in a bankruptcy, it is unheard of that a person is given 100 cents on the dollar. When the assets of these two banks are liquidated, we will find out what the uninsured depositor ought to get. It might be 70 cents on the dollar or 30 cents on the dollar, but that is what they should get, if anything. They should not get 100 cents on the dollar. That is unheard of.
Let us ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, what they do in the United States. It has had failed institutions. Are the uninsured depositors bailed out with taxpayers' money?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Sometimes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: They are not, Mr. Speaker. The United States does not do this. It uses other ways. It finds mergers to pull banks together but the United States does not come in with taxpayers' money to bail out uninsured depositors of its banks. But we do. The Government of Canada does. The people who are the most sophisticated financial investors in the world knew what they were doing with those deposits. They were uninsured. By the Government's action, we are rewarding failure and in a sense encouraging imprudent banking practices.
This Party, for one, will not support this Bill in any way, shape or form. We think it is inappropriate to spend the money of the taxpayers of Canada in that way.


Mr. Winegard:: Mr. Speaker, I found the comments of the Hon. Member this afternoon a real revelation. I am impressed at how much in love he now appears to be with the banking system of the United States of America. I did not know that was part of the New Democratic Party philosophy. I listened to him say, "It's all for the banks, for the banks", and how that Party would have nothing to do with it. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the members of credit unions who have $100 million at stake will remember the position of the NDP on this Bill. I hope members of hospitals who have $5 million at stake will remember the position of the NDP on this Bill. I hope that small business with its $5 million at stake, the charitable organizations with their $15 million at stake and the municipalities with their $80 million at stake will remember the
position of the NDP on this Bill. Those people are going to be very pleased with that Party. With respect to the $150 million to the provinces, it was only today during Question Period that someone in that Party moaned that we might actually cut back funding to the provinces and what a terrible thing that would be. The Minister said, of course, that the Government was not going to do that, but the NDP was worried about the provinces during Question Period and here it is now a quarter to four in the afternoon and the NDP does not care about the provinces any longer. It is prepared to let that $150 million go down the drain. What a turn-about in an hour and a half. It has been a real revelation; it really has.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most succinct questions I have heard from the Conservative Party in a long while.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: And he didn't ask you a question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He did not ask a question, he made a few statements. However, let me respond to the Hon. Member by saying that I indicated very clearly that I was unimpressed with any Government which spends hundreds of millions of dollars in bailing out foreign banks. I suppose the Hon. Member missed that comment in his list of categories. I wonder if the Hon. Member heard me when I said that we should put together a special hardship fund and if those groups, individuals and organizations could clearly demonstrate that they would be in a hardship situation if they were to lose their deposit, then we would return it. Of course, if there were hardship cases, we would do something. However, I do not think the Chase Manhattan or the Bank of America is a hardship case.


Mrs. Sparrow:: You don't know that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I do not know that because you refused to tell us. There is $130 million for foreign banks. These are not Schedule B banks, these are foreign banks. I am just assuming who they might be. I am assuming it is the Bank of America, the Chase Manhattan Bank, the Citibank. I want to find out but you refuse to tell me.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question, Mr. Speaker. I would like him to explain how it is he supports taxpayers money being-


An Hon. Member:: You're not supposed to ask questions.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I know I am not supposed to but I suspect the Hon. Member has the integrity to stand up and answer my question. Would he say whether he supports using taxpayers' money to bail out foreign banks and large financial institutions which knew what they were getting into, if he believes in a free market-place?


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Mr. Speaker, 1 thought the questions were to be directed to the person who had made the speech.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You guys never make any speeches.
October 7, 1985


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: I know that the New Democratic Party has some pie in the sky economic philosophy which would allow it to make fish of one and foul of another.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Pie in the sky? You should talk.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: I want those Hon. Members opposite to be sure to go back to their credit unions, many of which have a very small capital base. If their names were disclosed, it would probably ruin them overnight. I want them to go back to their people and tell them that. I wish those Hon. Members would, for my edification, tell me how they are going to explain that to those credit unions.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, first, I asked the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard) a question. I realized he probably would not answer, but the point is that we very seldom have an opportunity to question Conservatives because they very seldom participate in this kind of debate. We hope that that will change, however, as the opportunity presents itself.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: As we come closer to the next election.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Hon. Member talks about "pie in the sky". We are talking about a $1 billion pie today. It is perhaps a $1.5 billion pie or, perhaps, a $2 billion pie. I believe the Hon. Member who just spoke is a new Member of Parliament and I want to remind him of the fact that there was a provincial Government in this country which did not have a deficit. That Government was deficit-free for years and years. That province was the Province of Saskatchewan under a new Democratic Party Government. For many, many years it was the only province which had no deficit.


Arnold John Malone: False.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That's not false.


Arnold John Malone: That is false.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Well, stand up and make a speech some time, will you? The point I want to make is that the Hon. Member raises the question of a "pie in the sky" philosophy-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) has a point of order.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the Province of Alberta did not have a debt.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order, of course. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has the floor.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. With a multibillion dollar heritage fund and sitting on the vast oil reserves it does-our version of Saudi America-no, Alberta did not have a deficit. However, I want to talk about Saskatchewan, a have-not province. That situation does not exist any longer. It
Depositors Compensation
has a deficit today and it is quite a large deficit because of the change of Government.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Under a Tory Government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Under a Conservative Government that province went from being deficit free to having a significantly large deficit.


Mr. McCurdy:: How much is it?


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is over $1 billion now.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Why doesn't the Government give the Government of Saskatchewan the $1 billion instead of giving it to the banks?


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is a reasonable suggestion, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps $1 billion would help out the Tory Government in Saskatchewan. The point I want to make is that-


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Answer the question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: In my speech, and in response to my friend from Guelph, I indicated-


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I will be waiting for those Members to make their speeches later. Let me tell the Hon. Member that we said that a hardship fund could have been established to assist any firm that experienced serious financial difficulty by not being bailed out beyond the $60,000. We say that if there is an ailing firm in western Canada, or anywhere in Canada, as a result of the collapse of these two institutions let us establish a special fund to assist those individuals, firms, corporations or agencies. That is the kind of response that I would give to any credit union or organization experiencing financial difficulty as a result of this collapse.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I believe that my hon. friend, the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), is saying quite specifically that despite being the defenders of free enterprise, the Conservatives are effectively advocating imprudent and irresponsible banking because they are prepared to bail out to the last penny people who made deposits in these institutions without any regard to whether these institutions were being run responsibly. I believe he is also saying that the New Democrats are committed to a prudent banking system as opposed to irresponsibility on the Government side.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Let me remind Members opposite particularly that their reputation on Bay Street today has been tarnished as a result of this decision to bail out uninsured depositors. To my knowledge there is not a single respected financier who supports the Government's decision.
If some of the 210 Members opposite know a responsible and respected financier who will say that a bail-out of 100 cents on the dollar under these circumstances is the appropri-

October 7, 1985
Depositors Compensation
ate action, I challenge them to rise in their places, even on a point of order, to tell me the names of those financiers. Certainly when they make their speeches they could indicate who supports them. Really, do they not also feel embarrassed that the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of Finance got them into this mess?


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, when the finance committee held meetings in May and June of this year, it heard evidence about the tremendous difficulties facing the Canadian Commercial Bank. The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) stated that if it was assisted it would continue to be a viable organization. Could the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) give us an indication of how many hundreds of millions of dollars less we would be asked to approve in this Bill if we had faced the real facts at that time and closed the operations of Canadian Commercial Bank or both banks at that time?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it has become clear that when the banking witnesses offered the Government unlimited staff to go in and seriously evaluate the situation and identify the problem, the Government did not bother and said that it did not need their help and the extra staff. It was not until the eleventh hour, when Mr. Hitchman, the retired banker, was sent in and then reported that the bank was too far gone when the collapse actually took place.
I suggest that the Government did not act on the best advice of the financial community at that time. I might add that had it acted on the Canadian Commercial Bank when the offers of assistance first came from the banking community, 1 do not believe we would be dealing with the collapse of the Northland Bank today. I believe it was the Minister's comments and the run on the Canadian Commercial Bank that led to the demise of the Northland Bank as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-79. In view of the urgency among uninsured depositors of the Canadian Commercial and Northland Banks to receive the payments which this Bill would authorize, I do not intend to unduly prolong this debate. It is important that the Bill come to an early vote and be sent to a legislative committee for detailed consideration.
I think it is important, however, to emphasize just how vital it is to western Canada that Parliament should act promptly on this legislation. There are some people who argue that we should reject this proposal, that these depositors should be left to sink or swim. The image that comes to mind is that of the ocean liner whose captain refused to stop and put out lifeboats to rescue the crew of a foundering fishing boat.
There are also those who feel that the names of the banks' depositors whose deposits exceed the insured limit should be revealed to all and sundry prior to this Bill being debated. I wonder if those who advocate such a revelation would also like Canadian income tax returns published in book form? The
privacy which a depositor expects with regard to his or her banking arrangements is just as important, in my view, as the privacy accorded to an income tax return.
I do not think that it is discounting the importance of the deposit insurance principle when we recognize that there are particular circumstances which had to be considered in the case of the failure of these two banks. The Government should be commended for its willingness to stop and pay attention to the problems raised by these bank failures and to show concern for economic dislocations which these developments threatened in western Canada.
Anyone with a first-hand knowledge of how business operates will appreciate the danger to a business should a large part of its funds be tied up in another institution or lost in the failure of a bank. Some businesses cannot survive the shock and go bankrupt even though they are innocent third parties which deposited their funds in good faith. Moreover, bankruptcies can have a domino effect, hurting still other businesses, supplies and employees. Even if the business depositor manages to avoid bankruptcy, it is still highly likely that her or she will incur very substantial costs in terms of lost funds and unforeseen expenses.
We must recognize clearly that it is not possible for the federal Government to come to the rescue of everyone who is hurt by bankruptcy. Moreover, the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) has made the important point that we are not establishing a blanket policy of rescuing uninsured depositors in the future event of failure of financial institutions belonging to the Canada Deposit Insurance system.
However, we cannot ignore the magnitude of the problem that has been created by the failures of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank. Granted, they were not major players on the national banking scene, but they did play a very significant role in the economies of the western provinces. The potential losses to uninsured depositors, estimated at some $875 million in this Bill, would have an impact in the western business community that we simply cannot disregard.
The figures that were provided by the Minister of State for Finance show just how large that impact could be if we do not act. In the two banks there are 437 business corporations with uninsured deposits totalling over $140 million. Small unincorporated businesses have another $4.7 million at stake. However, the potential problem is far wider than those figures alone indicate. Over 750 individuals had a total of some $27 million in deposits not protected by CDIC. Religious and charitable organizations stand to lose more than $21 million; hostpitals $4.7 million; school boards and other educational institutions some $3.3 million and labour unions close to $7 million. The list goes on and on. The credit union movement has a very large amount at stake, nearly $130 million in the two banks. Municipal governments, some of them in eastern Canada, stand to lose over $80 million in uninsured deposits and provincial governments stand to lose close to $145 million. That is still only a partial list of the amounts involved. It is obvious from these figures that we are dealing with a very
October 7, 1985

substantial problem which, due to its very size, demands special consideration.
The Government has stated a policy of supporting and promoting the development of regional financial institutions and I commend it for this approach. Regional institutions can fill a very real need in their own areas. In the case of depositors in these two banks, their deposits were a vote of confidence in a regional financial institution. There can be no doubt that one consideration which we must keep in mind is the question of confidence in other financial institutions. That confidence could be damaged if we decide that uninsured depositors in these two banks must absorb losses in the amounts I have just indicated.
There is just one culprit in this whole affair, Mr. Speaker, and that is the infamous National Energy Program which came down in 1980. These two banks were born during a buoyant economy in the West. If they had been able to hold on until the steadily mounting benefits of the Western Accord had reached a level to sustain them, this whole affair might never have happened. How were western Canadians to know that the main source of that buoyant economy was to be raped by the machinations of the Liberal Government in 1980? I personally would not like to feel that the future of other regional banks in our country is jeopardized by this unhappy affair. It was brought about, without any doubt whatsoever, by the actions of an eastern oriented and anti-western regime which wanted for itself the hard-earned profits of western innovation and determined effort.
This Bill deserves the support of this House, but what is more important is that this support should not be delayed. It has been argued that adoption of the Bill should be stalled until Mr. Justice Estey completes his inquiry. Nothing has been advanced to suggest that the issues to be examined by that inquiry have any relevance whatsoever to the question of reimbursing these uninsured depositors. It is misleading to suggest otherwise.
Let us consider the question of reimbursing these depositors on the merits of that issue alone. The issues which Mr. Justice Estey will be examining are important in themselves and the Government has ensured that there will be the widest possible inquiry. Surely, however, the question of whether or not to reimburse the depositors is quite irrelevant to the inquiry. To delay the Bill on those false grounds would be a mistake. The only result would be to add to the uncertainties and costs facing the uninsured depositors. No payments can be made until this Bill becomes law. Prolonged delay of this Bill would simply add to the depositors' costs in the form of interest earnings foregone on their funds and extra costs incurred in borrowing the necessary interim funding. I therefore urge all Hon. Members to recognize their responsibilities and allow speedy passage of this legislation which is so vital to so many businesses, organizations, and individuals in western Canada and elsewhere.
Depositors Compensation


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, there has been the frequent expression of hope that the government Party would enter the debate in a constructive way. I really must say that I am shocked to hear the allegation of the moral equivalent of racism. The situation of the western banks exists because the East has raped the West. What nonsense! I hope the Member will reconsider the significance of her comments in terms of Canadian unity and the need for all of us to address the situation that is before us in a reasoned way.
When we are talking about reasons, let us pose these questions as matters of principle. The Member says that this bail-out should not be identified as establishing a new principle. How can it be otherwise? Are we now eschewing what I thought were the very fundamental principles motivating the Government, described in a variety of ways and in various contexts? Let private enterprise, in an unfettered way, proceed to take risks. Risk is what makes the economy go and you are now telling us that in this particular situation risk ought not to mean anything because if the effects of taking risks and losing becomes severe enough in its implications as to involve large amounts of money, then the risk should be eliminated.
The Member says that this is a different situation because the amount of money is so large. Well, suppose the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce should find itself in the same situation. My God, the risk would be huge. Would she then argue that it is the East and we therefore should not do it? What principle will one apply? She says that we should bail out those who are uninsured. Where is the principle of insurance involved here? There are all kinds of situations in this world where people are not insured for a variety of things. I think that many of us can identify with the homeowner who has 10 children and is uninsured. I think that most of us would be far more sympathetic to furnishing the money needed to rebuild and re-establish a home for a family in that situation than to placing money in the hands of those who ought to be sophisticated enough to know that there is a danger of losing. How does one ensure prudent investment if there is a vague assurance by the Tory Government, which is so clearly identified with free enterprise, that even imprudent investment in the last analysis is deserving of a reward?
I ask the Member to please elaborate on what principle she has identified herself with. What principle motivates this free enterprise party of which she is a member in this particular situation? How does she preclude a future situation in which the same kind of bail-out will occur? Tell me why, again in terms of this instance, it is not reasonable to identify those who are going to receive the money whereas in bankruptcies in every other similar situation, where they only get part of the money that they would have lost, they must be identified.
There are a number of questions there and I pose them because on the one hand 1 think that the speech of the Hon. Member was not based on what I thought were the principles motivating her particular political philosophy, and, on the other hand, I think that much of what she said is not only not reasoned, but dangerous in that it sets one part of the country against the other.

October 7, 1985
Depositors Compensation


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Wind-sor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) obviously does not understand the value of regional banking. To compare a large major bank such as the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce to a small regional bank in western Canada is to indicate that you have no idea of what the West has been through. I had the opportunity in 1980 to come to Ontario to try to explain to some of the people here what the effects would be in western Canada if the National Energy Program went through. There was high employment not only in the West, but right across the country. The Member does not seem to realize that the West does need regional banking. We need banks that will take care of small businesses. We need banks that will take care of private individuals. We have banks which will look after hospitals and municipalities. Even municipalities from Ontario were investing in our banks because they cared about the small person. This is why regional banking is so necessary. I am not pitting the east against the west. I am saying exactly what happened. If we had had a decent energy program, these banks probably would never have fallen.
It is very interesting how people can rise and criticize now. Obviously the regulatory system has failed to adapt to changes in the banking system over the last eight or ten years. The Inspector General will simply require more authority and power to go in and review all operations of all banks. We will require more inspectors and tougher audits in order to keep the banking system straight.
I support the Minister of State for Finance in that she put forth a Green Paper to review the banking system. Hopefully we will move forward on that, so that there will not be another disaster in western Canada or in eastern Canada. We are one nation and we stand together.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) on her excellent and positive address. It was refreshing. It was like a fresh breath of air to hear someone speak positively from that side of the House. I congratulate the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Hon. Members of the NDP are making a lot of noise. They are opposing the Bill. If they were in power, they would nationalize all banks, and we would be responsible for every cent they spend. They keep on saying that we are paying the banks. I am glad the Hon. Member for Calgary South put that straight. We are not paying the banks anything. We are compensating the people. I suppose the NDP would like to see payment denied the people who put their pension moneys into the banks and had no reason to believe that they would fail. I suppose NDP Members would rejoice if we denied the school boards, school teachers' associations and the Alberta Government telephone people that invested their pension funds. These are ordinary, everyday people. They are not rich and wealthy people. I tell the NDP Members to wake up. Who are they fighting for? Common people of the country had every reason
to believe that they could put their money in the banks. Because of non-failure for many years, there is an obligation to look after the people, not the banks. We are not putting money into the hands of the banks. We are looking after the people who put their money in the banks and trusted them. That is what we want to continue. There is a world of difference between giving money to the people and giving money to the banks. Having listened to some speeches, I get the idea that they think we will make millionaires out of the banks, out of an odd bank manager or shareholder. This Bill will help people who put their money in the banks.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: People who trusted your Government.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I see the Hon. Liberal Member shaking his head. There would never have been a bank failure in the West if it had not been for the national energy policy. That was the beginning of it. It took money out of the pockets of the people. The Liberal plan was to discriminate, destroy and cripple industry in the west. Now the Liberals rise and indicate sorrow. They did it. They have the gall to rise when we talk about the savings of the people of the west.
I enjoyed the Hon. Member's comments about the national energy policy. Would she once again emphasize that this money is being paid to the people, so that it might get into the heads of Liberal and NDP Members?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank my hon. colleague for his very kind remarks. He is absolutely right. We are paying the moneys to the uninsured depositors, to the people of western Canada as well as those of eastern Canada. We are also paying the hospitals and the municipalities which invested pension funds. That is about whom the Government cares. That is why it is necessary for us to act immediately and get the Bill before the legislative committee.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James)-Customs and Excise-Service at Blue Water bridge international crossing; the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Indian Affairs-Departmental reorganization-Effect on employees; the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson)-Air Transport-Airline ticket taxes-Effect on northern travellers.
October 7, 1985



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 7379).
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, over the course of the next 15 minutes to 20 minutes, I hope to put this debate into references which the average people on the street can understand. Frankly, there is a great deal of confusion in the minds of the Canadian public about what exactly the Bill is supposed to do and about the bail-out package. This comes as no surprise to me, or to many Members of Parliament. Many people do not even understand the basic concept of what is a billion dollars. Each day during Question Period Members of Parliament, in an attempt to get average Canadians to understand the sum of a billion dollars, use the term "one thousand million dollars". Part of the problem is to make average Canadians understand that amount. That is complicated by the fact that there is a great deal of confusion on the part of average Canadians about what the Bill will do.
What is the difference between the rights of shareholders and the rights of depositors? That may well be understood by some Hon. Members of the House, but I do not think that it is well understood by the majority of Canadians. If they began to understand some of the definitions, then we could begin to focus the debate as it should be focused. What is at the heart of discussion today is not so much the fact that a bank collapsed; at the heart of the discussion is the trust issue. Fundamental to the way in which the House of Commons operates, we must have a degree of civility and a degree of trust between both sides of the House. That trust factor was broken in this debate by the Government front-benches several months ago.
I should like to bring into the debate the chronological series of events which occurred last spring so that average Canadians can begin to understand why we in the Opposition at this stage, now that we have had the collapse of a commercial bank, are taking our position. Back some time prior to March 25, in other words, in the months of February and March 1985, a degree of concern was raised by inspectors in the banking system as to the viability of the Canadian Commercial Bank. I would assume at that stage that those inspectors would report to the Bank of Canada, namely to Mr. Bouey, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, and indicate that they had a great deal of concern about the commercial and financial integrity and viability of the CCB. In other words, warning bells would sound. This is what inspection systems are all
Depositors Compensation
about. Therefore, the inspection system was operating under normal conditions at that stage. Once the Governor of the Bank of Canada was handed a report by his Inspector General, he had no choice but to report to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who is the Minister responsible in the House of Commons for the way in which the Bank Act is to be administered. He takes the political responsibility.
Let us for the first time in this debate separate the two responsibilities. There is an administrative responsibility which is in the hands of the Governor of the Bank of Canada and his officials, and there is a political responsibility for the banks which rests with the Minister of Finance. In this case, as we did in previous Governemnts, because of the work-load on the Minister of Finance the position of Minister of State for Finance was created. I would also assume that the events which transpired in late February and March, 1985, indicated that the Minister of Finance, who was preoccupied at the time, no doubt, with consultations in order to bring forward his first Budget on May 23, indicated to his Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) that he wished her to take responsibility for shepherding the problems of the Canadian Commercial Bank through the various stages for which the Government had responsibility.
I suppose it is going to be up to the Estey Commission to determine exactly what were the prime reasons for the collapse of the Canadian Commercial Bank. I doubt very much if Mr. Justice Estey is going to comment on the political considerations that went into the bail-out of the bank but rather he will focus his investigations on other considerations that led to the collapse of the Canadian Commercial Bank.
Those questions that are going to be raised by Mr. Justice Estey deserve to be raised and the Canadian taxpayers have the right to know the answers to them. Equally, or I would say even more important, the Canadian taxpayers have a right to demand of their political masters, namely the Government of Canada, in this case the Conservative Government and its front-benchers, political accountability for their actions in this whole process of the bail-out of the Canadian Commercial Bank.
There are rumours to the effect that the Minister of Finance and his junior Minister, the Minister of State for Finance both personally opposed the bail-out of the Canadian Commercial Bank. There are other rumours as well, that it was the direct intervention of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) that led to the decision by the Government to bail out the bank. If rumours are correct, and this is why it was rather interesting to hear some of the comments from the Members of Parliament from western Canada, the Prime Minister made his decision not on facts that he had in his hands at that moment but on the basis that he did not want to have the political responsibility to be the Prime Minister of the country at the time when it had its first bank failure in almost 62 years. He wished to make sure that he would not have any

October 7, 1985
Depositors Compensation
stains on his own being concerning the collapse of the Canadian Commercial Bank.
For that reason, on the weekend leading to March 25 the Prime Minister and his senior financial advisers, including the two Ministers I mentioned previously, despite the fact that they did not have any idea of the worth of the assets of the Canadian Commercial Bank, decided to bail out the bank. That decision having been made by the Government of Canada, I would like the people here in the galleries and across this country to understand how the political system works. Once that decision was made, representations were made by the Prime Minister and by his Finance Minister to make sure that the Official Opposition in this country would agree to that package bail-out that they had agreed to on that weekend. Frankly, they said, trust us. Here is the trust factor. They said "Trust us when we say that this bail-out package is going to work and, if you raise any serious questions on the floor of the House of Commons in Question Period on Monday, March 25 there is going to be a run on the assets of the Canadian Commercial Bank the like of which you have never seen."
Members of the Government said, "As a responsible Official Opposition, we are asking you to take the words of the Minister of State for Finance, the Minister of Finance and the word of the Prime Minister of this country that the bail-out package that we put together for the Canadian Commercial Bank is going to save that institution."
That was the trust factor that led to our decision on this side of the House to support the bail-out package at that time. Clearly, as has been pointed out today in interventions, the NDP Party wished to have no part of that bail-out. That is fine, they can answer for their Party. I am just indicating to you, Mr. Speaker, that the reason that the Liberal Party acquiesced to the demands for that bail-out were because we trusted the Government and we understood as well, as the Official Opposition, that we had a responsibility to the financial structures of this country and simply do not for frivolous reasons decide not to take the word of a Minister of Finance on such an important issue as the potential failure of a bank in this country. Therefore the trust factor was entered into for the first time.
Since that time we have had reason to doubt why we decided to take the word of these Ministers that I have mentioned but surely it is critical to the political process that when a decision is made, when a Government gives its stamp of approval to a bail-out that the bail-out had better work. As my leader said this morning, if there is going to be a bail-out, make sure to get to the bottom of the boat, get all the water out and keep the boat afloat. What happened in this case was that after the bail-out package was presented on the floor of the House of Commons, it was another three months before the Minister responsible asked for a separate accounting of the assets to occur.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Wrong.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: These are the events that have been chronologically put forward by the questions and responses made by the Minister of State for Finance on the floor of the House of Commons. To suggest "wrong", good heavens, Mr. Speaker, if the bail-out was going to work last March 25 the bail-out should never have occurred again in September of this year because the price tags have certainly increased in the intervening six months.
I come back to this trust factor. The Opposition trusted that that bail-out package would work and so did every one of the depositors who had money in those banks. They took the word of the Ministers. Unfortunately the Ministers made a mistake. Clearly something happened from March 25 to September 1 of this year in which the wind-up of the Canadian Commercial Bank was announced by the Minister of State for Finance. In those intervening six months I have no idea about which institutions and which individuals took out moneys and at least saved their deposits, but there were a lot of institutions in this country and a lot of people who took the word of the Government and lost their money.
Therefore, I come back to what is at the heart of the issue. Is it a trust factor? I say it is. What led to the decisions that made for bad management of the Canadian Commercial Bank? Was it the National Energy Program? I scoff at the idea but let's take that suggestion for one moment. It comes as a surprise to me to learn that the Members of Parliament from western Canada want to indicate that it was the National Energy Program that shut down the Canadian Commercial Bank.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: They do not want us to talk about the mismanagement at the Canadian Commercial Bank. They do not want to talk about the collapse of banks in the State of California, such as the Westland Bank, during the same period of time. There is no National Energy Program in California that I am aware of. They want to quietly go over the fact that the Continental Bank of Illinois collapsed and had to have a bail-out package by its federal Government in the United States in this past 12 months. Was there a National Energy Program in effect south of the border as well? No. I do not have the time so I am not going to digress into what happened as a result of the National Energy Program in some other sectors of the economy in western Canada. The point I am making is that there was bad management at the Canadian Commercial Bank. Those questions will have to be answered by Mr. Justice Estey. I will be very plain about what should be answered on the floor of the House of Commons and that is the political accountability of the two Ministers who guaranteed, in their words, that this bail-out package was going to work. That is why this Bill does nothing, nor does the manoeuvre of getting the problem of the Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank into the hands of Chief Justice Estey take away from the fact that this Government should have political responsibility here.
October 7, 1985

I want to talk a bit about the essence of the Bill. It is going to cost, as I mentioned earlier, an estimated $875 million of taxpayers' money to undertake the bail-out of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank. In addition there was the original Bank of Canada's $225 million that was put in. Let us say $1 billion. Let us put that in some perspective. We had a report a year ago that said it would only cost $600 million to clean up International Nickel Company's smelting operations, Noranda Company's smelting operations in Quebec and the Hudson Bay's smelting operations in the Province of Manitoba. These are the smelting operations that have made the major contributions to acid rain in this country. In other words, this bank bail-out is going to cost the Canadian taxpayers more than it would cost to clean up acid rain. That is the perspective that one has to look at. Put another way, and this is the only other thing I am going to have to say about this, it is going to cost every man, woman and child in this country $35 each to bail out this bank.
The Members of Parliament for the Conservative Party sat here, wrapping themselves around the western flag, the Alberta flag, around the fact that these poor depositors need bailouts. Let us take a look at the rationale. I come back to this. A bad decision is a bad decision whether it is made in western Canada, central Canada, Quebec or the Maritimes. That is number one.
Second, before we give approval to the $875-million bailout, we would like to see tabled on the floor of the House of Commons a list of the names of the depositors involved. We have been told by the Minister of State for Finance that she is now wrapping herself in the privacy provisions of the Bank Act. She has said that the Bank Act prevents her from revealing the names of the depositors. We are not dealing with the Bank Act in this legislation. The reason this Bill is before us is because the Bank Act will not allow the Minister to give back moneys to the depositors, and that is why she has come before us with this Bill. Therefore, the Bank Act does not apply in this case and it should not apply in the case of the release of the names of depositors who want their money back.
There is a good, legal case to be made that it is not the Bank Act at issue here nor is it the Bill that is before us. Frankly, what is at issue is part of the Winding-up Act. In my opinion the Winding-up Act allows for a person filing under the Winding-up Act who wishes to have compensation to be forced to sign a release indicating that his name can be made public. It seems fundamental to parliamentary democracy and accountability that when $875 million of taxpayers' money is going out the front door, my constituents should at least know who it is they are using the $875 million to bail out. However, that is not the case. We are told we are not allowed to ask who the depositors are.
I said that this is a very complex subject, and that is quite true. Frankly, most Canadians can better understand the political errors that were made in the "tunagate" affair than they can the failure of the Canadian Commercial Bank. That
Depositors Compensation
does not surprise me because they understand what it means to have a million cans of rancid tuna fish on the supermarket shelves. They can conceptualize what that is all about. They cannot conceptualize the meaning of $875 million and $225 million. I sure know one thing, though, Mr. Speaker. What they do understand is that it is not right that the Government is bailing out every one of the depositors in the bank with taxpayers' dollars while not coming to the aid of the shareholders. This comes as a surprise.
Let us return to the events of March 25. The reason we have a bail-out package and the reason this is such an exceptional occurrence is that the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of Finance put their words on the line when they said the bail-out package would work. That is the only reason we are bailing out the depositors above and beyond the $60,000 to which they are entitled under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation's scheme. If that is the case, why is it just that the depositors be fully reimbursed while every one of the small pension funds in this country that invested in the shares of that bank will not be helped at all by this bail-out package?
I have heard from Hon. Members opposite who have asked if we are trying to delay this Bill and who have said that credit unions in western Canada will be down our backs because we are delaying the passage of the Bill. They have said that the poor pension funds that have deposits in this bank will complain. Damn it, if they are worried about them, why are they not worried about the shareholders who are losing just as much as the depositors? We have already broken all the rules by bringing foward this Bill to bail out the depositors to the tune of $875 million.
Let us not deal with whether the depositors are foreign multinational banking interests, credit unions or pension funds. Please, do me a favour and do not suggest to me that because we want to delay the passage of this Bill until we find out who the depositors are, we are not being a good Opposition. Frankly, I think that Hon. Members opposite should look into their own hearts. They should go back to their home towns this coming weekend and ask their constituents whether or not they feel it is fair that they are being asked to fork over $35 for every man, woman and child to pay for this bail-out. I say this in all sincerity as most of us do go home every weekend. I do not know in which world Members opposite have been living but they certainly have not walked the main streets of their home towns and asked their constituents whether or not they think this is fair. I can tell you the answer to that question right now, Mr. Speaker. They think that this bail-out is a complete desaster.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments? Resuming debate.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to take some time during this debate to try to set the record straight. Members of the Liberal Party have spoken in animated indignation and have tried to pretend that in this chain of dominoes, it is only the last domino to fall that caused the whole collapse. The truth of the matter is that we are faced

October 7, 1985
Depositors Compensation
with a history of western economics which was affected by a Liberal regime that preceded the present Government. That Liberal regime brought about the most destructive ruination of the western economy that ever took place in a free, western, industrialized nation.
The Liberals of the previous administration basically caused the collapse of the western economy. They chased $20 billion and 250,000 jobs out of the Canadian economy. Now they have the audacity to come to the House of Commons, bearing in mind that that kind of drain of economic activity out of any region of this country would cause ramifications, and try to pretend that this happened with the flick of a switch yesterday.
One thing about billions of dollars is that that kind of capital has a sort of momentum. Very rarely if ever would billions of dollars ever fall into a state of ruin overnight. The National Energy Program chased from the western sedimentary basin 50 per cent of the drilling rigs into Venezuela, Mexico, Oklahoma, Montana, Colorado, Australia and the North Sea off the coast of England. It chased away with it the talent, the workers and the capital. Along with that went some 250,000 Canadian jobs. After taking that much of the economy out of the country through the National Energy Program, it simply is not possible for Liberal Members to rise and say that this collapse took place because of recent events.
For one not to suspect that Liberal Members had some responsibility for the collapse of the two western regional banks would be for one not to suspect the tomcat when the canary is missing.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Wait a minute.


Arnold John Malone: Sorry, Sir. I forgot that your name is Tom. It would be like not suspecting any cat when the canary is missing. The truth of the matter is that the western economy went straight downhill following the introduction of the National Energy Program in 1980.
Just as an indication of what happened when that program was turned around through the signing of the Western Accord under the present Government, numerous companies have announced an increase in their investment intentions. For example, Imperial Oil has indicated that it intends to invest some $1 billion in 1985. Shell Oil recently announced its plans for $500 million capital spending for 1985 plus $200 million in expansion for its oilsands plants near Peace River. The Peace River expansion is expected to generate 900 person-years of direct employment and 1,800 person-years of spinoff employment. Other major investments include $1.75 billion by Trans-Canada Pipelines; a $500 million expansion by Nova in its natural gas generating system; $450 million for expansion by BP Canada in its Wolf Lake heavy oil project; and numerous other spinoffs.
Taken in context for the country, in 1980 we were in a period of recession with one shining star in the whole economic picture. I am speaking of the energy sector. That was just not good enough for a Liberal Government. It could not stand to
have the western part of the country working with some type of success.
The National Energy Program introduced five new sets of taxes. In the first year the program was in place the tax on that particular industry in that particular region of the country doubled. In the second year it doubled again. In four years $20 billion drained out of the area, chased not only by capital but by jobs and investment. The whole economy shrunk. Now these pompous people stand up in their places and say: "You killed two banks." They pretend as if it happened today. They pretend that since we came into government a year ago all of the tragedies which have happened to the western economy happened within the year.
The truth of the matter is that the tragedy started in 1980 with the National Energy Program. It started when we chased our jobs to Venezuela, Mexico, the United States and Australia. Anyone who lived in the western basin knew families who were being damaged and hurt by the spinoff of the Liberal policies. These policies had an effect on the Nisku Industrial Park which is located just south of Edmonton. The Hon. Member for Wetaskawin (Mr. Schellenberger), if he were here now, could relate firsthand the experience of grown people crying as they sold off their investments for a fraction of their worth. I am speaking of major million dollar investments which were being sold for less than 10 per cent of their value. I speak of the community of Brooks in the riding of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), which is a service sector community. It virtually dried up because the activity simply disappeared. I speak of the expansion in Calgary's downtown core which simply froze as a result of one single policy of the Liberal Government. Those Liberals have the audacity to stand here and pretend the collapse of these two banks happened simply because the Conservatives came to power one year ago. In their own pontification they may foool some people. They may make Canadians somewhere believe that somehow this collapse was as a result of events very recent. However, they will not fool the people of the energy sector in western Canada who know that these two banks made the majority of their loans to the small business community and to the service sector of the oil industry. By and large the deposits of these banks were related to the growth which was taking place in a province which depended upon the energy sector. When the National Energy Program was put into place it killed the economic motivation of that area which subsequently began to shut down its potential.
With respect to the impact of the NEP, the Syncrude project was slowed down as a result of it. The Cold Lake heavy oil project was stopped. I will come back to the specifics of how important that was. New tarsands plants were stopped. The Judy Creek project was put on hold, as was the Alsands project. The Petro-Canada-Nova project was stopped, as was the Lloydminister heavy oil upgrader. Sometimes people think that when we speak about these matters we are speaking principally about regional issues-apples in the Annapolis Valley or the Okanagan, grain in Saskatchewan or Alberta, oil in Alberta or manufacturing in Ontario. The truth of the
October 7, 1985

matter is that every sector of the economy impacts on every other sector. One oilsands plant in its 25-year lifetime will put $108 billion of direct spending into the Province of Ontario.
I just read a list of a number of projects which were closed down as a result of the National Energy Program. We will feel the impact of the Liberals coming to power in 1980 for the rest of this century. It is not surprising, or it ought not to be, that there are ramifications with respect to bank closures because the economy was so adversely and unfairly affected. It was affected by a Government which had grossly over-spent and allowed its debt to spiral and spiral. Irrespective of the constitutional guarantee with respect to resource ownership for the provinces, it chose to directly tax the resources in the Province of Alberta as if they belonged to the federal Government and it upped taxes to such a level that after four years it amounted to $20 billion. Some 250,000 jobs fled the country. Then, the Liberals over the past week have pretended in animated indignation that the last domino to fall was the only one that mattered. They speak as if there is no history to the issue. How cynical can the Liberals be? When they point their finger at us the other fingers on their hands are pointing back at them. They are the real cause for the ruination of our banks today.
We saw a great many cut-backs, reduction in services, rigs leaving the country, plant expansons being stopped along with tarsands projects, all at a time when we were importing 200,000 barrels of oil a day from off-shore. It was in that context which the Liberals stopped the expansion in western Canada through an unfair and unmitgated tax regime.
In our first year in power we brought in the Western Accord and the Atlantic Accord. We have the data to establish the turn-around in western Canada. In fact, you can sense that it is more buoyant. As an absolute statement of fact I say that had the Western Accord been put in place two-and-one-half years ago these two banks would not have been in a state of collapse. Moreover, had the National Energy Program not been introduced, these banks would not have collapsed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is nonsense.


Arnold John Malone: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is taking the opportunity to laugh. Somehow he does not believe that $20 billion can leave a relatively small economic sector and not have any ramifications. He ought to be one who should know. He is an experienced Member of Parliament. With the introduction of the incremental oil revenue tax, the oil export tax, the natural gas and liquid gas tax, the Canadian ownership charge tax and the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax the taxation to the region doubled in one year and doubled again in the next, which took $20 billion out of the economy. Liberals opposite laugh because they think those taxes had nothing to do with the collapse of these banks today. It had everything to do with the banks and their collapse. It is the Liberal history which brought about the demise of the Northland Bank and the Canadian Commercial Bank. Their collapse rests on the backs of the Liberals since it was Liberal policy which brought about the ruination of the economy in western Canada on which those banks depended
Depositors Compensation
for their financial generation. The National Energy Program confiscated 25 per cent of the oil companies' assets in the offshore drilling and north slope. In addition to five new taxes which doubled in each of the first two years, it also confiscated in the offshore situation 25 per cent of its assets, all because of one piece of legislation. Those Liberals stand in the House and pretend to be squeaky clean, saying the banks went down and the Conservatives did it. No Canadian is going to believe such tom-foolery. Canadians know very well, I am sure, that there is a history to this problem. We do not lose billions of dollars in an overnight flash. That comes about because of significant and long-term ramifications of change. When these changes come into fruition during the period of a new administration, it is nothing but pure audacity to stand up and point one's finger and pretend it all happened within the time of the present administration.
We have the loss of $20 billion. What did that do? The loss of $20 billion meant the loss of jobs. It meant that our dollar, relative to that of the United States, lost its value. The loss of $20 billion and the lost value of our dollar vis-a-vis the United States meant that interest rates went up. All of that is part of the impact which caused the terrible recession which followed throughout the rest of the tenure of the Trudeau years. The Liberals did not care about the principal economic engine of growth which at that time was the energy industry in Canada. It did not matter to that Government that we were importing more than 200 million barrels of oil per day. That Government not only allowed the industry to shrink but caused it to do so. It caused the industry to have a decrease in its economic initiatives. Subsequently, we find ourselves in this situation where we are now bearing the unfortunate ramifications of the Liberal policies. We must stand here and watch the Liberals blame someone else for their own fault.
The people who have caused this dilemma like to pretend that there is someone else they can blame. Prior to the National Energy Program, the oil industry was the one bright light in the whole of the Canadian economy. Before May 1980, most of our rigs were working in western Canada. Following the National Energy Program, in May 1983, one year later, we had 51 rigs drilling, 17 rigs moving, and 388 rigs which were shut down, stopped, closed. When we talk about the rigs, we in western Canada saw the photographs of line-ups of trucks at the Montana border. Most people do not understand what it is to move a rig. They think all you need is a truck or two. It takes 16 liner trucks to move a rig. It costs $500,000 to move a rig from Alberta to Texas. We lost more than half of our drilling capacity. Two thirds of it was shut down. However, somehow the Liberals stand here today and pretend that when the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank closed, the Conservatives did it. You would have to believe in the Easter bunny to believe that this all happened since the day before yesterday.
This is a problem which comes about as a result of a history of attack on western Canada and its principal resource. Perhaps you have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that when one talks about

October 7, 1985
Depositors Compensation
Liberals, one gets pretty hoarse. That is probably because I have a sense that I am speaking to one. Suffice it to say that we have turned the corner in the Atlantic Provinces with the Atlantic Accord and in the western provinces with the Western Accord. Investment is now taking place. It is unfortunate that we could not have sustained for a longer period the viability of those banks because I am one who believes in the premise that Canada needs more banks and more competition in banking. We need regional banks and, had we had the viability of the present Western Accord for another six months to eight months, I believe that the new economic initiatives which are now taking place throughout the country would have sustained these banks and they would not have collapsed. It is clearly the past policy of the Liberals which has brought the death to those banks. What an unfortunate shame for Canadians.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) put himself into an unfortunate position. He did not address the Bill before us and, therefore, I take it that he will be addressing the Bill when we get to it after discussing this amendment to not proceed with Bill C-79 which encompasses expenditures of $875 million.
The Hon. Member began his speech by talking about the National Energy Program. Of course, I would not argue with him on that matter because I believe he knows much more about that subject than I do. He made me smile when he said that one has to suspect the tomcat when the canary is missing. It came to mind, Mr. Speaker, that one cannot soar like an eagle when one is dealing with a turkey.
The arguments put forward by the Hon. Member were not in the least convincing. What he did was bring in a subject which was not the purpose of this debate. He did not tell us why we should vote for this $875 million. He did not tell us why Canadians should not be told where this money is going to be spent, in his opinion. He did not tell us anything about the Bill. He went on a rampage of diatribe about the National Energy Program, and we have heard that from the Hon. Member before. He is a great specialist on diatribe. However, the accuracy of his statements, Mr. Speaker, only hides the fact that he failed to address the Bill before us.
I would ask the Hon. Member how he can explain to Canadians the expenditures of $875 million without telling them where this money is going. I ask the Hon. Member honestly if he does not think it would be proper and appropriate for the Government to table the list of those uninsured depositors who are going to be covered by this $875 million. That is a great amount of money and I am concerned about the fact that he never once in his 20 minute speech addressed the issue at hand. I say to the Hon. Member that I understand he has his problems. I have mine. He talked about the National Energy Program but let's talk about the Bill before us today. What does he think should be done with the uninsured depositors? Does he think we should hide them away and still pay them that amount of money? Is the Hon. Member telling us that he would vote for this Bill without knowing how he, as an accountable Member of Parliament, is going to account for that money? Is he going to let the public accounts tell us in a
year hence where that money went and not tell Canadians today what that money is going to be spent for? I ask the Hon. Member to honestly give me an answer to that question.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I intend to honestly answer the question of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier. He asks me if we will tell Canadians what the money is going to be used for. Of course, we will. It is going to be used for the depositors.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Who are they?


Arnold John Malone: There he comes again with a question. He asks me who they are. He also wants to know how much the deposits are. The Hon. Member knows full well that it is very much a part of the fabric of Canadian society that both with respect to income tax and bank accounts, it is no one else in the country's business to know anything about someone's personal business as to how much one has, how much one has deposited or how much money one has in his account. The principle is that we are securing the depositors, not the shareholder. We are securing the depositor who had his money in those two banks which are in a state of ruin because of past Liberal policies. That is why my speech is relevant to the debate. It explains why the banks are where they are today.
[DOT] (WOO)
If we were to take the thesis of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier to its logical conclusion, he would have us expose income tax data. If he wants to become involved in exposing who had deposits and how much, surely he recognizes that in Canada there is a sense of privacy about one's individual banking practices.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

[Stage Direction]
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA OFFICIAL APOLOGY RESPECTING "ON TO OTTAWA" TREK Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East) moved:
That, on this the 50th Anniversary of the 'On to Ottawa' trek, the Government of Canada does now extend to those who participated its unequivocal and official apology for the Government of the day having perpetuated the following:
(1)	Having caused through the use of violence as administered by the combined police forces of the Regina City Police and the RCMP the termination of the trek in Regina, Saskatchewan on July 1, 1935 with attendent loss of life, and numerous trek and citizen participants being injured and imprisoned;
(2)	Having contributed to rather than detracted from the plight of the unemployed by;
(a) forcing many unemployed young men into work camps,
October 7, 1985
[Stage Direction]
(/>) abrogating its responsibility of providing the necessary leadership in a time of high unemployment which would have created decent and rewarding full time employment;
(3)	Displaying a total lack of policy initiatives which would have provide
meaningful work and wages for the unemployed and for the violent attack on
the participants of the 'On to Ottawa' trek.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Whips of the three Parties have agreed that I can proceed with my remarks while seated because of a foot injury.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am the one who recommended that he remain seated because he has a fractured foot. However, he wants to make his point and I think we should hear him out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House agrees to make an exception to Standing Order 33 and allow the Hon. Member for Regina East to proceed.


Mr.   de Jong@: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank Members of the House for allowing me to proceed with my remarks while seated.
The motion I have before the House today calls for an apology which is half a century overdue. The tragic events that took place on July 1, 1935, in Regina's Old Market Square are an infamous blot on the history of Canada. The events of that day, commonly referred to as the Regina Riot, were, however, at least in hindsight a logical result of the social and economic circumstances of the time.
The social and economic crisis that gripped this and other western countries during the 1930s left few untouched. Thousands of Canadian men and women, blue collar workers, white collar workers and professionals, lost their jobs. Businesses were lost. Farms were lost. Homes were lost. Droves of unemployed workers crossed and recrossed the country in a futile search for non-existent jobs. Soup kitchens, flop-houses and "hobo jungles", where the jobless spent cheerless nights huddled together for companionship, safety and moral support over communal cookpots, sprang up across the country. Farm families, their pitiful possessions loaded in ancient automobiles or on horse-drawn wagons, were a familiar sight on prairie roads in their desperate flight from the drought-ravaged land. The good times were gone. Despair, defeat and depression filled the country.
The Government of the day, which will never be remembered for its generosity and speed of action, was finally forced to respond to the crisis. Relief centres for destitute families were set up across Canada but everywhere it was mean, stingy and humiliating. Even this small measure of cold comfort, however, was not available to everyone. There was no relief for the single, unemployed army of men whom the Government regarded as a potential threat to peace, order and good government. For them, the Government of the day had another solution-the Single Men's Unemployed Relief Work Camps. Here, the men were given meals, a bunk and 20 cents a day spending money, hardly a princely sum even in those days. The men who lived in these camps have described the conditions there as having been very hard.
Official Apology
One man, a founding member of the Relief Camp Workers' Union, provides us with the following description:
The camp rules were British Army rules. The camps were under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence and all the camp superintendents were former World War One army officers, some of whom used to try to put the men through drill... the Government deliberately picked remote spots for the camps. Some were in nice, scenic locations but the camps themselves were terrible. Some were nothing more than tarpaper shacks... The beds varied. Everything from spring cots to wooden bunks. Our clothing consisted of surplus World War One sweaters, pants and boots. They didn't have any of those warm greatcoats left over from World War One. They would have been nice but we all had back jackets and caps. They were new ... The camps, in some cases, were set up around projects. Some of the projects were sensible and had a reasonable purpose but most of the work we did was meaningless, particularly the road (construction) work which had to be redone later on. In a camp of 150 men, there might have been four meaningful jobs. There was no incentive to work ... Every man in the camps was issued a card. When you got thrown out of the camp (for some misdemeanor), the card was stamped on the back. You had one crack at being reinstated if you confessed. When you got blacklisted, they'd transport you out of the camp and dump you miles from anywhere. You were on your own-
Such were the conditions that led to a general strike called by the British Columbia Relief Camp Workers' Union in the late spring of 1935. The camps emptied. One June 3, 1935, a thousand men met at the foot of Gore Avenue on the Vancouver waterfront. They were on their way to Ottawa to put their grievances before the Government of Prime Minister R. B. Bennett. By the time the trekkers reached Regina, their numbers had swelled to 2,000. Unknown to the trekkers, however, Regina, not Ottawa, was the ultimate destination and there the trek was terminated.
At eight o'clock on the evening of July 1, 1935, a mass meeting was in progress on market square in Regina. In the crowd of 2,200 that had gathered to hear a report-back of the trekkers' delegation to Ottawa there were no more than 300 trekkers, many others having gone off to attend a local ball game. On the platform sat representatives of the local city council, the citizens' committee and the trekkers' committee. Jerry Winters, a member of the trekkers' committee, was in the process of making an appeal when his words were cut short by the sharp blast of a police whistle. Suddenly, mounted members of the RCMP poured from the huge vans that had pulled up on three sides of the square. Armed with batons, they charged into the crowd and disrupted the meeting which, until that moment, had been entirely peaceful and orderly. Onlookers were clubbed to the ground, making them instant "recruits" to the trekkers' cause. Joined by Regina citizens and armed only with makeshift clubs, the trekkers fought back against police officers armed with guns. The shooting and fighting continued until midnight. When the smoke cleared, one police officer lay dead, 21 other people were taken to hospital for treatment of injuries and 120 citizens and trekkers were arrested.
Police reports and newspaper accounts of the day have left a misleading impression of the circumstances surrounding the riot, laying blame for the riot on the heads of the trekkers. Much of what was written then and unfortunately believed to this day is nothing more than a "masterpiece of lies" as one trekker has described it. I repeat that the assembly was

October 7, 1985
Official Apology
peaceful and only broken up on orders from the Government in Ottawa.
The facts of the case are that the riot was planned and provoked, not by the trekkers, but by the police on direct orders of the federal Government which, in so doing, illegally usurped the authority of the provincial Government which was in the process of negotiating a settlement with the trekkers. Such action, Mr. Speaker, not only warrants an apolicy but begs forgiveness.
The motion I have placed before the House might merely be regarded as a footnote to history were it not for the fact that history has a tendency to repeat itself. The sad fact of the matter is that the History I have just outlined is in many ways and many places across this country repeating itself today. Many of the problems for which the trekkers sought solutions in the 1930s have returned in spades in the 1980s. Once again we have massive unemployment. Once again we are faced with widespread business failures, farm foreclosures, personal bankruptcies and food banks.
The parallels which can be drawn between 1935 and 1985 are truly staggering. Even nature has co-operated by providing prairie farmers with a return engagement of the drought and grasshopper epidemic which plagued their parents and grandparents 50 years ago. Once obvious parallel for which nature cannot be given credit, however, is the return engagement of a Conservative Government in Ottawa with identical attitudes in an identical situation. A little more than 50 years ago Conservative R. B. Bennett promised to "end unemployment or perish in the attempt". Last year the present Progressive Conservative Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised "jobs, jobs, jobs". Fifty years ago the Conservative Prime Minister, R. B. Bennett, espoused "imperial preference" as the key to economic recovery. Today the Progressive Conservative Prime Minister espouses the private sector and free trade with the United States as the key to economic recovery.
One and a half million jobless Canadians, men and women, young and not-so-young, cannot be written off. As much as the Government opposite might wish, they will not disappear or go away for the simple reason that they have nowhere to go except, perhaps, to fall further down into a sea of entirely understandable despair and disillusionment on their part.
What does 1.5 million unemployed Canadians really mean? To economists and statisticians it means a nice round figure that can be played with and juggled about on paper with relative ease. To the Government opposite it probably means a pain in the neck that refuses to go away. To the country as a whole, however, it means a shameful waste of precious human resources. To the 1.5 million Canadian men and women who find themselves without work and with little hope of finding work, it means personal disaster. To the unemployed auto worker with a family to support and a mortgage to be paid it means the probable loss of a home. To the unemployed professional-and their numbers are growing every day-it means a greatly reduced standard of living all too often
culminating in a one-way ticket to poverty. To the unemployed single mother it frequently means welfare and a day-to-day struggle just to keep herself and her children fed, never mind adequately clothed. To the unemployed young person just graduated from high school, technical school, or university, it means a wasted effort and a future without hope. That is what unemployment really means, Mr. Speaker.
What does the Government opposite propose to do about this most grave situation? Leave it to the private sector, that is where the jobs will be created we are told. We are told that but we do not believe it and neither do the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians whose lives are being wasted by the do-nothing attitude of a pass-the-buck Government.
Massive unemployment and its attendant social problems, contrary to what the Government opposite might wish to believe, is not the result of an act of God, Mr. Speaker. It is a man-made problem and it demands a man-made Government-led solution. Unfortunately, the solution to such massive unemployment as we are faced with today will never be found by leaving it to the private sector and various applications of the tried-but-not-true trickle down economic theory. We need solid, sensible action by Government on unemployment and we need it now.
Canada is not a poor nation despite the obsessive pleas of the Government opposite regarding our deficit. Canada is a rich nation in both natural and human resources. We have vast natural resources that lie waiting to be developed and a highly educated, highly skilled workforce waiting to be allowed to develop those resources. We are not only a rich nation, we are a young nation, and much remains to be done. Much remains to be done in agriculture, in forestry, in industry, in education, in health care, in communications, and in technology. We have hundreds of projects which lie crying to be undertaken. We have hundreds of thousands of jobs that lie crying to be created and hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians waiting to fill those jobs. We cannot leave that to the private sector alone, Mr. Speaker. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that those projects are undertaken and those jobs created.
We cannot wait for a solution to unemployment to fall from the sky. That is what the Government did 50 years ago when the solution to the unemployment problem of that ear finally arrived in the form of a world war. Such a solution in this day and age would mean the end of civilization. I do not mean to suggest for a second that the Government opposite would ever consider such a solution to our present unemployment problem. What 1 do mean to suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government should take a lesson from the past and undertake sensible and constructive projects that will put people back to work and this country on the road to economic recovery and prosperity.
Fifty years ago a handful of tired, hungry, destitute trekkers tried to do something about unemployment and were beaten and insulted by a callous and uncaring Conservative Government. The survivors of that valiant group of men deserve an apology from this Government for the actions of the Govern-
October 7, 1985

ment of that day. This is not a new idea, Mr. Speaker. I remind the House that on June 29, 1984, the former Leader of the Opposition and present Prime Minister asked the Government of the day to apologize to the Japanese Canadians. He said:
I am asking him if he will rise to the occasion and convey, on behalf of the Government of Canada, a genuine apology to Canadian citizens who were so badly done by.
1 use the same words of the then Leader of the Opposition to appeal to him and to his Government to apologize to those Canadians who were so badly done by that previous Conservative Government.
There is much more that can be done, that must be done for the mean and women who today face the same problems experienced by the trekkers half a century ago. I hope the House will unanimously and whole-heartedly accept the motion that I have placed before it. I understand as well, Mr. Speaker, that after the Prime Minister met with the trekkers earlier this year he promised to give serious consideration to their request for an official apology and said that he would take this matter to Cabinet. I hope that when we hear from the spokesperson of the Government that he or she will indicate the Government's support for the resolution that I have placed before the House today.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) on making his speech in difficult physical circumstances. I realize he felt it was his duty to be here in the House today, and I think that is admirable, although I do not agree with the text of his motion.
Mr. Speaker, from the text it is clear that what is being asked is an unequivocal apology. I would have expected the Hon. Member to concentrate more on showering abuse on a Government that refuses to side with the workers, since today, there is a tendency to say that the same situation may be repeated.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this opportunity to take part in the debate, because I have been active in the labour movement, both as a union member and member of an association. I also worked for twelve years on the management side as a negotiator in collective bargaining sessions at the local and provincial levels. I am also pleased because the motion before the House today, which of course refers to the past, to events that occurred 50 years ago, also goes back to a time in history which I find it interesting to recall, as a former history teacher.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I think the Government will conclude by saying, I do not think, I am sure that the best way to build the future is to look to the past, to analyze events, and instead of constantly apologizing for what happened in the past, to be prepared to change things for the better.
Official Apology
Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, conditions were terrible. It was in the beginning of the thirties, in fact during 1930-40 eight or nine years before the war, the Great Depression, when economic conditions were poor, and the Government at the time did not have the kind of economic leverage that we have today, and people did the best they could according to the time-honoured method of trial and error.
I remember when I was younger, at Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere, when my grandfather was terribly insulted when the first Old Age Security pensions came through, because old people had to declare their income. It was not an ideal situation, but instead of spending our time apologizing to these people because we forced them to make these declarations, what did we do? We established a different and necessarily better system.
That is past experience. The same thing goes for family allowances and a great many social measures which did not exist in those days but which we enjoy today. Mr. Speaker, I do not have to apologize for my father's or my grandfather's actions because had my grandfather chosen a different field of activity I might be a little bit richer today. I do not have to apologize for that.
History does teach us that it ought to be used to understand rather than to accuse, and I rely on historians to relate what went on in Government. We will analyze the situation and attempt to benefit from all those trying experiences so as to leave something better for our children.
So with respect to the past, Mr. Speaker, we must always keep the historical context in mind, never forget that the passage of time clears up past incidents which must be viewed in their proper perspective. I would suggest that my colleague is getting carried away when he claims that history is repeating itself right now.
All we need do is examine some figures or data. For the past five or six months, Mr. Speaker, I have been working on the Industry and Labour Adjustment Program-ILAP for short. Mistakes were made and corrected, and again last week benefits paid by the employer and deposited in a trust account were deducted from benefits available under ILAP. A change had been made on October 16, not through a ministerial order, but by amending the regulations, and then was implemented- Your Honour knows how fast we are-on April 25. As soon as we realized that a mistake had been made, instead of apologizing for that mistake, we tried to remedy the situation, which has been done as of last week.
Was it a mistake? When the Department of Justice analyzed the last ILAP proposals, did it make a mistake? I cannot answer in term of mistake, but what I can say, though, is that we have taken into account the working men and women who had based their decisions to retire early on their expectation as to their income: they would get their unemploy-

October 7, 1985
Official Apology
ment insurance benefits, as well as their early retirement benefits and a Government program. Now, their Government program was being taken away from them.
Instead of apologizing to them, Mr. Speaker, what we did out of respect for them was to change the regulations. That was important to understand the historical background. There is not a Government, not a politician, not a single member on either side of the House, who enjoyed certain events that happened in the province of Quebec. I am referring to the strike of asbestos-industry workers which was a turning point in the history of union development in Quebec and contributed more to the establishment of a labour code in that province than hours after hours of interminable discussions in an assembly.
When the Quebec government or the Iron Ore decided to close its operation in Schefferville, I can say that the negotiations that took place at this occasion has helped us achieve some progress, and I was able to realize that when the Quebec Government decided to close the town of Gagnon located North of Sept-Iles. If experiences such as those of Schefferville have helped us in the case of the town of Gagnon, the Gagnon experience will in turn help us settle other problems. The idea is not to apologize but to work harder for a better future.
My hon. colleague says that he is afraid that the same thing will happen and that the situation might come up once again. I do not think it can, Mr. Speaker.
You just have to look at some of the figures. In fact, let us take the first figure, which is the Gross National Product. It has increased annually by 4.1 per cent. This increase in the GNP is very important in assessing the situation, and I do not think that the same conditions existed in the 30's.
There is another interesting figure, Mr. Speaker. We have 284,000 less unemployed now as 284,000 jobs have been created since last year. Unemployment has fallen from 11.6 per cent in September 1984 to 10.3 per cent in August 1985. Youth unemployment has also fallen from 18.3 per cent to 15.9 per cent. This is still high, but the situation is under control and the rate is going down. Another figure which is often forgotten and which has a direct effect on all working men and women concerns the interest rates. Current interest rates in Canada are lower than they have been in the past seven or eight years.
It is not only the Members of Parliament who pay lower interest rates, but ordinary workers. These are ordinary people and consumers. For instance, the amount spent on car purchases or current expenses have increased by 25 per cent since last year. This also has an impact. As a Government, we should not be content with spending our time making excuses for the past. Instead, we should build better conditions for the future, conditions without uncertainty, and try to control them as much as possible. The interest rates are a very important factor for consumers, in building a house, in obtaining individual loans or in getting commercial loans. Mr. Speaker,
the confidence of investors is important for the future of the Quebec economy.
According to a Conference Board survey, 53 per cent of owners want to make investments in the coming year, while 8 per cent do not want to do so and the remainder are undecided. What does this show, Mr. Speaker? It shows that people are confident in the future and are willing to gamble on it. Moreover, Statistics Canada says that capital expenditures have increased by 12 per cent in 1985. All these facts show that the conditions have changed.
Mr. Speaker, consumer expenditures have increased by 12 per cent. The increase has been 23 per cent in automotive purchases alone, as I mentioned earlier. Here is a clue, a sign as people say, that conditions are not as they were in 1930. Times are bad, but not as bad as in 1930. The number of building permits has increased by 19 per cent. In 1930, I doubt the increase was as high. The consumer price index has never been that stable since 1971, and statistics are self eloquent: 4 per cent. We have the most stable consumer price index since 1971. The conditions are not the same. This is the best token of consideration that can be given workers, giving them those conditions rather than having to apologize. Bankruptcies have been fewer. Economic activity is on the upswing. All that, Mr. Speaker, to say that the best token of consideration that can be give to a worker, instead of apologizing, is not to prevent a recurrence of those conditions, and to work arduously, in cooperation.
We may disagree-the Opposition Party, the New Democratic Party-we may disagree as to the means, but the facts are there and must be taken into consideration.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, interest rates for eight years-we are just out of last year's election, and that matter of interest rates has been a sensitive issue for the Official Opposition. But rates are now the lowest in eight years. Those are facts!
They can argue. They can say this is not the right way of doing it. They may say it is our fault, it is not our fault! But the facts are there, Mr. Speaker.
As I said, the best way to honour a worker is to provide him with better economic conditions. The best way to correct a mistake, in my experience as a personnal manager, was not to send letters of apologies to everyone, it was to try and not to repeat the same error twice, and when I did so you may be sure that they confronted me with it. They said: "Besides memory, I think you also lack judgment." This is the way to show people consideration, Mr. Speaker.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think we are building something sound, and one of the efficient tools we have now set up is the new employment strategy the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) announced in this House. This is an employment strategy that is based first on flexibility, and second on agreement with the Provinces.
October 7, 1985

There are six possible ways in which this may be developed, and for the first time, Mr. Speaker, we have a program that is not readymade in Ottawa and undiversified for the whole country, because previously, whether you came from Nova Scotia or British Columbia, your program was the same. Now we have divided it along regions, and there will be six possible avenues. A region may chose this option or this strategy, rather than another one.
Mr. Speaker, this is not all. We have even thought that in a given Province, in the district of Regina, Hamilton or Valley-field, according to circumstances, there were employment development trails that could be more interesting. This is something that we did! First we must show flexibility and then try to reach an agreement or seek a consensus. All manpower centres will have working committees which will call upon working men and women.
Mr. Speaker, a case in point is the new Jobs Strategy, its guiding principles and its purposes, all geared to basic training. All employment development programs are based on training, and that is what we call building for the future. We want to make sure that tomorrow will be more than a slightly indexed yesterday! That is what the Government has been working on for a year, Mr. Speaker, and the results are promising. Some 284,000 jobs have been created and there will be more now that the new strategy has been set in motion.
That is an important consideration, Mr. Speaker, for we know we have to attract the private sector. Not only do we attract private sector interests, but we get them involved and tell them: We need you, we will support you and you will create new jobs.
All that has been set in motion, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think past conditions reflect the current situation. Most important, we must not fall asleep or gaze at our navels. A lot remains to be done because a 15.9 per cent unemployment rate among youths is still much too high even though we made some progress since it once stood at 18.3 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, the best homage we can pay working men and women or the union movement which did much for the economic expansion of our country is to encourage them to build a different future and call upon every available resource to make sure that we will indeed have a more promising future and not repeat past mistakes.
Mr. Speaker, again I say that we respect working men and women as well as unions and management. A good Government relies upon its people, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that our Government has made a commendable effort in that direction.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard, according to the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon), that even considering what was said
Official Apology
to workers and the unemployed 50 years ago, we should not apologize to them because we must look to the future.
Mr. Speaker, if we consider the case made by Japanese Canadians, and if we look at other situations and even the Riel case which was examined in the House since I became a Member of Parliament, it is quite obvious that if we want to understand the future, if we want to act responsibly as a Government, and in our dealings with young people or the unemployed, everyone ought to know what happened under a Conservative Government 50 years ago. And we, both as Members and as the Government, should apologize to the unemployed workers who were forced to take to the streets to seek their own rights which they should have been given by the Prime Minister at the time, who abdicated his responsibilities in this respect.
I think it would be useful for all students of Canadian history, not just for us who are considering the problem in Parliament today in a rather abstract context, if we could look at the situation as it was in 1935. We know very well, for instance, that it was a terrible time for all unemployed in all the provinces. And I quote:

Beyond the evidence of the human condition there are the statistics drawn here from the report of the Royal Commission on Dominion Provincial Relations on an index of 100 for July, 1929 on unemployment. In 1929 there were 107,000 unemployed workers across Canada. By 1933 there were 646,000. Per capita incomes across the country had fallen dramatically and at an appalling rate. We see, between 1929 and 1933, that the income in the Province of Saskatchewan alone fell by 72 per cent. The per capital income in Alberta fell by 61 per cent. In the Province of Ontario it fell by 44 per cent and in P.E.I. 45 per cent. In British Columbia it fell by 47 per cent; in New Brunswick by 39 per cent and in Nova Scotia by 36 per cent.
What was the federal Government's response at that time? Was it in fact to assist in programs which would facilitate municipalities and provinces to develop work programs? No. It took the same attitude as this Government is taking. That is it wants a hands-off approach. It does not want to be involved in the creation of jobs because somehow Conservative Governments see something distasteful in direct Government job-creation. In fact, the Bennett solution at that time was to send the workers off to work camps where they lived in intolerable circumstances and in fact were not ever able to have the dignity of a democratic election in those particular camps.
We know the situation and I would agree the support systems that have been built over the past 20 years here, no thanks to the Conservative Government, have in fact led to a situation where in the recession that we suffered over the last couple of years the workers were not as hard hit as they were in the Great Depression. For those of us who did not live in that time, I think it behooves all of us to look at history, to consider the situation as cited in the report of the Royal Commission. Canada had never again experienced an unemployment problem of such magnitude. During previous periods

October 7, 1985
Official Apology
of economic depression the problems of unemployment and destitution had usually found their solution in self-sufficiency; self-sufficiency of the household; solidarity of the family; the establishment of new homes on the agricultural frontier and the increase of emigration to the United States. By the 1930s such opportunities had all but disappeared.
We know that the workers were in a desperate situation. In fact it was spoken in the Elouse of Commons in the words of J. S. Woodsworth, and I think this question applies today in 1985 when we are hearing about the unemployment figures of 15 per cent and 16 per cent among young people, and this is the quote:
-I do suggest that you cannot expect young men in the prime of life-
Of course, in those days they did not talk about young women, but it continues:
-young men in the prime of life to go into these camps to get a bare living month after month, and some of them, year after year, without their losing hope. I think of the moral influences which prevail in such places. Young men who under normal circumstances would have a certain amount of social life and would look forward to marrying and rearing their own families are now deprived of all the amenities of home life and are simply kept in these camps for an indefinite future. Really I wonder that there are not more criminal acts in this country than there have been in the immediate past.
The book goes on:
A growing conviction seems to have entered the minds of most of the men that they are a forgotten group. The isolation of many of the camps renders it impossible for men to keep in touch personally with former employment or with new work opening up. It is true that the Provincial Labour Bureau does seek to bring men in camps to the attention of employers-yet the employment of the men from the Relief Camps is so rare that a fixed idea prevails among the men that they are deemed unsuitable for employment, and are shunned by those seeking workmen.
We can see the sense of desperation that had arisen at that time. I am sure the Government of this day, being of a Progressive Conservative stripe, can argue that we should look to the future and not dwell on the past. However, I would suggest that if we look to another Conservative government, we would see the difficulties that are currently being experienced in the great country of Great Britain. There has been so much hopelessness and despair felt by young people in Britain that it has led them to violence and that is the kind of hopelessness and despair that we in Parliament should address before we see the same kind of situation arising here in Canada.
Hon. Members of the Government side can say that apologies or excuses have no place in a plan for employment for our young people. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Hudon) has spoken of the Government programs. We know that the programs that have been instituted by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) are too little too late.
We know that the current regional program is in a shambles because employers are not taking up the 25 per cent subsidy that was offered by the Government on make-work programs in the private sector. We know that there are very serious problems that have manifested themselves in Government
Departments across this country because instead of adopting a program that had already been put in place by the Liberal Government, the First Chance Program, the Minister of Employment and Immigration took it upon herself to wash her hands of any Liberal initiative and to leave young people waiting for weeks, months and in some cases years for their first chance to get out into the workforce.
For those of us in the House who are really concerned not only about the unemployment of our young but about the unemployment of older people, I think that the record of the Government with respect to older workers is as shameful as was the record of the Bennett Government with respect to those who were driven into work camps. I cite the insidious provisions that have been instituted by the Minister of Employment and Immigration to gouge older workers, to cut their severance benefits and to make them use up their holiday pay by insisting that as of next January, they must exhaust all pension benefits before they can collect unemployment insurance. We heard an Hon. Member say today how wonderful it was that they had discovered a discrepancy between the amount of money that employers paid in ILAP areas paid into unemployment insurance and the amount paid by those in other areas.
As soon as the discrepancy in the employer program was discovered, the Government acted quickly. It moved in to make sure that employers were not paying too much into the program. In fact, in 1985, older workers who are in their fifties and sixties many of whom have no real chance for future employment, the same as in 1935, have to spend every last penny of their pension benefits, severance benefits and holiday pay before they can collect one dime from the Government. That is the kind of compassion and humanity that we see coming from the Conservative Government of 1985.
I would suggest that when speaking of a lost generation, the lost generation is not only the youth but also those older men and women who have been replaced through technological change, the euphemism for being replaced by machines and becoming redundant. These people have been hit by Government indecision and waffling on issues such as the shoe quotas. In my riding, there are literally hundreds of jobs that are currently being threatened by the Government's failure to act. In a sense, these men and women are facing the same situation as those men and women in the work camps faced some 50 years ago.
In my riding, the unemployment rate is at over 10 per cent across the board and not only among young people. Older workers, many of whom may not have a great command of the English language, knock on doors. They may have an old back injury or they may be 55 years of age and greying. They may not have the kind of marketable skills that would put them back into the market-place. They are being turned away. Those people are members of a lost generation and a generation the Government has a responsibility to address through specific Government-initiated job-creation programs.
It is folly for the Minister of Employment and Immigration to say that the private sector will help these people out. We
October 7, 1985

saw what the private sector had to say to the Minister when she commented on the corporate behaviour of INCO in the riding of Sudbury. We saw what kind of corporate response came from that company when it came to developing an agreement with the union in that particular industry. It seems to me that in this area, we have a responsibility to lead, not to follow. We also have a responsibility to ensure that Government programs are not whittled away while we wait for private-sector response to a 25 per cent subsidy in the job market.
It is my understanding that the 25 per cent subsidy program is not working and that it is in shambles across the country, notwithstanding the fact that it was with great brouhaha and fanfare that the Minister announced the program at the beginning of September. More than a month later, many of those programs are not yet operational. They are still waiting to be launched because the Minister has not even passed along the information to regional Departments regarding what will be offered and what is necessary.
That being said, I think it is clear that one way of clearing the record and beginning the new trek is to say to those Depression workers and their families, just as we said to the families of those Japanese Canadians who were wrongly interned, that we were wrong and made a mistake. We should say that we are sorry. While it may not mean much in terms of individual compensation for the agony suffered by those people who lived through the Depression, it would certainly be a first step on the road to clearing the record. There is a saying with which I am sure Members of the House are familiar and that is that "Tory times are tough times". Dating back to the days of the Great Depression and the days of the Bennett Government, there is a sense that when times were tough, instead of reaching out to help workers, the Government of the day reached out to line the pockets of the rich, wealthy, powerful and famous.
It seems to me that we saw a manifestation of this same sense in the first Conservative Budget of this administration. In that Budget, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said to the Canadian people that they would cut back on baby bonuses, reduce increases in family allowances and at the same time offer a $500,000 capital gains tax write-off to that top 4 per cent of the population that is in a position to take advantage of it.


Arnold John Malone: What about the farmers?


Sheila Maureen Copps: We are not talking about the farmers. Of course Members will talk about the farmers. The farmers will only benefit when they sell out. Most of the farmers I know want to hang on to their land. That Budget offered nothing for those farmers. At the same time, there is an underlying Conservative philosophy that, "Them that has, gets, and them that hasn't gets put down even further". That is why we are concerned and fearful and rightfully dismayed when reading about the kinds of initiatives that this Government has undertaken with respect to older workers.


An Hon. Member:: Can't hear you.
Official Apology


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member may not be able to hear me but the people of Canada are getting the message that this Government was elected on a platform of broken promises. The Prime Minister cannot be trusted to believe that universality is a sacred trust. As soon as the Minister of Employment and Immigration was given the chance, she moved in to cut away on workers' pensions, workers' severance benefits and workers' holiday pay. Yes, even as we speak in the House of Commons, those employees of this place who did not have their pension benefits deducted are now being penalized by monthly deductions from their pay cheques for a mistake which was made by the Government and for which they had no responsibility. I am speaking of House of Commons employees who earn somewhere in the neighbourhood of $12,000 to $15,000 a year. They are not living in the lap of luxury. However, as soon as the Government discovered its mistake it moved in quickly to institute automatic salary deductions from those employees in the same way as it is suggesting to workers who have been laid off at companies such as Consolidated Bathurst in Hamilton that their pension funds, holiday pay and severance benefits should be taken into account before they collect one cent of unemployment insurance. Consolidated Bathurst is a company which shut its doors no more to open. Employees with 30 years of service have been let go. The average length of service at the company was about 24 to 25 years. I am speaking of people who invested their lives, hopes and dreams in a company which has closed its doors. If this particular piece of legislation had been in place at that time, those employees would have been required to liquidate every last penny of their pension funds, as well as their holiday pay and their severance benefits, before they could collect one cent of unemployment insurance.
The people of Canada recognize that this Government initiative is wrong. They further recognize that there comes a point in the life of any man or woman when the ordinary channels of law do not succeed. We have seen that in the "On To Ottawa" trek. They called the politicians. The Prime Minister met them with deaf ears. They contacted their provincial officials and, in fact, were given no satisfaction.
I would like to quote for the record a comment made by one of the trekkers when he spoke directly with the Prime Minister of Canada at that time. He said:
-I was satisfied that Mr. Bennett was not there for he had not been prepared to deal with us sympathetically or to discuss in detail any of our demands. So that I did not think it was necessary for me to accept any more of his bullying and brow-beating and when he told me I was a thief, then I told him he was a liar... He said, "You have just come out of the penitentiary at Westminster." Objection was taken to this encounter by Mr. Cosgrove.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what those men were seeking in terms of justice for Canadian workers? They had a list of demands which were considered communist by the Prime Minister of the day. The list of demands included something as simple as work wages being instituted at a minimum of 50 cents per hour for unskilled workers and trade union rates for skilled work being instituted on the basis of a six-hour day,

October 7, 1985
Official Apology
five-day week, with a minimum of 20 work days a month. They wanted to work, but they wanted to do it for a living wage. Can Members of the House imagine how revolutionary it was for these people to ask that all workers in relief camps be covered by the Compensation Act? They asked that adequate first aid supplies be carried on the job at all times. Those were some of the requests which the Government found so heinous that it would not allow them to even come to Ottawa. They were stopped in Saskatchewan. The borders were closed, as were the rails. These people were prevented from coming to Ottawa to express their democratic God-given rights for better conditions in the work camps. They also asked that the system of blacklisting with respect to national defence and all military control in which men are cut off from all means of livelihood be abolished. They asked for a discontinuance of blacklisting, Mr. Speaker. That was a simple request. They also asked that democratically elected committees be recognized in every camp.
I do not think these requests by the trekkers were heinous enough to have resulted in the type of brutal application of government force which we saw in 1935. I further feel as a Canadian it is important for this Government today, in 1985, if it is truly sincere about beginning to gain back the confidence of young working people, young unemployed people, older working people and older unemployed people to realize that the time has come for it to endorse an all-Party resolution which calls for an apology to redress an event which occurred 50 years ago and which is indicative of the type of Conservative mentality which has led all Canadians to realize that Tory times are tough times.
The Government has its chance today. Private Members have their chance today. They can stand up and vote in favour of a democratically elected institution and vote for democracy. They can stand up and make to these people a general, all-encompassing public apology. I suggest that that act of good faith and of goodwill on the part of the Government would begin to restore the credibility which this Government has lost in insisting upon measures which are anti-worker, anti-family, anti-labour and anti-union with respect to the type of measures we have seen outlined in our discussions today.
Work must be done or the Government's word cannot be believed. Now is the chance for the Government to win back some of the credibility it has frittered away since September 4.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, we have just discovered that if you sit while you speak you get a bum speech. I have certainly noticed that the speeches we have heard fit that category absolutely. We have heard about an issue which took place some 50 years ago. Some of the debate has been twisted in order to put it in a perspective relevant to today. All this under the guise of a Private Member's Bill to advocate socialism! In all of the singsong which the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) has put forward with respect to the riot of 1935 he spoke about one person having been killed. He ought to have mentioned that the person who was killed was a police officer.


Mr.   de Jong@: 1 did.


Arnold John Malone: It was not one of the trekkers but one of the police officers.
These are the people who, in their mentality, would like to take the time of the House of Commons to apologize. They would apologize for the Acadians, for small pox given to the Indians, for the tooth decay of the Inuit, for the Chinese Canadians who built the railway and for the FLQ crisis. They would have us apologize to Oregon and Washington because the British Empire did not act fast enough to make them part of Canadian territory. Members opposite wish to rewrite history. They have read up on Engels and they know about Joseph Stalin. They know about how those two rewrote history. They say: "That is for me. Let us rewrite the stuff."
Today, we are talking about a crisis which was world-wide 50 years ago. It was not just a Canadian crisis. It was something which was taking place in the United States, north and west Europe, the Soviet Union and throughout the British Empire. A world-wide Depression was taking place. The Depression occurred because at that period of time in history countries were building protectionist walls around each other. They were building walls so that the economies could not expand. All around the world in 1935, before the Depression, country after country was saying: "It is me. It is mine."
We stand here today after having come through the last few years which were solely concerned with protectionism. Today, the Government says: "Let's open up. Let's use efficiency and initiative so that we can get our products on the world markets. Let's open up trade initiatives." Yet, what is the response of Liberals and New Democrats to that forward piece of thinking? They say: "Do not talk with the United States. Let's close our borders." These are the very people who came here today to apologize for 1935. They are asking to do the same thing as that which took place in 1935. They want us to close up the borders and not talk to the Americans about expanded trade. They are saying that they want to have it all here in Canada without a world market. Now they want us to apologize for that. They want us to apologize for something which took place 50 years ago. The Hon. Member for Regina East cannot even get his facts straight. I cannot think of anything more unbelievable-


Mr.   de Jong@: Six o'clock. Saved by the bell!


Arnold John Malone: I have four more pages of notes. However, since the Hon. Member himself has realized his Bill is not worth a darn and he is calling it six o'clock, why would 1 want to stand here and debate? Since the Hon. Member has called it six o'clcok, we will let the Bill go where it should.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe it was six o'clock when the Hon. Member sat down.
October 7, 1985


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to talk about a particular and very serious problem in my area. Personnel of the Blue Water Bridge Authority at Sarnia have compiled statistics for me which detail the extent of the traffic back-up on the bridge over the last number of months. These statistics were recorded at 15 minute intervals for four months, from April 29 to August 31, 1985. What these statistics reveal to me is that there is a very serious problem which must be addressed as soon as possible.
Until the end of June there were six custom lanes available for use by customs officers at the Blue Water bridge. In July of this year, the seventh lane was constructed. However, due to a shortage of customs personnel and staff-and we are again threatened with further cut-backs-only half of the available seven lanes were staffed most of this summer with customs officers. Because of this, 44 per cent of the lanes were closed but traffic flows, if anything, continued to increase daily. As a matter of fact, car traffic is up 5 per cent and truck traffic is up a fantastic 20 per cent over 1984.
While this may not seem so terrible because 56 per cent of the lanes were open, in reality this causes back-ups and/or a waiting period of anywhere from 10 minutes to an astronomical five hours, which makes the severity of the situation very apparent and lends to it a note of urgency for action.
On certain occasions during peak periods there is a back-up of vehicles waiting a horrendous two hours just to get over the bridge. This results in cars, buses, transport trucks, in fact all motor vehicles being backed up the full length of the Blue Water bridge and onto the 1-94 freeway which approaches the bridge on the Michigan, United States, side.
I would like to cite a few examples. On August 15 at 11.30 a.m. the cars and trucks were backed up 7,000 feet on the bridge. At 1.30 p.m. vehicles were still backed up 3,500 feet, which resulted in a two-hour clearance time. On May 24 five lanes were open at 5.50 p.m. and the cars and trucks were backed up for 2,500 feet. At 6.15 p.m., with the same number of lanes open, the back-up was approximately 5,500 feet for a four hour and thirty-five minute time to clear.
Adjournment Debate
1 know my colleague, the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), has similar problems with the bridge in his constituency. I think I can speak on behalf of the tourists who come to Sarnia-Lambton by saying that when faced with such a lengthy delay it would be very easy to throw in the towel and turn around and go home.
It seems ludicrous to me that we now have a Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. Murta) who is placing this year, for the first time, greater emphasis on the beneficial effects of a productive tourist industry, and yet we make it so very difficult for these tourists to come into our country to spend their dollars and boost our economy. I feel that if we do not begin to remove the causes of this problem, we will not have to worry about the tourism industry because we will be lacking the one essential ingredient-tourists.
On the July 4 weekend traffic was backed up on the Blue Water bridge 3,500 feet and there was a five hour clearance time on the bridge on that particular day. Such delays add much frustration to the tourists and does much to discourage Americans and Canadian tourists from western Canada who come to our area via that route, from visiting my area and the rest of Ontario and Canada through this very important port.
Considering that tourism is an $18 billion a year industry and employs more than 600,000 Canadians directly and thousands more indirectly, I believe this is very good reason to look at the problem seriously and make every effort to find a solution. The Government must stop cutting off the right hand with the left hand, as in this case.
I would like to address the problem we are facing with trucks attempting to clear customs. While there are two specific Customs lanes available for clearance, on all problem occasions only one booth was open, again through the shortage and/or deployment of customs personnel. Particular trucks were faced with delays of anywhere from 10 minutes to one hour and fifteen minutes to get through those lanes. Delays are occurring in all instances, even when trucks wish to leave our country. They are probably trucking those very important Canadian exports into the United States.
The outbound booth for traffic is supposed to be manned 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Yet, it has been noted that this booth was closed for 157 hours during this review period. This forces the driver to park his truck and cross three busy lanes of westbound traffic in order to have the appropriate documentation arranged in order to allow him to leave. Must we wait until a serious traffic accident occurs before we act to correct this matter? We should not stand by while our exports are being held up.
Also, during the review period customs employed an extra 12 students. I am concerned about how these students were deployed and whether there was the flexibility to deploy them in the proper manner so that they would be most effective. I suspect that this did not happen.
It is imperative that we find a way to get people across the bridge and through customs more expeditiously. Our inability
7426

October 7, 1985
Adjournment Debate
to do this affects the attitudes of our visitors. I believe that word of mouth is one way to either completely enhance or suffocate our tourist industry. It also effects the commerce and thus the well-being and standard of living of the community and the country, as well as affecting the ability of our customs officers, as first-line officers, to do their job properly. If we must, I suggest that we find a means to make the existing quota of person years for customs officers work more efficiently and effectively for us.
I believe that the solution is simple. We need to consider having more rather than less personnel at those first-line positions, as well as flexibility for deployment of those first-line officers. This becomes even more crucial when we consider that the 1-69 Freeway through the State of Michigan, which will be completed soon, will bring even more traffic through and across the Blue Water bridge.
There is a positive working relationship between the Blue Water Bridge Authority and the customs management. Over $70 million in duties was realized at that bridge last year. It is a very important port.
It would seem that the domino effect is very strong in this particular case. Actions of the customs officers affect the tourism industry and the commerce of the area and the increased traffic flows with the decreasing number of staff manning the booths do little to relieve the problem.
I urge the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) to act on this matter swiftly. I offer my assistance to them in any way which may help correct this problem.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising this issue and offering to co-operate with us. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the level of services offered by Customs at Sarnia's Blue Water Bridge in Ontario is presently under on-going monitoring. Monitoring has revealed that in certain cases many factors may have contributed to delays and traffic tie-ups.
Improvements to the main local highways-the link between Interstate 69 in the United States and Highways 402 and 401 between Sarnia and London, among others-have contributed to higher traffic density. Roughly 6 per cent more passenger cars and 20 per cent more trucks have used the Blue Water Bridge. In addition, traffic figures were 54 per cent higher than in winter.
Customs noted four incidents which led to abnormally long delays this past summer. Delays resulted from problems related to work hour schedules and unexpected traffic density. Customs officials agree that customs clearing has to be made easier, but as you know, Mr. Speaker, they are responsible for making sure that our laws are applied and respected.
The Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, constantly monitors traffic trends at the Blue Water Bridge to
establish peak hours and make sure that enough employees are on duty, as recommended by my colleague. In addition, better use of part time and seasonal employees during summer peak periods will contribute to increase regular staff so that the level of services will be adequate and generally acceptable.
Now that students hired for the summer are gone, more part time employees will be on duty in October 1985. Those part time employees are added to the regular staff, something we found necessary as a result of last summer's monitoring.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister of Customs and Excise has told the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) and myself that there is no plan to reduce the number of inspectors at the Blue Water Bridge. There are now 89 year-persons at that location, including 50 for border traffic operations.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-DEPARTMENTAL REORGANIZATION-EFFECT ON EMPLOYEES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, start on a more personal note. I welcome this opportunity to participate in the adjournment debate before you the Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Marin). As you know, my grandfather, Louis-Philippe Gauthier, would have been delighted to see you in the Chair. I hereby salute his memory and the riding of Gaspe!
Mr. Speaker, the adjournment debate is supposed to give Hon. Members a chance to expand or reflect on answers given by the Government during Question Period. A while ago, on October 3, I put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) about the changes in his department and the eventuality that 1,500 workers in his department, representing one quarter of the establishment, would be laid off. The Minister corrected me, saying that he had never talked about 1,500 jobs, and I would like to quote verbatim from page 7302 of Hansard, October 3, and I am quoting the Minister:
I did not hear about 1,500 jobs from me or from anyone else who has responsibility for the matter. In fact, that was a newspaper report and of course is not the figure that anyone else is using.
Mr. Speaker, during the same Question Period, but perhaps fifteen minutes earlier, I heard the answer given by the Minister to the Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). In his reply to concerns expressed by the Hon. Member regarding the same matter, the Minister said: "Mr. Speaker, we want the 1,500 jobs and more for Indian people, not federal bureaucrats." And that was followed by "


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!"
Mr. Speaker, I was not talking through my hat 20 minutes later, when I told the Minister: You talked to us about 1,500 jobs. He said as much himself. So perhaps the Minister would like to apologize because he implied to me or at least the House that I was spreading false rumours, and I do not like
October 7, 1985

that sort of thing. He may have given the public the impression that this was only a lot of idle gossip being spread around by the Liberals.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard about these Government cutbacks and jobs ever since they came to power. According to their Budget, 15,000 jobs will be cut between now and 199091, and not long ago, we were told that in departments like the Department of Transport, an estimated 5,000 employees might be laid off.
We were informed that in the public service in general, there were 1,150 jobs in departments such as-and I quote here from an article appearing in The Citizen on October 5: "308 jobs cut at the Department of Public Works, including 300 low-paying jobs mostly held by women. The Department of National Health and Welfare is cutting 26 full-time jobs and six term jobs, while the Minister responsible for Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) is cutting five clerical and administrative jobs. The Department of External Affairs is to eliminate 182 positions this year". And I could go on, Mr. Speaker. I could tell you that at the Department of the Secretary of State, it seems 329 positions will be abolished. Several agencies, several Crown corporations have implemented one of this Government's policies, which is to reduce their establishment.
The Minister says that the Hon. Member is spreading false rumours! I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would at least confirm what the Minister said. It is true! He said: "We want the 1,500 jobs and more for Indian people, not federal bureaucrats". I am not here to criticize the Minister or to suggest what he should do, and whether his department should cut jobs to improve the services this Government is supposed to provide to our native peoples. It is not up to me to criticize the Government's policy to decentralize. I believe it is a good thing, but when they say we are spreading false rumours when we are only repeating what the Minister told us in the House, that is cutting it a bit fine.
Mr. Speaker, in last May's budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) himself announced that he intended to cut 15,000 jobs in the Public Service of Canada between now and 1990-91.
I repeat, the way this Government is hurrying to cut back human resources in the public service and agencies and Crown corporations, you would think they are trying to achieve in one or two years the goals they are supposed to attain in four or five, to make the Public Service more effective and efficient.

We were told that this would be done by attrition. At the time of the 1979 Government of a former Prime Minister, attrition was a buzz word. It was the gimmick used to tell people that the Government would cut into the Public Service of Canada and that no one would be affected. Attrition works sometimes, but it does not work all the time.
Adjournment Debate
I should not make an allusion to who is present in the House, but I see an Hon. Member across the way who knows what I am talking about. Attrition is the wrong tool to utilize when trying to make the Public Service more efficient and more effective. The attrition which we are told would be put into effect in this new program of 15,000 job cuts was indeed targeted to reduce x number of jobs in Departments. Months ago I asked the Government to come clean with the directives as to where, what and who would be affected. I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer on the objectives of the Government with regard to cutting the Public Service of Canada.
The most simple-minded individual would tell us that attrition, if used as a tool, will not work. We know that. We cannot replace an engineer with a technician. We cannot replace a meat inspector with someone doing clerical work in a level below the inspector. We cannot possibly use attrition to cut back in the Public Service. That has been proven in practice. It is not a good and efficient manner by which to cut into the Public Service.
In my opinion greater efficiency and effectiveness would be reached if we could consider and discuss here on the floor of this House the policies this Government wants to put into effect to make the Public Service more efficient and more effective. We will get savings by more efficiency; we will get possibly better results and better services by having more effective use of the people presently in the Public Service. We must remember that we have one of the best public services in the world and we must maintain it. We must not continue to spread the fear and the anxiety that these programs are creating amongst public servants.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) is committed to the principles of self-government for native people. In order to achieve this, the Department must transfer programs to Indian and Inuit people, a process which will involve careful planning and consultation. One of the major effects of such a transfer of programs is a down- sizing of the bureaucracy. The Minister is certainly concerned about the affected employees and will ensure that the impacts on them are minimized.
Departmental officials have begun the process of briefing employees, as well as continuing the consultation process with Indian organizations and chiefs across the country. Given the diverse nature of the Department, this process will take some time, but all employees will be made aware of the plan for reorganization.
The cornerstones of this new initiative have been articulated by the Minister. Each of these will have as its central theme programs and policies which respect the dignity and the way of life of Canada's Indian and Inuit peoples.

October 7, 1985
Adjournment Debate
The Department has been transferring programs to bands for a number of years and has been handling the resultant work force adjustment I think reasonably well. The Minister is calling for a redoubling of efforts within the Department to ensure that all reasonable efforts are made to meet the needs of those affected individuals.
Foremost will be the efforts by the Department to avoid laying off employees. The Department, through human resource planning, will ensure that normal attrition, a word which my colleague likes, and retirements are used to redeploy vulnerable employees into jobs which will not be affected by the down-sizing. These plans and all resourcing for the Department will be tightly controlled, and they will be monitored, if retraining is required for redeployment it will be provided, I assure you.
Eventually some employees will be given notices that they will be surplus. I wish to assure the Hon. Member and the House that every effort will be made to ensure that these employees have continuing employment. In the past many departmental employees have been hired by the bands or Indian organizations, and the Department has established policies which allow bands to set up pension plans reciprocal with those in the federal Government.
Other employees will choose continuing employment in the federal Government. The Department has set up a special work force adjustment unit which controls staffing at a departmental level and ensures fair consideration of surplus staff. The unit provides professional counselling services, helps establish retraining plans and works to meet the needs of individuals affected by changes in the Department.
Mr. Speaker, the Department has led the way in affording employees longer notice than was necessary under the administrative rules of the past Government. The Department gives at least six months notice of surplus to employees.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned. He is concerned about ensuring that Indian people manage the programs which affect their communities. As a result of this initiative the Department will have to down-size, but it will be done in partnership with the Indian people of Canada, with concern for the individual needs of employees and in a manner which minimizes the impact on departmental employees. It will be done in accordance with a timetable that will be developed with the Indian people of Canada. When this timetable is established, the Minister will be in a better position to inform the House about the number of employees affected and the details of special programs to ensure that their needs are met.


AIR TRANSPORT-AIRLINE TICKET TAXES-EFFECT ON NORTHERN TRAVELLERS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, by Order in Council P.C. 1985-2026 dated June 20, 1985, the cap or ceiling of $30 previously applied to the 9 per cent airline ticket tax was removed. In my question to the Acting Minister of Transport put on October 3, 1985, just a few days ago, I
pointed out how this was unfair to and discriminatory against northern air travellers.
I am not suggesting that members of the Cabinet, when they sat to discuss that Order in Council, passed it maliciously. I suspect it was an oversight on their part. They were looking at ways to raise additional revenue, in this case about $90 million Canada-wide, and they just did not consider the ramifications for the remote areas of the country. This points out the difficulties that occur when these things are done without proper parliamentary debate. When things are done through Order in Council, all the arguments cannot be brought to bear and things slip by. I would hope, Sir, that as a result of my presentation tonight the Government will change its policy.
In the North, there is very often no alternative but to fly. In a great many places there are no roads, and distances between sizeable communities are much greater than in the south. Per-mile costs are very much higher than in the south. They range from 10 per cent to more than 100 per cent higher. As well, it would appear that unless some changes in policy are to be made, the North is to be denied the full benefits of deregulation. The deregulation process is carrying on quite well in the south but whether or not it will be applied in its entirety to the North yet remains to be seen.
At the same time as this additional tax burden was placed on northerners, we see that literally hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on transportation subsidies in the south. We need only look at the amount of money being given to Via Rail, for instance, none of which is of any advantage to northern travellers because we do not have Via Rail in that part of the country. I would hope that the policy being pursued is not to subsidize transportation in the south while applying the user-pay concept in the North.
In certain circumstances there has been an increase of up to tenfold in lease and rental fees being charged at the new air terminals in Whitehorse and Inuvik. Fees have been levied to such an extent that operators are not able to use the new facilities.
You will undoubtedly recall, Mr. Speaker, the recommendation of the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission which reported on the adequacy of air services in northern and remote areas in December of last year. The recommendation made as a result of a detailed study by the Air Transport Committee was the very reverse of that brought about by the Government. The commission's recommendation was that the air transport tax in the North be eliminated, quite the reverse of what really happened.
Let us take a look at some typical air fares. In the south, travelling from Toronto to Vancouver, a distance of 4,200 kilometres, costs $842 on a basic fare, and that brings about a tax of $76. In the North, the typical route of Yellowknife to Frobisher Bay, 2,900 kilometres, costs $1,488 on a basic fare, about twice as much per kilometre as in the south, and this would result in a tax of $134, about a 350 per cent increase in the tax previously levied when a cap was in place. At the same time, the tax on international flights has remained at only $15. How are we to encourage tourism in our own country and
October 7, 1985

particularly in northern and remote parts, when there is this discriminatory tax?
If you lived in Vancouver, Sir, you could fly to Hawaii on a special seat sale fare by spending just about the same amount of money you would pay in taxes to go from Vancouver to Frobisher Bay. That really does not encourage tourism. In the North perhaps 75 per cent to 80 per cent of air travellers are Government sponsored. They are either public servants flying around the country, or people involved with native organizations which are funded by Government. Perhaps they are people travelling for medical reasons, again, at public expense. Thus, in those cases, it is just taxpayers' money being shuffled from one pocket to the other.
This leaves a small number of people such as local business people and tourists who have to bear the brunt of this increase in taxation. That is hardly fair. This measure puts a disproportionate amount of hardship on northerners. I hope the Government will reconsider this matter, and take into account the advice of the Air Transport Committee and its recommendations. I hope the wide-ranging advice which has been received from all types of northern organizations, whether they be municipalities, chambers of commerce, organizations designed to promote tourism, or Ministers of Transport and Ministers of Finance will be taken into consideration. I hope that the cap will be placed back on in the case of northern transportation or, preferably, that the tax will be removed altogether.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure my colleague from Western Arctic that it is not the intention of the Minister to pay the $778 million anticipated deficit on the air side through the collection of taxes in the high north. Very few Ministers have shown as much concern for transport in the Arctic as has our present Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski). I share the Minister's concern. I appreciate the remarks of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). As he knows, the Standing Committee on Transport will have an opportunity to travel to the North. I am sure the
Adjournment Debate
Minister would want me to invite the Hon. Member along on that trip. Indeed, I am sure he would want me to invite all Members from the North to make their views clearly known.
The air transportation tax is the one method by which we help pay for airport facilities and air navigation requirements and needs. As I have just mentioned, the deficit is some $778 million in this regard. That works out to about $58 for each round trip, which is a great deal of money. I was shocked and surprised to learn just how high the formula could take this amount in the North.
The change in tax will shift more of this burden to those who benefit directly. Not very many of us from the south fly in the North, just as I appreciate not very many northerners have access to VIA Rail. The federal Government has given special attention to the development of airport facilities and air navigation aids in the North because, as I have mentioned, it is of concern. There is a general exemption from the air transportation tax for all air travel on aircraft weighing less than 18,000 pounds. My distinguished colleague is aware of that. He may not be aware of the following. It is established that as many as 35,000 Arctic trips annually may benefit from this provision on at least part of their journey, if not the entirety.
Since 1979, smaller Arctic airports have been exempted from landing fees, aircraft parking fees and fuel concession fees, points so ably made by the Hon. Member. With respect to the larger airports and larger aircraft, the points he makes are substantial and true. However, landing fees have only been increased once since 1957 and they still remain approximately 60 per cent lower in the North than they are here in the south.
I reiterate to my distinguished colleague the pending presence in the North of the Standing Committee on Transport. I invite and urge him to make sure that his views are made clear and well known to the members of that committee.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 8, 1985