1986-12-18

Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table for consultation purposes, in both official languages, a draft Bill entitled "An Act respecting the protection of human life and health and the environment", more commonly known as the "Environmental Protection Act".
A copy of the draft Bill will be sent today to all Members of the House and of the other place.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure to announce the culmination of one of the critical initiatives undertaken by my Ministry-a comprehensive native land claims policy. I believe it represents yet another milestone in the evolving relationship between the Government and Canada's native people.
From the beginning of our mandate we recognized the vital role which Canada's native people play. Our commitment to the establishment of a relationship built upon mutual trust and confidence remains strong. Our achievements over the past 2.5 years have been many.
We live in a period of great hope for the future of the country, and I feel that our original inhabitants must play a key role in shaping it. After all, it is in the interest of all Canadians to search for and to find an amicable arrangement whereby both native and non-native communities can agree on how we will live together in Canada.
Upon assuming office the Government was faced with a comprehensive land claims policy which was out of touch. If anything, it raised obstacles to settlements rather than contributing to them. Native people were calling for change in much the same way as Canadians had voted for change. We
listened, we consulted, and today we are delivering. Now, more than ever before, we have an opportunity to complete the modern claims process in Canada through a more flexible, realistic, and responsive comprehensive land claims policy.
It has not been an easy task, and it has taken us longer to put it in place than anyone ever imagined. Still, it has been a valuable learning experience for all. It has certainly been a learning experience for me in the short six months I have spent in this office.
I am sure my predecessor, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), would agree with that statement. After all, he started the ball rolling with the appointment of a federal task force to review the whole area of comprehensive claims. At that time the Minister was convinced that the report of the task force, headed by the very capable Murray Coolican, would provide the informed, thoughtful, and independent appraisal and recommendations we have needed for some time. The Hon. Member has certainly lived up to that billing.
Over the past several months while the report was being given a public airing, we have continued to receive innumerable representations from native groups. Frankly, I have been impressed with the importance which native leaders, the provinces, the territories, and other interested Canadians have placed on the matter. In particular I should like to pay tribute to the worth-while contribution made by the Comprehensive Claims Coalition, chaired by Joanne Barnaby. This group participated in the formulation of the policy in a reasoned and reasonable way.
In the few minutes I have, I should like to outline some of the major elements of the comprehensive native land claims policy. Today I issued a policy paper and other supporting documents which explain it in more detail. First, I affirm the Government's commitment to settling comprehensive claims through negotiations on a basis which is equitable to native people and other Canadians. Also I want to announce that the federal Government stands ready to consider two alternatives to the extinguishment of aboriginal rights through claims settlements while still obtaining certainty of rights and title to the use of lands. As we all know, the language of extinguishment has long been a concern to many native people. Any other aboriginal rights which may exist will remain unaffected by comprehensive claims agreements.
A new feature of the claims policy is the provision for the enhancement of economic development and self-government- two of the Government's cornerstones in its relationship with native people. I am pleased to announce that the policy will allow for the negotiation of a broader range of self-government

December 18, 1986
Statements by Ministers
matters. The negotiations will be consistent with the Government's policy on community based Indian and Inuit selfgovernment, will respect existing constitutional principles and government practice, and will take into account any directions north of 60 toward public Government and devolution.
As we all know, the test for any self-government arrangement is its appropriateness in meeting the needs of native communities and its capacity to enhance the quality of life of individual members of the communities. I believe the policy provides for that.
The policy also contains important provisions aimed at enhancing native decision making in the area of natural resources. In this regard it is expected that settlements will recognize a particular aboriginal managerial interest in relation to environmental matters including land use, water, and wildlife.
It is particularly important to note that the federal Government stands ready to negotiate matters related to the harvesting and management of renewable resources with aboriginal groups which have made traditional use of coastal and other marine areas.
In addition, under the new policy, the federal Government is prepared to assign to aboriginal groups a percentage of the Crown's royalties derived from the extraction of resources in the entire settlement area. I should add that this option will include not only the royalties from subsurface resources, but also from non-renewable resources extracted from offshore areas that form part of the claims settlement area. In addition, we will be instituting a number of important principles and processes aimed at ensuring the more expeditious negotiation and settlement of claims. We stand on the threshold of what I hope to be many comprehensive claims settlements in the coming years, more living treaties and lasting agreements. We have the tools; all that is required is the good will and cooperation of all parties.
Many months ago, the Hon. Member for Rosedale laid the cornerstones for the Government's aboriginal policies and cemented a new and growing relationship with native people. It is upon this foundation-Indian self-government, economic development, quality of community life, and the protection of the special relationship between the federal Government and Indian people-that my colleagues and I have continued to build. My sincere hope is that we can continue travelling down this road together. I hope all Members of this House will support this policy initiative as it affects native people and all Canadians.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending both the Minister and his predecessor for recognizing the urgent need for a new comprehensive claims policy. It was called for by the Special Committee on Indian Self-government in Canada, as the Minister mentioned. It has long been demanded by the claimant groups.
It is self-evident that we need a new claims policy because so few claims have been settled. That is the case and it is to our shame.
There is a growing insistence by the territorial Governments, by those who advocate aboriginal rights, and by those who wish to proceed with developmental plans on aboriginal lands, that settlements be made and that they be made as soon as possible. I say that the guiding light for a new comprehensive claims policy certainly lies with that excellent report by Mr. Murray Coolican, known as the Coolican Report. What the Minister has announced today as a new comprehensive claims policy is not precisely, fully and exactly as contained in the Coolican Report. It is, I submit, a careful, cautious and modest step from what we had before. In other words, I acknowledge to the Minister and the House that the new comprehensive claims policy is an improvement on the past. It is progressive and a step forward.
However, the difficulty with the new claims policy, as with the old, is that it stems from a premise narrow in scope and fragile in structure, that is, that aboriginal title involves traditional use and occupancy which continues in certain respects up to the present. This so-called title as the Government sees it is an annoyance. It is a thorn in its side which must somehow be removed so that the Government of Canada can get on with its dealings and arrangements with third parties in order to advance and enhance what it describes as the public interest. I wish to assert to the House and the Minister that the premise which underlies aboriginal title is neither narrow in scope nor fragile in construction. It is broadly based and very firm and strong.
What is really in question in Canada today, what is in doubt, is the Crown's right. Where aboriginal title is being asserted and where there is no treaty or agreement in existence, there, Sir, the Crown right is in doubt. I therefore argue that the impetus to settle rests much more with the Government than with any claimant group. For us to define aboriginal title in its narrowest terms, I say to this Government as I said to the previous Government, is both arrogant and presumptuous. Some argue that aboriginal title is limited or confined only to traditional pursuits, hunting, fishing and trapping. Even in those areas Governments always seek ways to limit and control. Now, with this new policy, I suspect the attitude remains very much the same as in the past. The difference is that the Government is saying to the aboriginal claimant groups that it is prepared to be a little more generous, a little more open-handed than Governments in the past. For example, the new claims policy says that the federal Government is prepared to assign a percentage of Crown royalties from extraction of resources in the entire settlement area. I say to the Government that aboriginal title is all inclusive, not exclusive. It is not limited to traditional pursuits based solely on use and occupancy in the past. A sharing of revenues from resource development is not largesse or generosity by the Government or people of Canada. It must be part and parcel of an agreement reached through negotiation.
December 18, 1986

I therefore turn my attention to third parties and the public interest. They both fall squarely under the umbrella of Crown right and they have yet to be defined and determined. They are not at this moment, as the new policy states, legitimate. They are still indeterminate and must be clearly defined. To sum up, it is not the Government's right to determine just how benevolent it is prepared to be in the settlement of aboriginal claims. The Crown's right is in question and in doubt. It is up to the claimant groups, as much as it is up to the Government, to determine just how generous they will be with us.
I submit that all the high cards are not in our hands. The Government says it prefers negotiations to litigation. No wonder. I believe there is an underlying fear, suspicion and concern that the case for aboriginal title is exceedingly strong and if we proceed to litigation we may learn that fact in ways unacceptable to the Government of Canada. I say to the Minister that I, too, prefer negotiation, but I say to the Government: Stop pretending that you are the big guy on the block because you are not.
I turn very briefly to the question of self-government which is referred to on page nine of the policy. At first glance it seems there is a willingness on the part of the Government to negotiate aboriginal self-government within the agreement. However, I see a lure on this fish-hook. It is this. The Minister says to the aboriginal claimant groups, "Do not let yourselves become beguiled into thinking that self-government provisions are going to become constitutionally entrenched." That will not happen, he says. He is thus declaring that there will be no bottom up approach to aboriginal self-government being entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. The Constitution now allows for that to happen. The Minister says it will not happen. He is saying to the provinces that they will continue to have a very big voice and that we will only proceed by way of the top down approach. I think that has to be looked at and challenged another time.
There are other matters I wish to raise with the Minister, Sir, but you are signalling that my time is up. I just want to say that the Minister must do more to protect implementation, and on another occasion, in another forum, I will elaborate on that. In conclusion, there is goodwill and co-operation on this side of the House. We, too, want these negotiations to be settled in an equitable, fair and just way for the aboriginal claimant groups of the country.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and declare the broad agreement of my Party with the principle of the comprehensive land claims policy tabled by the Minister in Parliament this morning. At the same time, I must also state a profound dissatisfaction with what I see as the vagueness and inadequacy of the Minister's statement.
It is one year since the Coolican Report was presented to the Minister's predecessor. One year is surely too long for the production of such a document as we have seen today. It is
Statements by Ministers
surely too long for the sort of vague, over-all endorsement of the Coolican Report which the Minister's statement has provided. After one year the Government has at least acknowledged favourably the four main principles of the Coolican Report, those being that self-government is a major concern of the Indian and Inuit people in the claims areas, that the rights of aboriginal people should not be extinguished, that there should be aboriginal participation in resource management, and that there must be a benefit from the royalties derived from the exploitation of non-renewable resources.
Unfortunately, many aboriginal people will be somewhat disappointed and disturbed by the apparent overcoming of the concerns of the Coolican Report by the legal reservations of the Department of Justice through the framing of terminology. Nevertheless, I believe that the two alternatives given provide adequate recognition of the desire of aboriginal people not to see the formal and final extinguishment of their aboriginal rights. The Minister has clearly recognized the right of aboriginal people to stewardship over the resources of which they are and will continue to be until the time of a settlement the true owners and inheritors.
A commitment has been made in this presentation. However, it will be judged by the keeping rather than the pledging. I believe that we have seen today the removal of obstacles to the Dene, CYI and TFN claims. I am glad that by recognizing that a royalty right exists for the whole area rather than simply the retained lands, we will at last have a refutation of the maxim of John Paul Getty that the meek shall inherit the earth, but not the mineral rights thereof.
The language of the assignment of these rights is unfortunate. The language in which self-government is discussed is also unfortunate. I believe that self-government is entrenched in the Cree Naskapi Act. If that is in place for those communities, why not for the communities which will be affected by this policy?
I know that the Minister does not believe that all problems will be solved by this policy. I am glad that he has frankly acknowledged the problems of convincing the Government of British Columbia to deal fairly and realistically with the native people of that province, recognizing history and jurisprudence. The time strictures given in the policy remain to be proven. The lack of a detailed policy manual and an individual mandate for federal negotiators indicates that we have today seen only the first third of this process. The negotiation process will not be judged by what is said here today, but rather by what is done, by history. I, therefore, charge the Government to examine the record with regard to the James Bay Treaty, the Cree Naskapi Act, and to ensure that some of the problems encountered there are not encountered with settlements to be made under this new policy.
Unfortunately, there was no statement on the expansion of the short list of six claims to be negotiated at one time. There is no new commitment by the Government on the funding and resourcing of negotiations. This calls into question the negotiating process because, above all, the people of Canada

December 18, 1986
Committee Reports
and the world must see that these are genuine negotiations between nations, albeit one large and one small, which both parties are able to treat as such.
Our Party is broadly satisfied to have this policy tabled, although the criticism I have made must stand. I do not agree with the Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) that the Government has taken a step forward, but I do acknowledge that it has at least freed its shoes. We look to the Government to take steps forward in the future. I assure the Minister and his colleagues that we will be behind them, pushing.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Public Accounts Committee. In the April, 1985, report to the House, the committee was concerned about the failure of Treasury Board to enforce its rules and the failure of the Department of Public Works to follow them. We are still concerned with this problem. It seems to us that reasonable rules from the Treasury Board should be followed. If the rules are too rigid or out of date, then that problem should be addressed. However, we cannot see that the interests of the taxpayers are well served by having rules on paper which are ignored. This applies to, among other things, cost overruns and contractsplitting. There is a continuing problem with respect to those which needs to be addressed.
We also see a need to improve communications because client Departments do not seem to be fully aware of the cost implications of making changes after a building program has begun. We think it is important for the Department of Public Works to ensure that requirements are clearly defined before contracts or projects are approved. The committee strongly disapproves of situations such as contract-splitting where the Department of Public Works knew in advance that Treasury Board approval would be required but did not seek it.


STRIKING COMMITTEE-EIGHTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Eighth Report of the Striking Committee.


STRIKING COMMITTEE-NINTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Ninth Report of the Striking Committee.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's Note: For above reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of several hundred people from communities surrounding Prince Albert, including Birch Hills, North Cote, St. Louis, Canwood, and Paddockwood. The petitioners call upon the Government to look at the proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs because those changes will increase the price of drugs to consumers and will severely restrict the ability of the average Canadian to buy prescription drugs. They call upon Parliament to reject these proposals to change the Patent Act that will increase the price of prescription drugs for Canadians.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of people in the Niagara Peninsula who believe that property rights are part of our heritage and should be protected. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to bring forward amendments that would enshrine property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. With that I agree 100 per cent.


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present several petitions signed by 180 constituents in my riding who belong to Saint-Claude Parish and who humbly pray that the Lord's Day Act be maintained, that a weekly day of rest be observed by all citizens on the same day and that this day of rest shall continue to be on a Sunday. [English]


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and honour to present a petition that was spearheaded by the St. Catharines and District Real Estate Board and signed by some 200 residents of St. Catharines and Niagara. They are petitioning the honourable Government to entrench in the Constitution of this country the right of its people to use and enjoy real property. I may say that it is purely coincidental that this petition follows the announcement made by the Speaker yesterday with respect to a transmission delivered to the House from the Province of Ontario.
December 18, 1986


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and privilege to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of constituents from the Niagara Peninsula, including some from the constituency of Erie, regarding property rights. These petitioners call on the Government of Canada to address this very important issue and to entrench property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I fully support their petition.


Mrs. Shirley Martin (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour and privilege to present a petition on behalf of residents of the Niagara Peninsula as well as residents of Sudbury, Campbellton, New Brunswick, and Edmonton, Alberta. They call upon our Government to take the necessary action to entrench property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I also support them 100 per cent.


Mr. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)) moved: for leave to table Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Minister have leave to table the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):
That the Ninth Report of the Striking Committee, tabled in the House today, be concurred in.
Supplementary Estimates (B), 1986-87


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has read the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 21 minutes, beginning at one o'clock.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual consultations with the opposition Parties. I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to deem the Supplementary Estimates referred yesterday to the Standing Committee on Agriculture to be reported back to the House and that there is consent to call now the motion for concurrence in the Supplementary Estimates, followed by proceedings on the supply Bill through all stages this day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John Wise (for the President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987, laid upon the Table Wednesday, December 17, 1986, be concurred in.

December 18, 1986
Supplementary Estimates (B), 1986-87
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am appearing before the House today to seek approval of the Supplementary Estimates for the first payment under the Special Canadian Grains Program. The need for this program is clear. Canadian grain and oil seed farmers are suffering the effects of extremely low world grain prices. Low prices stem from an international subsidy war. Massive subsidies and surpluses of grain have built up in most food producing countries.
The United States and the European Economic Community are attempting to sell off their surpluses by using huge export subsidies. These unfair practices have pushed grain prices to their lowest level in real terms in about 50 years. Canada is taking advantage of every possible opportunity to restore fairness and sanity to international agricultural trade. We have made some progress, but it will be a long and difficult task.
In the meantime our grain and oil seed farmers need extra help. The stakes of the subsidy war are very high. They are too high for most other countries, including Canada, to compete. However, within our fiscal means we are coming to the aid of Canadian farmers.
Although we have introduced many special measures, including the fuel tax rebate, interest rate rebate, and the freezing of freight rates, just to name a few, we also announced on December 9 the details of the Special Canadian Grains Program which is a $1 billion program aimed at helping Canadian grain and oil seeds farmers. This assistance will cushion the impact on our farmers of the global subsidy trade war.
I ask Hon. Members to remember that it is the crop year, not the fiscal year or calendar year that is important to farmers. I have given my commitment that the full benefits of the program will be in the hands and pockets of Canadian farmers by next spring.
Today I am seeking the approval of the Supplementary Estimates covering the first payment to farmers under this program. These estimates are split into two votes; the first amount of $296,015 million is a vote under grants and contributions. Another $3,985 million will cover the administrative costs. I am sure Hon. Members will appreciate that this is a program of considerable, in fact, historic magnitude and we want the program administered properly, accurately and well.
The administrative costs include staff salaries, supplies, computer services, equipment rentals, printing and mailing costs and public information measures to ensure that farmers are aware of their entitlement and eligibility and are aware of the March 31 deadline for applications. I am seeking approval before Christmas rather than after because I want the benefits to reach farmers just as soon as possible. The speedy approval of these Estimates by the House will allow the federal Government to disburse the money to farmers beginning next
month. If we were to wait until after Christmas, disbursement of the funds could not begin until well into February.
I am sure that all Hon. Members of the House would agree that farmers need cash flow help now. I, therefore, ask for their co-operation in approving these Estimates as quickly as possible in the interests and benefit of Canadian farmers across this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the Minister has brought forward the Supplementary Estimates for at least part of the payments to be made under the Special Canadian Grains Program. The initial payment is some $300 million. We wish the Minister had brought forward the full $1 billion at this time because the money is urgently needed by Canada's grain producers in all parts of the country.
We will have a number of questions to ask when the Bill comes before the House and we are in Committee of the Whole. I was surprised that the Minister mentioned things such as the freezing of freight rates and the fuel tax rebate because he knows, of course, that the freezing of the freight rates was not really a freezing but an order by his Government to recalculate the volumes of grain to be shipped. Therefore, there is really no freezing, but just a recalculation.
Interestingly enough, the decision by the Government to order the grain transportation agencies to reduce the volumes will come back to haunt the Government because it is going to have to raise freight rates in the upcoming crop year partly because the Government ordered the Department of Transport to recalculate those volumes.
When the Minister spoke about the fuel tax rebate being cut back, he did not mention that a year ago the Government imposed a two cents per litre fuel tax on farmers, and that after being hammered by the Opposition and by farmers all last winter, the Government last May took that fuel tax off. I was surprised, therefore, that the Minister mentioned those items.
Although we are very pleased to see the Estimates come before the House, we are surprised there is no schedule showing where the funds are coming from to assist Canadian farmers. We assume the funds do not come from essential services to all Canadians. We would propose, if the Minister would only listen to us, that perhaps he table in the House today or tomorrow something to show exactly where the funds are coming from, so that in giving our unanimous support to pass these Estimates and the legislation today, we will know that the funds are not coming from essential services for all Canadians. We are certainly very insistent they do not.
The Minister talked about the trade war going on between the EEC and the United States. In fact, farmers are facing the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Grain prices are the lowest in real terms since that time. In the last two years since this Government has come to power, the asset value of Canadian farm operations, according to a calculation by the
December 18, 1986

Farm Credit Corporation, has dropped by some 19 per cent. That represents some $20 billion. If the situation continues to be as bad over the next two years as it has been over the first two years of this administration, it will mean a drop in farm asset value of some $40 billion, which will reduce it from about $115 billion, as it was in 1984, to about $75 billion. That would certainly be the most serious decline in farm asset value in the history of our country, certainly since the Great Depression of the 1930s. We will be interested when we are in Committee of the Whole to know exactly how the Government plans to cope with this monumental decrease in value. For a farmer who has 100 per cent equity in his farm, the loss of equity is not as serious as it is for those young farmers who have high debts because, of course, the loss of that asset value comes out of their equity. Literally thousands of farmers have lost their farms during the last two years because of that dramatic drop in asset and equity value.
I hope the Minister will be able to explain why he is not delaying the lifting of the Farm Credit Corporation moratorium on farm foreclosures until the final payment is made under the Special Canadian Grains Program. If the Government can delay the final payment under this Special Canadian Grains Program for two, three, four or five months, surely it can postpone the lifting of the moratorium on farm foreclosures.
It is clear to all Canadians that the Government has done extremely little for the farm debt crisis. In fact, only one program, the commodity based mortgage program, which is providing some $20 million of interest assistance this year, is provided for the farm debt crisis, and that is a paltry amount when compared to the thousands of farmers who are losing their farms.
Groups like the United Grain Growers have estimated that it would take $4 billion in deficiency payments to put the Canadian farmer on an equal footing with the United States farmer. Groups like the pool elevator groups in the Prairies have called for the Government to pay at least $2 billion or $3 billion. Therefore, the amount being offered by the Government for this program is extremely small compared to the amount in those Estimates.
I would hope that when we are in Committee of the Whole, the Minister will be able to clarify a number of other items. I do not see any provision in the Estimates to ensure that the money received by prairie farmers, which I understand is about 85 per cent, will not be counted in the calculations of the Western Grain Stabilization Fund. I hope the Minister will be able to explain that. Perhaps it is in the Bill which will be introduced, but it is not clear in the Estimates.
The average payment under this program is some $5,000. The average initial payment, therefore, at 30 per cent, is $1,500. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain how such a small payment in January or February will prevent literally thousands of farmers who are facing serious financial difficulty from entering into foreclosure situations.
Supplementary Estimates (B), 1986-87
The association which represents Ontario soybean producers has pointed out that the assistance it is receiving under this program gives it something in the order of 92 per cent of the average assistance from this program and under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, whereas all other producers in Ontario are receiving approximately 100 per cent of the last five years' average. I hope that issue will be something the government committee which is to be established will be able to rectify since there will be an eastern and a western committee to review such problems.
I wish to indicate our support for the concurrence motion in the Estimates with the caveats I have outlined.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to make a few brief comments about the proposal which is now before us which, essentially, will provide some $300 million of the $1 billion aid package to western farmers. In the Supplemenary Estimates which have been put before us, the program is called "Special Canadian Grains Program, 1986 Crop". Since this debate began, part of the Bill that goes with the Supplementary Estimates has been circulated. I would like to point out that it is not clear whether the $1 billion, when it does receive final approval by the House and is in the hands of farmers, will be treated as something separate from grains income. The fact that the Government has chosen to call it a grains program will require the Minister to provide an explanation when we come to consideration of this matter in Committee of the Whole in the event that future Governments may decide that this aid was in fact grain income which, therefore, will result in a reduction. It would be a fairly major reduction in the pay-outs to be made under the Western Grain Stabilization Act or under the Agricultural Stabilization Act in eastern Canada. So we will be asking the Minister some questions in this respect when the time comes.
Even after the $1 billion has been paid out I think we should realize that 1986 has not been a banner year for farmers. The Outlook Conference which took place in Ottawa a short while ago showed that the expected net income for farmers in 1986 will be $3.8 billion, which is an increase of 18 per cent. The fact that it is said that this is an increase of 18 per cent sounds as if farmers were doing fairly well. However, when we take this figure of $3.8 billion and put it in a historical context we realize that in 1974, just 12 years ago, farmers had a net income of just over $3.5 billion. This was at a time when the dollar bought much more than twice of what it buys in 1986. Only then can we begin to comprehend what has actually happened to net farm income.
While I am on my feet I would like to make the following explanation. I realize that members of the business press never listen to speeches on agriculture which, perhaps, explains why they report agricultural issues so poorly. However, for the benefit of those few Members who are in the House today I will make a brief explanation in the hope that they will realize when they read the press reports what the error implies. I read

December 18, 1986
Supplementary Estimates (B), 1986-87
reports in The Globe and Mail with respect to the recent Outlook Conference at which farmers' incomes for the coming year were plotted out. One such article appeared in the business section of The Globe and Mail where one would think one would find reasonably accurate reportage. The article covers three types of farmers and shows what the coming year holds in store for them. An Alberta cow-calf operator, an Ontario mixed farmer and a typical Saskatchewan grain farmer are the three examples considered in the article. It is pointed out, for instance, that the Alberta cow-calf rancher will have a fairly good year. This fairly large ranch in Alberta will have a realized net income of $26,000. I take issue with the reporter who states that "realized net income" is code for profit. No way, Mr. Speaker. It is not code for profit.
Realized net income is net income, the amount of income that is left over to pay a managerial income to the farmer or rancher and some return on his or her investment. A net income of $26,000 on the cow-calf operation being considered here would not even cover a decent return on investment. It is not profit. It barely brings this rancher up to the average industrial wage. If we were to give him an average industrial wage, that would leave him with less than $6,000 as a return on his investment, which was probably in excess of $500,000. I wish that some of the business reporters in the country would realize what the term "realized net income" means. It means only the money that is left over after all of the expenses have been paid. It is the pool of money which pays the operator and his family their wages. It pays them for whatever fee they might have coming to them for management and it also pays them for their investment. It is a conglomeration of what private corporations would have under three headings. If this particular cow-calf operator in Alberta used corporate accounting methods, he would probably show a net loss much in excess of the $26,000 that The Globe and Mail reporter calls net profit.
I wanted to make this point because when people are reporting about this $1 billion they ought to have the right figures before they start talking about it. I think it is understood by most agricultural economists and farm managers that the $1 billion pay-out will not come out as $1 billion of net profit. A big chunk of it will go to pay off existing debts and costs that have been left unpaid and will therefore not reflect straight through the system as an additional $1 billion of net income. I think it is fairly clear that this $1 billion is an attempt to make adjustments for the hurt that has affected Canada's grain farmers as a result of the U.S. Farm Bill. This hurt has been estimated accurately by a number of groups, ranging from the United Grain Growers Limited to the Ontario Institute of Agrologists to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and other groups, including the National Farmers Union and the federations of agriculture, to be somewhere in the area of just over $4 billion. The U.S. Farm Bill and the war that has broken out between the Europeans and the Americans has caused Canada's agricultural community and its grain producers more than $4 billion in hurt. The Government is
now attempting to ease that burden by a quarter. While it is appreciated, it does not take away the hurt.

Canadians should realize that net incomes for Saskatchewan farmers will be down considerably this year as will net incomes for farmers from other prairie provinces where grains are produced. Net incomes in Saskatchewan are predicted to be down by 27 per cent. For Manitoba, the figure is 51 per cent and for Alberta 64 per cent. These figures speak of a year that uses as its base a year that was almost a disaster. The fact that income is dropping by half is not telling all of the story. Incomes are dropping from levels that were not up to 1974-75 levels. The industry has been in difficulty for three to five years and net incomes have not been up to par for that time. We in the farming community will have to learn to accept further cut-backs even with this injection of an additional $1 billion.
We want to make certain that Canadian taxpayers who are being asked to pick up the tab for this assistance will realize just how bad the situation is. Because the Government wishes to press other business through the House in the next couple of days, I will not take too much more of the time of the House explaining the great contribution agriculture makes to the Canadian economy. I would hope that this is understood, but I realize that it is not something that is well understood by Canadians. It is not understood that agriculture is still the backbone of Canada's economy in most parts of the country and that keeping farmers on the land is important in maintaining communities and smaller cities that depend almost entirely on agricultural output.
With this $300 million which will come in this fiscal year because we are deeming the Bill to have been passed by Parliament on April 1, 1986, some nine months ago, we will attempt to pick up some of this shortfall in the marketing system. It will be an attempt to help with the inability of Canada and other exporters to bring the American and European trade war to heel.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put one point on the record. I would like to express my displeasure at the information that was contained in the package which was put out when this announcement was made a week or two ago. In particular, I would like to zero in on one particular page of charts which indicated that Canadian producers were doing better in 1985 than they were earlier. That is very misleading information for the public to receive.
There is no relationship between the amount of money farmers receive and how well they are doing. The implication that in 1987 producers will receive more money than they have ever received before is very misleading. Part of the information process used by the Government when it spends the considerable amount of money that will be spent on information about these Estimates should be used to correct the idea that even with the $1 billion, producers are doing better than they have ever done before. That idea is basically wrong. Farmers are
December 18, 1986

doing much worse now than they were in the years indicated by that chart.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take only a couple of minutes of the time of the House because I recognize that there are several pieces of legislation to be dealt with over the next couple of days. Nevertheless, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House, in the hope that later the Minister will be able to respond as I know he will, the issue involving soybean producers who have released a document which has been received by some Hon. Members.
The Minister will know that in this document, the soybean producers, some of whom are located in the southern end of my riding, are trying to tell us something. The money given to producers under the deficiency payment and the aid package put together related to percentages of income for the last five years provide that corn producers will receive 101 per cent of the average of the last five years, 102 per cent for winter wheat producers, 99 per cent for oat producers, 100 per cent for barley producers but only 92 per cent for soybean producers. This group has approached a number of us about this. I know my colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), has raised the matter briefly. 1 wish to bring it to the attention of the Minister myself.
1 would like to take this opportunity as well to indicate to the Minister that it would be important for us to get more specific information as to which categories of corn producers will be the recipients of some of this aid. It was not made entirely clear in the original documentation provided as to all the categories of corn producers that would benefit. In the event that there are some who are not covered, we want to know what specific commodity will be excluded. I do not wish to take any more of the time of the House but I just wish to draw this matter to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to the attention of the Minister as well so that he may be prepared at Committee of the Whole stage to respond to some of these issues.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to have some kind of a phobia about petitions, 1 believe. When the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) tabled his petition today, I noted that he said it had several hundred signatures. I have looked over the petition and it has 74 signatures, short of several hundred by a considerable number.
A few days ago, I raised the matter of the exaggerations and distortions in the presentation of petitions. You may recall,
Supply
Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Speaker replied on December 11 to my point of order. He thanked me for it and said that he intended to remind Hon. Members that they are to describe only the substance of petitions when presenting them to the House and that he would continue to be diligent in reminding Hon. Members of that.
The number of signatures on a petition is easy to count. The petitions are prepared at NDP headquarters and sent out to constituencies. In those six provinces in which no NDP Member has been elected, they are sent to riding associations. The petitions are all identical. They contain 25 lines for signatures, the minimum required, and one simply need add 25 and 25 and, in this case, 24, to arrive at 74 signatures.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you take this under consideration again and ask Hon. Members if they could not stop these gross exaggerations and distortions of petitions when they are presenting them. It is obviously an effort on their part to try to create a big issue out of a small one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will take the matter under consideration.


John Wise: that Bill C-35, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1987, be read the first time and printed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
John Wise: that Bill C-35, an Act for granting to her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1987, be read the second time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, could copies of the Bill be distributed to Hon. Members?

December 18, 1986
Supply
In addition, while distribution takes place, may I ask the Minister, whether this Bill is similar to the Bill and in the usual form in which the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) tables his estimates?


John Wise: I appreciate the inquiry from my hon. colleague. Before entering the House this morning I checked with the appropriate officials and they assured me that everything was in order for us to proceed.
On Clause 2-$300,000,000.00 granted for 1986-87


Maurice Brydon Foster: I wish to raise a few points on this Bill. I have not had a chance to read it in detail. Would the Minister clarify which clause provides that the benefits received under the Special Canadian Grains Program will be counted as income for the purpose of the calculation of payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act?
I have two or three other points that I wish the Minister to clarify. Could he advise the committee whether there will be government expenditures not made in order to retain the fiscal framework of the Government, and that these will not be essential services to Canadians? Could the Minister clarify that?
Could the Minister also clarify when the cheques for the initial payment will be sent out, and when the cheque for the final payment will be sent out?
Could the Minister clarify whether the $3.8 million for administration covers the entire administration costs for the program, including the supplementary payment which apparently will not be made until April or May?
We also raised the question of the benefits that flow to soybean producers, which works out to be an extremely low benefit when the agricultural stabilization payment is taken into account. The estimated amounts are $7.80 per acre in deficiency payment in eastern Canada, whereas wheat producers get $32 per acre, and corn producers get $43 per acre. It seems that there is a glitch in the system and the soybean producers end up with a much lower total payment amounting to 92 per cent of the five-year average as compared to the other commodities which are roughly 100 per cent of the five-year average.
I hope that I am not burdening the Minister, but perhaps this is the most expeditious manner. I raised this matter in the House a few weeks ago with the Minister about the possibility of lifting the FCC moratorium until the final payment of some $700 million early in the new fiscal year. Is the Minister considering extending the moratorium until that time?


John Wise: I will start with the Hon. Member's first question. The moneys received under this program will not be counted as income for the purpose of the calculation of the western grain stabilization payments.
I have answered the question regarding fiscal framework on a number of occasions. As the Hon. Member will know,
because of the priority that we place on agriculture and because that industry is having the toughest time for 50 years, we have had to respond with millions and millions of dollars. On each and every occasion we have responded to the need, and each and every occasion has been within the fiscal framework.
The Hon. Member asks when the cheques will be in the hands of Canadian farmers. With his co-operation today, it will allow us to place cheques in the pockets of the Canadian farmers who are permit book holders in western Canada because we have that accurate up-to-date information. I was assured by officials that we have booked a slot with DSS and these cheques should be sent from Ottawa about the middle of next month.
On those farmers in eastern Canada who received ASA payments for corn, soybeans, and so on, we do have that information. At least, we have their names, addresses, and postal codes. Therefore, that will allow us to forward application forms immediately. They will be in a position to receive cheques at the next earliest date.
The only way that those farmers in eastern Canada and western Canada who do not fall into those categories can be reached is through the depositing of application forms in FCC offices, in grain offices, and in grain elevator offices across the country.
The March 31 deadline is a very important deadline. By at that time we will want to have received all of the information for the final payment. It is important that farmers be aware of that March 31 deadline in order that the information in all of the categories, commodities and grains that qualify across the country are in our hands so that we can do the final calculation with respect to an update on the hurt factor.
The delivery time of the final payment will largely depend on the farmers' ability to respond promptly and accurately. As the Hon. Member will know, oftentimes the issuing of a cheque is delayed because of inaccurate information contained in the application form. The perfect situation would be if we could have all the application forms in and they were all accurate. If that were the case, I suspect that cheques could be issued within a four week period. I am suggesting here that that would be the perfect situation, but not likely to occur.
The Hon. Member or Algoma (Mr. Foster) asked about the special entry in respect of administration, public information, and so on. He was correct; it would represent the total amount required to deliver the $ 1 billion package.
His other question was also raised by one of his colleagues. It concerned the questions raised and the information supplied to us within the last few days from soybean producers. It should be noted that those producers were part of the farm delegation which drafted and designed the formula. They have no criticism to make of the formula. However, we must bear in mind that the formula was a compromise of East and West


Wi:

tcf'T I


[Stage Direction]
i '
,j

December 18, 1986
[Stage Direction]
and a compromise of all the self-interests of commodity groups. Indeed they should be commended or congratulated on coming together. It was very historic. They certainly came together with more accuracy, understanding, and compassion than perhaps could politicians and bureaucrats. We should recognize it and compliment them on it. In any event, they came together, and the formula included seeded acreage, productivity, value of the grain, and regional yields. When we talk about regional yields, we cannot go beyond the accurate information in our possession in respect of crop insurance. We cannot go to the individual farmer because we do not have that information. In any event, they knew it and agreed with it.
Another component was the hurt factor. We must bear in mind that the criteria must be very clear. Farmers were very strong on the point that to qualify a commodity had to be directly and detrimentally affected by the U.S. Farm Bill and the trade war between the U.S. and the EEC. If one can meet that criterion, then one is in; if not, one is out. Whatever one does, one should not try to bootleg in any other commodity which does not meet the criterion.
Another overriding fact was that it was a massive program. We were breaking new ground, and we had nothing upon which to rely. However, we will work together with a fair and equitable formula of distribution. As far as I was concerned and as far as they were concerned, we would see no particular commodity group so that we could make calculations based upon returning the greatest benefit to it. Also we would see no provincial or regional boundary so that we could make the calculation based upon, for example, an extra $1 million being received by a province or region. However, we would work together to develop a formula which included these various components. We would build them in and factor them in, not to reflect the exact bushel or exact dollar, but to reflect regional yields, prices of commodities, and so on.
They wanted us to pick the base period. In picking the base period, we picked the best yield, the best three years out of five years. I thought that was fair; they thought that was fair.
As far as price is concerned and getting back to the hurt factor, we did not have the latitude to use a five-year average because it had to be directly tied to the U.S. Farm Bill. With all the highs and lows in commodities over the last five years, four years were prior to the introduction of the U.S. Farm Bill. The ups and downs were a result of everything else other than the U.S. Farm Bill. We were pretty well restricted, not so much by choice but by necessity, in picking the price decline in the 1986 crop. We could not use a five-year average at all.
While dealing with the five year average, let me talk about the position of the soybean people in their briefing material supplied to us. Incidentally, I met with them for an hour. I would have spent a little more time with them, but the bell was ringing and I had to leave. I think they were satisfied. However, when we announced the program we said that no agricultural program would be cut and that no agricultural funding would be reduced. There was some scepticism across the country that we would take into account the $800 and
Supply
some odd million paid under western grain stabilization, and that we would take into account the $50 million to $55 million-and I stand to be corrected on that amount-paid under agricultural stabilization to corn and soybean producers in the East. It was very clear from the beginning that we had to exclude those. They have nothing to do with the formula.
We must take into account the difficulty in dealing with a formula and throwing in different grains. Let us look for a moment at the Agricultural Stabilization Act, which all rural Members will know is 90 per cent of a five-year average adjusted for the cost of production. That is the ASA formula. If we take that formula and throw in corn, it triggers out at an ASA payment of $8.92 per tonne. If we take the same formula and throw in soybeans, it triggers out almost twice as high- $15.53 per tonne. Indeed that is the way it should work. Although feed grains are tied together in some respects, if we use the same formula and throw in two different grains, it will trigger two different amounts. Western grain stabilization had nothing to do with the formula whatsoever, and producers accepted that.
There are two ways in which to deal with the hurt factor. First, we could take the exact decline in the U.S. loan rate, which is known. It impacts in a certain way, with a certain pattern, on various grains under the program. We must also consider the drop in Canadian commodity prices. If we look at that line, it moves differently in certain commodities. We thought we should take a lesson from farmers. When they were faced with bigger challenges to try to incorporate, offset, balance, and equalize, they built in these factors along the way. We thought we should take a lesson from them, and we simply averaged the U.S. loan rate and the decline in Canadian commodity prices; that is what we did. In doing that, like the ASA formula, it triggered almost double. For example, we can take the Special Canadian Grains Program and throw in all these commodities. If we throw in corn, it triggers out at 34 cents per bushel. If we throw in soybeans, they trigger out at 19 cents.
I undertook to recalculate for purposes of, shall I say, reverifying that the factors used to determine the accuracy of the drop in Canadian commodity prices-not the loan rate because that is, shall I say, carved in stone although I hope it is ice and melts rapidly-or the hurt factor in other grains was the same as that applied to soybeans. You will have noticed that when we announced this program we set out final calculations. If we can utilize the time from now until the deadline of March 31 to improve the accuracy of the hurt factor, then we will attempt to do that. It may or may not change things but I think we have to satisfy ourselves on it because the farmers themselves are very strong on urgency and very high on accuracy as it relates to actual hurt. We will utilize the time we have to ensure that greater equity and fairness are built into the formula.
[Stage Direction]
December 18, 1986
Supply
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister for his answer. Is he saying that groups like the soybean producers are free to take their case to the committee even though it appears the Minister is pretty adamant that their case does not fit the criteria? I would also like to know by what mechanism the Government is excluding this S850 million from the calculation of the western grain stabilization formula. Is there a clause in this Bill which covers that or is the Government doing it by Order in Council? I have been told that if it counted as income it could possibly cut $600 million from the western grain stabilization payment for this crop year.
As well, the Minister did not indicate whether he was prepared to extend the FCC foreclosure moratorium until the final payment is made. Can he do so now? As well, people with a permit book automatically get cheques. However, for those who have to apply, as do many in eastern Canada and some in western Canada, is there a deadline which can be well publicized to avoid late applications?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member talks about an appeal. Yes, if there is a commodity group that is not satisfied-and I doubt very much that there will be-and wants to challenge the over-all formula, the only route of appeal would be before the people who designed it, that is,the farm leaders. It is really their formula, not ours. However, I should caution that if such a request is made I am obligated to put the whole program on hold. Because the soybean people are sort of questioning how the calculation was done, I am getting a strong message from most other groups to the effect, wait a minute, hands off. If you allow an appeal for those people, you have to allow an opportunity for those who designed the formula to state their case as well. I would have to put it on hold, but I do not want to do fhat. I hope that is not the case.
As to the deadline, it is again March 31. Iam not an expert on parliamentary procedure but I gather this legislation simply extends authority to spend the money. I see knowledgeable heads waving positively. I recall the Hon. Member mentioning this to me within the last few days. As I always do when I receive inquiries from Hon. Members opposite, I inquired in turn and was told by officials that it would not be taken into consideration as income in calculation of the western grain stabilization payment.
My friend also referred to the FCC moratorium. I told him, when we put the Farm Improvement Loans Act through the other day, that we are searching for ways and means to deal with that. With farm debt review boards still gearing up and a large backlog of applications it serves no useful purpose to dump another 300 applications on those already heavily-laden boards. We will do everything we possibly can to deal with these people on an individual basis and see if we cannot go the extra mile to work out some settlement to keep them on the land and in the business of farming.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could go into some detail on how the pay-out will be made. He referred to the pay-out in western Canada being handled
through the Wheat Board accounting system. Will both payouts be handled in that way without the individuals being required to file an application form or will they simply get the first pay-out and be required to file an application form prior to March 31, before they get the second and much larger payout?


John Wise: If all the information is available in that way, then at the moment I see no reason why we would have to send out an application form. I can tell the Hon. Member that we are anxious to do as much as possible with the information we have because it means two things. One, we can deliver the money faster. Two, it will reduce our administration costs. Thanks to the support offered by producer organizations and commodity groups, we will be able to meet both those requests.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, can the Minister tell us whether the elevator agents, who tend to be the people whom farmers work through, will be fully informed of the program and have application forms available if needed so they can advise their clients whether a further application form will have to be filled in in their situation?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, the short answer to that question would be yes.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Could the Minister tell us whether part of the administrative charges which are before us in this series of Supplementary Estimates amounting to some $3,965,000 include some financial assistance for those elevator agents whom the Minister proposes to use for administration of the program, or does he have an agreement with the various elevator companies to provide these services gratis?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I did not think that money from this program would be required for such purposes. Farm leaders and commodity groups have offered their services in the helpful spirit which is often found in rural Canada. I think the elevator operators will be no exception.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Could the Minister explain to the House why the full $1 billion was not applied for under this allocation of funds? What problem does the Government have with allocating the full $1 billion rather than only $300 million?


John Wise: This is as a result of a number of factors, Mr. Chairman. We have said from day one that this is a $1 billion program to be delivered within the fiscal framework. It is important that we maintain our expenditures within the fiscal framework. If we do not, we will send bad signals to the financial community throughout the world. The last thing we would want to do is to trigger off a new round of interest rate increases, because they impact on farmers perhaps more significantly than on any other sector of our economy. A rise in interest rates of 1 per cent imposes an added cost of $140 million on the farm community.
December 18, 1986

Another reason is that we have already paid out millions and millions of dollars. We have made large interim payments and record final payments. My colleague, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), will be making another large interim payment.
As I have indicated before, we have calendar years and fiscal years, but from our point of view the most important is the crop year. This crop year will not end until the end of July. We will be putting $1 billion in cash, as opposed to loan guarantees or interest-free loans, in the pockets of Canadian farmers. If things go well, the entire $1 billion will be in their pockets before the end of this crop year to provide additional help in seeding the 1987 crop.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I understand the argument for doubling the administrative charges which reduces the amount of money going into farmers' hands. It becomes a charge against the administration of the program. Making two pay-outs gives the Government the opportunity for several weeks of announcments surrounding each one. We understand that kind of rationale.
However, I asked why the Government decided it must come before the House twice for authorization. We have a special Supplementary Estimate before us now and there will be more Estimates in the new fiscal year in order to pay out the other $700 million to farmers. Most people do not understand that this is necessary to keep the international financial community at ease. I do not know whether that was the reason for the payouts of over $1 billion to bank investors which occurred in the last fiscal year. An additional $200 million was paid to a bank in the last few weeks. Perhaps the reason for those pay-outs was to keep the international banking community comfortable. However, I believe that the entire $1 billion could have been allocated at one time.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I think our rationale makes a great deal of sense. We are not interested in playing politics. If that were the case, we could have made 10 payments and 10 announcements. The amount of money being paid out and the time frame within which it is being paid out makes a lot of sense to me. The hundreds of farmers and farm groups with which I have spoken are very receptive and understanding of our rationale.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, the Minister made it quite clear that the administration costs could be carried over into the next fiscal year. I believe Clause 4 of the Bill deals with that. If the Minister is going to be so squeaky-clean about which fiscal year things come out of and can blink his eyes at the administrative costs being carried over into the next fiscal year, as our rules and practice permit, why could the full $1 billion not be approved now? The Minister could still make two pay-outs.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I have already answered that. The program must be delivered within the fiscal framework. We are seeking approval for only $300 million in order to
Supply
ensure that the farmers know the full details of how to apply. The March 31 deadline is very important to us and should be very important to them. The public information section of this program is vital to ensure that all farmers know the full details of their eligibility in order that they can fill out application forms accurately and remit them. Only if they do that will we be able to issue the final payment of $700 million before they head to the fields with their tractors and seed drills.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Perhaps I can turn back for a moment to the official sheet of Supplementary Estimates, Mr. Chairman. It shows that of the $3.9 million that will be spent for administrative purposes, something called "information" will cost $450,000. I presume that is the kind of advertising and information program to which the Minister alluded, to alert people to the fact that they would probably have to fill out further application forms.
Since salaries and wages have been estimated at $1.35 million, I am curious what professional and special services of more than $1.5 million might be. Could this perhaps be a cover for some money to be spent to describe in some way the benefits of the program and perhaps advertise some unofficial self-congratulatory messages on behalf of the Government of Canada? It seems to be a lot of money to be allocated for this particular fairly simple, straightforward administrative program. Will the Minister describe exactly what professional and special services are required that will cost $1.5 million for what really amounts to a two or three-month program?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Estimates set maximums and quite often those maximum limits are not fully utilized. Certainly we will be looking to reduce the amount of money that is spent in delivering a program to ensure that the maximum amount of money in that program goes into the hands and pockets of Canadian farmers. That is what we do with all programs and initiatives we take.
I think we are dealing with something similar to a Budget where we project certain expenditures. This list was drawn up by my officials and I had no direct part to play in the terminologies used.
It is a new program that is international in scope. While we call it a Canadian grains and oil seeds program, because of the formula moving from marketing and involving production, there are a number of people who will qualify but probably believe they would not qualify since moving from marketing to production includes home feed grains. That is the decision of the farmers. Therefore, beef people, hog farmers and poultry people to a larger degree-if they grow their own home grain and feed it-and the country's dairy farmers will qualify.
The program has far greater scope than what the average person, whether they are on the back concession or at the street corner of a large urban centre, would probably expect. We call it the Special Canadian Grains Program, but I think many people in the livestock industry in this country probably

December 18, 1986
Supply
do not realize even now that they will be eligible for some payment.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Chairman, I have a question regarding the accuracy of the information. First, the chart implies that farmers are doing better than they are and I hope that when the information on this program is sent out it will deal with that. The chart reflects the kind of reaction we are getting from the non-farming community.
It is suggested that an average of $5,000 per producer will be the payment. Yet if one divides $5,000 into $1 billion, it amounts to only 200,000 producers, which I believe is out of line. I understand that there are approximately 150,000 quota books in the West. Does this mean that there are only 50,000 grain producers in the rest of Canada? I already know that this is wrong because the Ontario Wheat Board suggests there are 48,000 in Ontario.


John Wise: In Ontario?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Not that many?


John Wise: No.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: In any event, I think it should be more than
200,000.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I believe I heard the Hon. Member for Prince Albert say that there were only 20,000 or 30,000 wheat farmers-


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I had a figure of 48,000.


John Wise: It would not be that many because the largest grain producing group in Ontario is the Ontario corn producers, who I believe number approximately 22,000. I doubt whether there would be many more than 4,000 or 5,000 wheat farmers.
These things are not carved in stone, but we must have something upon which to calculate. The best information is sought to do the calculations, the averages and so on, and these are estimates.
Furthermore, it is rather irrelevant because the important consideration will be after the deadline when we get the applications and the figures. Only then will we know exactly how many applied and how much grain was marketed. Then we will be in a position to issue the final financial assistance.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the difficulty but I was just questioning the accuracy of the $5,000 figure because I suspect that it is not what it will be.
Will the Minister try to do something about the image that is being presented in some of the information presently being given?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, the average is just about as irrelevant. How does one determine who is an average farmer? That can only be done with a calculator which gives figures
but does not describe an average farmer. That is why we are saying that the typical farmer is the Rosetown, Saskatchewan example of a farmer receiving slightly over $9,000 and a Kent County typical farmer who, including his cropping pattern, receives almost the same as his counterpart in Rosetown, Saskatchewan.
I do not believe there is anything misleading about the chart. It shows revenue and income. People will know that cash receipts and gross income provide certain figures but that the bottom line is the net income. There is no reference to the net on the chart, as I recall it. I do not believe there is any confusion.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, perhaps in order to accommodate a faster schedule the Minister could respond to a number of my questions together. He stated earlier that he would distribute the application forms and other material but he will recognize that particularly for some farmers in eastern Canada, it will not be as easily accomplished as elsewhere. That I believe to be quite true. In the spirit of trying to make this plan work for as many people as possible, and given the time the Minister himself has indicated for a deadline for applications, I wonder if it would be possible for the Minister to identify those Hon. Members who would be interested in receiving the applications at their offices so we could take them to our constituency offices. And would the Minister consider drafting or having prepared a camera-ready sheet for our constituency mail-outs? I realize that not many Hon. Members will be interested in a camera-ready sheet, but it will be used by those Members of Parliament who represent the agriculture areas. In my view, given the importance of this issue and given the fact of what could happen if a farmer missed the deadline, and given the general willingness on the part of everyone to make this work, I think the Minister should consider having his staff prepare such a camera-ready sheet, as some Ministers do on occasion, provided it is not too partisan and something which everyone could use.
I know the Minister will give that suggestion the appropriate consideration. I would not ask to draft it for him because he may consider that partisan in another way. I hope the Minister would consider as well the circulation of the application forms to constituency offices or parliamentary offices so Members of Parliament can take them back to their ridings. These are cooperative things we can do together which will go a long way to assisting our farmers. Could the Minister respond to that suggestion and then I will raise the other issues about which I am concerned?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, that very matter was brought to my attention just a few moments ago by my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey and the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex. I appreciate the request made by my colleague and I see no reason why that cannot be done.
December 18, 1986


Don Boudria: I am happy to hear that, Mr. Chairman. I only hope we can get that organized very shortly. The difficulty we have sometimes with camera-ready kits is that we receive them much too late and by then we have already sent out the constituency mail-out. As the Minister knows, there are only four mail-outs per year so the sooner we could get the camera-ready sheet, the better. We could time the next constituency mail-out around the end of January, which is what I am looking forward to right now, and if I could include that sheet in bilingual format, I would be grateful.
I have a few other questions for the Minister and I wonder if I could have his undivided attention for a few moments, if he does not mind so I could get some response to my questions. I wonder if the Minister could tell us how the program is going to work for the corn producers. I would like to know specifically which groups will be included and which will be excluded. The Minister and 1 have had some private conversations about that subject earlier and I understand his officials have looked into the matter.
Will the high moisture corn producers be included and, if so, how is it going to work? It is a kind of difficult area, or at least it is perceived that way. There are a number of cob corn producers in my constituency and practically everywhere throughout Ontario. I am sure there are some in the Minister's own riding. I would like to know whether they are included. Could he give us more detail as to who is included and who is excluded and how we are going to run the program for high moisture corn producers? Are the cob corn producers going to be covered? Would the Minister respond to those questions, please?


John Wise: Yes, Mr. Chairman, all corn producers will be eligible. High moisture corn will be eligible because high moisture corn is harvested as a grain. The only thing which will be excluded is, in farmers' terms, "ensilage". To upgrade that term, perhaps we could call it silage. Using a more modern term, I suppose we could say all plant silage would be excluded. However, high moisture corn and high moisture barley are harvested as a grain and would be included.


Don Boudria: I did not hear specifically about cob corn, but I gather that when the Minister said "all corn producers", that would automatically be included. I see a nod which tells me that that would be the case.
I wonder if I could turn to one more issue? Since this is an appropriation Bill, I suppose we can deviate somewhat from the central issue. With respect to the corn producers, the Minister will know that a number of corn producers in Ontario are worried about the countervail on U.S. corn. There are two aspects they feel are potentially deficient. First, the Minister will know that the countervail was placed rather late. I thought it was interesting when the Minister said he was far more interested in cropping years than calendar years or any other kinds of years. I could not help but ask myself why his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay), could not have that same concern when we in fact had that
Supply
delay in putting in place the countervail on U.S. corn. While I appreciate the fact that the Minister himself is well aware that agriculture is seasonal and that he has to bear that in mind when he makes any decision, it seems to me that some of his colleagues, particularly the Minister of National Revenue, forgot abut that part of the equation not all that long ago.
The delay in placing the countervail on U.S. corn was from September 30 to, I believe, November 14. One of the difficulties we had at that time was that during the last 10 days prior to the countervail, as much corn came into the country as the previous year. I wonder if the Minister could tell us, first, if he has asked his colleague to consider the possibility, recognizing it would be difficult, of retroactively imposing a tariff on that corn. I know it is sometimes hard to trace and it would not be possible in all cases. Nevertheless, was that considered and, if so, what was the result? Second, the tariff on corn, I understand, initially only applied to grain corn but did not apply to ground products. Has there been a modification since to ensure that ground corn and other forms of corn products are also covered by the countervail so that in fact we are not giving the opportunity to an American exporter to use some other method to send it in and bypass the tariff altogether? Perhaps the Minister could respond to those questions?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I think the Hon. Member is unduly critical and considerably unfair to my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay), in his comments. As he knows, the Import Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body and quite properly separate and apart from any political interference or intervention. It was a very complicated study and there was a positive determination rendered by the Import Tribunal as a preliminary determination. We will not know the final determination until February.
The Hon. Member mentioned the fact that imports rolled across the border in a very short period of time. I have had that question raised before and have inquired about it. To this point in time the information I have is that it is difficult to substantiate that claim. If the Hon. Member has some additional information which would be helpful, I would appreciate if he would supply it to me. There are observations and sometimes the observations are accurate, sometimes they are not. I would not say that it is not true. The information I have is that it cannot be substantiated, and therein lies our problem.

The question which the Hon. Member raises about the corn countervail is a matter which has been dealt with. It was dealt with retroactively to November 7, 1986, in terms of the kernel as a whole, cracked corn, crushed corn, ground corn, rolled corn, sliced corn and corn screenings. It appears that the concern in the mind of the Hon. Member has been dealt with, as usual, with great completeness and satisfaction by the Government.

December 18, 1986
Supply


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I have but one last question. The Minister answered every question except the one I asked him just a moment ago which is the following one. Why was the countervail tariff not imposed retroactively until September 30 which was the date when the original decision was supposed to have been made? As far as I am concerned that is the date of the original decision. It was considered fair game for anyone who had shipped up until that time. However, there were those who shipped in the interval between September 30 and November 14. I ask the Minister why the tariff was not imposed retroactively to September 30. That seems like the proper thing to do. It would have assisted a great many farmers since it is at a time of year when the product is sold.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I want to be brief because I think we have only a few moments at our disposal. The Hon. Member knows that the Import Tribunal does not report to the Minister of Agriculture but to my colleague the Minister of National Revenue. I ask the Hon. Member to make representations to him. I am sure he will receive an answer.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I believe we can allow the other clauses to pass if we can obtain an answer from the Minister to the question I put previously. The cost of professional and special services for getting this payment out is stated in the Blue Book which we do not have before us at this time. The Minister did not tell us what particular professional and special services there are which will cost $1.54 million, which figure is almost one-half of the total administration costs. The Minister has a Department with people on staff at all times who handle pay-outs under stabilization programs. There is an administration in place which should be able to handle a great deal of the informational process which goes on. In the West there are two separate administrations, the western grain stabilization administration and the Canadian Wheat Board. We want to know why farmers will not be receiving this $1.5 million. We want to know why so much money is required for professional and special services. The Minister did not really outline what it was for in his previous attempt at an answer.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, it is true that we have a communications branch in place, which has obviously done a good job. The message I have received from our communications people is that because of the size of this program they will need additional help and it may be of a professional nature. That is the only way I can answer the Hon. Member's question.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, will the Minister assure us that this money will not be some type of political grant to groups which do public relations for the Conservative Party? Will the Minister assure us that this money will not be used to print a bunch of slick brochures extolling the Conservative Party but that it will be for the dissemination of straight information? Why does it cost so much to put out straight
information when there are these various administrations in place in both the East and the West which are designed to carry out this function and which can do it at no extra cost?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I made an inquiry with respect to this matter some three or four days ago. I was told that the biggest information program which is put out other than with respect to the cranking out of press releases is worth about $15,000 and more money is needed. I am sure that anything that goes out will be stamped "Government of Canada" or "Agriculture Canada". I am sure that there will be no reference to the Progressive Conservative Party or a Progressive Conservative Government.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Wise: that Bill C-35, an Act for granting to her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1987, be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had to delay rising until Your Honour was back in the Chair. There have been discussions among the Parties and it has been agreed that in order to conduct the very important business before the House the sitting be extended until 2 p.m.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. As the Hon. Member has indicated, there have been such consultations. In the spirit of our usual co-operation, particularly during the festive season, our Party is pleased to concur in what the Hon. Member has just proposed.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm that that is our understanding of the agreement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 18, 1986



CANADAIR LIMITED DIVESTITURE ACT


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)) moved: that Bill C-25, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Barbara Jean McDougall: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to conclude our deliberations on Bill C-25. I wish to thank Hon. Members opposite for their co-operation in this respect. By passing this legislation, the sale of Canadair to Bombardier can now be concluded, which brings to eight the number of divestitures carried out by our Government.
There are a number of key elements in the sale of Canadair which I would like to re-emphasize. First, the Government believes it is sound public policy to manage Crown corporations efficiently. In the case of Canadair, state ownership had seriously handicapped the firm from keeping up with a fast-moving and technologically changing competitive aerospace industry. Therefore, the purpose of this privatization was not to solve the many problems of the past but rather to create for the company and its employees the best possible future. This legislation provides the authority to carry out the final step in returning Canadair to the private sector where it has the potential to grow as a dynamic and competitive business operation.

Second, when it negotiated this sale, the Government was not interested in the selling price alone. Our vision of a more brilliant future for Canadair had to consider other factors that would create maximum social and economic benefits. The sale of Canadair to Bombardier will be instrumental in doing so, in a number of ways. Certain aspects of the transaction, such as Bombardier's commitment to maintain Canadair's manufacturing facilities and its headquarters in Quebec will ensure that Canadair plays a major role in the aerospace sector in Quebec and across the country.
Furthermore, a special share issue will help increase research and development activity at Canadair, thus encouraging expansion of export markets and increasing the use of Canadian products.
Finally, the Government was impressed by Bombardier's financial discipline, management and competence on the international market, all of which have made Bombardier a leader in transportation technology, both in Canada and
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
abroad. This alliance between Bombardier and Canadair guarantees a far better future for Canadair and its employees.
If there are any doubts about employment potential with Bombardier, let me remind Hon. Members that The Financial Post has ranked Bombardier as one of Canada's best employers in terms of productivity and job satisfaction. In sum, the purchase of Canadair by Bombardier creates a fertile environment for growth through the merging of Canadair's technology and skilled workforce with Bombardier's management expertise and international marketing experience.
We firmly believe that it is private enterprise that should be engaged in the business of designing, producing and marketing aircraft. That is why we decided to privatize Canadair. The sale of Canadair is just one example of the action the Government has taken to better manage our public assets and fully realize their economic potential.
The international market-place is becoming increasingly competitive and fast moving. This is particularly true in the aerospace sector. Canadair, in concert with Bombardier, will now be in a position to make the most of those new challenges and opportunities that are natural to an industry which thrives on change.
The sale of de Havilland to Boeing is an example of another successful privatization. De Havilland has just landed its biggest order of Dash 8 aircraft yet. In June, orders were placed by a group of Canadian carriers for 42 Dash 8 aircraft. Since then, de Havilland obtained orders and options for another 132.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that Bombardier will bring to Canadair the kind of creative management that has made it a leader in transportation development, both in this country and abroad. This should give Canadair the new direction it needs to compete effectively.
Bombardier has the necessary financial resources and experience to meet the challenge of selling a complex product on foreign markets. The merger of Canadair with Bombardier will give the Canadian aerospace industry a unique opportunity to increase research and development in this sector, to increase Canadian content and supplier competence, to increase Canadian exports and to assist Canadair's customers on all markets related to the aerospace industry.
We firmly believe that returning Canadair to the private sector is in the best interests of the Company and this country.

It has been a pleasure for me to work on this Bill, to present it, to debate it and to conclude deliberations which will ensure speedy passage of the Canadair Limited Divestiture Authorization Act. On behalf of the Government and the employees of Canadair, I thank Hon. Members for recognizing the urgency

December 18, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
and importance of this legislation and for assisting the Government in giving Canadair the opportunity to achieve the excellence that will build its future.
[ Translation]


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take much of the time of the House this afternoon because we all want the debate on this Bill to end very quickly.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, as you know we are not necessarily against the sale of Canadair to Bombardier. We are pleased to note that the Government did not repeat the same mistakes it made in the past, particularly with respect to the sale of de Havilland and the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals. We are aware of the mistakes made in the case of de Havilland.
As to Canadian Arsenals, a number of mistakes had been made when tenders were first called, so they had to start all over again a few times. And then the other major mistake, in my opinion, is that the employees of Canadian Arsenals had practically been forgotten.
Indeed, after lengthy negotiations which led to a rather acrimonious debate in the House of Commons, the unions, the new employer and the Government finally reached an agreement at the last minute.
I do hope there will be no such problems in this case.
It seems that Canadair employees are definitely more satisfied than was the case in the sale of the other two Crown corporations-where I was involved to a certain extent- certainly more so than the employees of Canadian Arsenals who showed their discontent.
Mr. Speaker, one interesting fact should be noted.

It is nice to remember Conservative Party promises on many occasions. Perhaps I could take a moment to reflect upon a promise that was made on August 15, 1984, by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). During the election campaign, while he was a member of the Opposition, he said that a Conservative Government would turn Canadair Limited and de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited into a separate Crown corporation. I am sure it would surprise you a great deal, Mr. Speaker, if I said that the Government has broken another promise. However, that is something for which Conservatives have been rather well known.
In the case of this promise, perhaps the moral is that it should not have been made to begin with. However, it is for the Tories to think about those kinds of things in the future and to stop promising things that they either do not intend to deliver, should not be delivering, or have no intention of delivering.


Mr. Jelinek:: What hogwash.


Don Boudria: The amateur Minister of fitness and sport is saying hogwash, or is it the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport?


Otto John Jelinek: You don't know what you're talking about at any time.


Don Boudria: Whichever. I will not debate extensively with the amateur Minister across the way because he knows as well what promises were made.

Mr. Speaker, I end my remarks by saying that, unlike other Crown corporations, Canadair is definitely not a deficit-ridden concern. Indeed I think it has been operating on a fairly sound financial basis, and we know that its projected net profits for this year are about $23.8 million, so it has to be in good financial shape.
I certainly hope that Bombardier officials-well known for their sound management, as the Minister pointed out earlier- will be able to keep Canadair operating in the black, in their own interest and in the interest of the employees who should not be forgotten in all these dealings. Too often in such cases- I gave examples a few minutes ago-Canadians who have been working for these Crown corporations for many years have been left in the dark. They were not even involved in negotiations in the past and I hope... I am told that the employees are much more satisfied in this case. Perhaps they are not fully satisfied, but still I hope everything will turn out all right for them, that their pension fund and working conditions will be adequately protected. There is one thing about which I am still not convinced, and I would like to know whether Bombardier company officials intend to relocate their facilities elsewhere in Quebec. We know the Minister said earlier that the Corporation was going to keep its facilities in Quebec. But even with that, there could still be some disadvantages for employees if there were to be any moves to other parts of the province.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a few moments, but not any longer than necessary, to talk about this issue and some of our concerns. Some of my colleagues have other concerns and they would like to express them, but they are not in a position to do so right now, since we have agreed to adopt this Bill fairly quickly. Nevertheless, I would like to take a few moments to bring these concerns to the attention of the House.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words as the debate on privatization of Canadair is wound down. I regret the haste with which we have been required to move on this Bill for obvious reasons in terms of legalities to facilitate the transfer. But there is a much greater dicussion that ought to take place, and perhaps with the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) here, I would urge that she consider that, if we do move again in this direction at the eleventh hour, we do not rush debate and rush things through committee.
We are dealing with the profoundly important matter of privatization, which in my mind stems from an ideological commitment by members of the government Party to have to
December 18, 1986

privatize something because it makes them feel good to privatize. There may be good reasons why certain Crown corporations should be privatized. I do not speak against the principle. But I must remind the Minister that, in spite of her best efforts, while I might not agree with what she is doing she is soldiering on with privatization.
It is interesting to note, on looking at the amount of private and public ownership in Canada today, and comparing with the situation on September 4, 1984, that there is more public ownership today than ever before. Federal public ownership is greater today than when the Conservatives took office. This is interesting in itself because of the myth which you, Mr. Speaker, know as well as I do that we are privatizing the various Crown corporations and that we are moving to less and less public ownership. In fact, by the Government's own action in taking over Petro-Canada's Gulf stations we have expanded public ownership. So that we are all perfectly clear as to exactly what has happened, as opposed to the mythology of what is happening, public ownership is actually on the increase thanks to the actions of this Government.
In a country as vast as ours with a small population we have always appreciated that there is a role for the public sector to play, whether it is in a national airline, railroad, or going back to 1821 with the construction of the Lachine Canal.
As a student of history yourself, Mr. Speaker, you will know that the Lachine Canal being built by the private sector could not be completed. The company went bankrupt and did not succeed in this venture. As it was defined at that time, for the best interests of Canada, the Government of the day stepped in and said that the canal had to be built because it is important to the country. If the private sector cannot or will not do it, the Government must. So it stepped into one of the first public enterprises in Canada, which was the completion of the Lachine Canal after the failure of the private sector.
I use that historic example as one that shows that there is indeed a role. In looking at the action of Conservative Governments over the years, both federally and provincially, public ownership has become a natural tool to develop certain utilities for the public good, whether it is Alberta Telephone, B.C. Hydro, Ontario Hydro, or whether it is to launch an airline like Pacific Western Airlines which has now taken over Canadian Pacific Airlines. People in the Government perceive that these are good steps and that they are in the interest of western Canada.


Ms. Mitchell:: The other example is a better one, that of Air Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Get is straight among yourselves.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Pacific Western is a public airline primarily owned by the people of western Canada. It has now taken over CP Air which was a privately owned airline. In Canada there are two publicly owned airlines, one is Pacific Western and the other one is called Air Canada. Wardair is out there soldiering on.
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act


Barbara Jean McDougall: I did the financing for that-in the private sector.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I will close off this discussion of the privatization of Canadair by saying-and I guess it is serving notice-that we are going against what every other country in the aerospace industry has done. Public participation in the aerospace industries of France, West Germany, United Kingdom, and all countries involved in an aerospace business perceive government participation in one way or another as being absolutely natural and essential.
The one exception to the rule is the United States. But that country's vast involvement in the armed forces must be considered. After all, the development of its aerospace industry is done through its military budgets, which is another way of saying that the Government of the United States is obviously a critical key and major player in the development of its aerospace industry.
The Minister of State for Privatization states that this is something that must be done. Every other country in the world that is involved in the aerospace business does not particularly have that view. They do not have this ideological need to privatize something, which in this case is Canadair. However, the deed is done. The majority Government has decided that this is one thing that it must do before it leaves office in two years. So be it.
I wish to complete my comments by saying that by the Government's own figures we are only guaranteed to receive payments totalling $149 million for Canadair with a further $8 million to $12 million in contingency payments, compared to the book value of Canadair which is pegged at $224 million for 1985. This figure was provided by CDIC itself. As taxpayers of the country, we are not really getting a very good deal. In fact, this is a nice Christmas present to be passed along to the private sector.
The sale at this price also comes at a time of increasing profitability forecast for the company. Profits for 1983 were $6 million. That was a very difficult year. In 1985, the profits were $27.5 million and the 1986 forecast is for $23.8 million. After much investment, time, technology, energy and talent, we see the fruits of those investments; and just when things are turning around and looking good for Canadair it is being sold off to Bombardier. It is getting a real bargain in this deal.
Prior to the sale, Canadair had been promised major federal government support totalling $50 million, $30.9 million in defence industry production program assistance for the production of the CL-227 systems, and another $20 million for a joint venture with West Germany on the CL-289. It was virtually promised another $30 million in DIPP money by the letter of intent in the sale of the company, and $14 million for the CL-215 water bomber, $10 million in modifications to the Challenger, and $5 million for new equipment.
Time does not permit me to go on describing this unbelievably good deal. The Government is sugar-coating this whole

December 18, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
deal to facilitate the transfer to Bombardier. A lot of champagne will be drunk in the boardrooms of Bombardier tonight. A good company is getting a fantastic deal from the Government. Of course, the people who will not be celebrating will be Canadian taxpayers. Once again tonight they will remember the Avro Arrow. Tonight people will be sitting in their livingrooms, kitchens, and dens; they will be thinking about the Avro Arrow. They will remember that just as Canada was beginning to make a breakthrough in the aerospace industry, the Government pulled the rug out from under that industry. Was it a Conservative or a Liberal Government at that time?


Mr. Young:: It was a Conservative Government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It was a Conservative Government at that time, and a Conservative Government is doing it again. The Avro Arrow will be haunting Canadians again tonight, as there are celebrations in the boardrooms of Bombardier because of this incredible Christmas present. I have no further comments to make.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971 MEASURE TO AMEND

Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (for the Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: that Bill C-16, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and, in order to complete consideration of all stages of Bill C-16 today, it is my understanding that the matter would be sent to Committee of the Whole.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there have been such discussions. In an effort to try to facilitate the business of Canada and to cooperate in any way possible, we are looking forward to discussing the Bill at third reading immediately.


Mr. Ailmand:: Mr. Speaker, I was not advised of the discussions, but I will agree to the proposal nevertheless.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to recognize the excellent co-operation and understanding forthcoming from Hon. Members opposite. We look forward to putting this important piece of legislation through all stages as quickly as possible on behalf of workers and employers of Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order just to seek clarification, and I apologize to the Parliamentary Secretary for interrupting his presentation.
It is my understanding that there was a motion for third reading of the Canadair Limited Divestiture Bill. There was an agreement to deal with third reading. Was it passed on division? It was my understanding that we would go immediately to third reading and pass it on division.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago the House entertained third reading debate of the Canadair Limited Divestiture Bill, and that motion was passed, as the Chair indicated.


Nelson Andrew Riis: So it is done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is done.


Gary Michael Gurbin: That is another great relief.

Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members of this House, I would like to submit for your consideration today a Bill that contains two important amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.

These amendments, if passed into law, will freeze the UI premium rate for 1987 and will extend the variable entrance rate for another year.
The Bill recognizes the sensitivity of the Government to regional differences in Canada, to the financial pressures on Canadians workers across the country, and to the consequences of increased costs to small business, recognizing that small business is responsible for maintaining and creating economic recovery in Canada.
The UI program plays a vital role in our society. Its benefits replace lost income. They help maintain the stability of local economies, and they also help protect the jobs of people employed in those communities. The ability of individuals to meet the basic expenses of food and shelter while they look for another job is maintained by UI benefits.
For some time, especially over the last several months, there has been much discussion about UI. Many different aspects of the program have been both criticized and praised. Business, labour, women's organizations, and many other groups are asking whether the program is fair and efficient. Is it impeding
December 18, 1986

the development of new jobs? Is it doing enough to provide unemployed Canadians with new opportunities?
As a Government, we clearly recognize that unemployment insurance is a critical element in the Canadian employment system. Supported primarily by the premiums of individual businesses and their employees, the program belongs to Canadians in a more direct sense than any other government program. The Government is simply a trustee whose role is to manage public funds on behalf of Canadians.
Recently the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) received the Forget Commission Report of inquiry into the Unemployment Insurance Commission and its workings. It will be the Government's job to take a look at the report and to consider other reports such as the Macdonald Commission Report and the House report from Newfoundland. It is also its job to strike an equitable balance between the recommendations of various groups and interests across Canada.
Returning to the Bill itself, Bill C-16 proposes to amend the Act to freeze the premium rate at its present level until December 31, 1987, that is, S2.35 for workers and $3.29 for employers for each $100 of insurable benefits. The formula now in place, if left unchanged, would require the Government to raise the premium rate again for next year. Employees would have to pay as much as $2.50 for every $100 of insurable earnings. Employers would have to pay more, approximately 1.4 per cent more for each employee. For the coming year alone, these equate to approximately $625 million worth of contributions which will not be taken away from employees and employers. It is an important factor which should not be taken lightly.
The Government believes that if it had allowed the premium to jump, as the formula required, it would throw a monkey-wrench into the economic recovery we in Canada are now enjoying. In addition, our calculations indicate that the decision to maintain premiums at the present level will not unduly impede the longer term reduction in the cumulative unemployment insurance account deficit. The decision to hold the line on UI premiums shows how we are willing to listen to and respond to the concerns of the business community, and at the same time respect financial pressures on individual Canadian workers through reduced premiums and increased benefits.
The Government cares about Canadians who are disadvantaged, discriminated against, and caught in the web of economic misery. We have a social conscience.
The freezing of the UI premium rate helps to give stability to employer-employee costs. It will also remove the financial burden on both employers and workers, the major shareholders of the UI account.
In addition to the question of premium rates, there is a more urgent need to extend the variable entrance requirements, or the VER, until January 4, 1988. On January 4, 1987 the VER is due to expire. The VER first came into effect in December,
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
1977. It allows UI claimants to qualify for benefits based upon the difficulty of finding and keeping work. It is based upon the unemployment rate in each of the 48 economic regions of Canada.
The VER recognizes that it is more difficult to find and to keep a job in areas suffering from high unemployment. Hon. Members from British Columbia, Newfoundland, and even Alberta know how important this will be to their constituents and other Canadian workers. In an economic region with a high level of unemployment, a claimant needs as few as 10 weeks of insurable work to qualify for UI benefits, as long as the VER is in place. If the VER is allowed to expire, all claimants will need a minimum of 14 weeks to qualify for UI benefits. That would create a hardship for as many as 208,000 Canadians. In areas of high unemployment they would find themselves without work, pay or UI. Bill C-16 contains an extension to the VER to allow the UI program to continue to respond to regional differences for the next 12 months, from January 4, 1987, until January 4, 1988. The extension will symbolize the Prime Minister's, the Government's, and ultimately Parliament's recognition of the difficulties many Canadians face in finding work.
Our decision to freeze the premium rate will help Canadians find new jobs by removing a potential barrier to growth. We do not want to create hardship so we are asking this House to approve these amendments quickly. For 1987 employers and workers will know what the UI program will cost them. And they will be able to plan accordingly. UI claimants will know if they qualify.

Those are the amendments that I am tabling before the House, Mr. Speaker. I ask Hon. Members to approve an extension of the variable entrance rate and a freeze on the premium rate for 1987. I would appreciate the co-operation of all Hon. Members in adopting these amendments without delay. Thank you very much.

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, C-16 is a simple Bill to extend the variable entrance requirements of the Unemployment Insurance Act and freeze the level of contributions for one more year. As Hon. Members know, the VER provides that an employee can qualify for unemployment insurance if he or she works for 10 to 14 weeks and makes contributions. They can qualify with 10 weeks of work if they live in a region where unemployment is over 9 per cent. The requirement increases from 10 to 14 weeks as the rate of unemployment declines below 9 per cent. This provision is in recognition of the fact that in some parts of Canada it is very difficult to find work and that is why we provide more unemployment insurance benefits in those regions.

December 18, 1986
While we support the Bill, I regret that the Government waited until the second to the last day before the Christmas recess to put it before us for debate. It raises many important issues with respect to unemployment insurance which members of my caucus wanted to discuss. If it is as important as the Parliamentary Secretary says it is, we should have had it before us for debate at least a week or so ago. That is particularly true since we have had the Forget Commission Report tabled.
In debating this Bill I must point out the confusion that reigns with respect to the Government's policy on unemployment insurance. After the election, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said that changes in the unemployment insurance program are necessary and there must be a review. They set up the Forget Commission on Unemployment Insurance. However, while that commission was sitting the Government brought in very serious changes to the program. It cut unemployment insurance for workers who took a pre-retirement pension. That affected almost 76,000 Canadians who paid into the program for years and years but then could not collect the amounts owing to them.
Finally we got the commission report on December 3.1 must say that it was a very confusing report because there were six members of the commission and a minority report was produced. What does the Government do? After a year and a half of study by the commission it will not have a response to the report until May 15, five months later. However, it did respond to one of the recommendations, number 26, which we support, that the Government should rescind the cuts relating to pre-retirement pensions as of January 5 of this year and reimburse those workers who should have received full unemployment insurance. So the one recommendation the Government responded to was rejected. Yet the Government had been telling this House for months on end that it would deal with that issue when the commission reported. The Prime Minister said that. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) said that. The Minister of Finance said that, and so did the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick). Over and over again we were told to wait for the Forget Commission Report and then the Government would deal with those cuts. No wonder there is confusion with respect to the Government's unemployment insurance policy.
As to the VER which this Bill deals with, recommendation number 23 of the Forget Commission Report rejected it. I was pleased today to hear the Parliamentary Secretary give very good reasons for maintaining the VER. How the Government will respond to that recommendation I do not know.
In the last two weeks a certain consensus has been developing with respect to unemployment insurance and the Forget Commission Report. The direction seems to be that we should postpone for a considerable period of time the recommendation for annualization and cutting of the regional extended benefits.
Even the commissioners themselves, when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, agreed we should not go ahead with those until we have in place a very specific plan for income support and regional development. There is in fact consensus on a lot of the recommendations in the report.
In conclusion I would like to repeat that we support this Bill but strongly suggest that the Government clean up its act on unemployment insurance and rescind the cuts for preretirement pensioners. It should put off consideration of the recommendation relating to annualization and regional extended benefits until a very specific alternative plan for income support and regional development is put in place. The Government should bring in a Bill on those areas where there is consensus. We do not need five more months to do that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I call it two o'clock and the Hon. Member will speak at three?


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: That is exactly what I was going to suggest.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Liberal Party task force on postsecondary education, I have heard from educators across Canada that our universities are in danger of becoming second class. Those words are ringing through today. McMaster University has announced that it is being forced to cancel its Canadian studies program because of the lack of government funding. The real irony of this situation is that the cancellation will be effective Canada Day, 1987. Does the Government wish to celebrate Canada Day by cancelling Canadian studies programs throughout the land?
Situations such as what is happening at McMaster University are eroding the quality of education in Canada. If this is allowed to continue, knowledge of our country will be further eroded, and Canadians will be handicapped in competing internationally. The Government should and must take affirmative action now to eliminate the erosion of our educational system. Otherwise, the Government will be single-handedly responsible for making Canada a second class nation. Is this the type of legacy the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) wants to leave the Canadian people?
December 18, 1986



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House an agreement signed on Tuesday between the federal Government and the Government of the Province of British Columbia promoting the development of British Columbia as Canada's Pacific centre for trade, commerce, and travel. The agreement will allow the two Governments to co-ordinate initiatives to enhance British Columbia's future economic development.
These include encouraging the growth of international banking and other financial services in Vancouver, coordinating transportation improvements, enhancing trade-related services and greater trade opportunities in those professional and technical services where British Columbians have developed significant expertise, and improving coordination of marketing and promotion of British Columbia as a tourist destination.
A joint management committee will advise the two Governments on these and other initiatives compatible with British Columbia's special designation as Canada's Pacific gateway. This agreement reaffirms the Government's commitment, as outlined in the Throne Speech, to assist in the renewal and diversification of the economy of British Columbia.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, less than two months ago Canada Post Corporation brought down a business plan which recommends the closing of many rural post offices and the privatization of many postal services. Just last Thursday DPW informed the architects that Canada Post would no longer require space in the new federal building being planned for Prince Albert. There is no doubt that the two incidents are related, that Canada Post has decided that the downtown Prince Albert Post Office will either be privatized or will provide reduced service.
The people of Prince Albert and region require a central post office which can provide good service. That service is being threatened. What would my predecessor, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, say if he knew that the Government was tampering with Her Majesty's mail in the city of Prince Albert?



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, as the House approaches the Christmas break it is most regrettable that the Minister of State (Immigration) (Mr. Weiner) has ignored the pleas of and for Akbar Moatamedi. The 25-year old Iranian student faces deportation from the United States on January 7. It is guaranteed to be a one-way journey to his persecution and probable death at the hands of Iranian authorities.
Such a frightening conclusion does not augur well for the spirit of the festive season. It does not augur well for the Government's self-proclaimed humanitarian immigration policy. It does not augur well for the Canadians in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, who have desperately tried to sponsor this young man as a refugee. It certainly does not augur well for Akbar, who said in a telephone conversation from Washington: "I am living with a knife at my throat, waiting for someone to push it in".
Parliament and the Government can save this man from his sad and terrifying state. It is my hope that the Minister and the Government will be moved by the Christmas spirit which surrounds us all to extend a compassionate hand to an individual whose time is quickly and, regrettably, running out.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the year 1986 which will wind up in a few days from now has been a banner year, both economically and socially in Temis-camingue's development and growth.
We had in 1986 a Social and Economic Summit in our area, the impressive celebrations of Ville-Marie's Centenary and the Fifth International Movie Festival. All of which points to our pride and commitment to realize and control our destinies.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to thank all the agencies and volunteers who continiously work for the promotion of Temiscamingue's development.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I wish all my fellow citizens, you and all Hon. Members a very merry Christmas season.
2254

December 18, 1986



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, as many Members will know, in the new year some 447 people at Canada Packers in Winnipeg will lose their jobs as a result of a decision taken by the Government to give $1 million to a competing plant in Neepawa.
I have two requests of the Government. First, will it consider making a special case of the lay-offs at Canada Packers and not count, for unemployment insurance purposes, the severance pay packages that workers will be receiving? It is a clear example of the injustices of that policy. The longer one works at a particular place and the more difficult it will be to make a transition, the less entitlement one has to unemployment insurance benefits.
Furthermore, using this as an example, will the Government reconsider its whole policy of counting severance pay packages for unemployment insurance benefits? It is very unfair, particularly to older workers who have worked at a particular place for a long time. They are the very people I and many others believe should be entitled to a greater cushion between the time they have lost their job and are able to find a new job.
I ask the Government to reconsider that policy. I know it has not, but it should.



SUPPORT URGED FOR HEAVY OIL PROJECTS

Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, Canada stands in danger of losing its lead in heavy oil technology if heavy oil projects and upgrader construction are postponed or cancelled.
One of the more serious issues is the loss to the energy industry of its talent to other businesses or countries. We may end up importing rather than exporting our technology. A recent Alberta Research Council study revealed that enhanced oil recovery and development of new in situ bitumen plants will be delayed, which brings about other important issues of energy self-sufficiency and security of supply. Oil imports could reach the dangerously high level of 1.45 million barrels a day within 15 years if new supplies are not found.
To quote a Calgary businessman: "Alberta runs on oil- when that stops, Alberta stops".



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, according to internal documents Canadian National Railways is planning to shut down many lines. An internal memo from R. P. Langlois, Regional Manager of Marketing in the St. Lawrence region, says in part:
In the context of the rationalization of our rail infrastructure, some lines have been identified as being potential candidates for abandonment in the coming years. A preliminary plan has been prepared and attached you will find the sections affected.
Any effort to attract new traffic on these sections is to be abandoned immediately.
One of the lines proposed to be abandoned is the main CN rail line between Montreal and North Bay. This would effectively eliminate VIA Rail between Ottawa and Montreal, plus any freight traffic. It would end many businesses in my riding.
Worst of all, CN proposes to do this in the year 1990. If that is not bad enough, the President of CN Rail wrote a letter to me in which he indicated that CN had no intention of shutting down the rail line. That is obviously contrary to the truth.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Toronto Star had an editorial entitled "Make Canada Post Visit Every Doorstep". More recently an Ottawa area municipality went to court to attempt to force Canada Post to deliver to every house.
What kind of a fool's world do these people live in? I can understand the Toronto Star, which rarely has a sensible stand on any issue, but I am disappointed by municipal politicians who would make such inane comments.
In my constituency of Prince Edward-Hastings there are 24 post offices. Only one community, Belleville, has door-to-door delivery. In every other instance citizens must walk to pick up their mail, and if they want to pick it up other than between nine and five they must pay extra for the privilege.
In the small village where I live, senior citizens must walk up to two kilometres winter and summer to pick up their mail. Other communities involve similar distances. I am no apologist for Canada Post. I have had as many delays and foul-ups reported to me as any Member and I am as frustrated as any with the services, but let us keep mail delivery in perspective.
December 18, 1986



ETHNIC AFFAIRS


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the establishment of chairs in ethnic studies at Canadian universities has been a far-sighted Canadian policy. Ethno-cultural communities have raised funds and the federal Government has matched the endowment for some 10 different chairs. Members of these communities take pride in one more contribution that they are able to make to Canadian life from their history and society.
Establishment of a chair in Sikh studies at the University of British Columbia would add to the cultural resources of that great university. It would also provide Sikhs in Canada generally, and particularly in British Columbia, with a Canadian focus for exploration of their religion and traditions. Such an establishment would, I am convinced, advance social harmony in Canada, which achievement should take precedence over external pressures. I call upon the Minister for Multiculturalism to authorize federal funding for a chair in Sikh studies.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, recently I had the privilege to travel with the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade to three developing countries as part of a review of Canada's foreign aid policy. It is the first major review in 15 years. I witnessed firsthand the goodwill generated by Canada's foreign aid and I am proud to know that our assistance has created a spirit of initiative and hope.
Canada is well recognized amongst industrialized nations for its official development assistance to less fortunate countries. The ODA Program has brought substantial economic returns to all regions of Canada. My province alone has helped to open new markets around the world in agriculture and potash.
We realize there are certain risks involved in development. However, with the guidance of NGO volunteers, these countries have a better opportunity to succeed in becoming self-sufficient and potential trading partners. I commend these individuals for their dedication in delivering aid to those who are critically in need. During this holiday season we should be proud to share our good fortune with those who are less fortunate.



CHARTER OF RIGHTS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it was certainly good news yesterday when this House received from the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario a copy of its resolution which would enshrine property rights in the Canadian Constitution. Until the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is amended to include the provision:
Everyone has the right to own and occupy property and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice",
the Charter will remain defective and unfulfilled. The Parliament of Canada must quickly follow the lead taken by Ontario and British Columbia so that property rights are no longer to be excluded from our Constitution.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, historians will label 1986 as the year of "Mulrogates". People will remember 1986 as the year of the famous $2 million loan of the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and the case of the Member for Gamelin.
But the spotlight was on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney), with the many scandals which occured throughout the year. In February the Prime Minister attended a summit and made an official visit to France with a retinue of 60 people at $66,000 a night. With 70 other people trailing him, the Prime Minister then went on a tour of Asia which cost in excess of $50,000 a night.
In October, in New York with 24 followers, expenses were $15,000 a night, not to mention $11,000 for limousines. On a trip through western Canada the Prime Minister was accompanied by a planeload of technical gadgets used to record his image for posterity.
The Prime Minister made sure the Americans would be duly impressed by having our Washington embassy publish a 16-page brochure which has no fewer than 17 pictures of the Prime Minister.
A few days ago we learned that the Prime Minister insisted that his nicest cutlery be used during President Reagan's visit to Quebec City in March 1985, for a total tab of $2.6 million.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the auditor of the Prime Minister, the best Canadian consumer, told us that, for $41 million, the PM had transferred a prison to his own riding.

December 18, 1986
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY



GOVERNMENT'S PERFORMANCE IN 1986

['-because, in many cases, they are not in the position to provide help to remain open for seven days a week. I wish to call upon the Government of Ontario to change its law and introduce meaningful penalties. The present penalties are a deterrent to small businesses, but to big businesses they represent only a cost of doing business.\nThe law is unfair in its present form. I call upon the Government to change it.']
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House today to the fact that The Financial Post, in "Outlook 87", winter edition 1986-87, gives 111 pages of very positive information about Canada. Under the present Government, Canada is now ranked sixth among major industrialized countries for its economic performance, while it ranked eleventh when the Liberals were in power.
Some very specific statistics included in this magazine indicate an increase of more than $500 billion in GNP for 1986. Salaries paid in 1986 will exceed $270 billion. We have gradually been able to control this country's deficit, since 1984. We have brought interest rates down by 4 per cent, while the unemployment rate has gone down from 11.3 to 9.7 per cent, which means 600 000 jobs more.
These are objective figures, offered to Canadians by Maclean-Hunter Publications, and I must say their editor, Mr. Nankivell, has done a very good job.
I think that during the holiday season, every Member of this House who believes in private enterprise has a duty to bring this message of success to all Canadians.



Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is in the House. In my statement, and on behalf of a great many other MPs in the House, I would like to urge the Minister to keep open the embassies which he recently announced would be closed.
The Minister will recall that when the Liberals were in power and they closed the embassy in Quito the Conservatives as well as ourselves protested vigorously. If one speaks to any of the people in External Affairs one will hear them say that that was a great mistake, which is what the Conservatives said at the time. The embassy was re-opened several years later, and the Government now intends to close it again.
It is important for us to have representation in Quito. It is also obvious that we should have a mission in Helsinki which provides a bridge between the East and West in that part of Europe, and particularly in view of the fact that Canada is planning to join with other Nordic nations in greater cooperation for the demilitarization of the Arctic. I urge the Minister to rethink these decisions.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the rate of absenteeism within Canada Post is a national disgrace. The Marchment Report stated that comparisons with the U.S. Postal Service indicate that Canada Post employees consume roughly twice as much sickness and injury leave as do their U.S. counterparts. This information only reinforces the popular stereotype of postal employees.
The stated goal of Canada Post is to reduce annual absenteeism from its present level of over 16 days per employee to 12 days. Why should absenteeism of 12 days per year be acceptable for postal employees when the average for all sectors of the Canadian economy is only six days? It is obvious that most if not all of Canada Post's deficit comes from this incredible absenteeism and its attendant costs. It is time Canada Post stopped two-bitting Canadians to death and instead faced up to this very real problem.


LORD'S DAY OBSERVANCE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that it is valid for a Province to have legislation providing for a day of rest. In the Province of Ontario this has to be regarded as a victory for small family-owned businesses-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -because, in many cases, they are not in the position to provide help to remain open for seven days a week. I wish to call upon the Government of Ontario to change its law and introduce meaningful penalties. The present penalties are a deterrent to small businesses, but to big businesses they represent only a cost of doing business.
The law is unfair in its present form. I call upon the Government to change it.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In answer to a question I asked the Minister yesterday about equalization payments to the provinces, the Minister informed the House
December 18, 1986

that he did not promise to provide an extra $175 million annually for equalization.
Mr. Speaker, I checked all the reports published after the press conference given by the Minister in Edmonton in early November, and all the press reports mention the promise made by the Minister of Finance.
In the circumstances, and also considering that the Minister has now had twenty-four hours to reflect on the matter, will he admit that he and his Department promised to pay an extra $175 million annually to the provinces for equalization, and will he now keep this promise and send this money to the provinces?


Geoff Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBLE RESIGNATION OF MINISTER
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister challenged us, saying that if we could prove that he had made this promise, he would resign.
Mr. Speaker, the press reports contain a number of articles under the following headlines, and I quote the Minister of Finance:

The Minister of Finance said to Matthew Fisher of The Globe and Mail: "We offered $175 million a year in enhancement, or almost $1 billion over the next five years". Does the Minister of Finance recognize that in fact he made that promise to give the money to the provinces?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have gone further than the Hon. Member. I checked the transcript, not what The Globe and Mail said I said. I checked what I said in the transcript and the answer is still no, I did not promise.


MINISTER'S TELEVISION INTERVIEW
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said that he did not make the promise, yet I have a transcript myself of an interview with the Minister of Finance which was televised from coast to coast last night. In the interview the Minister said:
And I believe that an augmentation of $175 million a year-close to a billion dollars over a five-year period-is a very major increase in that-in that program.
I myself heard the Minister saying that on television. Will he continue to believe that he never made that promise? We have the proof right here. I think the Minister should recognize the fact that he should give the money to the provinces or, as he said in the House, do the honourable thing and resign.


Some Hon. Members:: Bye-bye, Mike.
Oral Questions


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the good wishes of the Hon. Members opposite who are wishing me a nice holiday over the next few weeks.


Nelson Andrew Riis: An extended holiday.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: In answer to what the Hon. Member said, I do not care if what he read to me was on coast-to-coast television. What the Hon. Member just read is not a promise. Surely he can understand what is a promise and what is not a promise. What was discussed was an offer that had been the subject of-


Mr. Axworthy:: It's a final offer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to clarify this matter. What was discussed was a proposal by provincial officials and federal government officials. That matter was discussed but there was no consensus. I have checked the records of the meeting. I clearly advised the provincial Ministers that I would have difficulty getting this offer accepted by my cabinet colleagues and I warned them of that. Surely that does not in any way constitute a promise. The intent was clear.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in Question Period the Minister said:
I challenge the Hon. Member to find one person who will say that there was a federal government offer on the table.
The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides quoted what the Minister said on television and I will read it again:
And I believe an augmentation of $175 million a year-close to one billion dollars over a five-year period-is a very major increase in that-in that program. We weren't able to get a consensus, so we'll go back to the drawing board and have another look at some of the proposals. But the parameters are still there.
Have we not found that one person? Is it not the Minister himself? Why is he trying to deny the obvious? Why does he not provide that money to the poor provinces of Canada?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it does surprise me that that Hon. Member should ever talk about resigning. He and I sat side by side in an interview that took place before the 1980 election and he was asked specifically-and he will not deny this in the House-whether he would resign if interest rates continued to go up. Interest rates continued to go up, and where did he sit? He sat right there. For four years he sat there. He did not have the guts to resign after he said he would resign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I made no such statement as a Minister of the Crown.

December 18, 1986
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh,


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: I read it in The Globe and Mail.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I said that I made no such statement as a Minister of the Crown. Also, I called on the Minister to provide the money for the poorer provinces of this country, and he has tried to duck that.


OFFICIALS' MEETING IN EDMONTON
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: My question to the Minister is this. Did he not say yesterday in Question Period "in Edmonton there was a proposition put on the table by a committee of bureaucrats, officials from both the provincial and federal levels of government, to increase the size of the equalization program by $175 million"?
How can the public accept what the Minister is suggesting, that federal officials from the Minister's own Department took part in that committee and made that proposition without the knowlege, support, and approval of the Minister of Finance himself? How can they have said that without the approval of the Minister? Why does the Minister not stick with what his officials have said?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has just said that because he wasn't a Minister of the Crown his integrity was somewhat less. I view my integrity as a private individual, as a member of the Opposition, and as a Minister of the Crown in the same way. I would expect that he would view it in the same way as well.


Mr. Orlikow:: And you better resign right now.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In response to the specific question, surely there were people who were in the room-the Hon. Member was not in the room-but there were people who were in the room at those meetings. Mr. Clements of Prince Edward Island and Mr. Collins of Newfoundland have both said there was no promise. But what they have said is that there has been an acknowledgement by this Government that we are providing $175 million on top of one of the largest programs of government which is $5.25 billion. That recognizes clearly that not only are we going to allow this program to rise by 4 to 6 per cent a year, what we are also doing is augmenting that program with one of the largest increases in spending of $175 million. That is a clear recognition on the part of this Government in the interests of the less well-off provinces, and that is a fact.


FUNDING PARAMETERS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. It involves the quote that was read by one of the Liberal Members:
-I believe that an augmentation of $175 million in a year, close to $5 billion over a five-year period, is a very major increase in that program. We weren't able
to get a consensus, so we'll go back to the drawing boards and look at some proposals, but the parameters are still there.
Will the Minister not stand and admit that the parameters were not there? He removed the parameters and he cut back the funding by half.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I used the word "twist" of the facts. The facts are still being twisted. The parameters are still there. We are increasing the amount of this program by $175 million. That is a very substantial increase. So the parameters are still there.


Mr. Broadbent:: Over two years instead of one.


Lloyd Axworthy: A small detail.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member says "over two years instead of one". The parameters are still there. That was the question that I was asked. We have accepted the proposal that was put before us by the officials. I said clearly that we are prepared to look at some technical changes to improve the effectiveness of the program. It is very clear what we have done. We have made a generous increase in the amount of this program. That is a clear recognition of the support that this Government has been providing, not only in equalization but in a broad range of programs in support of the provinces that are not as well off.


DEFINITION OF PARAMETER
Rodney Edward Murphy: My question to the same Minister is this. He has his own definition of promise, he has own definition of an offer, and now he has his own definition of parameter. How can the Minister define a parameter as a 50 per cent cut? Will he explain that to us, and explain that to Canadians?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying: Is the glass half full, or is the glass half empty?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: This glass is half full, hell, no doubt about that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It was a full glass at the beginning.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Ms. Copps:: In response to the Minister's comment, is that like being half pregnant?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 18, 1986


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. I have a transcript of a taped speech given by the Minister at a meeting, which the Minister told the House yesterday he did not attend. At that meeting the Minister said:
I indicated to Yuri some weeks ago that I would be pleased to support my colleagues at the gathering at the weekend ... when Andrew Witer and others who are Members of Parliament from my Party are with you tomorrow night and the greetings of the Prime Minister are, I gather, being read by Andrew Witer, I'm pleased to hear that.
Could the Minister tell the House why he and at least four of his colleagues lent credibility to the conference? Did they know, for example, that among the invitees would be fund raisers for the Nicaraguan Contras?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Hon. Member indicated that I was at the conference, and I quite properly indicated that I was not at the conference. Indeed, she suggested that I was a patron, and I suggested to her-and I checked the record-that I was not a patron. I did attend the reception on the Friday night-


Lloyd Axworthy: At the conference.


David Edward Crombie: -not in some dark room, but in the Legislature at Queen's Park.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CONFERENCE ATTENDANTS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister said: "I was not at the conference". In fact, among the meetings and social events listed in the official program was the reception at Queen's Park to which I specifically referred. Would the Minister tell the House, once and for all, why he and at least four of his colleagues lent credibility to the conference, by not only being there themselves, but also by bringing greetings from the Prime Minister? Does he mean that he and his colleagues have no problem with a conference which invites, as one of its special guests, a fund raiser for the Nicaraguan Contras?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I was not at the conference and I was not a patron to the conference. In fact the September 11 letter from me to the organization points that out; it is a matter of public record. In respect of the organziation of the conference itself, in which I had no part, I might suggest to the Hon. Member that among the people who showed up through letters of commendation and letters of greeting were Mr. Peterson, Mr. Eggle-ton, and a host of other people who simply wanted to say to
Oral Questions
people interested in the matter of individual freedom that they supported the idea of individual freedom, and that is what I was doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. As she well knows, last night the United States proposed that Canada implement a 15 per cent export tax indefinitely or until the provinces raised stumpage by $860 million per year. This would practically triple stumpage fees in Canada and exceed the entire profit of the Canadian lumber industry by $360 million. Would the Minister tell the House whether Canada now plans to make another offer, since Canada has rejected the American offer and we have been unable to get either Mr. Shultz or Mr. Baldrige to get the co-operation of the U.S. lumber coalition?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is misinformed on this matter. He is correct that we have rejected another American proposal which is so unreasonable that it calls into question the U.S. approach to these negotiations. However, Mr. Shultz and Mr. Baldrige are, and have been, involved. I can only tell the Hon. Member that discussions are continuing and that I will inform the House of developments at the earliest opportunity.


PROGRESS OF DISCUSSIONS-CANADIAN POSITION BEFORE GATT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, could the Hon. Minister advise the House whether Canada is making a new offer? If the U.S. coalition does not accept it, does Canada now intend to fight the illegal 15 per cent countervail duty before the U.S. courts and before GATT?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, there has never been a new Canadian offer on the table. The offer or approach on the table is the one which was agreed to at the First Ministers' Conference in Vancouver in November. That is the Canadian proposal. There has been no deviation from that proposal. In answer to the last part of the Hon. Member's question, we will have to wait to see what happens with the ongoing discussions. However, I can assure him that we are appealing this preliminary determination in the GATT. The panel has met twice and we expect a ruling in the next few weeks.

December 18, 1986
Oral Questions UNITED STATES PROPOSAL


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same Minister on this very important issue. She just stated in her answer that the proposal put forward by the Americans calls the whole process into question. If the Minister has concluded that the whole process is questionable, why are we continuing this particular charade? Why does the Government of Canada not simply state, once and for all, that the 15 per cent tariff is unacceptable and that we are prepared to fight for our rights in proper tribunals, and not accept any kind of American proposition which will put our industry in jeopardy, both in world competition and in the U.S. market?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, clearly the Hon. Member did not hear my response. I said that the American response was unreasonable and called into question the seriousness of the approach, not the process. The process has narrowed the disagreement between the two parties to only a few issues. I can only add that the Hon. Member does not seem to understand that a duty has been imposed. We are attempting, under the remedies open to us, to negotiate a settlement on a duty which has already been imposed. At the same time we are proceeding with our argument before a GATT panel.


CANADIAN POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. When it comes to the question of understanding, do the Minister and the Government understand the fact that the ruling was a temporary ruling and that, by pursuing the kind of position taken by her and the Government, the case before international and American tribunals has been undermined? The Government of Canada has accepted the position of Canada as one which agrees with the precedent and principle set forth by the Americans. When will the Government of Canada clearly say to the United States that its imposition of the duty is unacceptable? We are waiting for the Government to say that.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is wrong and, worse, he is uninformed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Hardly, hardly.


Pat Carney: If he understood the process, he would know that all international tribunals, such as GATT and other processes, permit and encourage negotiation of disputes between both parties. That is what we have been involved in. We have said that the P.D. is unacceptable. We are attempting-


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: I wish the Hon. Member would allow me to answer his question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Then give us a decent answer.


Pat Carney: We have explained repeatedly in the House that if we can negotiate a settlement we will not be faced with the precedent set in this unacceptable ruling. It will not appear on the books. There will be no final determination. If there is a final determination, we would consider it to be harmful to the country. We are seeking, without the support of the Opposition, to resolve this bitter dispute and get it behind us, so that we can proceed with the trade talks whose aim is to ensure that this kind of border dispute can be settled in a reasonable way.
 * *


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS SIZE OF FEDERAL PAYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Following public comments made by the Government of Manitoba and by the Government of New Brunswick about the $175 million they believe was put on the table by the federal Government in Edmonton, yesterday I telephoned the Minister of Finance in Quebec and he confirmed it. Today my office contacted the Prince Edward Island Minister of Finance. He claimed two things. First, he said there was nothing in writing from the federal Government. However, he said there was not a Minister of Finance at the meeting who did not believe that $175 million was put on the table by the federal Government over one year starting this year.


Charles Joseph Clark: Put your seat on the line, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: Is the Minister saying that because it was not put in writing-


Charles Joseph Clark: Have a little courage.


John Edward Broadbent: -that a commitment was not made by the federal Government?


Geoff Wilson: No, I am not
saying that at all, Mr. Speaker. I am saying that I reviewed the records of the meeting and there is no question from the way the discussions went that there was not an offer on the table. I am repeating myself but there was a proposal put on the table-


Raymond Garneau: You said it yourself.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member says I said it myself. I ask him to go check with the other Ministers of Finance.


Raymond Garneau: I heard you on TV last night.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!
December 18, 1986


Michael Holcombe Wilson: A proposal was put on the table by a committee of federal and provincial government officials. That proposal was a subject for discussion. There was no agreement. I said at the end of the meeting that 1 would take it back and discuss it with my colleagues, which I did. At no time did I promise to do this or that. I think the Ministers of Finance would fully agree with that.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be an awful lot of upset Ministers of Finance who see this a little differently from the Minister here in Ottawa. We have representatives of all the provinces we have been able to contact, representing all political parties, saying an offer was made. Will the Minister now acknowledge that such an offer was made, acknowledge the need of the provinces for that money, and live up to that offer?


Geoff Wilson: First, Mr. Speaker, I said from the start of this debate that there was not an offer on the table. The Hon. Member says that the Ministers of Finance are upset. Sure, they are upset because they wanted a lot of money. However, they also know there is not a lot of money available. These discussions have been going on for 18 months. I told them right from the start that the Government of Canada did not have the fiscal capability to give them the amount of money they wanted.
We have increased this program by $175 million in the second year. That is on top of $5.25 billion. This is one of the single largest government programs and it is growing at 4 per cent to 6 per cent per annum. If the Hon. Member wants to check the fiscal plan I tabled last February he will see it is one of the fastest growing government programs.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT MAKE JUST DECISION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the provincial ministers of Finance are angry because the federal Government has changed its offer. My question to the Minister is simply this: Will he make a fair decision which will be consistent with the original offer of the Government? He said today that the federal Government intended to maintain its offer and to provide $175 million to the provinces this year.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Government has made a very fair decision. We have increased the amounts under a major Government program, namely equalization. This is a $5.2 million program. We have enriched this program by $175 million in two years. This is one of the most important programs of the Government and it has been enriched by 4 to 6 per cent a year, and will be each year in the future. This is a good decision because this Government understands the position of the poorer provinces.

Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A spokesman for the World Anti-Communist League says that $25 million has been raised by his organization to help the Contras. Could the Minister tell us whether he knows if, or how much of this money if you like, has been raised in Canada, and whether his Government approves of fund raising in Canada for purposes which are in direct conflict with its own foreign policy?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as to whether I can confirm the allegations made by the Hon. Member, no, I cannot. I will see if there is some means by which I can confirm them or otherwise, and advise him.
The other question was whether in a democracy the Government of Canada is prepared to allow private citizens to raise money for purposes with which the Government of Canada might not agree. Of course we allow that freedom. That is part of being a free country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PERSONAL CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY MEMBERS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, has said that he has himself contributed to this organization. I would like to know whether such an action on his part is acceptable to the Government since he is a Member of the Conservative caucus and this is in direct contradiction with Government policy. Have other Conservative Members made similar contributions?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, just as it is not the policy of the Liberal Party to tell the Hon. Member for Glengarry

Prescott- Russell that he cannot travel to Taiwan, and he has done so, it is our own policy


An Hon. Member:: Oh! Oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The leader of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party has just spoken up. It is not our policy or our right to tell Liberal, Conservative or Socialist Members whether or not they can make personal contributions.

December 18, 1986
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


REQUEST FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO LEBEL-SUR-QUEVILLON AIRPORT, QUE.
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Lebel-sur-Quevillon airport is the only place where an ambulance may land to carry out injured people in that area of the Abitibi, the only one where a tanker aircraft CL-215 may remain throughout the summer and that airport needs improvements. My question is as follows: Transport Canada is considering the matter. Is your Department ready to provide funds to improve that airport in 1987?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the question raised by my colleague from Abitibi is a very important one for northern areas. The Quebec Government is now reassessing ambulance aircrafts that could land in those areas and we have made recommendations about the length of the runways and the kind of planes which should be used in those areas. After we get an answer from the Quebec Government, we will be in a position to make a realistic decision based on our recommendations and we would be ready to undertake drainage, land clearing and paving operations to enhance facilities at that airport.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He is of course responsible for the conduct of Canada's foreign policy and our relations with other states. As he well knows, Canada not only maintains full diplomatic relations with Nicaragua but also provides it with development assistance, bank credits, and assists in its trade activities. Is he prepared at least to point out these facts to the four members of his Party who have been supporting activities which would result in the violent overthrow of the Government of Nicaragua?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to point out those facts. I appreciate the Hon. Member reciting for the House of Commons and the Canadian public the balanced approach this Government has taken towards questions in central America. What she is talking about here, and what the Liberal Party is talking about here, is a very basic question of individual freedom. Are Canadian citizens free or not free to contribute to causes in which they believe? If ordinary citizens are free, do they lose that freedom because they become Members of Parliament? It appears that the Liberal and New
Democratic Parties believe that freedom should not exist. We do not share that view.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Minister gravely distorted what I said. I worded my question very carefully.


NICARAGUAN CONTRAS-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not believe that confusion is being sown in the minds of the Canadian public-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: -and in the minds of citizens of other Latin American countries? Is it or is it not the foreign policy of the Government of Canada to oppose any support, be it military or financial, to the Contras who are trying to overthrow the Government of Nicaragua? If it is our policy to oppose the Contras, will the Minister at least make that clear to the members of his own Party?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Government is not only clear to the countries of Central America, but is applauded by them. I knew that the Hon. Member and I had different views of the extent of state control which would be appropriate, but I did not know that her view of state control meant that it should reach to the lengths of prohibiting individual private persons from contributing to private undertakings in which they might believe, even though that was not the policy of the Government of the day.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. I asked him on several occasions for information concerning the regressive attitude of the RCMP concerning official languages. The Government has adopted a passive attitude in this matter, prefering to do nothing. Delighted with this lack of action and leadership, the RCMP is still bent on its decision to reduce the proportion of Francophones among its regular officers from 20 to 14 per cent. These policies are insulting to Francophones and show that this Government pays only lip service to equitable representation. The Minister claimed in the House that the RCMP continues to maintain the 20 per cent quota. The RCMP told us that it does not. My question is
December 18, 1986

this: Who is telling the truth, the RCMP or the Goverment? Who sets up the linguistic policy in this country, the Government or the RCMP?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I do not accept at all my hon. friend's preambule. I cannot accept either the fact he should quote me as saying that the RCMP is maintaining the quota. I said that it must do so. It's a quota which has been established by and comes under the Treasury Board, a quota which has never been changed and which is the RCMP's responsibility to maintain. If the RCMP wants to change it, it can always submit an application to Treasury Board, something it has failed to do. Under the circumstances, the RCMP must maintain the quota which has been set and we strongly support our linguistic policy as established.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ASSERT ITS POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: According to a time honoured proverb, Mr. Speaker, where there is a will there is a way. The Government's position is clearly in conflict with that of the RCMP. My question is quite simply: What could the Minister tell the House to assure us that the Government is assuming and will continue to assume its responsability concerning official languages? Will he tell the RCMP that the government is the boss, not the RCMP?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to my Hon friend that following representations made last October in the House, I wrote my colleague the Solicitor General on October 22 to ask him to submit to Treasury Board at his earliest convenience the plan which the RCMP meant to follow to implement the Treasury Board guidelines. I was told that it would take a few weeks, and I can accept that. Once this plan is submitted, the Treasury Board will take the necessary action to ensure that its guidelines are respected.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP persists in its contempt of the basic principles of the Official Languages Act. At headquarters, for instance, what we have is indeed an English-speaking ghetto.
When will the Minister insist that the Commissioner and other RCMP members must absolutely abide by every principle of bilingualism within the RCMP and stop trying to sabotage it?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I just answered that same question on October 22, 1986. If the RCMP or the Solicitor General, on behalf of the RCMP, want to apply for any exemption to Treasury
Oral Questions
Board's policies on language matters, all they have to do is make the application within the shortest time frame.
In the meantime, the policy remains unchanged and those people must comply.


REQUEST THAT CERTAIN SUGGESTIONS BE ACCEPTED
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Solicitor General.
Is the Minister ready to accept two very concrete suggestions on bilingualism in the RCMP-first, that the next commissioner be bilingual, and second, that members of the RCMP receive a premium for bilingualism, as is already the case for all employees in the Public Service?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member and other Members of the House are aware, the present Commissioner is retiring on March 31,1987. We will be commencing interviews of possible candidates in the near future. I thank the Hon. Member for his suggestions. I think they are very sensible suggestions and we will certainly take them into account during our interviews.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question related to the press conference given yesterday in Montreal by the Minister of State (Youth). Since he is not here I would ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to respond, and I will speak French to the Minister even though his colleague held most of his Montreal press conference in English.
How can he explain the fact that his Government will invest only $10 million over three years to create 849 jobs, when we know there are more than 377,000 unemployed in this age group, particularly if we note that this program, a poor substitute for Katimavik, is neither new nor innovative since it existed in 1984 under the Liberal Government with a $35 million annual budget to create 3,500 jobs a year?
Why does the Minister allocate such measly sums to youth ' programs?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Quite obviously, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice simply did not understand that the program announced yesterday by my colleague is only one of many job creation programs for young people. There is more to come and, if the Hon. Member would be patient, the

December 18, 1986
Oral Questions
Minister of State (Youth) will announce other programs at the appropriate time.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT EXPRESS INTENTIONS MORE PRECISELY
Gilles Grondin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister's answer is not good enough because we have been waiting for two years now to find out what the Government will do to replace the programs it shelved.
This one totally ignores Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island, and offers just a few crumbs to Nova Scotia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member ask his question?


Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, when will the Government stop treating young people as if they were third-class citizens? What does the Government plan to do to meet the needs of young people who do not live in cities or in the provinces covered under the program?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe that the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice would be so oblivious as to forget and refuse to acknowledge that last year this Government did invest more than $200 million to create jobs. Young people have not been treated so well for many years, well enough to make any Liberal Party dream about it!


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Speaking of the deep sense of frustration felt by individuals and communities who lost an important part of their livelihood because of the international campaign against sealing, the Malouf Commission said: "They feel aggrieved economically, socially and culturally. There is a need for financial compensation for these losses". Why has the Government added to this sense of frustration and betrayal by rejecting recommendations for major funding that would compensate these individuals and communities and help them to get back on their feet?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that when all Hon. Members have had a chance to read the entire Malouf Commission report they will appreciate the helpful and thorough advice that Judge
Malouf and his colleagues have offered to all Canadians on this very difficult issue. We have concerns for those communities and individuals, both in northern Canada and on the Atlantic coast, whose livelihood has been displaced by international pressures and other factors. That is why we have announced a $5 million adjustment package to reorient and refocus these communities and to assist in a rejuvenation of legitimate sealing for adult seals, where that is feasible.


AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister and his Government pretend that $5 million over four years is adequate compensation for the kind of devastation that these individuals and communities have suffered as a result of an economic disaster that was not of their own making?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that we have set in place a number of consultations involving the Canadian Sealers Association and the Inuit Tapirasat of Canada. We are funding a proposal on their part with respect to a long-term strategy to assist these sealing communities.
I might remind the Hon. Member that the Chairman of the Canadian Sealers Association said yesterday that even fishermen recognize that $120 million is excessive and that in this day of restraint money has to be spent wisely.


James Douglas Manly: There is a big difference between $5 million and $120 million.


Thomas Edward Siddon: According to Mr. Mark Small: "I don't think they-fishermen, "-are expecting compensation".


BABY SEAL HUNT-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and concerns the Malouf Commission Report. The Minister is well aware that many Canadians are most concerned about the hunting of baby seals. Will he explain why the Government has rejected the recommendation of the Malouf Commission to ban the commercial hunting of baby seals, particularly in light of the Minister's admission that there is no market for the skins? Is he prepared to reconsider that decision?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the Hon. Member that the Government's response yesterday did not indicate a rejection of any particular recommendation. In fact, as I indicated to the media yesterday, we will not support a renewal of the white coat hunt. Neither market conditions nor public opinion would allow the renewal of the white coat hunt and that is why, in our package of adjustment measures to benefit legitimate sealing communities, there will be absolutely no support for any rejuvenation of that hunt. We feel that that hunt is dead for once and for all.
December 18, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador rising on a supplementary question on this issue?


Mr. Rompkey:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR INCREASED COMPENSATION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans how he can speak with such hyprocrisy and how he can stand in his place as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. All Hon. Members know that Question Period has nearly ended. I tried to accommodate Members on this particular issue. The Hon. Member, on a short supplementary.


Bill Rompkey: Will the Minister, as spokesman for the fishermen, go back to Cabinet and ask it to reconsider this measly $5 million which is an insult to the sealers on the Atlantic coast and in the Arctic, and receive a decent and generous compensation package for sealers who are the most marginal and vulnerable workers in the country?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I must repeat to the Hon. Member that the adjustment measures that were announced yesterday in the area of employment adjustment and marketing support for the sealing industry meet with the support of the Canadian Sealers Association-


Bill Rompkey: They do not. They said it was not enough.


Thomas Edward Siddon: They claim that $ 120 million is excessive and in fact suggest that sealers are not expecting compensation.


Bill Rompkey: That is hyprocrisy.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Go back and talk to your own constituents.


Bill Rompkey: You are absolutely wrong.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, may I beg the indulgence of the House to make a very short statement with respect to a judge of the Citizenship Court in Toronto.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has asked for consent to revert to Statements by Ministers. Is it the disposition of the House to give consent?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the agreement of the House will be such that opposition spokepersons will have the usual right to reply.
Statements by Ministers


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West has raised a point which I just assumed. In any event, the Chair will recognize other Members.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I have talked to my opposition critics and they are aware of the statement. I wish to inform the House that I have just received a letter of resignation from Citizenship Judge Steven Walter of Toronto, a copy of which I respectfully submit. I want to advise the House that copies of the letter of resignation are available from my office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's statement. I just want to make a few comments.
The case of Judge Steven Walter is unfortunate. In our view, Judge Walter should not have been appointed to the Citizenship Court bench. That particular appointment is a classic example of political patronage at its worst. Judge Walter was appointed to the Citizenship Court bench, not because of his qualifications as a Citizenship Court judge, but because he was a friend of the Government and because he was a supporter of the Conservative Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata), who has evidenced considerable interest in this matter and has made representations in the Chamber on the question, knows that when a Minister makes a statement, other Members who are replying are bound by the custom of keeping their statements within the same time frame. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston has already exceeded that. Perhaps the Hon. Member would find another time and another circumstance to comment further and enlarge upon the points that he makes. I know that the Hon. Member thinks it is an important matter.
I point out to all Hon. Members that quite clearly the Minister felt this was a very important matter and I believe has acted with great expedition.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the significance that the Minister gave this issue when it was brought to his attention, both in the media and in the House. I believe he took prompt and appropriate action. I

December 18, 1986
Points of Order
believe he has sent a very clear signal to Citizenship Court judges across Canada that we expect them, in their position of trust, to exercise total non-partisanship in their deliberations. If anything, this highlights the need to have a sophisticated process for the screening of Citizenship Court judges when they are appointed. This is a quasi-judicial position and it is important that people of the highest quality are put in those positions of trust and that they conduct their operations in a most appropriate and sophisticated non-partisan way.


PRIVILEGE
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct what I said earlier in reply to the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin) in relation with the amounts invested by the Department of Employment and Immigration and the Ministry of Youth to create jobs for young people.
I am sure that the Opposition Party will blame me if I do not make this correction. We did not invest $200 million, but $700 million in job creation.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period today the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) distinctly said "Lies, lies, lies" after the Secretary of State replied to her question. I would ask the Chair to check the "blues".


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, I believe, is raising either a point of order or a point of privilege. I must advise the House that I did not hear what is alleged and I will look at the "blues".


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with representatives of the Opposition and I think you will find unanimous agreement to revert to Motions. I have two or three motions I would like to put forth in respect to the conduct of business for the next day or so and also with respect to legislative committees and the extension of rules. If there is that unanimous consent, I will put the motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mazankowski) have the unanimous consent of the House to move his motions?


STANDING ORDERS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my first motion
is:
That, for the remainder of this session or until the last sitting day of December 1987, whichever comes first, the provisions of Standing Order 94(2) and Standing Order 89(1) in relation thereto, shall be suspended, unless otherwise ordered by this House.
What this proposal does is extend the committee membership of all the Standing Committees into 1987. If this is not done, the membership of the Standing Committees would expire at the end of this year.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my second motion has to do with the work of the legislative committees. This proposal would suspend Standing Order 93(1) which requires the Striking Committee to report a list after first reading which causes unnecessary legislative committees to be appointed when reference of a Bill is sometimes made to a Standing Committee or Committees of the Whole.
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order for the remainder of the present Session, when a Bill has received second reading and has been referred to a legislative committee, the Striking Committee shall prepare and report, not later than the following Thursday, a list of members to compose the legislative committee which shall consist of not more than thirty (30) members.
Upon presentation of such a report of the Striking Committee, the same shall be deemed adopted and the Speaker shall appoint a Chairman to the said legislative committee, pursuant to Standing Order 93(2).
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 93(6), the Government House Leader shall, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, establish the order in which the several legislative committees shall consider Bills, on the basis that no legislative committee shall sit at the same time that another legislative committee is sitting on a Bill emanating from or principally affecting the same department or agency.
What this would do is suspend the provision which requires legislative committees to meet within two sitting days of a


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed. Motion agreed to.
The motion is as follows:


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
December 18, 1986
[Stage Direction]
second reading and allow for priorities to be set while avoiding conflicts of membership.
The third proposal is:
That, notwithstanding Standing Orders 92(2) and 96(1), Standing and Standing Joint Committees shall not sit at the same time as a legislative committee on a Bill emanating from or principally affecting the same department or agency.
This also would avoid conflicts of membership and allow Members to be at legislative committees and not have to split their attendance between two committee appearances.
The fourth proposal is:
That legislative committees sitting during periods coinciding with the hours of sitting of the House, shall have priority over Standing, Standing Joint and Special committees.
The fifth proposal is:
That priority shall be given to Standing, Standing Joint and Special Committees in periods when the House stands adjourned, according to the schedule of meetings as established, from time to time, by the Chief Government Whip, after consultation with the other parties.
On many occasions in this House, Mr. Speaker, we have alluded to the fact that we are operating under new rules. There are growing pains and adjustments which have to be made. I merely want to express my appreciation to the Opposition House Leaders for their excellent co-operation so that we are able to work through these difficulties and have been able to work out solutions which we hope will facilitate and expedite the business of the House.
Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties in an effort to deal with the problem where Private Members who are involved in Private Members' Business Hour are unable to proceed with their motions. I therefore have two motions to present to the House. The first is an interim solution with respect to February 20, 1987, and the second motion refers only to the matter of substitution of Private Members' Business to the committee directly.
The first motion is as follows:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order, for the remainder of the present session,
(1)	If a Member has given at least twenty-four hours' written notice that he or she is unable to be present to move his or her motion on the date required by the order of precedence, and if that item of business is not one which has been designated "votable" by the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, the Speaker, with permission of the Members involved, may arrange for an exchange of positions in the order of precedence with a Member whose motion or bill in the order of precedence has not been designated "votable".
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
(2)	In the event that the Speaker has been unable to arrange an exchange, the House shall continue with the business before it prior to "Private Members' Hour" pursuant to Standing Order 39(2), provided that there shall be no extension of the sitting pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(a), and any division on a debatable motion shall be deferred until 6 o'clock p.m. on the next sitting day. For the purposes of this section, Standing Order 19(5) relating to deferred divisions on a Thursday shall apply.
(3)	This order to expire on or about February 20, 1987, pending a report on this matter by the Committee on Privileges, Elections and Procedures.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Agreed.']
Philip Derek Lewis: I would like to give the Motion of Reference to the committee if I may:
That the matter of substitution of Private Members' Business when a Member is unable to move his or her motion on the date required by the order of precedence be referred to the Committee on Privileges, Elections and Procedures for a recommendation as to how this matter might be resolved and report to this House by February 20, 1987.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you and other Hon. Members are aware, the provisional Standing Orders under which this House functions will expire on the last sitting day in December. There have been the usual discussions with the Opposition House Leaders. I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any previous Orders of the House, all the current permanent and provisional Standing Orders shall continue in force until April 15, 1987.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-16, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
[Stage Direction]
December 18, 1986
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks about Bill C-16, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide for the extension of the variable entrance requirements and to freeze the premiums payed by employers and employees into the Unemployment Insurance fund.
It is unfortunate that the Government has brought this Bill in at this late moment. Here we are in the dying hours of a sitting which will be finished by the end of December. If this Bill is not passed we would revert to a variable entrance requirement and the unemployed would need 14 weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits.
We on this side of the House have no difficulty with supporting the Bill. There is no question that we support it and want it passed as quickly as possible. However, I think we ought to take this opportunity to reflect on the unemployment insurance program because the variable entrance requirement in itself is attached to the regional extended benefits.
The Government recently received the Forget Report in which we find some disturbing recommendations indeed. May I remind the House that when the Forget Commission was set up to look at the unemployment insurance program it was in an atmosphere of deficit cutting. In November of 1984 the Government was all set to cut deficits here, there and everywhere. It tried it through deindexing old age pensions and came up a cropper on that one. The Government made some announcements with respect to unemployment insurance. One was the consideration of pension income as earned income. Another was looking at severence pay and holiday pay as earned income and to appropriately cut back unemployment insurance benefits for those who received either, or for those who took an early retirement and received a pension. Because of the public outcry against that type of mindless cutting the Government set up the Forget Commission.
The Forget Commission was not set up to make the unemployment insurance program more humane, more sensitive or more responsive to the needs of the unemployed. It was set up in direct response to the Government's need and wish to cut $3 billion from the unemployment insurance fund. Magically, as if by osmosis, the Forget Report came back with a report which suggests exactly that. It recommends the removal of $3 billion from the unemployment insurance fund.
It is interesting to speculate on the Forget Commission report. First, it cost $5.2 million, which money came out of the unemployment insurance fund. It did not come out of the general revenues of the Government. Thus employers and employees have paid for this study. The money did not come from the government unemployment insurance accounts. It did not come from the government side of the account; it came from the premium account. It came out of the contributions of employers and employees. The Chairman of the commission was paid $725 per day plus $125 per day expenses. I am always amazed at how the rich and well-heeled can sit back
and make recommendations regarding the levels of income that poor people receive. If we had some time I would like to do some speculation on that subject. However, I wish to take a look at what was said in the Forget Commission report.
Mr. Forget said that he went across the country and listened to Canadians. In fact, he received 475 briefs, most of which came from trade unions, individuals and advocacy groups. About 19 per cent of the briefs came from the business sector. In addition, the Forget Commission received 1,500 written briefs along with which there were no appearances. Mr. Forget said that he listened and that there were a great many complaints and much criticism that the unemployment insurance fund was unfair, unjust and that it was abused.
I have examined the briefs. I have found that a very small number of them, primarily the ones from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the federation of small business- just two or three briefs-recommended the type of Draconian measures that Mr. Forget and the majority of his commission recommended. For example, none of the briefs from fishermen recommended the elimination of fishermen's benefits. Only two or three briefs out of the 1,500 recommended the elimination of the regional extended benefits. None of them proposed any annualization. So to whom was Mr. Forget and the majority of his commission tuned in?
In an article which appears in today's The Toronto Star Mr. Roy Bennett points out that the commission report states the following:
To address the question of fairness, it is important to identify those income groups that are the chief beneficiaries of unemployment insurance and the $3 billion of regional extended benefits.
He goes on to state that the unemployment insurance program was not redistributing wealth adequately. That is not what the unemployment insurance program is designed to do. No reputable individual who I know has suggested that the function of the unemployment insurance program is to redistribute wealth. The program was established to insure against the loss of income as a result of becoming unemployed. That is what the unemployment insurance program was designed to do.
It seems to me that Governments of the past have recognized that in some parts of the country the chances of becoming unemployed are much greater than in other parts of the country. For example, in the Golden Horseshoe at this point in time a person can leave one job and walk into another tomorrow. That is not uncommon. We must also recognize that in other parts of the country the same thing is not so easy. In fact, there are parts of the country where it is important to Canada's economic health that the resources be mined, fished and cut. We must recognize that those are seasonal operations. Thus we insure workers against the loss of income should they lose their jobs. That is the underpinning of the unemployment insurance program.
Mr. Forget has come along and said in his very wealthy, blithe and autocratic way that we can eliminate the regional extended benefits and we can annualize the income of those

m

December 18, 1986

collecting UI. In this way a person in Toronto, for example, who has worked 20 weeks will receive $240 a week under the present unemployment insurance system. On the proposal of Mr. Forget another person in St. John's, Newfoundland under the same circumstances with the same insured income will receive $102 a week. He throws in that an earnings supplementation program can be provided. However, when we open the Forget Commission report and try to find details with respect to that program we are forced to ask the following questions. Will it be income-attached? Will it be total family income or individual income? Does one have to be working to collect it? How long will it last? How much will one receive? There are no details with respect to these questions. However, there are all sorts of details with respect to what will be cut off and how it will be cut off, but nothing with respect to what will replace it. Canadians right across the country are not prepared to accept that pig-in-a-poke approach-no way!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 3.30 p.m., pursuant to the special order adopted yesterday, I must now interrupt the proceedings and the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   CONSTITUTION ACTS, 1867-1982 SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO ABOLISH SENATE
John Edmund Parry: That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, should be amended in order to abolish the Senate, and that this House urges that the Senate and the Legislative Assemblies of all provinces pass similar resolutions, and that the Governor General issue a Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to that effect.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure, perhaps tinged with regret that this motion is no longer a votable item, that I rise today to present this motion and to say that I am proud and happy that it is very much in the mainstream tradition of my Party. When I first came to this House, given some of the statements made during the 1984 election campaign and repeated in the House since that time, with the notable exception of the decimated remnants of the former Liberal Government, I was hopeful that, while this motion might not lead to the abolition of the Senate and the arrival of the moving vans tomorrow or even next week, it would indeed assist in setting in motion the processes required to rid this country of an institution which was once an embellishment but is now an embarrassment.
Today I would like to acknowledge the record of members of my Party, some of whom are no longer in this House, who have proposed and argued for the abolition of the Senate. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of former Leaders of this Party and its precursors and predecessors. I would also like to
The Senate
acknowledge the contribution of the Leader of my Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). It was he who introduced a motion in the House on March 11, 1985. Rather than quote the complete motion, I would instance a couple of its clauses:
Whereas the Senate of Canada enjoys legislative powers, but exercises these powers without popular mandate;
Whereas the Senate of Canada is a product of an earlier period when democracy had not yet matured in Canada;
Whereas adoption of this resolution would continue to allow for the creation of new and democratic legislative institutions by the Government of Canada and the provinces of Canada;
This House urges the Government of Canada and the Governments of the provinces to act as expeditiously as possible to abolish the Senate of Canada.
At that time, surprisingly enough, members of the Official Opposition gave their consent to the debate of such a motion. Unfortunately, the Government, through a speech from the now Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) along the lines of the need for consultation and consensus, essentially turned down that initiative. Thus, I believe, the Government missed a great opportunity to rid Canadian society and the Parliament of Canada of an anachronism.
I shall quote again from the motion of my Hon. Leader:
Whereas the Senate of Canada enjoys legislative powers, but exercises these powers without popular mandate;
If I were to make a one-sentence summary of my case for the abolition of the Senate, those are the words I would use. The Senate of Canada operates within the Canadian parliamentary framework without a popular mandate.
I would like to refresh the memory of the House of the exchange which took place in March 1985 between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Leader of the Official Opposition The Prime Minister, tongue in cheek and ever quick, offered the Leader of the Official Opposition the chance to bring in a motion to abolish the Senate if it was supported by the Liberal Party. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition chose not to call the Prime Minister's bluff. Had he done so, he might have either embarrassed the Government or, indeed, forced it to act on the offer that was made rather than merely relying on rhetoric, wit and evasion to accomplish their objectives within the parliamentary process.
I do not wish to provide an historical survey today; indeed, time does not allow. Nor do I want to deal with personalties. There must be rules of mutual respect. While the Senate continues to exist, I will do my best to observe it. Although it is difficult to deal with either assembly without referring to individuals and practices, I am sure you will correct me if I err on this rule, Mr. Speaker.
In the context of the resolution, it matters little what the personal work or merits, opinions, strengths or weaknesses, habits, shortcomings, real, imagined or alleged are of the Members of the other House. Indeed, it matters not very much what the level of their income from their official duties, if I could use the term ever so loosely, might be. It matters little what income they draw from other sources, whether it be

December 18, 1986
The Senate
simply Old Age Security pensions or directors' fees and residual incomes such as in some cases is said to amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. In trying to avoid the ad hominem or ad feminem arguments, I would have to ask for the forebearance of the House because it very difficult indeed to ignore some of the grosser examples that have been presented to us from time to time.
I would like to discuss briefly the background of second chambers in general. In western constitutional history, bicameralism was originally justified by the need to represent the aristocratic element of society in a distinctive and powerful way within Parliament. The classical theory was expressed by Montesquieu in his The Spirit of Laws. Second chambers, however, have indeed been passionately decried. The objection of Sieyes in the French Revolution is well known: if it contradicts the popular chamber, then it is not democratic; if it merely agrees, then of course it is unnecessary.
To quote a Canadian context, a Father of Confederation, Georges-Etienne Cartier, claimed that the Senate provided the power of resistance to oppose the democratic element. Indeed, today there is still on the walls of that chamber the quote from Cicero: "It is the duty of the nobles to oppose the fickleness of the multitudes".
Harold Laskey, the British political scientist, said that anyone who examines the nature and history of second chambers in general will discover that their main purpose is at least to delay and, if possible, to prevent the disturbance of the status quo. They are, in fact, conservative structures, using that term in its small "c" sense. I am glad to know that many of my colleagues within the Progressive Conservative Party believe that the Senate has outlived its usefulness.
Since World War II, there has been a trend away from bicameralism throughout the world. Second chambers have been abolished in Denmark and Sweden, and in 1968 the Province of Quebec finally rid itself of the last provincial second chamber in Canada. According to a survey carried out in the last decade, a single elected chamber prevails in 84 countries and bicameralism in only 55.
The faults of the institution derive from the fact that the Senate was established during an immature phase of Canadian democracy. I do not claim that the present phase is perfect but it has at least matured in its institutions. The Senate was modelled, as are so many of our institutions, on the British constitutional model; in this case, the House of Lords. It was to replicate the function the House of Lords served at a time when Canada functioned very much as an appendage of the United Kingdom.
Canada's system was modelled on the British House of Lords where the principle was, though not explicitly stated, to provide a brake for the powerful, the privileged and the landed interests on the initiatives of the democratic society. Second chambers were considered necessary to protect business and commercial interests from the irresponsible operations of popular Government.
The Senate is neither regionally representative today, nor is it democratic. It is, to quote Bob Rae, an undemocratic institution working at the heart of a democratic Government. I would like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the local newspaper. I found it to be very persuasive on the subject. It said:
As a body of provincial representation, it is obsolete-overtaken by the elaborate institutionalization of federal-provincial relations... The first ministers' conference has become a permanent feature of the political system. Premiers can press their provincial interests more powerfully, and more legitimately, than any senator.
The Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) referred to the Senate as a home of hacks, flacks, and bagmen. Such it is, and as such it can cost an average in projected terms of $1.5 million to keep a Senator there until retirement. Younger Senators, of course, are more expensive. But I think the worst demonstration of misuse of the appointment power to the Senate has to be that started under the Trudeau regime of using it as a holding tank for campaign teams.
Around 90 per cent or more of the legislation that determines the way in which we live our lives in Canada comes from unicameral institutions, Indian bands, municipal governments, provinces, and school boards. Why do we need a Senate today? We do not.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I would support the Hon. Member's motion if only he had provided for the immediate replacement of an appointed Senate by an elected body following its abolition.

The last time I rose in this House to speak about the reform of the Senate was during the debate on my own motion which asked for a reform of the second Chamber. This was on May 17, 1985. Since then, an increasing number of Canadians have expressed their support for a reform of this unfortunately outdated institution. Some say that we are wasting time speaking about it. I disagree.

I would agree that we have not yet developed the critical mass required to provoke reform. By discussing today the need to reform the other place, we are adding our voices to the momentum for reform.
I firmly believe that the concept of Senate reform has momentum. More people are talking about it, and more seriously. I hear Senators talking about it. I read Senate reform policies adopted by distinguished political parties. University students are writing papers and theses on the need and alternatives for reform.
One of the most forceful and persuasive statements on the need for Senate reform was made on the Hill 10 days ago by the distinguished former Premier of the Province of Alberta, who was not always known for his endorsement of such an institution. Indeed, Mr. Lougheed confessed to his conversion
December 18, 1986

to the course of an elected, effective, and equal Senate having examined the distinguished report on that subject which was done by a select committee of his own legislature. He went on to indicate that many in western Canada and Atlantic Canada, and some in central Canada, are coming to the view that one of the institutions which would need to be reformed in order to hold together this rather desparate nation would be the institution of a triple-E Senate.
I would contend that the discussions about reform have crystalized around two central notions. First, the need to give the Senate legitimacy by electing its members; second, the importance of making representation in the Senate equal for each province.
Some people unfairly and inaccurately portray the Senate as a do-nothing institution. Senators are portrayed as lay-about political hacks, as my hon. friend has suggested. Neither assertion remotely resembles the truth. The truth is that the Senate is populated by some of Canada's brightest and hardest working people. Much of the work the Senate accomplishes is unsung, unseen, and yet invaluable. I am thinking particularly of the pre-study of legislation. The pre-study work of the Senate's committees is not recorded anywhere, and it is not well known. Nonetheless, it has done much to make our laws clear and workable.

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not urge a reform of the Senate because of any lack of respect for the work done by our senators. Far from it!

I favour reform in order to give legitimacy to the good work done in the other place. The only way that the Senate can gain legitimacy is if its members are elected. Many, perhaps even most Senators, agree with me on this point.
It is essential that we define our expectations and intentions for a reformed Senate. I favour the triple-E Senate with equal representation from each province. I conceive of a reformed Senate as achieving the purpose originally ascribed to it by the Fathers of Confederation: that of a regional counterweight within the national legislature, to balance the more populace regions in matters of federal jurisdiction.
This is a federation with jurisdiction divided between two orders of government. The objective of Senate reform is to restore regional and sectional balance to the debates in matters of federal jurisdiction, not to give the provincial governments a foot in the door of the federal legislature. That would betray the very concept of a federation.
Numerous reports, position papers, and government Bills were tabled, discussed, and introduced during the Liberals' long reign under Mr. Trudeau. However, as documented by Mr. Bill Yurko, a former Member of Parliament, not one of these government initiatives or Liberal dominated committees from 1972 to 1983 supported an elected Senate. Indeed, the only Liberal dominated report to support election to the other
The Senate
place was the report of the Special Committee on Senate Reform of 1984. It is interesting and important to note that in his discussion paper presented to the committee the then Justice Minister, the Hon. Mark MacGuigan, stated:
The Government of Canada has no set position on how the Senators should be chosen.
His discussion paper neither recommended nor rejected an elected Senate. That was the Liberal Party's position in 1984. I am afraid that the Liberals are Johnny-come-latelies to the idea of a democratic second chamber. In fact, it has been pointed out that at their recent policy conference which was so successful in one of its objectives, but so great a failure in its attempt to formulate any policy, another resolution was adopted which would, if it became law, render such a Senate virtually impossible. The Liberal Party endorsed a constitutional amendment that would in effect give both Quebec and Ontario a veto over future constitutional amendments. That, I submit, would forestall such a development.
With all respect, I do hope that this particular motion will fire some genuine and sincere debate. I applaud the Hon. Member for reintroducing the subject into the Chamber. The time has come for a serious debate and serious action on this matter.
Before commenting on the Hon. Member's Party and its position, I would like to say one final thing about the Official Opposition's position on the issue. In my opinion, there is some doubt about the sincerity of the position adopted by the Liberal Party on Grey Cup weekend. It is a well named weekend, by the way, since most of the material coming out of the Congress Centre was grey in colour. I would suggest that when the Bill by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) was talked out the other day in the Chamber, it was talked out by representatives of the Liberal Party. I submit that that shows their lack of seriousness about the issue.
In contrast, we can at least say this for the New Democrats. Their stance on the Senate has been consistent, albeit consistently wrong. Still today we have an hon. gentleman, a member of the New Democratic Party, proposing the abolition of the Senate. That would deny a fundamental and still relevant aspect of the Confederation agreement. I suggest it will fall on barren ground, at least in western Canada.
Two aspects of the Confederation agreement as forged at Charlottetown and Quebec City are regularly underemphasized. First, that Confederation was and is in great part an economic arrangement. How the economic costs and benefits of nationhood were to be distributed was a primary focus of the discussion which led to Confederation, and an essential aspect of the agreement.

Second, the Fathers of Confederation, and there were unfortunately no mothers of Confederation, were very concerned about the role and status of the second House of the Federal Parliament. They spent more time discussing the

December 18, 1986
The Senate
Senate than the division of powers. That is an historical fact, Mr. Speaker.

I mention these two facts because they are linked. I am convinced that if Canada's regions are to share equally in the nation's prosperity, as is their due under the Confederation agreement, our national institutions must be strengthened. The most important of these is the Senate, for an objective consideration of the proceedings of the Chalottetown and Quebec conferences and of the proceedings of the various legislatures leads to the definitive conclusion that the Senate was intended as the principal voice of regional and sectional interests in matters of federal jurisdiction. History proves that neither Cabinet nor the provinces can guarantee economic justice within Confederation. That job is properly assigned to the Senate. The Fathers of Confederation knew that. We just have to live up to their intent.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I had not meant to make a partisan speech today, at least not unduly. However, it will be very difficult to restrain myself as much as I would like after hearing the ridiculous comments about the Liberal Party by the Hon. Member who represents the ridiculous Conservative Party.
In his not so eloquent remarks, the Hon. Member made some reference to the fact that it was the fault of the Liberals the other day that a motion in the House did not proceed. He said that the Liberals talked it out. That is fascinating. As I recall the situation, there were exactly the same number of speakers from each Party, all of whom spoke for the maximum 10 minutes. This leads me to believe that each Member who spoke deliberately used his or her time. Therefore, Conservative Members are just as responsible as anyone else for the motion not proceeding. I ask the Hon. Member across the way what kind of moral honesty is that? If I were he, I would fire that speech writer immediately. Any speech writer who cannot give an Hon. Member better information than that does not deserve his or her paycheque.
The Tories can never speak for themselves. They are the silent majority in the House. They are the book-ends. They are the people who came in with the tide and will go out with the ebb-tide. Those surfers who were elected in the last election should perhaps think about that before making such ridiculous remarks in the House of Commons.
The subject at hand is very important and should not be a partisan issue. Of course that is the last thing I would want to do. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) proposed a motion today that we should amend the Constitution of the country to abolish the Senate. Of course that really means that we should abolish one of the two Chambers of Parliament. Let us not forget that the two Houses of Parliament are sovereign. Therefore, any remark to the effect that we should abolish or dissolve half of our parliamentary institution is extremely inappropriate.
I say to Hon. Members of the Democratic Party that there are reasons for the existence of that institution. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River may have referred to some of them, but unfortunately he forget to mention that which works well in the Senate. As well, he completely forgot that there were reasons for the establishment of the Senate other than the unique one to which he referred. In part he referred to the fact that the Senate was appointed in an era in which the democratically elected House of Commons was viewed as somewhat immature. That may have been one of the reasons at that time, but there was also another one.
The Hon. Member is a student of history. He must know the history of Canada. When Canada East and Canada West, formerly Upper and Lower Canada, and the two Atlantic provinces joined together in 1867, there was an agreement that proportional representation would be given to one House and that there would be a guarantee in the other House ensuring that the regions of the country were represented. Perhaps he forgot that part of the equation. However, he should remember it, especially since the Members of the New Democratic Party purportedly speak to matters important to everyone, in a sanctimonious way. They should remember that, especially having consulted with their Quebec caucus chairman as they must have done earlier this week.
The original arrangement was to have in Canada a Senate with a third of its representation from the Province of Quebec, a third from the Province of Ontario, and a third from the maritime provinces. In that formula there was a constitutional guarantee to provide a minimum number of seats for the Province of Quebec.

And the Hon. Member is of course aware that at the time, people felt it was important for the Fathers of Confederation to have a mechanism that would ensure that the linguistic duality of our country would always be reflected in the Parliament of Canada. Earlier this week, when we were having a similar debate in the House, I mentioned that after the 1979 election campaign, when the Clark Government headed by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs was elected, its leader had to go to the Senate to get someone to represent this province in his Government. And I am not being partisan, since he doesn't even belong to my party.
My point is that it was important for this particular Prime Minister, and perhaps for others in the future, to be able to seek out representatives from certain regions in our country to ensure that those regions, and especially when we're talking about Quebec... There is a particular concern here because when we are talking about Quebec, we are talking about one of the two founding peoples. In the Clark Government, one of the two was not even represented in the Government, not because of the Prime Minister but because only one Member had been elected in that province. Only two Members, but only one Francophone. And so he did not have enough Members to appoint as Ministers in his Cabinet. And that is when he opted for going to the Senate, and I think that was an inspired
December 18, 1986

gesture. What would the Hon. Member who is proposing to abolish the Senate have done in that kind of situation?
Does he mean that if one of the two founding peoples had not managed to elect Members on the Government side, they would not deserve to be represented in that Government? Is that what the New Democrats are trying to say today? I wonder whether that is what they really want. If that is the NDP position, then the House and the entire country ought to know, because for a long time we have been hearing about this so-called NDP formula for parliamentary modernization, which includes abolishing one of the two Houses of our Parliament, and thus potentially preventing one of the two founding peoples from getting the kind of recognition it has received in the past. And that is not mere speculation, Mr. Speaker, since it actually happened in the last ten or twenty years.


Mr. Gerin:: Put your money where your mouth is!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Hudon), on a point of order.


Mr. Hudon:: Mr. Speaker, if there are two founding peoples, why didn't the second Chamber ask for the second founding people to sign the Constitution Act in 1982?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I don't think that is a point of order. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Although this is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, it is hardly a point of order. I would like to ask the Hon. Member what he and his Government are doing just now. He has done his homework; I am looking forward to his speech in a little while and he will be able to deal with this issue, in view of the trick which the Progressive Conservative Party is trying to play on Quebec at this time.


Mrs. Mailly:: We are asking for details. Is that the official position of the Liberal Party?


Don Boudria: It will be interesting to hear what the Hon. Member has to say.
I am anxiously waiting for his speech, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by saying today that, yes, I feel that the Senate should indeed be reformed and made up of elected representatives. By the way, I disagree with the PC Member of Edmonton-South (Mr. Edwards), who was saying a while ago that every province should have the same number of senators. I suggest this does not make sense. I say that it would be unfair for the province of Ontario, with over one third of this country's population, to have exactly the same number of senators as Prince Edward Island. People often use the American model. I tell you that there can be no American model, because there is no single state which has 35 per cent of the whole population of the United States. Another Member mentioned earlier this week that it would be necessary to take
The Senate
all the states West of the Mississipi to make up 35 per cent of the population of that country.
This formula which was never used elsewhere should not be used here either. Let us reform the Senate and make it elective. Let us stop talking about it and let us do it!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make just a few remarks. Perhaps I could clear up something which was the object of controversy between the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) in respect of the Private Member's Bill of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) regarding the creation of an elected Senate. He was quite mistaken to imagine that anyone talked that Bill out. It was selected as a votable item and there are at least four hours of debate left. You could not talk that Bill out if you wanted to because it has to come to a vote. That was one of the more meaningless debates we have had around here in a long time, with the Liberals and Conservatives trying to figure out who talked out a Bill which procedurally cannot be talked out. I suppose that is par for the course in some respects.
As to abolition of the Senate, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) said that is the traditional NDP position. I regard that as the preferable option. The best thing we could do would be to abolish the Senate. However, I have no illusions about the possibility of that coming to be the political consensus. In western Canada a consensus is building for another kind of change to the Senate, that is for an elected Senate. We will have plenty of opportunity to consider this issue as a result of the Hon. Member for Bow River's motion and it will be interesting to see what people say and how they vote on the motion. I think it is one of the more interesting issues to be put to a vote as a result of the new procedure on Private Members' Business. I am kind of excited by the possibilities and how it will turn out. However, when we are thinking about reform, let us not just think about the Senate, let us also think about the House of Commons.
One of the primary concerns about the Senate has been whether or not it lives up to its original function of representing the regions. Does it address the problem, as seen by many Canadians, of the political process being dominated by the interests of Quebec and Ontario? But let us ask ourselves not only what Senate reform might do in that respect but also what House of Commons reform might do.
I ask Members to think about proposals for some combination of proportional representation in the House of Commons alongside the kind of representation we have now. I personally would not be in favour of going to full proportional representation along the lines of the Israeli system, for example, where party lists are the only way people get into the Chamber, and where there is none of what we regard as a traditional parliamentary system in which people represent identifiable

December 18, 1986
The Senate
areas and constituents. However, West Germany has a system where a certain number, I believe it is two-thirds, of their members are elected in the traditional parliamentary way and the other third elected according to proportional representation. If we were to adopt some Canadian combination of that system here, it might also address the feeling of people in western Canada, for example, that they are not well represented at the centre of the political process. I believe that is behind, to a great degree, the call for Senate reform in western Canada.
The traditional NDP call for abolition is based on the fact that it is not a democratic institution. That objection remains. However, there is a second question as to what we will do to address the feeling that smaller provinces and less powerful regions do not have enough political clout at the centre. I think that can be rectified in a number of ways and that is why I am personally open to the idea of an elected Senate.
I have to say in all honesty that a lot of expectations are being raised about what an elected Senate could do. I cannot imagine it living up to those expectations. There would have to be a great transfer of power from what we normally consider the domain of the House of Commons to an elected Senate, and that would inevitably be much more controversial than those who advocate an elected Senate think it would be. I am not saying that as a criticism, I just think this idea is in its political infancy. It has not been thought through.
For example, a lot of people in western Canada have said recently, in response to the CF-18 decision, that that is all the more evidence of the need for an elected Senate. I have asked myself a number of times how an elected Senate would have prevented that decision. In the end it was a government decision, not a decision of a particular Chamber. In order for those kinds of decisions to be made more fairly through an elected Senate, much more would have to be said about what the relationship between an elected Senate and government decisions would be. That has not been articulated by many of the people who have spoken in favour of an elected Senate. It has not been thought through.
But I did not rise today to criticize that idea. I am certainly open to suggestions for Senate reform which would make it democratic and make it address that sense of regional alienation which exists in certain parts of Canada. I simply caution Members not to create false expectations about how simple it might be to achieve an elected Senate. I imagine it would be very difficult indeed.
As I said at the beginning, we are going to have at least four more hours to debate the issue. As I understand it, the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Bow River has only been debated for an hour. We will hear from at least 24 or 25 more Members of the House of Commons and then have a vote. It could be a historic vote. If Members of the House of Commons decide by a majority vote to send a message to the Government that they want Senate reform to be taken so seriously that they actually voted for an elected Senate, then that will have been an incredible day for Private Members' Business. It will have
been the result of an initiative of one Private Member along with others. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River would have had a votable motion on the same issue had the last session not been prorogued and new votable items selected by the committee. I commend both he and the Hon. Member for Bow River and everyone else who is trying to contribute constructively to a debate about the kind of reform we need to address some serious questions of regional alienation, how to make our institutions more democratic, and how to finally get rid of this undemocratic cell within the larger democratic organism.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, on October 1, 1986, when the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) presented his motion to abolish the Senate, I am sure he did so without any partisan motives, just as his comments a few minutes ago before the House were equally devoid of such considerations. My Conservative colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) also made some nonpartisan remarks on this very important subject. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) found it necessary to make comments that smacked of electioneering and petty politics.
I think that when we are discussing subjects of historical or national importance, Members should be a little less flamboyant in their speeches and should, if only for a short while, relax their ideological and political stance. I shall try to follow the example of my colleagues who just spoke and add my own equally non-partisan considerations. First of all, I would like to look at how the issue has evolved during the last fifteen years.
This is not the first time we are talking about changing the Senate. In 1972, a Special Joint Committee on the Constitution spoke out on the role of the Senate. It said that the Senate's principal role was to protect the provinces, minorities and regional interests. The Committee would let the Senate amend certain types of legislation and considered the Senate as the Chamber for sober second thought, away from the political ambience of the legislative process.
The next step was 1978 when the British Columbia Government appointed a committee on the reform of the Canadian Senate. Although the committee did not advocate outright abolition of the institution, they did recommend basic changes. In a nutshell, our friends in British Columbia wanted a reform under which provincial and regional participation would be institutionalized and they suggested that, up to a point, the Senate should be empowered to review legislation. The same year, 1978, an Ontario legislative committee, the Canada West Foundation and a Conservative Party committee seemed to favour the establishment of some kind of a House of the provinces to which provincial MLAs would automatically belong. In other words, MLAs would make up a strong provincial delegation.
In 1979 the Pepin-Robarts Commission came out in favour of a Council of the Federation made up of elected members of
December 18, 1986

various provincial cabinets. These elected members would have the right to vote in the Council of the Federation, which would also include elected federal government representatives who would be entitled to act as such and take part in debates, but without voting rights.
In 1980 the Quebec Liberal Party constitutional committee supported the abolition of the Senate, to be replaced by a federal council which would accept representations from official delegates of the various provincial administrations in this country.
In 1981, once again, we hear from the Canada West Foundation, this time about an elected Senate. In 1982, the Alberta Government, of which my colleague for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards), who has already spoken on this subject today, used to be a member, proposed that the members of the Senate be appointed by the provincial Governments. This would have given a lot of power to each province over its own representatives.
If I may open a parenthesis, Mr. Speaker, it was also in 1982 that the Quebec Liberals, as I see that my colleague for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) is back in the House, forced 6 million Quebecers to go down on their knees and sign a Constitution to which they were not a party. I wanted to mention this fact because it is important. This antagonism toward Quebec has created very difficult climates in that province. This week again, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Graces (Mr. Allmand), a Liberal, showed his animosity toward Quebec by calling the members of the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste du Quebec extremists.
The climate was the same in 1982. It is useful to recall the climate in which the Liberals had us live for many years.
In 1984, Mr. Speaker, we had a Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Senate Reform. This Committee proposed that members of the Senate be elected by the Canadian people. There would have been compulsory elections for senators. This was much more democratic than the method used by the Liberals to force us, Quebecers, to accept the Constitution in 1982.
Then, more recently, in August 1986, we had the Premiers' Conference in Edmonton which resulted in the Edmonton Statement. At that point, the First Ministers had agreed on a proposal put forward by Quebec's Premier, Mr. Robert Bourassa, which stated Quebec's willingness to sign the Constitution, joining in as a partner. But Quebec's Premier suggested to his colleagues from other provinces that before negotiations could open and the Constitution approved, Quebec's special status should be recognized. I am referring to the provincial Liberals. At the federal level, there is no understanding as yet as to what should be agreed to first among federal Liberals.
Premier Bourassa added that the Province of Quebec should have some authority in immigration matters, in order to increase Quebec's immigration quotas. Finally, Quebec's Premier referred to the vetoing formula, formula 7/75 under
The Senate
which seven provinces or 75 per cent of the population were needed to amend the Constitution. Premier Bourassa stated that three Supreme Court judges should be appointed by Quebec. And, finally, he said there should be a limitation on the Federal Government's spending authority in matters of provincial jurisdiction.
Those are things that may be questionable, Mr. Speaker, but at least they make up the policy of a Government whose Leader is a real Leader. There are no differences of opinion among provincial Liberals on the Constitution. However, there are major differences among federal Liberals on that issue.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we had the November 1986 First Ministers Conference in Vancouver where the participants agreed to deal with the first stage of a possible amendment process with respect to the Constitution and the Senate, but the points raised by Quebec Premier Bourassa would have to be settled first. They agreed there would be a second stage when the agenda might include the very important issue of potential changes to our Senate, along with statements on property right, fisheries, and a variety of major topics of national interest.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we would be well advised not to proceed any further with the project advocated by my socialist colleague on the other side of the House and to wait until the major recommendations of Mr. Bourassa have been implemented.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion before the House today. I realize the brilliant speech by the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) will be a difficult act to follow, but I would like to make a few comments just the same.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what was said earlier by the Liberal Member, when he said that when in 1979, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Clark, did not have enough Members from Quebec, he went to the Senate to get the representation he needed in his Cabinet for one of the two founding peoples of this country. I think that was an excellent idea, and I'm glad the Hon. Member brought it up. What I did not appreciate, however, is when in 1982, the Senate was a good deal less eager to ensure that the second or rather the first of the two founding peoples had its place within the Canadian Constitution and the repatriation process.
Mr. Speaker, recent events among our neighbours to the south, and I am referring to certain relations with certain countries and the arms sale, I find very perplexing. And I am especially embarrassed when I think of the young people who are watching us. I have been involved in education, and I have always tried to judge what we do as adults in terms of the upcoming generation, the generation that will take our place tomorrow.

December 18, 1986
The Senate
And I thought that this was certainly one of the worst examples one could have given to young people today, and I wondered: What do we really have to offer American or Canadian youth? What are we actually going to offer them as Canadians, when we tell them: Listen, just trust the present generation. Watch what we are doing. We have the solutions, we have the means, and we are going to build a country commensurate with your aspirations.
And just look at the disappointed young people to the south and even in our own country, who are asking: Is that the administration that was supposed to build a better world for tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit like what is going on in the House. It's nothing to write home about. What is the point in saying that we are the pick of the crop, the highest authority in the land, when we spend endless days arguing about a single figure. This idea about a Senate reform is not new and obviously, it won't be implemented overnight. Mr. Speaker, you are well aware that the young Canadians who are watching us as we deal with the unemployment rate which is going down, but not quickly enough- they are watching us on TV and say: what are they talking about today in the House? We talked about the reform of the Senate, we dealt with such and such point. That is no relevancy between these points and the future we should be building for young people.
The House will remember the unfortunate event in 1985 when the Senate refused to adopt a budgetary legislation to provide the Government with a borrowing authority. The whole financial and business community was wondering what was going to happen. For seven or eight weeks, the Senate refused systematically to adopt this legislation, and some senators of a different party were taunting us saying: Do your homework all over again, for we are the House of sober second thought.
Really, Mr. Speaker, we will have to deal with this problem, not necessarily by abolishing the Senate. We should use all our resources. Considered individually, all these people are a source of hope for young Canadians. On the other hand, the energy and vast resources of these people should be channeled, not after the fact, but during the legislative process, into discussions to which the elected representatives could contribute.
Mr. Speaker, basically, as long as the Senate remains a second Chamber able to block the Bills adopted by the duly elected Members of this House, there will remain a division of political parties and the second Chamber will continue to be a means to postpone the passage of Bills and legislation which a freely elected government is entitled to have implemented, and to my knowledge, there was no take over of power with machine guns in Canada in 1984. This is a question of partisanship, and we can see how clearly the Senate is divided along political lines at this time. It seems to me that we should now go beyond this type of upper Chamber.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Senate should be replaced, but we have to decide with what.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member on his remarkable speech. What is really remarkable is that he made certain distinctions while the Socialist Member who proposed the motion was unable to do so. Indeed, it is usual for that Party to be unable to make distinctions when analyzing a problem or suggesting solutions.
All that the Hon. Member did was to propose the complete abolition of the Senate. There is no indication of what would replace that institution. Complete abolition is being suggested even though there have been no previous discussions with the provinces. We also have to know the views of Quebec. However, the party-


John Edmund Parry: Deal with the motion!


François Gérin: No, do not make jokes about it. If ever there was any thought of appointing an NDP Member to the Senate, I think that, after your proposal, such an idea will never be mentioned again.
I do not know whether or not your Leader heard your motion. He was not here today. He was certainly elsewhere, but if he heard your motion or your speech, he must be disappointed because, apparently, he was most interested in being appointed to the Senate. All I want to say is that it now seems obvious that there should be no question of appointing Socialists to the Senate because, if this motion is sincere, they would not accept such an appointment and it is useless to appoint someone who would not accept it. It would be sad to offer such an enviable position to someone who would just refuse it.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Strange, but Ian Deans did accept.


François Gérin: True enough, former MP Ian Deans did accept, but not a Senate seat, something else. Even in the case of other positions the Government has offered.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps we ought to be more serious than the Hon. Member who introduced the motion and really consider ways to improve the venerable Senate institution, if it is not to be abolished.
I am sure my colleagues know that interest in Senate reform has been increasing in recent years. A number of reform projects have even been made public, but there is still no consensus as to how we should proceed. There is no need to remind Hon. Members that Senate reform has been the object of many studies.
The best thing I can do today is review some of the major recommendations made in the past few years. I will begin with the report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of
December 18, 1986

the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada. In its report the committee points out that, at the beginning, the role of the Senate was to protect the interests of provinces, minorities and regions, and to proceed to a review of legislation, the sober second thought. The committee feels that the Senate must be reorganized-not abolished-because the reasons which justified its creation in 1867 are still valid. The committee recommends that the federal Government continue to appoint senators but, as seats become vacant, half the senators be appointed by the federal Government, according to a list of nominees submitted by the provincial or territorial Government involved, the other half being selected the same way as it is today.
Mr. Speaker, in 1978, in a document called Reform of the Canadian Senate, the Government of British Columbia recommended that the Senate should not be abolished but modified. According to this paper, the Senate's principal role should be to institutionalize provincial or regional participation in the federal decision-making process, its secondary role being to examine the Bills adopted by the House of Commons. The paper also recommended that senators should be appointed and released from their duties by the provincial Governments and that the senior senator for each province should be a provincial Minister.
Mr. Speaker, still in 1978, the Ontario Select Committee on Constitutional Reform of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, the Canada West Foundation and the Progressive Conservative Party recommended abolishing the Senate and replacing it with a House of the Provinces. The Ontario Committee proposed that members should be appointed by the provincial governments and represent those governments. Provincial Members, Ministers and the Premier of each province would be eligible.
Mr. Speaker, I see that our speaking time is running out. All the recommendations I have just mentioned-and I have a list of a dozen other recommendations from all parts of Canada- had the same focus, and that is, not abolishing the Senate but replacing it or changing it in some way or other, and doing so within the Canadian Constitution, and after consultation with, and the approval of, all the provinces. Therefore we cannot proceed in the manner suggested by the Hon. Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 4.30 p.m., pursuant to Order made on Wednesday, December 17, 1986, the House shall now revert to Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, today I am announcing the policies which will provide new direction for our financial services industry.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67(2) I have the honour to lay upon the Table copies, in both official languages, of documents pertaining to regulatory reform in the financial sector.
This is an industry which touches all Canadians. Our savings accounts, mortgages, car loans, insurance policies, all of these and more, are financial products essential to our daily lives, and it is critical that we be well served by this industry. There are few Canadians whose lives are not touched in one way or another every day by a financial institution.
All Hon. Members know that Canada is fortunate to possess one of the finest financial systems in the world. It is composed of sound world class institutions. It employs hundreds of thousands of Canadians and serves millions. It is one of Canada's leading export industries, which is something we ought not to forget. The financial industry is in the midst of rapid change. Communications technology has created 24 hour global markets. The importance of international capital flows has dramatically increased, and the traditional roles of financial institutions are changing. They are now doing far more than they used to.
These global forces, quite frankly, have challenged existing legislation designed for an earlier and less dynamic era. That is why, early in its mandate, the Government announced its intention to work with the provinces, the public and the financial community to reform financial regulations in order to seize the opportunities offered by change.
In April of last year, the Government set out its objectives for financial reform. We made specific proposals to focus the debate. In the 18 months since that time, extensive discussion, study and analysis have taken place and a variety of views have been expressed. First, I find there is a widespread appreciation of the key role of the financial sector in our economic renewal, not just in facilitating investment in Canada, but as an exporter and employer. Second, there is agreement that our financial system is fundamentally sound and that the basic division of supervisory responsibility for our institutions should remain in place.

There is universal acknowledgement of the trend toward integrated financial services, both here and abroad, and broad agreement on the benefits this brings to consumers.

December 18, 1986
Statements by Ministers

There is continuing concern regarding self dealing and abuses of conflict of interest in both closely and widely held institutions. This also has been evident in the last 18 months. We have received detail and practical advice on how to improve our regulatory and supervisory structures. While there have been diverse views expressed on the best means to regulate our financial system, all of us seek the same goal. What we want is a sound financial system which provides Canadians with innovative and competitive services, which broadens the range of choice for Canadian savers and investors and which fosters safe and well supervised financial institutions which can compete effectively around the world.
I am announcing policies today which will achieve these important objectives, policies which we believe are realistic, balanced and, above all, workable. The document I am tabling today is entitled New Directions for the Financial Sector, which will allow the Canadian financial community to plan and act with confidence. It outlines the policies which will be tabled as legislation in 1987. It also provides the framework in which the Government will exercise the specific powers regarding the transfer of ownership as proposed in Bill C-8 and Bill C-9, both of which received first reading on October 6, 1986.
The policies we are proposing are policies for the next generation of financial institutions. They are far ranging and will have a profound and positive impact. They deal with interrelated issues which call for an integrated approach. I believe careful study of the document 1 am tabling today is necessary to gain a full appreciation of the scope of our proposals.
What is the essence of our approach? It is to act in four interrelated areas. First, we will allow the integration of financial services through the common ownership of institutions and the extension of powers. Second, we will introduce a pragmatic ownership policy which checks the growth of commercial financial links in the economy while maintaining balanced competition within the financial services sector. Third, we will provide a strong framework for prudential regulation. Fourth, we will modernize and strengthen our supervisory system.

In short, we will introduce a pragmatic ownership policy, provide a strong framework for prudential regulation. And, modernize and strengthen our supervisory system.

Let me discuss each area in turn. First, with respect to the integration of financial services, the Government believes our laws should reflect today's market reality. The banks and nonbank financial institutions today are not only capable of providing, but are actually providing, an evermore common range of services which meet the needs of all Canadians as savers, borrowers or as investors. In order to foster such common benefits, the Government will end unnecessary institutional barriers within the financial services industry and
will allow the integration of financial services. Restrictions on common ownership of regulated financial institutions will be removed, allowing common ownership through affiliates or subsidiaries. Separate institutions will be maintained for supervisory purposes, but full networking of services will be allowed between institutions, except for the retailing of property and casualty insurance and life insurance.
In-house powers will be broadened for institutions in the various "pillars" of the financial industry. All trust, loan and life insurance companies will be granted full consumer lending powers. The larger of them will be eligible for full commercial lending powers. All federally regulated institutions will be able to offer investment advice and portfolio management services. Banks and insurance companies will be granted ancilliary fiduciary powers. From the point of view of Canadian consumers, these policies will allow your neighbourhood branches to offer a wide array of innovative and convenient services with greater potential for one-stop shopping.
The philosophy underpinning financial services integration would be to build, not to buy. To protect against harmful concentration, acquisition of financial services companies will reaquire the approval of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). As a general rule, large financial institutions will not be allowed to acquire other large institutions. An exception to this general policy will be made for the securities industry. Given the desire for a viable Canadian presence in this strategic industry, the federal Government will permit domestically owned, federally regulated financial institutions to build or buy securities dealer subsidiaries. Necessary legislative amendments to permit such participation in the securities industry will be introduced in the near future.
The second area of action is a pragmatic and responsible ownership policy. Current Canadian law requires all large domestic banks to be widely held, and new domestic banks to attain widely-held status within 10 years. Trust, loan and stock insurance companies, on the other hand, do not have similar ownership rules. Many of these institutions also have significant commercial links.
While this variety of ownership forms is not unique to Canada, the development of significant links between these non-bank financial institutions and companies with commercial interests has been a source of intense debate. Some have emphasized the issue of concentration of power.

Some have emphasized the issue of concentration of power and the potential for self-dealing and conflict of interest. However, there is also widespread recognition that entrepreneurial owners have been a source of dynamism in the industry. They have provided firms with the leadership and financial strength to compete with our large banks.
December 18, 1986



One argument is that financial institutions should be widely held. The other argument is that it is also useful to have closely held entrepreneur-oriented financial institutions. Both arguments are valid. As with many issues in this complex age, a balance must be struck.
To lessen the potential dangers of commercial-financial links while promoting competition, the Government intends to implement the following policy. Smaller banks will be permitted to be closely held by domestic investors with no commercial interests. They will be allowed to remain closely held until they attain a capital base of $750 million, a base which will support about $15 billion in assets. Banks that exceed this capital threshold of $750 million will be subject to the following ownership rules.
Shareholders with less than 10 per cent of the shares in any class, or any series of any class, will be permitted to acquire additional shares to a ceiling of 10 per cent. Shareholders with more than 10 per cent of such shares will not be permitted to acquire additional shares in the same class or series. Within five years of reaching the capital threshold at least 35 per cent of the voting shares must be publicly traded and widely held. The penalty for non-compliance will be a constraint on the bank's ability to grow. These measures will ensure that major existing banks remain widely held, and that closely held banks of substantial size move toward wide ownership as new equity is issued.
Ownership policies regarding trust, loan and insurance companies will be complementary, but they will not be identical, reflecting the different histories and circumstances of these institutions. Like many Canadians the Government is concerned with the potential dangers of growing commercial-financial links. Yet we are equally concerned that an overzealous reaction could limit future competition in the financial sector. Therefore we are proposing a policy which arrests the growth of commercial-financial links while maintaining strong sources of innovation and competition in the market-place.
To achieve these twin objectives the following regime will be implemented effective today. Approval for the incorporation of new trust, loan and insurance companies will be restricted to applicants with no significant commercial interests. Commercial interests will not be permitted to acquire or increase significant ownership positions in non-bank institutions having capital in excess of $50 million. Such larger non-bank institutions with commercial links will be required to have at least 35 per cent of their voting shares publicly traded and widely held by December 31, 1991, or within five years of reaching the $50 million capital threshold. Trust, loan and insurance companies with no commercial links and with capital in excess of $750 million will also be required to have at least 35 per cent of their voting shares publicly traded and widely held by December 31, 1991, or within five years of reaching the $750 million capital threshold. Once this threshold is exceeded no shareholder will be able to acquire an ownership position in the
Statements by Ministers
institution in excess of 10 per cent and significant shareholders will not be permitted to increase their ownership positions.
These policies will foster wider ownership of large financial institutions in the future while recognizing the existing positions of current investors. This means that more Canadians can now buy more shares in their financial institutions. Most important, by causing current laws protecting minority shareholders to come into play they will ensure market disclosure, public scrutiny and the presence of strong outside directors.
Protecting the solvency and integrity of institutions requires more than changes in ownership rules, which is most important. We cannot do this simply through changes in ownership rules. No single ownership policy can protect against imprudent management or questionable business practices. What is needed is an effective and vigilant system of self-governance supported by independent and objective directors and an effective supervisory system.
This is why we will do the following. We will limit commercial-financial links. We will provide sufficiently broad minority shareholding to ensure market disclosure and public scrutiny. We will introduce cumulative voting rules for the election of directors to increase their influence and create a stronger framework for prudential regulation. In this strong framework the Government will strictly control self-dealing in all financial institutions. The list of non-arm's length parties will be expanded and made uniform for banks and non-banks. Most asset transactions between such persons will be banned and service transactions will be strictly controlled. Rules will also be introduced to monitor and control transactions between related financial institutions.
Safeguards against abuses of conflict of interest will be introduced as well. Procedures and controls to prevent the flow of insider information between fiduciary and other financial activities will be implemented. Disclosure rules will be strengthened.
In accord with the over-all approach recommended by Mr. Justice Estey, the basic division of responsibilities for ensuring and monitoring the health of institutions this division among the supervisory authority, the directors of the institution and the external auditors will remain in place. A number of proposals, however, will improve directors' supervision of their institutions' operations and strengthen the role of auditors.

All financial institutions will be required to have a minimum of one-third of their directors independent of the institution. These independent directors will be asked to perform additional duties on corporate review committees made up solely of such independent directors.

During the Estey Inquiry, considerable time and effort was taken to study current accounting principles. As Mr. Justice Estey stated, in some cases difficulties were easy to define but

December 18, 1986
Statements by Ministers
solutions were not easy to develop. In line with his recommendations, a number of steps will be taken, in consultation with the accounting profession, to review accounting standards as they apply to financial institutions. As well, measures will be introduced to ensure appropriate communication among auditors, the financial institutions they audit and federal regulators. These measures to improve the framework for effective regulation will ensure Canadians that they can maintain confidence in the integrity of the financial system while enjoying the benefits of dynamic competition.
The fourth major area in which we are acting is to improve and strengthen the supervision of financial institutions. How are we doing that? Consistent with the integration of financial services to which I spoke a few moments ago, the Office of the Inspector General of Banks and the Department of Insurance will be consolidated into a new body to be called the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. This new office will have full supervisory responsibilities for banks and for non-bank financial institutions.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will have over-all responsibility for the new office. The Superintendent will be clearly responsible for the administration of statutes, the assessment of solvency and the execution of supervisory actions. Measures will also be introduced to clarify and expand the Superintendent's power to deal effectively with unsound business practices and to deal with financially troubled institutions.
The Government recognizes that the Superintendent requires a full awareness of market trends and developments. The Government will therefore act on Mr. Justice Estey's recommendation to form an advisory committee of technical experts with a broad mandate including a role in the improvement of early-warning systems.
The Government believes that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation should remain a separate body. This will allow the retention of private-sector expertise on the CDIC Board of Directors and it will preserve CDIC's established relationship with provincial authorities supervising CDIC-insured provincial institutions. In maintaining the CDIC as a separate agency, the Government will equip it with additional powers. Premium levels will also be revised to eliminate the existing deficit in a timely way.
These are the four key areas where we are acting to provide new direction for the financial sector: the integration of financial services, a pragmatic ownership policy, a modern framework for prudential regulation and an effective federal supervisory structure. These are four interrelated areas which will provide a framework for a sound and competitive financial system today and for the future.
In putting this policy forward, we have been very much helped by the fine work done by the House Standing Committee and to a large measure we have followed it both philosophically and in detail.

Our policies in these areas are pragmatic-rooted in today's market realities. They are practical. They are balanced. They are needed. And they will work.

As the financial services industry enters this new regime, all Canadians will benefit. The ability to provide innovative and competitive financial products including mortgages, investments and loans to all Canadians in all parts of the country will no longer be artificially limited by outmoded laws. However, where necessary, regulation and supervision are being tightened to protect the savings of Canadians.
We have long had reason to be proud of our financial system. Our institutions have served us well. In my opinion, they have served us well because Canadians have had the wisdom to deal with the world as they found it, to fuse the real with the ideal. We believe these policies follow in that pragmatic and responsible tradition.
These proposals will lay a solid foundation for the future. They will help our institutions grow and prosper. They will ensure that Canadians can continue to have confidence in one of the finest financial systems in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond on behalf of the Official Opposition to the statement made by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin). My remarks must necessarily be preliminary as the documents which the Minister tabled and the notes of his speech were made available only two hours ago and will need further study.
Despite the disappointing evidence of the last two years, we expected better of the Government than that with which it has come forward today. After more than two years of stalling, indecision, governing on a case-by-case basis, squandering the taxpayers' money and squandering its huge mandate, surely Canadians had a right to expect more today than another set of proposals or yet another discussion paper.
If today is a step forward, as the Minister has said, it is a very timid step. There has been a Green Paper. The Government is awash in studies. There have been umpteen promises of the Government's intention to proceed to legislation. After all the fanfare, today we have not a Bill, not actual proposed legislation but a statement of intent.
This is more than just disappointing. It is verging on negligence or on the dereliction of duty. Canadians elected this Government to govern, to show leadership and to tackle the tough issues facing Canada. There are plenty of difficult questions, complex issues and competing interests in the
December 18, 1986

regulation of financial institutions. One recognizes that, but the reform process started with the previous Government. Departmental officials were at work on it. There were a whole series of internal discussion papers. The former Minister of State for Finance had set up an eminent group of industry and consumer representatives to form an advisory committee.
This Government inherited all that and spoke of bringing in comprehensive legislation almost from day one of its mandate. Despite all the events of the past two years, the only thing the Government has done today is to exchange Green Paper proposals for another set of proposals.
In the past two years, there has been on the one hand great change and upheaval in the financial services industry, but on the other hand the Government has given us halfway measures, ad hoc responses, mismanagement, misinformation, astronomical financial costs and devastating human costs. This Government will be remembered for many years to come as the Government that rushed blindly to bail out an ailing bank, that then swore up and down to ail and sundry that the bank was viable, that six months later presided over the spectacular failure of the bailed out bank and a second bank and that then used taxpayers' money and special legislation to give 100 per cent reimbursement to all the banks' depositors whose holdings exceeded the $60,000 ceiling for deposit insurance.
The numbers are not in yet, but it is no exaggeration to estimate the costs of the bank failures at $2 billion. Two years and $2 billion later, how much further ahead are we in terms of having legislation in place? There are two pieces of legislation on the Order Paper. Today's discussion paper indicates that legislation will be introduced in this Session of Parliament. We do not know how long this Session will last. Perhaps it will last for another two years.
The human costs of the Government's bungling have also been considerable. Canadian Commercial Bank employees, for example, had their lives disrupted and their careers damaged by the bank's failure. I am talking about the bank's junior and middle-management staff, not the high-flyers and senior managers who made the decisions that got the bank into trouble in the first place. I am referring to moderately-paid staff members, people with families who lost their jobs and did not even get the severance benefits to which they were entitled under the Canada Labour Code. Either deliberately or by sloppy procedures this Government arranged matters so as to deprive employees of the severance benefits to which they were entitled by law. There has been a clear violation of the Canada Labour Code. I understand that officials of Labour Canada are now preparing to a lay a claim on behalf of those Canadian Commercial Bank employees.
I might also mention the Canadian Commercial Bank shareholders who relied as much as depositors did on the Government's worthless assurances of the bank's viability, assurances that were made in letters to shareholders less than a month before the bank went into liquidation. Many of those
Statements by Ministers
shareholders were not market speculators but people of modest means who had done their best to make safe and prudent investments to prepare for retirement. They lost everything.
The damage done to confidence in the financial system in the wake of the bank failures resulted in other human tragedies. The British Columbia Teachers Investment and Housing Co-operative, once the largest co-operative in British Columbia, suffered a run on deposits at the time of the CCB bail-out as well as when the CCB closed. As a result, the co-op went into voluntary receivership. Forty-five thousand co-op members, many of them retired teachers, saw their retirement planning thrown completely off course. They had no access to their savings for many months. When a restructuring agreement for the co-op was finally reached they received only 51 per cent of their savings back in cash.
This is a genuinely tragic series of events for thousands of Canadians who had worked and saved for a prudent retirement, and who quite justifiably traced the source of their misfortune to the weakening of confidence that was a byproduct of the Government's bungling of the Canadian Commercial Bank crisis. Still we do not have the comprehensive systematic reform legislation in place to prevent such things from happening again. What we have had is a series of occasions in the House over the past two years when Parliament was forced to consider and approve in great haste legislation to tidy up some of the situations that arose because of the lack of legislation to prevent them.
There was Bill C-50 in respect of the Pioneer Trust Company; there was Bill C-37 to bail out the Canadian Commercial Bank; there was Bill C-79 to bail out the uninsured depositors of the Canadian Commercial and Northland banks, and earlier this month there was Bill C-27 to enable the HongKong Bank to take over the Bank of British Columbia.
In April of this year the Government approved the takeover of a financial institution by a non-financial organization against the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. Other financial institutions have closed their doors. Still others were taken over by other institutions both foreign owned and Canadian owned. Still the Government operated in a policy vacuum.
Concern about corporate concentration has grown as financial holding companies and large corporations increase in size and their links with the financial services sector proliferate. Concern about corporate concentration has been raised in the House on more than one occasion by the Leader of the Official Opposition.


Mr. Cassidy:: At least twice.


Aideen Nicholson: It was also raised by the Official Opposition members of the House of Commons Finance Committee in our minority report on the Government's Green Paper. In the last few months prominent industry people have spoken out on the risks and the need for government action.

December 18, 1986
Statements by Ministers
One really must continue to be amazed at why the Government has not acted sooner or more decisively to ensure that the accelerating pace of change in the financial services industry works for Canada and for Canadians.
Recently there was a major Canadian bank that established a securities dealership in the freer market of the Province of Quebec, doing so legally by making ingenious and creative use of an obscure section of the Bank Act. It was obliged to proceed in such a way because federal legislation is so drastically out of step with the realities of today's financial services industry.
Today we have what the Minister calls new directions. Tie talks about a pragmatic approach to ownership. That pragmatic approach might perhaps be more accurately described as a status quo approach. The question of ownership of financial institutions, particularly of ownership of financial institutions by commercial enterprises, is one that many people have been concerned about. But this Government's response is what it calls a pragmatic approach, which translates as complete grandfathering of every situation that now exists where commercial enterprises own financial institutions.
There are vague statements in the proposal before us, such as future acquisitions will have to be approved by the Minister of Finance. There are no criteria. Let us hope that the criteria will be produced and will be in the legislation. Otherwise, if it is left to ministerial discretion, the Government has merely opened the doors wide to a continuation of the type of lobbying that has taken place in recent months where those who have the most access to the Minister's ear get the legislation they want.
It is interesting that in this particular proposal the trust companies are the big winners. Trust companies are about to acquire all the powers of banks without any of the restraints, up until about 1990 or 1991 when there will be some restraints, but none as demanding as those of the banks.
There are some interesting statements here that are not developed. For instance, there are two references in the document to what is going on with our financial services subject to industry, and the possible changes as being "trade negotiations now underway". This Government has never officially said that the financial services industry is part of the bilateral negotiations with the United States, although we have had good reason to think that is the case. Certainly, with the proposals that the Minister has before us, some very important bargaining chips are being given away. There is no indication of what, if anything, has been gained in return.
There is a nod or two in this document to competition. We learn that large financial institutions cannot acquire subsidiaries, that they must create them. "Build not buy" is the slogan used, which is an attractive slogan. Side-by-side with this comes the lack of clarity. We are told that a large institution cannot buy a large institution. What is "large"? Where are the definitions? Side-by-side with this type of statement is the rather loose statement that implies that a Minister can in fact
approve any takeover or acquisition. It may very well be that the legislation will have firmer criteria, but what is before us now is not very reassuring.
There are some positive promises in the document, but again we must wait to see how they will be carried out. There is an indication that co-operative financial institutions may benefit from new legislation. For those of us who are familiar with the co-op movement and think it is a very important citizen and consumer movement, obviously we would be pleased to see some broadening of powers and some additional protection for consumers. However, again we have to wait for the details.
It is interesting that networking is being allowed except for retail insurance. Independent insurance brokers must be complimented on the very effective way in which they flooded Members of Parliament with letters. They certainly got results.
There is a particular statement in the main document that develops a little on the build-not-buy theme which I mentioned earlier. If it had been previously implemented, we would not have had the Bank of British Columbia necessarily going into foreign hands or another bank going into the hands of Lloyd's Bank. If the proposals mentioned in the document had been in place, Canadian institutions would have been able to buy both banks. We have seen two foreign banks obtain a tremendous advantage in terms of being able to buy banks which already had branches and considerable retail banking business. The barn-door has been closed after the Hongkong Bank and Lloyd's Bank have bought here. Though perhaps better late than never, one must point out that it is very late.
There is mention in one of the documents of an attempt to get better harmonization of federal and provincial regulatory policies. Obviously it is a very desirable aim. However, how will it be achieved and when will it be achieved? For those answers we have to wait for the next instalment in the Minister's ongoing saga.
In summary, there is very little to which one could object in the document because it is mostly puffery and mostly statements of good, general principles. There is very little indication of when, if ever, these principles will be adopted. If indeed the legislation comes forward, we will want to see more specifics in it. However, it would be very nice if the Minister could indicate today a firm date for the legislation, rather than sometime next year or sometime before the end of the session.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of comments on the statement which I have spent some time absorbing in the lock-up? There are some sighs of relief in the corporate boardrooms of the interests which own a large stake of Canada. I suspect as well that there are whoops of joy in certain boardrooms of banks and trust companies as a consequence of the policy announced by the Minister, which in fact represents some substantial changes. I do not necessarily say that I agree with them, but at least there is a policy in
December 18, 1986

place. Had the policy been in place previously, some of the failures, which have seen control of Canadian banks go into foreign hands and more than $1 billion flow out of the pockets of taxpayers and of the Canada Deposit Insurance Company accounts and into the pockets of depositors, would have been prevented. At the same time there is a sense of impending doom or, at the very least, uncertainty in the offices of brokers and investment dealers on Bay Street and on St. James Street, because their comfortable, cosy, walnut panelled world will change very quickly.
This is Canada's answer to the big bang. We could say that the big bang will mean big bucks for certain people. It protects the interests of certain of the big buck artists in Canada, notably the wealthy families who control certain financial holding companies and whose ability to continue their privileged position is affected only minimally. If anything, they are protected from being overtaken from the rear by the proposals in the Minister's statement and, therefore, their ability to make big bucks may in fact improve.
There are new opportunities for financial institutions in the proposals put forward by the Minister and the Government. However, there are not commensurate guarantees of benefits for ordinary Canadians. This is very serious. It is one thing about which we will be talking a fair amount in the new year when the policy statement begins to be translated into actual legislation.
There are questions in terms of where financial services are provided and in terms of the maltreatment and harassment suffered by farmers, small business people, and ordinary income earners perhaps affected unemployment, at the hands of financial institutions. There is not a breath or whisper of a word of any concern in that regard. The Government speaks of a balance in this statement, but it is balance between the differrent interests in the financial industry. It does not speak of a balance to redress the power of small income earners, small business people, farmers, fishermen and such people, against the billion dollar institutions regulated in the particular policy.
The policy speaks of competition which may or may not result. However, it is quite clear that there will be increased concentration, which troubles us a great deal.
When I looked at the statement, I wondered what my Party would be looking for in terms of financial services policy. Clearly there is a need to increase capacity to handle certain levels of financing, for example, and to increase flexibility. However, I would contend that it is not automatic with an accompanying increase in concentration, yet concentration is what is being delivered in the statement.
Finally there is a virtual elimination of the indepedence of investment dealers and brokers. Within a year and a half they will find themselves taken over or forced into alliances with banks, insurance companies, trust companies, or foreign financial institutions. That will happen rapidly. I am concerned about what will be the consequence of taking one of the
Statements by Ministers
four pillars and effectively eliminating it completely, at the same time as the other three are being collapsed together. Far be it from me, a New Democratic or democratic socialist, to leap to the defence of Rosedale, Westmount, and Shaughnessy Heights. Nonetheless, an ironic result of the reform announced by the Government is that the Canadian investment industry, which has served as a somewhat independent source of advice, will now be rolled into banks and other financial institutions.
For example, I refer to an entrepreneur doing business with a bank and being extended a line of credit. The bank may turn around and say I am sorry, your company is getting to the limit of your line of credit. We think you should do an equity issue, and we think you should do it with this company with whom we happen to be related in the investment industry. If the entrepreneur is not so sure about that and thinks about going down the street to another bank, he runs a risk that the line of credit will be threatened by the bank seeking to move business over to its investment subsidiary. That is a very real threat, according to the proposals of the Government.
I feel the Government is adopting the gospel of deregulation from the United States. It is ironic that it is doing so in a week where the prophets of deregulation around Ronald Reagan are pleading the Fifth Amendment, being forced to resign, discredited, or seeking refuge back in Wall Street because they cannot hack it in a political environment. Nonetheless, the true believers still exist here in Canada so that gospel continues to be preached. However, it is done in a way which leads me to question the benefits for ordinary Canadians, be they businessmen, fishermen, farmers or consumers.
At the time of the release of the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs dealing with financial institutions, the committee took issue in a very major way with the recommendations of the Green Paper of a year or so ago. In our minority report we focused on the issue of the concentration of financial power in the Canadian financial services industry, and in industry generally. We urged tough restrictions on ownership and that ownership rules be extended to trust companies and other financial institutions. We suggested the 10 per cent rule should be extended to trust companies and financial institutions.
What is significant is that in the wake of the Imasco takeover of Canada Trust in April of 1986, the committee as a whole moved a very long way in the same direction as suggested by our minority report in January or February of this year. The committee recommended that a non-financial corporation should only be able to own 30 per cent. It also suggested retroactivity. That is, there should not be a grandfathering of the current situation where major trust companies are controlled by non-financial companies. This has created a concentration of economic and financial power which both I and my party believe poses grave risks to Canada's economic development and the proper working of the market system.

December 18, 1986
Statements by Ministers
When the Government came to consider that issue this fall we found it was not a serious issue with the Government at all. It casually allowed a couple of banks, the Continental and the Bank of British Columbia, to sell out to foreign banks because it was more profitable for shareholders than keeping them in Canadian hands. The Government looked at the recommendations, and then I guess what happened was that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), the former Minister of State for Finance, and two or three others started to press the Government to prevent that recommendation of the committee being adopted. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) is shaking his head. This has been widely reported and if he wants to deny it, that is fine. I think a lot of people are convinced that is the case.
One thing which I think is significant in the proposals is that, in future, acquisitions of one financial corporation by another will be subjected to ministerial approval. When we were in the lock-up, officials from the Department of Finance did not blink an eye when it was suggested that that might mean it is okay for one $10 billion financial institution to take over another $10 billion financial institution and create an institution with $20 billion in assets, but that if perhaps a big bank were to take over an institution with $5 billion in assets that might not be acceptable. In other words, it is not a matter of tiny trust companies with $500 million in assets-which does not sound that tiny but in general it is small-being taken over, but that major mergers are contemplated as being acceptable to the Minister under this policy.
We all know that Ministers of Finance are politicians. They come from the party in power and are subject to influence, among other things, by corporations which are close to the party in power. It is very interesting that instead of getting a 30 per cent rule we got a 65 per cent rule. The Government says that if a commercial corporation has control of a financial institution it will have to reduce its ownership from the current level to no more than 65 per cent. That is still control in any language. If I had 65 per cent of the vote in my riding I would be extremely happy. In addition, the 65 per cent is held to. As the company requires more equity, it will be allowed to continue at the 65 per cent level.
I grant you that having a widely held 35 per cent will require a certain window on those particular companies which does not exist right now. There is some improvement and not everything is to be criticized in the proposal. Nonetheless, why a 65 per cent rule instead of 30 per cent? Is it because, for example, the Brascan group, controlled by Peter and Edward Bronfman, which in turn controls Trilon Financial, which in turn controls both Royal Trust and London Life, contributed $15,000 to the Progressive Conservative Party?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: I think that must have been in 1984. Royal Trust put $13,000 into the hands of the Conservative Party. London Life contributed $6,353.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Michael Morris Cassidy: It is therefore open, with this ministerial discretion on acquisitions and takeovers, to companies to decide it is good business to put tens of thousands of dollars into the hands of the party in power in order to get a favourable reception and get the Minister's ear. Imasco is very much involved because they seek grandfathering of their takeover of Canada Trust. That trust company gave $8,000 to the Conservative Party in 1984 or 1985. The Minister winces but that is what they gave.


Thomas Hockin: I am not wincing.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Imasco gave $36,594. Again, is that why they are being allowed to continue with 65 per cent ownership of a multibillion dollar trust company at a time when no new commercial interests will be allowed to do the same thing? What about Power Corp? That is another good friend of Governments in power on both sides, that is Liberals and Conservatives. Great West Life gave $10,000. That is a subsidiary of Power Corp. Montreal Trust gave $36,657.


Dave Nickerson: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. As far as I recall there are rules of this Chamber which deal with imputing motives to Ministers when they make policy. The insinuations we are hearing now, that policy changes were made and legislation proposed on the basis of amounts of money which might have been made as donations to a political party, are not acceptable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not find that to be a point of order.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be in agreement with your very sound and sage opinion. I think government Members are perhaps a bit sensitive. I am simply recording facts and asking a question which I think many ordinary Canadians ask. They wonder whether their interests are being respected when large corporations are being allowed to concentrate financial power, despite the fact that there are some desirable reforms put forward by the Government in today's statement.


Mr. Belsher:: Tell us who else they gave money to.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Hon. Member makes a comment. Perhaps he can make it again because I did not quite catch it.


Claudy Mailly: You know very well he cannot because he cannot speak.


Michael Morris Cassidy: In that case perhaps he should allow me to make my comments on the statement by the Minister.
The standing committee unanimously recommended a 30 per cent limit on ownership and we did not get it. The committee was looking for a real curb on concentration of financial power and we did not get it. The committee delivered a
December 18, 1986

carefully considered report and it was ignored by the Government. Instead, the Government has only limited future intrusion by commercial groups into the financial sector, which means that the privileged position of Brascan, Power Corporation, Imasco and such corporations is, if anything, more valuable than if the Government had applied the same rules to everyone. They need only divest by 35 per cent in 1991. They can do that by simply inviting the public to share for a while in the ownership without, at the same time, reducing their stake in these corporations.
New opportunities are being given to financial institutions, including the trust companies. The powers which trust companies will enjoy will make them like banks in almost everything but name. Yet, the Government ignored the very sensible proposals of the Economic Council of Canada that companies engaged in banking, whether provincially or federally regulated, should be regulated as banks because of the federal power in the BNA Act with regard to banking. If anything, the trust companies are on more than an equal footing. Once their assets exceed $500 million, they will now enjoy unrestricted commercial lending instead of labouring under a 7 or 10 per cent restriction as they do now. They will have unrestricted access to consumer loans. They will be able to enter the securities business and do everything except call themselves banks.
Deregulation is no guarantee that there will be safeguards for ordinary consumers. The Government speaks of a reorganization of the Office of the Inspector General of Banks with the Department of Insurance. It has been decided not to roll the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation into that because they want to have separation, for reasons I am not entirely clear on. The intention is then to create a committee which will be composed of the Superintendent of Financial Insitutions, the Deputy Minister of Finance, the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the President of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. Their job will be to avoid trouble.
There is a real problem with regard to the adequacy of regulation whether or not these two offices are rolled into one. I would like to remind my friend, the Minister, that the Governor of the Bank, the Deputy Minister of Finance, the Inspector General of Banks and the President of the CDIC sat together on the board of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation during the time that the people of Canada saw $1.25 billion go down the drain due to mistakes in the regulation and operation of some banks. If they could not get it together when they were meeting on the board of the CDIC, one wonders whether they will be able to get it together in this forum unless there is a very strong commitment to more adequate regulation.
We will be raising this during the course of discussion on the forthcoming Bill. I hope the Minister will take that stand. I hope he realizes, among other things, that we will have to have the resources which the former Inspector General, Mr. Statements by Ministers
Kennet, argued for, but did not have the gumption to resign over when he became aware several years ago that the IGB's office was inadequately equipped to do its job.
I spoke earlier about ordinary Canadians.

For instance, I might mention the owner of a business in Chicoutimi, a farmer in Alberta's Peace River region, a man who has a store in Happy Valley in Labrador, or a young family in Le Pas, Manitoba. Do these people have a guarantee that services will improve, that competition will better serve their interests, or perhaps are they going to pay higher prices while at the same time the institutions they deal with will be doing much better business in places like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver?
That is a real problem, Mr. Speaker. We might find ourselves in a situation where this financial supermarket will be created for wealthier middle and upper income Canadians, people who earn really good money, but then ordinary people will not be able to benefit from it.

They may even have to pay $10 for a bounced cheque because the bank is trying to increase its revenues because it made some bad loans in Latin America, or because it bought a securities company and, as in London, paid fancy salaries to some of the people it brought on board and then found out it was not making a profit.
There are real problems with regard to the failure of the Government to address the need to protect services and ensure adequate, affordable services for ordinary Canadians. We must ensure that young entrepreneurs are not forced out of business because they cannot get an extra loan to help build up the business. We must ensure that farmers are not forced out of business because the loans which were forced upon them three years ago are now being called, as has happened in too many instances. We must ensure that farmers do not have to fight back with a penny auction because of the regressive attitude of the banks and the way in which they are trying to victimize their former customers.
With regard to foreign ownership, we are concerned that since foreign owners will be treated as domestic, they will be given unlimited power to acquire securities companies after a brief delay of a year and a half, and, after that, any other financial corporation. We are concerned that the restrictions on nonresidents only apply to the very large institutions. I mentioned the concern about Bay Street and St. James Street. I do not suggest that our voters are there, but to alienate that entire sector raises questions in my mind.
I would like to speak positively to the Minister about the fact that the Government listened to the concerns of people in the life insurance business. A lot of small agents raised their concerns through Members on all sides of the House. The Government has responded by excluding from networking the
2286

December 18, 1986
Statements by Ministers
power to sell life and casualty insurance over the counter in these financial supermarkets. That is welcome.
We are concerned about the rather curious situation wherein a commercial interest cannot enter into the trust or loan company business but can buy into such a business if the Minister permits. There seems to be some contradiction there which we will have to explore when this matter comes before committee.
Finally, I would like to say a word-


Dave Nickerson: That's the fourth "finally".


Michael Morris Cassidy: I have the right to speak for as long as the Minister did. I will speak for only that long. If the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) does not like what a real socialist has to say in the House of Commons, we will take his seat in the next election and his constituents will have a New Democrat to represent them. If he does not want to listen to me now, he can take his absence and go off to a Christmas party. I wish his constituents a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
With regard to the way in which these institutions work, we should not think only of the market and of modeling ourselves after what is happening in London, Germany, or the United States. We must also consider our needs here. For example, I would like a requirement that in every region where a financial institution oeprates there be an advisory committee made up of consumers, small business people, and perhaps people from municipal government, who provide input to that institution and seek to ensure that that institution really serves the needs of that area. I would like to ensure that a searchlight could be shone upon situations which we discover, such as that which existed in the Bank of British Columbia.
In the last three or four years chartered bank deposits in British Columbia have increased by approximately $10 billion, but the money has not been invested in British Columbia. Unemployment has been soaring in that province and the money saved by British Columbians was invested in central Canada. There is something fundamentally wrong with that.
I would like the consumers and clients of the banks and financial institutions to be guaranteed a voice on the board of directors of those financial institutions. Rather than requiring that a limited number of directors, who would be largely of like mind with the internal directors, sit on the boards of these
corporations, we should ensure that ordinary Canadians have a voice in and a window on what happens in those institutions.
From time to time my Party speaks about the need to democratize these centres of power and put them in the hands of ordinary Canadians. I suggest that those are some constructive and positive means by which we could seek to do that.
Over the Christmas break, a time of peace and goodwill to people here in Canada and around the world, I hope the Minister of State for Finance and his colleagues could incorporate some of those suggestions in their proposals as they turn them into legislation to be considered by the House in the new year.
In closing, I want to wish the Minister of State for Finance and his colleagues a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. I know that we will be very intensively involved with these proposals for many months in the new year.
This may have been said earlier, but I think all Hon. Members would want to join me in expressing our good wishes to one of my colleagues from the National Capital Region, the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly), who is going to be wed on December 23.1 know every Member of Parliament will wish her and her spouse the best.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-29, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1987, without amendment.

It being 5.42 o'clock, pursuant to order made Wednesday, December 17, 1986 this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.42 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, December 19, 1986