1986-12-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a report entitled The Consequences for Canada of the Nuclear Accident at Chernobyl.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Committee, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-7, ari Act respecting the Archives of Canada and records of Government institutions of Canada and to amend the Copyright Act, with amendments.


BILL C-14-PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Anthony Roman (York North):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-14, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, I have the honour to present its report to the House without amendment.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions today. These petitions are signed by
people all across the country. Most of them are signed by residents of my riding and from the Ottawa East area. Whereas the Government of Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information, and whereas the tariff has had little negative effect on the publishing industry of the United States, yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, booksellers, distributors and Canada's culture, and whereas rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries with respect to the free trade negotiations. I have about eight of those petitions this morning, Mr. Speaker.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I bring to your attention petitions to yourself and to the Honourable House of Commons. These petitions are signed by hundreds of Canadian citizens who wish to humbly show that the Government has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which is discriminatory and which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information. The tariff has little negative effect on the publishing industry in the United States, yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, booksellers, distributors and Canada's culture. Rising book prices have placed a strain on book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries. In fact, the 10 per cent increase has decreased sales by 25 per cent. The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this negative and ill-conceived tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on our cultural industries with respect to free trade negotiations.
There is a very serious feeling that reading must be terribly taxing on the part of our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). The petitioners humbly ask Parliament to push that Minister to start reading a little more constructively. These petitions come from Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Quebec and the maritime provinces, including Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. There is not one part of Canada which is not reflected in the hundreds of names on this large number of petitions which I will be depositing with the Chair today. We have now deposited hundreds and hundreds of petitions which include thousands of names. I hope, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance will pay some attention to them.

December 11, 1986
Introduction of Bills
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by 32 members of the Oxford Philatelic Society who humbly pray and call upon Parliament not to allow the proposed increase in postage rates to be implemented. In so doing they draw to our attention the fact that since 1979, when the first class letter rate was 17 cents, there have been multiple increases accompanied by promises of improved service and in their opinion that service has not improved.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition to the House to the effect that the Government's Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will cause an increase in drug prices for Canadian consumers and will very severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. In particular, the petitioners point out that it will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. The petitioners who come from many parts of Ontario such as Campbellford, Trenton, Brighton, and Warkworth call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 I have the honour to present a petition, which has been certified correct as to form and content. It is a petition in which many Canadians join with constituents of mine whose petitions I have already presented from Transcona, East Elmwood, East Kildonan, North Kildonan, East St. Paul and the Town of Birds Hill in protesting the federal Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs which will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 I have the honour to present a petition, which has been certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions. In the petition the petitioners indicate that they are opposed to the Government's attempt to change the Patent Act. They believe that the changes to the Patent Act will result in prescription drugs increasing in price, which will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary drugs. They humbly call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will, of course, increase the cost of drugs to many Canadians.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106, which has been certified as being correct. It comes from a group of citizens in Winnipeg who say that the federal
Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.



NATIONAL PARKS ACT


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-30, an Act to amend the National Parks Act and to amend An Act to amend the National Parks Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister 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.


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-31, an Act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister 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.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 44 and 45.
December 11, 1986


Mr. Caccia: Did the Interdepartmental Water Policy Task Force in response to the report of the Inquiry on Federal Water Policy make any recommendations and, if so, what were they?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Yes. The recommendations will be made public shortly.


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): In (a) 1985 (b) 1986 to date, were any projects approved to create summer employment for summer students in the constituency of Victoria-Haliburton and, if so (i) how many (ii) how many jobs were created and what was the total amount spent to create these jobs?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: (a) Yes. (i) Contracts signed, 75; (ii) jobs created, 200; federal funds contracted, $386,569.
(b) Yes. (i) Contracts signed, 120*; (ii) jobs created, 224*; federal funds contracted, $391,224*.
* As of November 26, 1986.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: This is my ruling as a consequence of an intervention by the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) on November 6, 1986, who rose on a point of order to object to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) on presenting a petition. The Hon. Member for Victoria alleged that the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville had gone far beyond the content of the petition, thereby misleading the House and misrepresenting the petitioners. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) made the same allegations about the petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper), as well as the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly).
Points of Order
The Chair heard arguments from several Members on both sides of the House, including the Hon. Members for Windsor-Walkerville and Winnipeg North Centre, who counter-argued that their remarks were merely an attempt to paraphrase the contents of the petitions.
First, let me remind the House that since February 24, 1986, the rules regarding the presentation of petitions have changed considerably. The major change is that Members are now required to obtain certification from the Clerk of Petitions that their petitions meet the requirements of our Standing Orders and of our practices.
On presenting their petitions Members are permitted to give a brief summary of the content of the petition and, when Members have not been brief, my predecessors and myself have not hesitated to call Members to order and insist that they shorten their remarks. Members have been consistently reminded to keep their remarks short and pertinent. I refer Hon. Members to such interventions by Speaker Francis on January 24, 1984, as reported at page 702 of Hansard, and by Speaker Bosley on November 5, 1985, as reported at page 8376 of Hansard. I will spare the House all such references for they are too numerous to list here. There has been some indication that there has been, and perhaps continues to be, a problem.
May I also remind the House that, as reported in Hansard at page 1131 on November 6, the Chair intervened while the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville was presenting his petition, particularly when he used the words "American blackmail". In my opinion he was going beyond the thrust of the petition and entering into a debate about a matter for which he obviously had strong feelings.
The issue of whether some Members have "unwittingly misled the House and misrepresented petitioners" is a more difficult one. The Hon. Member for Victoria has not charged that any Member has intentionally misled the House. His complaint is that the language used exceeds the language of the petitioners. As I have pointed out, the Chair interrupted the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville on exactly this point.
I can assure the House that I will continue to be diligent and will remind Hon. Members that they are to describe only the substance of the petitions when presenting them to this House. I would like to thank especially the Hon. Member for Victoria for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair and the Chamber.


PETITIONS-APPROPRIATENESS OF QUESTIONS-MATTERS BEFORE COMMITTEE-SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: On November 6, 1986, the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) rose on a point of order relating to the appropriateness of questions asked during Question Period relating to Order in Council appointments which are currently before standing committees pursuant to
1998

December 11, 1986
Points of Order
Standing Order 103. The specific point the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister made was that such questions might be out of order when the matter is before, or has the opportunity of being before, a committee.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) expressed some concerns about the contention that Beau-chesne's Citation 357 might be made to apply in this case and more particularly about the view that if such matters have the opportunity to be before a committee, they ought not to be raised in the House during Question Period.

Although the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) acknowledged the possibility of duplication, he pointed out that certain questions regarding the behaviour and conduct of delegates were in the public domain and could thus appropriately be raised during Question Period.

In the report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of June, 1985 at page 34 is the following somewhat prophetic and relevant sentence:
In making recommendations regarding scrutiny and confirmation of certain appointments we are heading into uncharted waters.
The Chair fully agrees with that statement and believes it would be useful at the outset of this ruling to review the content of Standing Orders 103 and 104.

Standing Order 103 provides that a Minister of the Crown shall lay upon the Table a copy of appointments made by Order in Council not later than five sitting days after the Order in Council is published in the Canada Gazette. At the time of tabling, they are referred to a specified committee for a period not exceeding thirty sitting days.

Standing Order 104 provides that a specified committee shall, if it deems it appropriate, call appointees or nominees for a period not exceeding 10 sitting days. That same Standing Order clearly states that the committee shall examine the qualifications and the competence of the appointees. It is the opinion of the Chair that the committee's powers of examination are narrowly limited to the qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post, and questions in committee and reports thereon ought to be strictly relevant to such qualifications, competence and performance of duties.

The Chair should add that it is not imperative for a committee to review Order in Council appointments that have been referred to it, since Standing Order 104 specifies it is up to the committee to decide which Order in Council appointments will be reviewed, if any.

In attempting to address the issue of questions relating to Order in Council appointees or nominees being allowed in
Question Period, I believe it is useful to make an analogy with the specific mandates of two other committees. Standing Order 96(3)(f) provides for the referral of all reports of the Auditor General to be deemed permanently referred to the Public Accounts Committee immediately they are laid upon the Table. Standing Order 96(4)(a) provides that the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages shall be deemed permanently referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages immediately it is laid upon the Table.
Is it, therefore, a breach of our rules for Members of the House to ask questions in Question Period relating either to the Auditor General's or the Commissioner of Official Languages' reports simply because they have been referred to their respective committees upon tabling and certainly have the opportunity to be considered by these committees? While there are no specific rulings on this point, a review of our records did not produce any objections by Hon. Members to questions during Question Period on reports of the Auditor General or the Commissioner of Official Languages. Indeed, Hansard abounds with many questions posed to the front benches on the above-mentioned reports after they were referred to the committees concerned.

The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) remarked quite correctly that the authority of the new standing committees in the House is now so broad that practically all questions raised during Question Period would be out of order if it depended on whether or not they were being reviewed by a standing committee.

In his statement to the House on April 14, 1975, relating to Question Period, Speaker Jerome stated:
Much has been said in the precedents about restrictions and disqualifications or interferences with the right of Members to put questions. This is not the approach I prefer to take in attempting to establish a rational approach and understanding concerning how the question period should operate. I much prefer to take the positive approach of attempting to arrive at a statement of principle within which questions can be put and to reduce to an absolute minimum the negative disqualifications that may limit or restrict a Member's right so to do.
Guided by that principle, the Chair has chosen to rule that in general, questions to the Ministry relating to Order in Council appointments are in order, particularly if they are within the administrative competence of the Government. Conversely, I must tell the House, as I did on November 6, that out of concern for good manners, out of fairness and without impinging on the duty of all Hon. Members to be diligent on matters of public interest, I will not hesitate to rule questions out of order if I feel that the bounds have been exceeded.
The Chair wishes to thank the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister for having raised the matter, and is also grateful for the contributions of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I must add that the Chair feels reassured that in this new
December 11, 1986

process of review of Order in Council appointments, jurisprudence that will reinforce Standing Orders 103 and 104 will eventually emerge.
I think the Chair can also add on the basis of fairness that the citizens who appear before these committees have probably never gone through a procedure such as this before. It behooves all Hon. Members to recognize that these citizens are serving our country and that questions concerning them that are appropriate before the committee ought to be put in an manner of good will and care for the sensibilities of ordinary citizens who, as I say, would probably never in their lives, if they are lucky, have to appear before a group of people who are asking them a lot of questions that they had never, in some circumstances, anticipated.
I know that Hon. Members who have had some experience with the law, whether as litigants or as members of the bar, will know that one of the most awesome things a citizen is called upon to do is to be a witness in a proceeding. I would ask all Hon. Members to take special care, when citizens have responded to the request of the Government of Canada to serve, that they are treated with appropriate courtesy and fairness at all times when appearing before committees.
Again, I wish to thank the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair and I hope the remarks of the Chair will assist all Hon. Members and the committees in providing fair and proper treatment for the citizens who come before them.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just for clarification, can I take it from your ruling that notwithstanding the fact that a person may be before the respective committee under the provisions of Standing Orders 103 and 104, during the course of his examination, you would allow questions in the House of Commons while he is currently before a committee under the framework of the ruling that you just brought down?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister has raised a question which indicates that there may be some ambiguity in the ruling I have given. In order to be absolutely sure that there is no ambiguity, I would ask the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister if he would consider allowing me to take the question he has raised under advisement.
While I think I made it clear that, certainly in general terms, Hon. Members ought not to be forbidden from raising a question in this Chamber, I also said that I would take each one of those questions and consider them carefully at that time in the context of what is happening. I would ask the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister if he would let me carefully consider the point he has raised because I do not want to leave Hon. Members in doubt. I might advise Hon. Members that there was a further ruling that I was hoping to give today. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) who raised the matter is unable to be here at this moment. I will return to the Chamber when it is appropriate to do so, and when the Hon. Member can hear the ruling.
Business of the House


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) that due to a prior commitment she is unable to be present in the House on Friday, December 12, 1986, to move her motion during the hour for Private Members' Business.
Accordingly, I am directing the Table to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Since notice will thereby be removed, the hour for Private Members' Business will be suspended, and pursuant to Standing Order 39(2), the House will continue with the business before it prior to that hour until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for rising on a point of order following your announcement.
May I say as the Whip of my Party-and I know if the Whip for the government side could speak he would do so- that we are very much preoccupied by the rights of private Members to introduce and present to the House motions and Bills which they feel are important. The present procedure prevents private Members having the one, two, three, or four hours a week in which they are allowed to discuss these items. Therefore, I would like to recommend and ask the Government that it pay attention to yesterday's Order Paper, where I moved a motion which addressed that problem. It would allow private Members who are outside that preferred group of 20 who were chosen by draw, those of us who did not make it, at the request of the Table to be present to present our Bills or motions for discussion in this House. That would meet the requirements of the rights of private Members to be heard in the House at the hour allowed for them to do so, and also meet with the requirements of Members who, for reason of circumstances beyond their control, cannot be here. I would recommend that the motion be looked at tentatively by the Government.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair was anticipating the intervention of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I wish to remind him and other Hon. Members that the Chair is presently preparing a ruling which touches on the concern of the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members. Until I am prepared to give judgment, I am following the usual procedure. I want to assure the Member for Ottawa-Vanier that I am conscious of his concerns.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, not to prolong this issue, but perhaps I could indicate to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier that there are ongoing discussions with House Leaders on this matter. This issue has been raised. A solution has not been arrived at, but I assure the Hon. Member that it is being considered.

December 11, 1986
The Alliance Nationale Consolidated Act, 1945 DISPOSITION OF BILL S-3


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. There was unanimous consent to proceed with the consideration of Bill S3, a Bill sent from the other place, and to go through all stages of this Bill at this sitting of the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on the same point of order. In the Order Paper, Bill S-3 can be found under Private Bills. The title of the item on page 15 is Private Members' Business. It is a coincidence, but it is worth using this chance to illustrate a possible error in our rules which at this time do not allow the House to deal with Private Bills that come from the Senate to this place, Bills that have been studied and approved by the Senate and which are put to us for study.
I wish to ask again that the Government look at the possibility of incorporating in our rules and in our Standing Orders appropriate provisions for such Bills.
I make the point strongly, because we all know that within the next six months or so there will be reports from the Electoral Boundaries Commissions in regard to electoral boundaries and names of ridings. Unless I am wrong, I am sure that there will be Members in this House who will not be satisfied with the change of name of their riding and they will want to present a Private Members' Bill. This House has always accommodated a Member who wished to change or modify the name of his riding. Under the present rules, this would be very difficult, because the Bill would not be within those 20 measures that were chosen for discussion by the House. I would like the House Leader of the Government to give some attention to the appropriate provisions for that purpose, and for Private Bills coming from the Senate.
Of course, we give our consent to move on Bill S-3 today.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The Hon. Member makes a very good and valid point. I will certainly take that under consideration. Hopefully, that can be resolved with the co-operation of the other House Leaders.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. When the Government is considering what might be done to provide a procedural opportunity for the consideration of Private Members' Bills from the Senate, which we are now going to consider by unanimous consent, I hope that it is considered as a separate item and not in a way that would involve Private Members' Bills from the Senate impinging upon the time and the process now allocated for Private Members' Business from Members of the House of Commons.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that in this case that is precisely why we have transferred it to Government Orders.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion proposed by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Lewis). Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly) moved: that Bill S-3, an Act to amend and repeal the Alliance Nationale Consolidated Act, 1945, be now read a second time and, with unanimous consent, be referred to a Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today, as a former insurance agent for Industrial, one of the two companies involved, to introduce and take part in the debate on Bill S-3, so that Alliance Mutual Life Insurance Company will be able to merge with Industrial Life Insurance Company.
The changes forecast for the life insurance sector in the years to come indicate that companies will have to continue to invest very substantial amounts in expanding operations to remain competitive and maintain operating costs at acceptable levels. Deregulation and the opening up of financial institutions will merely accelerate this process of change in the insurance industry.
That is why the directors of Alliance Mutual Life Insurance Company and Industrial Life Insurance Company, at special meetings of their respective boards of directors on June 30 of this year, voted unanimously in favour of merging Alliance with Industrial.
To complete this stage, it is necessary to pass special legislation to authorize the change of jurisdiction, as approved by the members at a special meeting, because the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act does not cover this kind of situation.
As for the merger itself, Alliance and Industrial Life members endorsed the principle during special general meetings held last September 30, provided of course the Alliance charter could be transferred so that the merger could indeed take place, in accordance with Quebec insurance legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the insurance company resulting from the merger will be called the Industrial-Alliance Life Insurance Company.
The Bill submitted for approval stems from the unanimous agreement of both boards of directors to merge. It is also the
December 11, 1986

duly expressed will of the members of Alliance and Industrial Life.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to thank all Members of this House, and especially opposition Members, for their unanimous support for this Bill.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-3 is a Bill to facilitate the amalgamation of two long established insurance companies-the Alliance Mutual Life Insurance Company and the Industrial Life Insurance Company. Approval for the merger has been given by the boards of directors of both companies and by their shareholders.
The reason this somewhat cumbersome procedure of a Bill is necessary is that in the federal legislation there is no provision for a federal company to be exported to the provincial jurisdiction. One of these companies is federally incorporated. At the present time a provincial company can be reincorporated federally but, as I said, there is no provision for a federal company to be exported to a provincial jurisdiction, hence the need for this special legislation. Indeed this is an anomaly which might be addressed if and when the Government produces new legislation on financial institutions.
In this case all the parties concerned seem to have consulted. As I said, both boards of directors and the shareholders of both companies have agreed. There has been extensive consultation with the federal Department of Insurance as well as with the provincial insurance Departments. The entire process has been monitored and co-ordinated by the regulatory authorities.
With the passage of the Bill before us, the charter of Alliance will be modified so that it can be governed by the Quebec Insurance Act instead of by the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. Then the amalgamation of both companies can be done in accordance with the provisions of the Quebec Insurance Act, by which the amalgamated company will be governed.
In view of the fact that there has been agreement by all parties concerned and that the regulatory authorities, both federal and provincial, have been fully informed and agree, my Party is also pleased to give its agreement to the passage of the Bill, with the rider that we hope in future some less cumbersome method will be found to deal with matters of this kind.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I should like to recognize that this is a rather unique moment in that we are examining a Bill and we find that literally all the players involved are in mutual agreement-the federal and provincial Governments, the various companies involved, the shareholders, and the boards of directors. Literally everyone, including the two Houses of Parliament, are coming together and saying, "Let us all co-operate". It is an appropriate gesture at this time of the year.
Railway Act
On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I should like to say that we will facilitate the movement of the Bill through all stages as quickly as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Hon. David Crombie (for the Minister of Communications) moved: that Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Railway Act, as reported (with amendment) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
David Edward Crombie: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Today, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to move third reading of Bill C-4 to amend the Railway Act. Before commenting briefly I should like to recall that we are moving the third reading motion at the earliest opportunity because time is of the essence, a fact which my Opposition colleagues can fully appreciate. We did work at one in committee, and I hope they will not be inconvenienced by the fact that the House is now proceeding swiftly to third reading. I am sure they recall the hope we expressed to have this legislation in place by March 1987 so as to be in a position to draft the regulations required to implement this legislative measure.

The purpose of the Bill is to recover the costs incurred by the CRTC in carrying out its responsibility for the regulation of the telecommunications carrier industry. Under the proposed Act, these regulatory and administrative costs will be recovered directly from the regulated industry and will no longer constitute a burden on the ordinary taxpayer.
The proposed Bill reflects the fundamental commitment of the Government to reduce the federal deficit and to manage public expenditures in a sound, responsible fashion. We believe that this will create a climate which is favourable to economic growth and lead to greater investment and job creation in Canada.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, job creation is indeed one of the top priorities of this Government.

December 11, 1986
Railway Act

Let me now cite some of the more specific conditions and objectives which the proposed Bill is intended to serve in the telecommunications industry.
The industry has been regulated throughout most of its history. The predominance of regulation reflects the presence of natural monopolies in the telephone business which result from the considerable economies of scale that prevail in the construction and operation of telecommunications networks. Regulation also reflects the essential nature of telephone service and its perceived importance to the social and economic wellbeing of all Canadians.
The proposed legislation before us today is intended to amend the Railway Act to permit the CRTC to set and to collect fees from the carriers it regulates. Following the passage of this legislation, the CRTC in consultation with Treasury Board will be authorized to devise a fee structure for recovering the administrative costs associated with regulating the telecommunications companies under federal jurisdiction.
The CRTC currently regulates six telecommunications carriers pursuant to the Railway Act and to various so-called "special Acts" pertaining to these companies. The companies are Bell Canada, the British Columbia Telephone Company, CNCP Telecommunications, Telesat Canada, Northwest Tel and Terra Nova Tel. Together they account for more than 70 per cent of Canadian telecommunications assets, revenues and subscribers. The $6 million to be recovered in 1986-87 represent less than 0.1 per cent of the annual operating revenues of the six carriers.
Since the Bill was tabled for first reading in October, Elon. Members have had the opportunity to review the draft legislation and to comment on its various provisions. Several of the firms affected by the proposed law have also made representations before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. Some Members, and several of the carriers, suggested that the Bill contain a specific reference to the objective of cost recovery.

Mr. Speaker, this is why the Government moved an amendment which was unanimously endorsed by the committee.

An amendment to this effect appears in the Bill now before you for third reading, Mr. Speaker. We believe that this should alleviate any remaining concerns about the magnitude of the fees to be paid by the industry.
As we have informed the Elouse previously, the amounts recovered from the carriers in 1986-87 and in subsequent years will correspond to the costs incurred by the CRTC in regulating the telecommunications industry. At this time I would also like to reiterate our support for full consultation with the
carriers prior to the assessment and implementation of the fees. For this purpose, and specifically to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of fees within the industry, we expect that the CRTC will conduct a public inquiry to develop a formula for determining the fees to be paid by individual carriers. Following its normal practices, the CRTC will no doubt wish to solicit the views of the public and the industry on the best manner of distributing and collecting these fees. I am certain that Hon. Members and the federally regulated telecommunications carriers can confidently rely on this process to produce results which are fair to the industry and its subscribers.
The cost recovery measures, as set out in the proposed Bill, are similar to arrangements which are already in place in several provinces. From all reports, these measures are regarded as an effective and fair means of shifting the financial burden of regulation from taxpayers in general to those companies responsible for incurring the expenses.

That, Mr. Speaker, is the main purpose of this Bill, besides the fact that we want to reduce the deficit to boost the economy and create jobs. We want to make sure that, contrary to the present situation, expenditures incurred by the CRTC to manage and regulate the industry will be charged directly to the industries involved, not to the taxpayers.

Up to now, the CRTC has not had the authority to collect fees for the regulation of telecommunications carriers subject to federal jurisdiction. Nevertheless, at present, the CRTC does collect over $30 million annually in licence fees from Canadian broadcasters and cable operators under its jurisdiction.
One result of Bill C-4 will be to place federally regulated telecommunications carriers on the same footing as the broadcasting industry. Thus the cost of regulation, under the proposed Bill, will be distributed more evenly between the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors.
[ Translation]
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Bill will help the Government reduce the deficit.

The approval of this Bill will permit the CRTC to recover those costs associated with the regulation of the telecommunications carriers subject to federal jurisdiction. It will also place the regulated telecommunications industry on a more equitable basis with the broadcasting industry which already contributes to the recovery of the costs of its regulation through licensing fees.
On that note, Mr. Speaker, I wish to present C-4 to the House for third reading.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-4, an Act to amend the
December 11, 1986

Railway Act on third reading. This Bill had its second reading, as the Parliamentary Secretary just pointed out, on October 20, and I think it has seen quick and swift passage through the House. For the most part it has been a most pleasant experience in the legislative committee. In fact, it is one of the few legislative committees which was easy to work with and pleasant to participate in.
I would like to take a few minutes to examine the rationale for this Bill. First, what was the purpose of introducing this Bill? It appeared to be a cost recovery mechanism which seemed a logical and good business practice. However, the news release issued by the former Minister of Communications on June 26, 1986 when the first Bill was introduced in this House states that the amendment to the Railway Act would:
-allow recovery of costs associated with the Government of Canada's regulation of the telecommunications carrier industry.
The news release went on to demonstrate how the telecommunications regulatory authority, namely the CRTC, will recoup with the aid of this Bill sufficient revenue to cover the costs incurred by the CRTC in regulating the telecommunications industry.
The memorandum was quite clear but what the Minister at that time forgot to do was to put the mechanism into the Bill. The words were fine but the methodology was lacking in its concept and process. The new Bill tabled in October continued the same errors and unfortunately did not cover any of the capping wishes expressed by the past Minister of Communications and the present Minister. At that time I pointed out to the Government that Mr. Andre Bureau, chairman of the CRTC, who would be charged with this responsibility, had already said that the CRTC operated at a large surplus. In fact, it was a very good provider to the general revenues of our country and in a sense was enabling a decrease in the deficit by its efficient operation. CRTC in that sense was a role model, shall we say, in administrative practices because it had proved to be so highly profitable. It was lean and trim in its operation and was certainly not a drain on the federal Treasury as it returned excess profits. It was not short of money to do the administrative tasks which this Bill was drafted to carry out.
However, as cost recovery was the principal goal, it did not seem to be an inopportune method to proceed as long as the capping was put into place.
The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that in her summation the Minister made it quite clear there would be a very effective and fair mechanism put in place to determine how this $6 million cost would be divided among those covered. In doing so she pointed out there would be consultations with the industry and public hearings so that it would be a fair and just repartition de la procedure. However, I point out that to go through this course of action, which is democratic, fair and the way it should be done, will take time. That was of concern to me because of the retroactivity clause in the Bill.
Railway Act
I would like to draw that retroactivity clause to your attention. Clause 321.1(4) says:
The first regulation made under this section after this section comes into force shall, if it so provides, have retroactive effect and be applicable to a company carrying on business during any period specified therein after March 31, 1986 and may be enforced accordingly in respect of that period.
There is no possible way that the procedure will be in place before we are well into 1987. That clause enables the CRTC to assess new fees to the telecommunications companies on a retroactive basis. As I said, I expressed my concerns to the committee about changing the rules in the middle of the game. The Government has not demonstrated why that clause is necessary. The only reason is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said so and he wants to see it done. However, if he wants his ego massaged, I strongly suggest that this is not the way to do it. It is not just or fair. Why should the Bill allow retroactive fees to be charged by the CRTC when the CRTC is already operating on a profitable basis? Why this sudden need to assess fees retroactively? If the Government was of the view that the telecommunications industry has not been paying its fair share to the CRTC, why did it not ensure that this Bill was passed last year? Had that been done there would be no need for this Bill and its retroactivity clause. Clearly the Government does not have its legislative agenda in order.
I would add one further point on the subject of retroactivity. The addition of this clause does not absolutely require that fees be assessed against the industry on a retroactive basis. Rather, it provides that the fee will only be retroactive if, and I underline the word "if', the regulations eventually established by the CRTC so provide. In other words, the Government has left it to the CRTC to decide whether or not the fees should be assessed retroactively. Its decision, according to this Bill, is then subject to approval of Treasury Board. Why does the Government not simply say it wants to meet the commitments outlined by the Minister of Finance over a year ago, it is sorry it did not get the Bill passed, and it wants the industry to pay retroactively? Why try to dump this responsibility on the CRTC? Why not come out and say clearly that it wants to reduce the deficit by another $6 million, it is an important amount, and this is how it plans to do it? Instead of putting the onus on the CRTC, let it face the public and say where it is at, instead of trying to hide behind someone else's skirts.
Finally, in making the decision subject to approval of Treasury Board, the Government is not playing fair. The Government has failed to make clear why it felt it was necessary to leave the question of retroactivity up to the CRTC. What guidelines does the Government expect the CRTC to employ in making its decisions on this point? Will Treasury Board be setting the guidelines pursuant to the power granted to it under this clause? Or will the consultation process result in the determination? It seems highly unfair to allow fees to be assessed right back to March of 1986 when it may be well into 1987 before the CRTC completes its hearings on the content of the regulations and actually passes them. Furthermore, it is odd that the CRTC can go through the democratic exercise of holding public hearings but Treasury

December 11, 1986
Railway Act
Board has the right to veto its decisions as a result. Why not just tell Treasury Board to write the rules and regulations and proceed full steam ahead? What is the point of this procedure?
A number of witnesses appeared before the committee to propose that this clause be deleted in its entirety. This whole exercise is a farce. Bell Canada, CNCP, Northwest Telephone and Terra Nova Telecommunications and B.C. Tel said we should delete it. Telesat Canada said it did not make sense. What is this democratic procedure outlined by the Minister going to accomplish except to hear once again that the industry does not want this clause? I think they are prepared to accept the Bill and its reasoning as well as the mechanism for cost recovery, not to mention the capping which should be there, but they have said once, as I have said twice, no to retroactivity. Yet we will go through this futile exercise, which will cost the Government more money, and then recover $6 million. It does not make sense.
Bell Canada observed that since it has already had its rates approved by the CRTC for the past year it is unable to make further application to cover the new fees imposed by Bill C-4. CNCP stated in its brief that the retroactivity clause violates basic notions of regulatory fairness. B.C. Tel calls the retroactivity clause unconscionable. They said that under the system of rate of return regulation which applies to B.C. Tel the company's revenue requirement was presented to and approved by the CRTC as part of the company's 1984 general rate application. Our committee was advised that the fees imposed under Bill C-4 were not included in that revenue requirement. Consequently, B.C. Tel said that the burden of such retroactive fees would be borne by the shareholders. The same holds true for Bell Canada. The burden will be borne by the shareholder.
There is a lot of difference between rhetoric and action. We heard in committee one of my colleagues say that he was aware that certain of the companies concerned had already made provision for this fee. When asked directly which companies had told him, in what forum and what were the provisions, he was not in a position to respond. Companies came before us and said no. There seems to be a dilemma here. On the one hand the answer is that retroactivity is unfair and a cost to shareholders. The Government does not want it passed on to the consumer. We are going through a costly democratic procedure to make an undemocratic decision and allow the Treasury Board veto responsibility. It is time to get our act together and recognize the difference between rhetoric and action.
I would like to refer to that famous press release from the previous Minister of Communications dated June 26, 1986. The same version of this Bill was originally introduced in June, 1986. The press release said in summary: "The amount collected from carriers regulated by the Government of Canada will (under this Bill) correspond directly to the costs
incurred by the CRTC in regulating the telecommunications industry."
When I spoke to Bill C-4 at second reading, I pointed out to the Government that there was nothing in it which in any way stated that the amount of money collected from carriers would correspond directly to the costs incurred by the CRTC in regulating the telecommunications industry. In other words, no cap provisions were provided to meet the enunciated goal of cost recovery.
Rather, Bill C-4, as it stood at first and second reading, provided the CRTC with the power to make regulations imposing the fees to be charged to the telecommunication carriers. Nowhere in the Bill was the cap which we wanted which would correspond to the costs incurred in regulating the telecommunications industry. We had more than sufficient funds to cover this cost. As Mr. Bureau said at that time:

I must point out that the CRTC is a revenue-producing agency of the federal Government and that forecast revenues for this fiscal year will be $54 million, more than twice our authorized appropriations.

So the Minister established another way to add cost recovery to the deficit, and that is not so terrible.
I am pleased that a limit of what can be imposed by the CRTC has been provided for. I am pleased to lend my support to the government amendment because it meets the concerns I originally expressed. I was concerned about this matter for a number of reasons. First, if there was no limit placed on what the CRTC could do, the commission would be in a legal position to impose greater and greater fees depending upon how much money the Government wished to collect for its coffers. I did not think that would have been fair to the telecommunications carriers. They would have been at the mercy of the CRTC from year to year.
Second, if the CRTC sought to impose such heavy fees on carriers such as Bell Canada or BC Tel, it is expected that they would attempt to pass those charges on to telephone subscribers by way of higher rates. I have attempted to protect telephone subscribers from such rate increases by urging the Government to limit the fees to be charged by the CRTC. I am pleased that the Government has acted upon that suggestion and upon the suggestions of the many witnesses who appeared before us at committee.
In conclusion, I do not oppose passage of Bill C-4 in its current form. I do regret that it does not incorporate all of the changes which I would have liked to have seen, in particular the retroactivity clause. The Government has gone some distance in adopting my proposal. I think the cost recovery concept is a good one.
I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Mailly) for her co-operation with this Bill. I would also like to thank the Member for Prince Edward Hastings (Mr. Ellis) for the efficient and courteous manner in
December 11, 1986

which he chaired the meetings of our legislative committee. I also express the deep appreciation of the House and the general population to the witnesses who took the time to appear before our committee and present us with their views on the Bill. It is regrettable only that some of them were not heeded.
Mis. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):	Mr. Speaker, my remarks on Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Railway Act, will be very brief. The principle is one of cost recovery, that the CRTC should be able to collect from telecommunications companies in the same manner as it collects from broadcasters. I think the cost recovery principle is a very appropriate one to apply. It is already used in broadcasting and it is, of course, the principle used by marketing boards.
I was pleased that the Government accepted the amendment to specify in the legislation that the collection of fees would be for cost recovery purposes and, therefore, could not exceed the amount that the CRTC actually spent for the regulation of the telecommunications companies. There was a fear that the CRTC, with Treasury Board approval, might use this as a means of making a profit at the expense of companies. The CRTC already collects more than it actually needs for the specific costs of regulation in broadcasting. This is not a very good principle and it should not be applied to telecommunications.
We are speaking of approximately $6 million per year, not a very large amount of money. In collecting money from corporations, these regulatory fees are not really important. In order to have a decent taxation system, we must look for fair and effective corporate tax system. I worry a little bit about the Government being penny-wise and pound-foolish in pursuing $6 million when billions of dollars escape collection through extremely liberal loopholes which are still available to corporations.
I do not think that the point made by the Liberal spokesperson about the control which the Treasury Board has over the determination of fees is at all well taken. The CRTC is not completely at arm's length from Government. Appeals are permitted to Cabinet on major decisions which it makes. In my opinion that is not a good principle, but it is one which the Liberal Party has supported throughout. It seems to me a little hypocritical to criticize a Conservative Government for permitting this non-arm's length relationship which has been standard in the industry for some time and was introduced by the Liberal Party.
I want to quarrel a little with the presentation of the cost recovery principle and the amount of money which will be collected. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to its purpose in deficit reduction saying that it would be needed for economic growth and job creation. These are all laudable goals, but it is not clear how they will be achieved. The Government is cutting back on job creation. We have also had cut-backs in scientific research, which is absolutely key to having a vital,
Railway Act
dynamic economy. There have been cut-backs in secondary education, which affects the people who will be entering the economy. In order to improve economic growth and job creation the Government must consider those who will enter the labour force and their skills and training.
We have no confidence at all that there will be good economic growth and job creation when bad decisions are taken apropos post-secondary education and scientific research. One cannot use as justification the collection of $6 million which will not be spent on economic growth or job creation. The money is also not being used to reduce the deficit which is still increasing. The $6 million which will be collected through this Bill is only equivalent to the cost of three Shamrock Summits. That is not even remotely the cost of the cost over-runs of the Prime Minister's own personal penitentiary at Port Cartier. With all the money which is being wasted by the Government, why should it receive extra money? How will the money be used? I am sorry to say the Government is not putting it into post-secondary education, scientific research or cultural expenditures where there can be a lot of job creation. It seems this very wasteful kind of expenditure is still being permitted.
To conclude, I would say I certainly support the principle of the Bill but I would have greater enthusiasm for it if I thought the money collected would be better spent.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I will also be very brief. I want to talk about a specific concern of my constitutents who are served by Northwest Tel, one of the corporations which will be obliged to pay these fees. Northwest Tel is a small Crown corporation which provides telephone service to the western part of the Northwest Terrritories, the Yukon and a small part of northern British Columbia. It is quite true, as the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) pointed out, that the fees will eventually be passed on to telephone subscribers. In general, if we take a global view, the estimated amount for fees is not onerous. It is only a fraction of 1 per cent. It can undoubtedly be easily handled. However, in the case of a very small company operating in remote areas, the chance exists that if, for example, a series of public meetings are to be held as part of the regulatory process in a number of remote communities, the costs might very well escalate. I have seen some of the paperwork the small company is obliged to go through in this regulatory procedure. It is nearly as onerous as the paperwork with respect to Bell Canada, CN and CP. Therefore, in proportion, the smaller company has to pay a larger amount of the costs, or the cost of regulating a small company in remote areas is disproportionately larger than in the case of large telephone companies.
This brings us to the question of how these fees are to be levied. This was brought up by the Parliamentary Secretary as well as by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. If the method of asssessing fees is to be that each telephone company has to pay in each year the cost of regulation for that specific

December 11, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
company, then there is a good possibility that on one or two occasions as years go by, the telephone subscribers of Northwest Tel might very well be faced with quite onerous increases to their telephone bill to pay for this regulation. If, on the other hand, we take the over-all cost of regulation for all the companies which have been included in this Bill, then divide that in proportion to the over-all revenue of each corporation, then tell each telephone company its proportion of the total revenues is such and such a per cent and it is charged that same percentage in regulatory fees, we will overcome the problem.
That is the point I wanted to make this morning. When we come to a system which is to be made by way of regulation for the imposition of these fees, we should do it in a manner which will be fair to the subscribers of small companies operating in remote areas.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 8, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-25, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment (Mr. Benjamin) (p. 1866).
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, when the House last considered this Bill I was speaking as my Party's new privatization critic. I believe I have about eight minutes in which to complete my speech which was on a motion to hoist the Bill for six months. The area of privatization and, to some extent, deregulation, from which it comes, has never really been debated in this Parliament. That is one reason we in the New Democratic Party insist that the Government debate the Bill properly and not just shove it through as quickly as possible without proper consideration.
I draw to the attention of the House the debate found in Hansard on December 1. Various Members of the New Democratic Party spoke in English and in French concerning this particular Bill and the principle of privatization. I would hope there will be some debate around the country because this is a very important area. It will be an interesting debate over the next one, two or three years.
I want to say to the Government that we are not unduly delaying the Bill. However, we put the Government on notice not to expect that privatization will be easy to get through the House of Commons. If the Government tries a wholesale privatization, that is, selling off Crown corporations which we think help build Canada and make it what it is, a civilized, strong and independent country, we will dig in and oppose it. There are lots of Crown corporations like Petro-Canada, CBC and Air Canada which can be used as instruments to bring this country together. There are other Crown corporations in the fisheries area or communciations which can be used as instruments of state to create jobs and independence. Therefore, the Government is put on notice not to expect an easy path. This country is not Thatcher's England, nor is it Reagan's America. We are going to put up a fight.
That does not mean we are going to be completely blinded by ideological blinkers. As we have said in this debate, it is the Government which is blinded by ideological blinkers. The Government wants to privatize at all costs and we say in some cases it wants to give away. In fact, Bill C-25 is an example of almost giving away a company in which the taxpayers have invested some $2 billion. We acknowledge that Bombardier is a good Canadian company. It does not have a lot of experience in aerospace but it is a good Canadian company based in Quebec. At least that is better than what the Government did with de Havilland. It gave the company to Boeing and gave away the chance for a co-ordinated, independent Canadian aerospace industry.
We are not blinded by ideological blinkers, as I indicated, and we are going to see that the Government is not, either. We want to ensure that the Government does not privatize just for the sake of privatization. We will not necessarily oppose the Government privatizing a Crown corporation for good economic, financial and national reasons. There may be instances where that would apply. However, I point out to the Government that in order to change a Crown corporation, it does not necessarily have to give it away or sell it to the private sector. It can, in fact, reform the Crown corporation and make it more accountable, open and managed in a better way. It makes me laugh sometimes when I hear the criticism, as I have heard in this debate, that the New Democratic Party is responsible when Crown corporations are not doing their job. I point out that we have not been the national Government yet-just wait for two years. So we have not been managing these Crown corporations. Where we have managed Crown corporations we must look to the provinces. The Province of Saskatchewan is a good example in this regard. In that province Crown corporations were properly used to help bring that province from have-not to have status. It pulled itself up by its own bootstraps in many ways, and used Crown corporations to do so.
I tell the Government that it should also have a look at the Province of British Columbia. In the Bennett years after the 1983 election the province did go ideological and started to
privatize a great many Crown corporations. The province set up something called BRIC, the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation, and sold shares in the corporation. Some shares were sold for $6 and other shares were given away. I think the shares are now worth $1 on the market. It is an example of an abysmal failure of privatization. I hope the Government will avoid that in this case.
One of the concerns we have with Bill C-25 is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) proposed in 1984 that the Conservative policy would be the formation of a super Crown corporation which would be responsible for de Havilland and Canadair. We now see a complete about turn and we want to know why. We want to examine that in committee. We want to look at how much is being paid for the company. Some $120 million will be paid for the company when the Government put $200 million into it. We want to have a look at the books of the company. We want to have some statements by the Minister and some of the company officials with respect to what is going on.
I trust that this Bill will be voted upon today in the House. There is that possibility. I can safely say on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we would be prepared to do that today. We will not hold the Bill up. What we would like to see is some consideration given to the formation of a legislative committee early next week. We are prepared to get the ball rolling as soon as possible in order to examine some of the details of this Bill. That is the only proper way to do things in Parliament. If we were not to do that, then we would not be performing our duties.
I draw to the attention of the House the speech I gave on December 1 in which I discussed the principles and some of the arguments for and against privatization. I hope other members of my Party will be speaking on those very points today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. After the passage of this Bill the Government will have sold to the private sector the two major aerospace companies in the country, de Havilland of Toronto and Canadair of Montreal. Both companies were originally privately owned. In a period of recession, or depression, in the aerospace industry, and after showing years of loss, both of these privately-owned companies decided that they could not continue to operate, that they could not continue to absorb the losses. One cannot criticize them for that since, quite properly, private companies are in business to make a profit. When they cannot make a profit they want to cut their losses and sometimes get out of business. That is what these companies were prepared to do. If I remember correctly, the Government at the time, with the approval of the opposition Parties, made a decision in a modern, industrialized country such as Canada that we could not afford not to be in the aerospace industry.
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
Thus the Government bought these companies. The Government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in keeping these companies in operation and in providing thousands of jobs. The Government has provided these two companies with financial resources so that they continue to perform research and development which puts them at the forefront of the technological area in this industry.
Having invested hundreds of millions of dollars in keeping these companies going, in the case of de Havilland the Government has already sold the company to Boeing. Incidentally, Boeing, according to records we have obtained, made over $2 billion of profit in the years 1980 to 1985 in the United States and did not pay one penny of tax.


Philip Derek Lewis: That's the private sector for you.


David Orlikow: I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary is listening to me. That great American corporation in the five years from 1980 to 1985 made $2 billion in profits. Not only did it not pay any money in tax to the Government of the United States but it earned a tax credit in the neighbourhood of something close to $100 million. I would be happy to have the Parliamentary Secretary get to his feet to defend Boeing for that type of action. I hope that the Canadian Government is wiser than the American Government and does not permit Boeing to do that in Canada.
At any rate, we have sold de Havilland to Boeing for very little. We are now proposing to sell Canadair to Bombardier which is, at least, a Canadian company. My question to the Hon. Member is the following. What does the Hon. Member think of the possibility or likelihood that five or ten years down the road the aircraft industry will be in another slump, sales will be down and we will have either Boeing or Bombardier wanting to sell back the companies at a good price to the Government of Canada?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who has been around the House much longer than I and who has seen many deals come and go has, of course, hit the nail on the head. We bail out companies in bad times. When things get better we sell the companies back to the private sector. Then when things get bad again, just wait and see, the companies will be back asking for government help.
As the Hon. Member alluded to in his remarks, the Canadian taxpayers under this deal will continue to assume Canadair's long-term debt of $1.2 billion. The annual interest payments will exceed the cash price that Bombardier is paying for the company. It is paying just $120 million for the company. Because of all the money that was pumped into the development of the Challenger jet and other technologies, it is a company whose technological value is about $300 million. In January the purchasing company will receive a $50 million federal grant and another $30 million in federal defence grants thereafter. It just received a $1.7 defence contract. I refer to the CF-18 repair contract. The company made profits of $20 million in 1985. There was a profit of $2.8 million in the first

December 11, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
quarter of 1986. The purchasing company will receive all that, which is not bad for a $120 million purchase price, plus the equivalent of $20 million in royalty payments. This is nothing but a distress sale. In the good times we give it away and in the bad times we buy it back. That seems to be the pattern.
While I am on my feet I wish to refer to a matter that was alluded to by the Hon. Member.

I spoke to Canadair employees in Montreal, to Mr. Cherry and the other workers, and we told them we are concerned over this Bill as it relates to the future employment of the work force. For example, there is a clause here, surely I have it in English-

It is in one of the clauses of the Bill. It is in English and says that Bombardier is committed to maintaining existing levels of employment at Canadair subject to cyclical shifts and sound business practices. Does that mean that if Bombardier determines that business practices are not sound, it can fire half of the workers or have massive lay-offs?


David Orlikow: Or close the plant.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Or close the plant? It goes on to say that Bombardier will pursue new programs and opportunities so that the level of employment in Canadair and its suppliers will increase. We like the last part of the clause but we want to ask questions about the first part of it.
To sum up, we hope that this Bill will pass today in the sense that we can vote on it in principle at second reading stage. I hope we can go into committee early next week to examine some of these clauses and nail them down for the workers and the other people who will hopefully benefit from this Bill.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because I know the Hon. Member wants the Bill to pass. The Hon. Member made a big point about the Government assuming the company's debt. Since the company ran up substantial losses when it was owned by the Government of Canada and since the Government of Canada owns the company and therefore owes the money, how can the Government of Canada be said to be assuming the company's debts? Is it not a fact that the taxpayers already owe the debts and losses built up over the past years?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it depends on how the accounting terms are framed. I am not an accountant. I am prepared to acknowledge that the Government is continuing the debt. The fact is that the debt is there and Bombardier is not buying the debt of the company. Sometimes debts are taken over when companies are bought.


Mr. Parry:: Assuming the burden of the debt.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let me put it that way, it is assuming the burden of the debt.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-25 on the privatization of Canadair, more specifically the amendment moved by a Member of the New Democratic Party, the very same Party which, through the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who spoke a moment ago, claims that it has no intention of blocking the passage of this measure. The NDP is prepared to adopt it quickly. Well now, perhaps I might refer to the motion under consideration, the amendment which reads as follows:
Bill C-25, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, be not now read a second time but... six months hence.
If this is not holding up a Bill I wonder what it is, Mr. Speaker. We know that a good many Members of the House are in favour of some of the provisions of the Bill and are prepared to send it to Committee of the Whole this afternoon, but the New Democratic Party is against that. I want to make it quite clear so that all Quebecers will understand that it is the New Democratic Party-it professes to be supportive of Bombardier and employment in Quebec-which instead of taking a positive approach is resorting to dilatory tactics to thwart the adoption of the Bill and thus compromise jobs.
I am talking about jobs being on the line, Mr. Speaker, but there is more to it than that. I happen to know that Canadair management and a foreign country are negotiating a major contract for new products. It is important that the deal be finalized by mid-January so that the new line of products will become a reality. Should the representatives of this foreign Government who will be here in mid-January find themselves negotiating with Canadair while the company's ownership is still up in the air because this Bill has not been passed by then, we will be in a situation where the Government has already signed a letter of intent with Bombardier, which means that the Government wants to sell, except that the deal has yet to be approved by Parliament.
A situation like this where uncertainty reigns may jeopardize the success of this important contract. New products being developed at Canadair will be in jeopardy. Jobs will be in jeopardy. The Hon. Member of Vancouver-Kingsway tells me he was talking to Canadair employees. I was talking to them this morning, twice, and they begged me to do everything I could to expedite the passage of this Bill. From the very beginning I have said, both personally and speaking for the Liberal Party of Canada, that we wanted to see this legislation go through all stages as soon as possible.
If the NDP wants to obstruct the passage of this Bill for ideological reasons, because it objects to privatization, I have no problem with that. It is their right, but what I want to say is: Don't do it at the expense of Canadair employees. There will be more opportunities, since the Government has further plans for privatization. If they want to talk about privatization in general, they could raise the issue in committee, but now is
December 11, 1986

not the right time to get ideological and indulge in theoretical discussions about a very practical piece of legislation, when it is obvious that delaying passage of the Bill will jeopardize jobs at Canadair in Montreal.
I am not surprised the NDP is taking this attitude, because I am reminded of some comments made here in the House not long ago. In fact, it was on December 8, three days ago. If we look at page 1866 of Hansard, we see that a Member of the NDP, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) had the floor. He was talking about the Canadair Bill. I will tell you what the NDP and the Hon. Member for Regina West think of Bombardier. In his speech he described a trip he made to Kenya, in Africa, where he was invited to visit the railways, and I will quote what it says on page 1866. The Hon. Member was referring to the locomotives he was inspecting, which belonged to Kenya, and he said:
There were 15 locomotives there which had been built in Canada. Immediately one feels good about that. However, at that point in time, February of 1982, 12 of those locomotives were on the ground. They had been bought from Bombardier 10 years earlier.
Here we have a Canadian Member of Parliament saying before the House that Canadian products are no good. And after that, we have the same party telling us it is all for Canadair and Bombardier. I will quote the Hon. Member again. I'm not making this up. I'm just reading from Hansard:
The main generator-
This is on page 1886 in Hansard. Your friend said this.
The main generator of each locomotive, made by Canadian General Electric, did not work.
Another slap in the face of another Canadian company: Canadian General Electric.
All the welding around the fuel tank, which is also the walkway around the locomotive, had cracked ... The Bogies were made by Algoma Steel.
So we have another company being plagued by negative publicity; the bogies were cracked. Finally, the Hon. Member for Regina West was interrupted by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) who asked from his seat:
Whose fault was that?
The Hon. Member for Regina West answered:
Bombardier was the manufacturer of the locomotives.
This is the kind of friendship extended by the New Democratic Party to the workers of Quebec. Such is the support given Bombardier by the New Decmocratic Party because according to the speeches they make they are supposed to be in favour of the deal. Bombardier is a good Quebec company which should be encouraged. We are pleased to see that it has bought Canadair. Well, I say they are wet- whited sepulchres. You see, Mr. Speaker, the slip of the tongue I make when I realize the hypocrisy of the Members of that political party to whom I am saying: If you keep operating like that-


David Orlikow: What's wrong, are you worried about the 32 per cent support we have? That's your problem.
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act


Jacques Guilbault: No, I am not worried about that because this morning's Gallup poll shows that you have regressed by four points, my friend. That is today's information. Fighting Bombardier, delaying this Bill, jeopardizing jobs in Montreal, and my friends in the New Democratic Party will not reap many votes in Quebec in the next election.


David Orlikow: That is the only reason you are spending your time.


Jacques Guilbault: The reason I am talking about the locomotive speech of my friend, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), is that Bombardier at this time is bidding on a large, 300 locomotive contract in India. Does anybody think that a speech like this will help Bombardier sell its locomotives to India? The NDP, by delaying this Bill and also by speaking in very bad terms about the competence of Bombardier in the area of locomotive building will put a large contract in jeopardy. The NDP should be ashamed of doing this.
If the New Democratic Party has reasons to oppose privatization in general, I can live with that. It should have its say. But this no time to drag out the debate. It could jeopardize an important deal concerning aircraft that Canadair is negotiating with a foreign country which is supposed to come to a conclusion by mid-January. At that time, if the ownership of the company is in a state of flux, the deal will not occur. This deal is very important and involves a new line of product. It will not get off the ground unless it has the starter contract.
I am pleading with all Members of this House to pass this Bill quickly. On this side of the House, we would agree to go into Committee of the Whole and pass it today. This morning I spoke to the union people who work at Canadair. They have sent a brief here to make their point. They do not consider it important to come in person. They feel that what is more important is to pass this Bill now. That is what I am asking all Members of the House to do, I am going back to my friends in the New Democratic Party and pleading with them to pass this Bill today in Committee of the Whole. If we do that, I would ask the Government to bring the Minister here so that all questions could be asked of the Minister. With this condition, I would be agreeable to pass the Bill quickly and not make an ideological fight out of it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of this House to pass Bill C-23 concerning Canadair as expeditiously as possible. I would be ready to refer it to the Committee of the Whole if the Government was kind enough to bring in the Minister of State (Privatization) so that we could ask her some questions concerning on the one hand, the management of Bombardier and, on the other hand, questions raised by the union employees at Canadair.
Mr. Speaker, I plead with my NDP friend not to jeopardize the major deals which are about to be concluded, as well as the

December 11, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
jobs which could be lost if the House took much too much time adopting this Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions or comments, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James).


Mr. James:: My question is to the Hon. Member who just spoke. Do the statements in response to what has been said about the sale fit into the brief that he has received? One statement is that "It looks very promising". This was said by Normand Cherry, President, Local 712, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. "I think that (it) means jobs will stay here. I have confidence in Bombardier". This was said by Jean-Luc Belanger, a Canadair employee. "We need to develop new markets and this might help to do that". This was said by Patrice Bleau, a Canadair employee.
Does the Hon. Member feel that these statements fit into the brief that he received from the union today?


Jacques Guilbault: The hon. gentleman is being more precise than I was. This is exactly the position of the union. It wants this Bill passed. The Hon. Member has given more details of documents that I have left in my office.


Mr. Andre:: The NDP is anti-union.


Jacques Guilbault: These statements exemplify the opinion of these workers that this Bill be passed. Without mentioning names, the Canadair workers in Montreal have been in contact with members of the New Democratic Party attempting to change their mind and speed up the passage of this legislation. Usually one is led to believe that the NDP has close contacts with unionized labour. Some even quip that it takes its advice from there. Certainly not in this case, I suggest.

Mr. Speaker, I beg once again of all Hon. Members and especially my colleagues from the New Democratic Party not to delay unduly the adoption of this Bill.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They have changed our mind. We are prepared to have the vote on the Bill today. Would the Hon. Member hand me the union brief? Does he have a copy of the brief?


Jacques Guilbault: I do not have a copy of the brief with me, but 1 will certainly make sure that the brief reaches the New Democratic Party today. Maybe if one of our friends here has the brief, he would do us the courtesy of handing it to the Hon. Member.
In any event, the brief has been sent to the Clerk of the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Timothy Wilson. He has a copy of it on the Hill.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Obviously, the union brief is on its way. We will be pleased to consider that brief in front of the committee first thing on Monday morning, and we will get the Bill into committee then.
I cannot remember what the Hon. Member's first quote was from the Member from Regina, but at page 1866 of Hansard the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), states:
I believe it was bad in that particular case-
He was talking about one particular locomotive. He went on:
-but, to be completely fair, it inherited some of its badness from M. L. Worthington Locomotive Works .. . However, that has nothing to do with the lack of viability of Bombardier. I think it is a viable company and it has manufactured many good products. I remember riding in the first snow vehicles made by Bombardier. They had a cab and were much bigger than the snowmobiles they presently make. I believe that Bombardier was one of the originators of that vehicle.
Then the Hon. Member went on to say why he thinks the Crown should have some equity share in the company. Did the Hon. Member quote that in his speech? If he did not, why?


Jacques Guilbault: I did not quote that. I am glad that now it has been quoted.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why won't you be fair?


Jacques Guilbault: I am going to tell you why. I think I have hit you hard enough in my speech that I do not have to go to another aspect of your speech which is fencesitting of the worst kind, on the one hand chastising a company for being bad, then in the next paragraph saying that it is a good company. This is a wishy-washy type of thing which is trying to be on both sides of the issue. We think that Bombardier is a good company. So I can add that one more blow to my speech.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We can too.


Jacques Guilbault: Well, you tell your friend that he has to determine where he stands. Either Bombardier is a good company or a bad company.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) for a short question.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, quickly before the lunch break, since I will be speaking again this afternoon.
I should like to ask my friend the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) whether he called the attention of Mr. Cherry, the Union President, as well as the authorities, owners, Canadair workers, Montreal and Ville Saint-Laurent city councils, on the unbelievable remarks made by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) concerning-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker-


George Albert Proud: -but what 1 want to know, and I understand that the Hon. Member is getting nervous, because
December 11, 1986

as residents of Montreal and Ville Saint-Laurent, we know as a fact that Canadair is the cream of our organizations. Canadair is Montreal and Montreal is Canadair. Canadair is Ville Saint-Laurent and Ville Saint-Laurent is Montreal.
I must admit that I was shocked by the statements made by several NDP Members, and I will personally raise the matter with authorities but I should like to ask the Hon. Member whether he has considered sending Canadair workers generally and Mr. Cherry in particular the statement made by the Hon. Member for Regina-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. These two Members have quoted the Member from Regina out of context and are misleading the House. Maybe it is not intentional, but the Hon. Member should be quoted in context.


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


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the Northern Mineral Policy released last Friday in Whitehorse by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) has been received with favour by the northern mining community. The policy brings about a degree of certainty so lacking under the previous administration.
Miners can now plan their affairs in the knowledge that their tenure is secure, that royalties will remain at competitive rates, and that the Government takes a positive attitude toward their endeavours.
The predictable results of such a policy will be increased investment in exploration and development, leading to more jobs and production especially for export markets.
It is a pleasure to see a level of co-operation between industry and government as has seldom been the case in times past.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Both in Quebec and the rest of Canada, Mr. Speaker, older workers in increasing numbers are reacting negatively to the Conservative Government's proposal to create two classes of citizens.
This means that overnight, an older worker who had a job with a Canadian company which is closing its doors will be told by the Government when visiting the unemployment insurance office: You are not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits; find another job and you will get some. A middle-age worker from the same plant visiting an unemployment insurance office will be told: Yes, you are entitled to immediate payment of unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, this unfair policy discriminates against older workers, and I am sure that most Hon. Members, either from the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party or the NDP, will oppose this measure and will ask the Government to withdraw this legislation which is unfair to older workers.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, a Yellowknife family waits anxiously for the House or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to right a serious wrong which it has suffered. The Fred Turner family has been reduced to financial ruin by Transport Canada and now faces repossession of its home by the Royal Bank just prior to Christmas.
Mr. Turner owned a small licensed airline until two years ago when Transport Canada cancelled his licence for not filing statistical documents on time. That is right, Mr. Speaker, the Government bankrupted him for being late in providing details about how much gas he bought and how many passengers he carried.
The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and I brought the matter to the attention of the previous Minister of Transport a year ago. The Government admitted liability to Mr. Turner. His licence was reinstated, but it was too late; his aircraft had been seized by the banks. Now he cannot afford to restart his business.
Last May 15 the Minister sent a letter in which he assured me that the Government admitted its error and offered $15,000 compensation to Mr. Turner. It should be several hundred thousand dollars. The letter indicated that a cheque would be in the mail. That was last May, and no cheque has been received. Mr. Turner has never been consulted. There have been no negotiations. He is being victimized.

December 11, 1986
On behalf of the four Turner children, who are two-and-a-half to fifteen years of age, I ask the House and the Government to make their Christmas a little brighter by at least honouring the commitment to them.


RIGHT TO LIFE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, human rights cannot be over-emphasized. We weep over the way the Jewish people were treated in Nazi concentration camps. We send letters to the Soviets pleading for fair treatment for political prisoners. Our hearts bleed when we read about the artificial famine engineered by the communists in Ukraine which killed thousands of innocent people. We provide a home for refugees who escaped murder and rape in their homeland. Yes, we do many things to show that we are a compassionate people.
At the same time, in our own country last year 60,000 human babies were murdered, and the newspapers barely mentioned it. Even worse, our media make a hero out of a doctor who defies the laws of our country and promotes abortion.
Should not human rights apply to unborn humans? Every Member of the House escaped abortion, and we are here today trying to help our people and build a better nation. Unborn babies should have an equal opportunity to live, to work, to love, and to contribute to the betterment of the world.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the Forget Commission Report has pinpointed many problem areas within the unemployment insurance system. It has clearly shown how the Government has failed to provide the promised jobs of the 1984 election campaign. Also the report is confirming that people in rural regions of Canada are faced with continuing high unemployment, and that our youth are seriously in danger of becoming a lost generation. It also says that the UI system is not being used as it was intended to be as an interim insurance plan by workers in between jobs. Instead, many Canadians are forced to use UIC as a way of life.
I doubt people want to live on unemployment insurance and would much prefer the opportunity to work to provide a decent income for their families. Rather than seeking solutions in economic policies to reduce unemployment, the Government
would like to forget the report. I am in full agreement with my colleagues that the UI system is a much needed resource for many Canadian homes. It is time for the Government to produce the jobs that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in 1984, or else resign for having let the Canadian people down.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government's Special Canadian Grains Program is a timely answer to the serious problems plaguing farmers. In committing $1 billion, our Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have responded compassionately and sensibly to the plight of prairie agriculture. Eighty-five per cent of the payment will be going to western Canada and it will help many farmers in Saskatchewan.
The formula being used to calculate this payment was chosen by producers for producers. By paying $300 million now and a further $700 million at spring seeding time, the typical northwest Saskatchewan farmer will receive about $9,000.
This program is a good response to the damage caused by the European-American subsidy battle. The Prime Minister personally promised that we would not let farmers down. The program is proof that the Prime Minister and our Government know, care, and act. The federal Government has delivered for Saskatchewan farmers.


NATIONAL PARKS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, amendments to the National Parks Act introduced by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) include many positive improvements but there are flaws in his proposal that should be noted. For example, the Minister's announcement about controlling development in national parks and park townsites is somewhat deceptive. He recently approved a significant expansion of luxury resort facilities in Banff National Park. To make a big deal now out of limiting leases for ski development when within existing leases there is still the possibility for expansion is surely deceptive.
Development inside our national parks flies in the face of Parks Canada policy which stresses ecological and historical integrity as prerequisites to use, and one has to wonder
December 11, 1986

whether the Minister is serious about controlling development in our national parks given his approach this morning.
The Minister is avoiding the hard decisions that need to be taken about expanding our national parks system. The system is only half complete, and the Minister said little today that would indicate the Government plans to commit the resources necessary to complete the system in the foreseeable future. This apparently is to be left to donations from individual Canadians. With human activity encroaching on many of Canada's unique natural regions, we need a commitment from the Minister that the completion of our national parks system will be a priority of the Government.

[ Translation]


TRIBUTE TO MRS. GUYLAINE SAUCIER
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I want today to pay tribute to Mrs. Guylaine Saucier, an exceptional businesswoman who has just been elected President of the Quebec Chamber of Commerce. I wish to emphasize that it is the first time in the whole history of that organization that a woman is appointed to that position. For the past eleven years, Mrs. Saucier has been Chief Executive Officer of Les produits forestiers Saucier Ltee, a major sawmill firm in Abitibi. She is a very active and dynamic woman who can serve as a model for people in Abitibi-Temiscamingue and the rest of Canada. Her corporation is at the forefront of modern technology, with a constantly increasing turnover which amounts to $7 5 million today.
Mr. Speaker, the Lebel-sur-Quevillon Chamber of Commerce, through Lucien Vallee, its President, the mayor, Denis Levesque, the Lebel-sur-Quevillon and Comtois residents and I have organized a party last Saturday to fete Mrs. Saucier and express to her our admiration and that of all Abitibi men an women.


TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) that, according to the information I have, the announcement last Monday of the criteria for the Laprade Fund has failed to quell the dissatisfaction prevailing in the Conservative Party's regional caucus on that issue. Indeed, many questions remain unanswered, and this was recognized even by some Conservative Members. I share that view,
inasmuch as we are entitled to ask why such a long delay in coming up with those general requirements, that could have been announced a long time ago.
Could it be that the dice are loaded in favour of some of the projects, so that monies already would be earmarked for the opening of an aluminum wheel plant in the Louiseville area? As it happens, Mr. Speaker, Louiseville is in the constituency of the President of the Treasury Board.
I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, and I know the Conservative Members also are concerned with the distribution of the Laprade Fund. How will the President of the Treasury Board proceed in order to honour his previous commitment to ensure a fair and just distribution in the areas concerned? The criteria for eligibility to the Fund are one thing, but criteria for a just and fair distribution of funds are quite another.
I have nothing against the Laprade Fund being used to build a plant in Louiseville, but it is my view that all projects should be processed, examined and announced simultaneously.
I serve notice to the Speaker and the President of the Treasury Board that I will be acting as a watch-dog on that issue.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, the Forget Report was tabled only a few days ago and I would like to bring to the attention of the House one of the recommendations in the report, that is Recommendation No. 36.
Mr. Speaker, the Forget Commission recommends that the Governement establish the new Unemployment Insurance Commission as a parent Crown corporation, set up under Part II of Schedule C of the Financial Administration Act.
Do you know what that means, Mr. Speaker? The Forget Commission is recommending that we turn the Unemployment Insurance Commission into yet another Crown Corporation. Mr. Speaker, the Canada Post Corporation situation is reason enough not to make the same mistake twice.
A Crown Corporation is a parallel power, a sort of second power within the state-over which the Government loses control and to which it no longer can give instructions for its good performance.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to strongly oppose that recommendation. We have no need for another inefficient monster like the Canada Post Corporation-let us not create another one with the Unemployment Insurance Commission.

December 11, 1986


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, tonight is a special night for most Canadians, particularly New Democrats. At eight p.m. CBC television will air the NFB film Tommy Douglas-Keeper of the Flame. Directed by Elise Swerhone, the film is about Tommy and his work on behalf of all Canadians, particularly the little guy. Thousands of Canadians will be gathered around their TVs tonight to watch the story about their hero, the little fellow who brought them medicare. Unfortunately, not all CBC stations are carrying the show this evening. According to the agreements between CBC and its affiliates, this is not one of the shows which must be carried by the affiliates.
Local TV stations in at least two communities have decided not to air the show tonight. In Thunder Bay and London viewers will be able to watch an American TV program, Sidekicks, instead of a real Canadian show with a real Canadian hero, Tommy Douglas. I urge viewers in London, Thunder Bay, and any other city where the show will not be aired to call their local CBC station and cast a vote in favour of Canadian history, and get them to air Tommy Douglas- Keeper of the Flame.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY'S NEED FOR ACCESS TO UNITED STATES MARKET
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will be pleased to learn of the full endorsement by Canada's shipbuilding industry of our Government's intention to negotiate a comprehensive trade agreement with the United States. I recognize and sympathize with the difficulties facing shipyards and shipyard workers across the country, difficulties which would be greatly eased on the West Coast by the early award for the construction of the Polar Class 8 ice-breaker to British Columbia. However, the increasingly assiduous implementation of U.S. restrictions such as the Jones Act and the Burns-Tollefson amendment which prohibit or obstruct Canada's access to the U.S. marine market for construction and repair work are having a negative impact on all Canadian shipyards.
Changes are needed, such as the extension of the Canada-U.S.A. Defence Production Sharing Understanding to include naval vessels. I share the opinion of the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association that such changes under a new Canada-U.S. trade agreement would be of significant economic benefit to the shipbuilding and allied industries of both
countries, and would strengthen the North American defence industrial strategic base.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, a federal inquiry is necessary into the hideous first-degree rape and murder of 21-year old Celia Ruygrok by an individual who was on parole for a previous gruesome murder. It has raised disturbing questions about our parole system and the operations of the halfway house where the murder occurred. Supreme Court Justice David Watt said: "Logic and reason were obviously not applied" in releasing the murderer on parole.
The parole system has failed in a very fundamental way. The system must assume some responsibility for the Ruygrok murder. How and why was the murderer released after serving only nine years of a life sentence for the original murder? The bottom line is that he should not have been released. The National Parole Board must account. If Canadians are to have confidence in our criminal justice system, a full and complete inquiry is necessary into this miscarriage of justice. Mr. Speaker, I call on the Government to order an inquiry at the earliest opportunity.


OPINIONS EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Yesterday in the House, Mr. Speaker, the former Solicitor General of Canada and present Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) stated that the Quebec Association of St. John Baptiste Societies is an extremist group.
This is the kind of arrogance which, so prevalent in the Liberal Government of the 1970s of which he was a member, had then given rise to serious social upheavals in Quebec and even led to loss of lives.
The Liberal Member, speaking from his seat in the House as a prestigious former Minister, made a vile attack against the St. John Baptiste Society.
Mr. Speaker, my grandfather owes to the St. John Baptiste Society the fact that his grandson can now speak French in the House. It ranks among the leading defenders and outstanding proponents of the development of French culture in North

America. As a Member from Quebec I cannot accept attacks against this group of francophones.
Mr. Speaker, the statement of the former Liberal Minister is insulting and, made as it was in the absence of the accused, comes from a petty coward.


AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise and pay tribute today to a great Canadian, the little fellow from Gambo, Joseph Roberts Smallwood, otherwise known across the country as Joey, who is today receiving our country's highest honour, Companion of the Order of Canada. Due to his ill health, he is receiving it in St. John's from the Lieutenant Governor, the Hon. James McGrath.
Journalist, broadcaster, labour organizer, farmer, politician, statesman, and the only living Father of Confederation- without him we would not be a province of this country today. His legacy of bringing Newfoundland into Confederation and bringing the advancements to our province which we have seen over 23 years with him as Premier are adequate testimonial to him.
However, I want to pay tribute to him today. I am sure the House would want to join me in expressing that. We in Newfoundland are proud to be Canadians. There is no one prouder today than Joey Smallwood. I am sure Members on both sides would want to join me in offering our congratulations and best wishes to him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his statement. I think all Hon. Members would want to know that, on behalf of the House, I have arranged to send best wishes to Joey Smallwood today. I know that will meet with the approval of all Hon. Members on this occasion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. It was reported that
Oral Questions
yesterday William J. Casey, Director of the CIA, told the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives that Canadians were involved in the secret deal to provide arms to Iran. Therefore, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House what he, any other Minister, or any official of the Government knows about any such Canadian connection to this matter and when he or they first learned of it?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, this information was reported in the press based on closed testimony before a congressional committee. Therefore, there are no published facts on which to proceed. We are actively seeking to determine from U.S. officials any facts concerning the involvement of Canadians in any arms transaction. We will pursue this further as information becomes available.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that my question was answered by the Minister for International Trade. Surely this is something about which the Government should know since any Canadian involvement in the matter of sending arms to Iran could involve breaches of Canadian law or policy.
I want the Government to confirm that it is carrying out an immediate and full investigation involving the RCMP and the Security Service to ensure that the Canadian people and Government know all the facts about this strange Canadian connection to the Irangate affair. Can we have this assurance?


Pat Carney: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that this issue is being thoroughly investigated. Should it appear that Canadian laws have been broken by Canadian citizens, appropriate legal action will, of course, be taken.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMITTEE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, is the Government prepared to give immediate approval to referring the question of the Canadian connection in arms shipments to Iran to our Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, so that public hearings can be held forthwith and the Canadian public informed of all the facts of this question?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister for International Trade pointed out, this is testimony which was taken in camera. There are allegations of certain things. The Government of Canada is trying to determine all the facts. As soon as those facts are determined we will certainly indicate to the House in the fullest fashion possible. However, at this point in time the details are clearly not available and a

December 11, 1986
Oral Questions
thorough investigation is being undertaken, as the Minister for International Trade indicated.


WASHINGTON POST REPORT
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: My question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. According to the article in the Washington Post, the person who exposed the Canadian connection in Irangate was one Roy M. Furmark. The Government will no doubt be aware that the same Roy Furmark was directly involved in the Come-By-Chance oil refinery negotiations in Newfoundland with a committee which included a present Minister of this Government, who was a former Minister of the Newfoundland provincial Government. Can the Government tell us whether Roy Furmark, as well as contacting CIA Director, William Casey, was in touch with any Canadian Minister or official regarding the Canadian connection?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated, and so has the Deputy Prime Minister, that these allegations are based on media reports of a closed session. These allegations are being made on the basis of unsupported evidence in any public matter. I ask the Hon. Member to be careful about making allegations in the House about individuals until she can be certain of her facts.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, given that one Roy M. Furmark is cited in fact as one of the negotiators involved with the Government of Newfoundland of the time, including a current Minister of this Government, does the Canadian Government not feel there are enough questions being raised about the Canadian connection in Irangate that this whole matter should be referred to the Committee on External Affairs and International Trade?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, either shipping arms to Iran or assisting the Contras in any way would be against established government policy. I would ask the Hon. Member to refrain from making unsubstantiated charges until she has further evidence of a real nature-


Mr. Ouellet:: Why don't you deny it, then?


Pat Carney: -on which to make allegations about individuals.


ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT OF CANADIANS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and it is on the same subject. Since it has been alleged before a Congressional Committee in Washington that two or three Canadians have been involved in some kind of middle-man way in the export of weapons to Iran, which is clearly in contravention not only of Canadian policy but of American law, and since some
checking on the part of my staff this morning with other sources seems to indicate these allegations are in fact true, my question is this. Were Government agencies in Canada informed by the CIA or any other American agency of the use of Canadians in an action which is in direct contravention of Canadian policy?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member's concern is shared by many Canadians. But, again, I can tell him that at this early stage in the investigations it is not possible to respond to the questions he asks. There is not sufficient evidence at this point in time to justify consideration of an RCMP investigation or anything of that nature.
I assure the Hon. Member that under our export control regulations a shipment of arms of the nature suggested would be prohibited. Until we have further information on the matter I think the Hon. Member should rely on our endeavours to obtain the type of information which he seeks.


INQUIRY CONCERNING POSSIBLE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY UNITED STATES AGENCIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister might not have heard the question. I say that without wanting to be argumentative in any way on this important matter.
Since Canadian government policy states that we do not favour the export of arms to Iran, and since there have been allegations about Canadian involvement-and we should know this now-has the Canadian Government been told by American agencies in the past of this possible involvement of Canadians? If we have not-and that should have been checked by the Canadian Government by now-are we asking the Americans to confirm that Canadians are being used by an American agency that not only violates American law but, more important, is in flat contradiction of Canadian government policy?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the House that we are actively seeking this type of information from the CIA and other U.S. agencies. When we have further information we will so report.


CANADA-UNITED STATES RELATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is addressed either to the Minister for International Trade or the Deputy Prime Minister. It goes beyond the particular in this case to the general policy. Do we have an understanding with the Government of the United States that it will not be using Canadian nationals through any of its agencies in ways that would flatly contradict Canadian government policy without informing the Government of Canada? Is there such an understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States?
December 11, 1986


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, allegations there have been. There has not been confirmation of those allegations which is precisely what the Government of Canada is trying to determine. Very clearly, the issue will be thoroughly investigated. Should it appear that any Canadian laws have been broken by Canadian citizens, appropriate legal action will be taken.


INQUIRY WHETHER AMERICAN GOVERNMENT INFORMED
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Minister and concerns the Canadian connection in the sale of arms to Iran. Mr. Speaker, in the United States, the head of the CIA testified, I imagine under oath, and indicated to members of the committee that on October 7 of this year he had been advised by a Mr. Furmark that Canadians were involved in the sale of arms to Iran.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Did the American Government inform the Canadian Government of the possible involvement of Canadians in the sale of arms to Iran?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I have already adequately answered that question. I have pointed out that this line of questioning is based on published reports of a closed committee meeting. Therefore there are very few firm facts upon which to make the kind of Canadian connection which the Hon. Member is taking for granted. We have asked the U.S. to provide us with all the available information. That investigation is going on. When we have more information, and when we know whether Canadian citizens were in fact involved and if in fact Canadian laws were broken, then we will take the appropriate action.


GOVERNMENT'S KNOWLEDGE
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, it is not an allegation. It has been stated by Mr. Casey that he was informed on October 7 that Canadians were implicated in this sale of arms to Iran. I repeat my question. Was the Canadian Government informed in October of this year that Canadians were involved in the sale of arms to Iran?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I have already said. There is nothing at this point in time about which to inform any other Government. This is information which came up before a hearing. We do not know on what it is based. We are making an investigation and we are trying to find out the very kind of information the Hon. Member is seeking. When we get that
Oral Questions
information, we will take the appropriate action. If Canadian laws were broken, we will take the appropriate action.


SAFETY OF CANADIAN CITIZENS IN IRAQ
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there have been allegations that Canadians have been involved in the sale of arms to Iran. My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Since this would obviously put the lives of Canadians living in Iraq at some risk, has the Government been in touch with officials of the Government of Iraq to inform them very clearly that it is Canadian policy not to ship arms to Iran?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, at this point I can take the Hon. Member's question under advisement. I do not know specifically what our Department has done with Iraq, but of course the point the Hon. Member makes is true. This kind of activity is against our policy.


QUERY CONCERNING POSSIBLE UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister for International Trade since she seems to be answering the questions on this issue. Is there an understanding between the United States administration and the Canadian Government that Canadian nationals are not to be used in any type of covert military activity in which an American agency is taking part? Is there an understanding that we will at least be informed if there is any involvement of Canadian citizens?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speculate in this area in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is beyond my knowledge. I am not advised of the information the Hon. Member is seeking, but I will take the question on notice and respond to him.


PENITENTIARIES
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board or the Solicitor General, whoever is prepared to reply. My question concerns the incredible and continuing story about the movable penitentiary that was taken by the Government from Drummondville to Port-Cartier, in the Prime Minister's riding. One of the most mysterious aspects of this story is the role played by an engineer, a Mr. Robert McCulloch, in awarding the penitentiary contract to Bechtel Quebec. In this respect, the President of the Treasury Board

December 11, 1986
Oral Questions
acknowledged on November 5 of this year that there was a potential conflict of interest and that it would be necessary to conduct an investigation. I would be interested to know what progress has been made. What are the results up to now?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say the investigation has been completed. There are still a few technical details that have to be straightened out, but in a day or two, I will be in a position to release the findings of the investigation. I will do so before the House. It is here, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I answer the Hon. Member's questions, and I will announce the findings of the investigation here in the House, as I promised Hon. Members I would do.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I realize this is not customary, but I intend to congratulate the President of the Treasury Board when he does.


FUTURE OF SAINT-VINCENT-DE-PAUL PENITENTIARY AND OF ITS EMPLOYEES
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary, which is probably directed to the Solicitor General of Canada. This morning it was reported that the Auditor General said it would cost only $30 million to renovate the Saint-Vincent-de-Paul penitentiary compared with the $68 million it will cost to build one in Port-Cartier, in the Prime Minister's riding. I would like to know what is going to happen to the Saint-Vincent-de-Paul penitentiary, and if it is closed, what the Government intends to do to help the 450 employees who will be out of a job.


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would take this opportunity to remind the Hon. Member that it was his Government that made the decision to close Laval, not this Government. It was his Government that constructed Donnacona so that the prisoners from Laval could be transferred to that institution. We are building Port Cartier to take the balance of those prisoners. Laval, as the Hon. Member said, is in fact being closed and the employees are being offered every opportunity to secure employment within the Correctional Service.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. As he knows, many Canadians fear that the Reagan administration may attempt to distract attention from the U.S.-Iran-Contra arms deal by escalating attacks on Nicaragua. What action will Canada
contribute to the international efforts to reduce the military tensions that already exist because of the use of U.S. helicopters and the bombing of Nicaragua by U.S.-made Dragonfly bombers from U.S. airstrips in Honduras?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I will have to ask the Hon. Member to permit me to take that on notice in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I will get back to him.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT URGE HONDURAS TO DISARM CONTRA FORCES
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, there is a further matter that should be urgently taken up by the Hon. Minister or the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Government urge Honduras, the largest single recipient of Canadian bilateral aid in Central America, to make its major contribution to international peace in that region by disarming the Contra forces and closing its border to prevent the Contras from further illegal attacks on Nicaragua?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I will make careful note of the Hon. Member's suggestion and I assure him that it will come to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs upon his return.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. There is concern that it is the apparent intention of the Government to continue to lend large surplus sums from the Canada Pension Plan to provincial Governments at minimal interest rates for the foreseeable future. Can the Minister tell the House at what rate of interest this money is being lent to the provinces, and if the Minister is developing a plan for the provinces' existing $50-billion debt to CPP to be repaid over a reasonable amortization period?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend and neighbour, the Hon. Member for London East, for his question. The interest rate charged on the new CPP loans is 9.31 per cent. This rate is set to match rates on long-term Government of Canada borrowing and it compares very, very favourably with prevailing interest rates. Provinces have been paying CPP interest payments semi-annually for 20 years and, beginning last February, have started to pay back the principal. This system is working well and the interest rates are good from the point of view of the federal Government.

December 11, 1986


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and concerns the farm debt crisis. The FCC has indicated that some 39,000 farmers are in serious financial difficulty. Because only 30 per cent of the Special Canadian Grains Program will be paid in January or February, the average producer will only receive about $1,500 out of the initial payment of $5,000. Can the Minister tell us how many of the 39,000 farmers in serious financial difficulty will be saved from foreclosure or bankruptcy by this initial payment of $1,500?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most accurate way to answer that question would be to say probably about 99 per cent more as a result of the election of September, 1984, in which this Government was elected, rather than repeating the lack of programs under our predecessor.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is suddenly very nonspecific.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION FORECLOSURES-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, since the lion's share or 70 per cent of this special payment will not be made until the new fiscal year, perhaps April or May, is the Minister prepared to extend the moratorium on FCC foreclosures until the full payment has been made?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the matter of lifting the foreclosure is one that is very much on my mind. We are under a great deal of pressure from those people who have managed extremely well, and who are in a fairly strong and stable financial position to expand their operations.
On the other hand, we know that it would cause some serious problems to those who will not be able to survive, even though we do have the farm debt review legislation, and the farm debt review boards which are now operating. In addition to that, we have the Canadian Rural Transition Program.
The Hon. Member might take some satisfaction from the fact that we will do everything possible to ensure that those people who will not be able to succeed in the business of farming are able to make the transition as painlessly as possible.
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The Minister of Finance in April, the Prime Minister in October and now the Minister of Employment and Immigration have all stated that the Government was not undertaking a review of the unemployment insurance system to reduce federal contributions to the unemployed.
In this optic, will the Government reimburse the benefits of the early retirees whose entitlement was cancelled if they are actively looking for employment and are still on the labour market according to Statistics Canada?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the policy for those who are looking for a job, and we said this last week, is that those who can find a second job will be able to re-establish their eligibility. As for those who receive a pension, as these pensions are deemed to be employment income, they are deductible from the amount insurable for unemployment insurance purposes.


REQUEST THAT ALL RETIREES BE TREATED EQUALLY
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Will the Minister put all retirees on an equal basis so that people like Mr. Roland Cloutier of Quebec City, who is President of the Association des retraites sans assurance-chomage, will not be refused their unemployment insurance benefits even though they have submitted, as he has done, over 150 job applications since being forced to take an early retirement?
Is it fair to exclude from unemployment insurance benefits people such as Mr. Cloutier who are working so hard to find a job?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a misunderstanding among members of the public. People who receive a $6,000 or $7,000 pension are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits up to the maximum amount of their contributions. This means that someone who has contributed a maximum of $15,000 would receive up to $19,000 in income, which would include his pension as well as his unemployment insurance benefits.
However, what you are suggesting is that someone with a $40,000 pension receive an additional $15,000 in unemployment insurance benefits, which would give him a $55,000 income. This makes no sense and this is why pension benefits are deemed to be income from employment.

December 11, 1986
Oral Questions


SYSTEM'S ALLEGED UNFAIRNESS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Why discriminate against older people? A company shuts down and the next day an older worker goes to the unemployment insurance office. He is not eligible for benefits unless he finds another job. Yet a middle-age worker is entitled to benefits.
Why discriminate and create two classes of citizens? Why discriminate against older workers through this new program?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says so many things. He ought to be more careful about what he says.
He says that older people who lose their job and cannont find work are not eligible for benefits. This is not true. If they have a pension income of $5,000 or $6,000 they are entitled to receive the difference in unemployment insurance benefits. You should also tell that to the people.


INQUIRY WHETHER RETIREE DRAWING $50,000 FROM REGISTERED RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN WILL RECEIVE FULL UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, why should anyone drawing $50,000 from an RRSP be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits? Why does the Minister not tell that to the people? He is creating two classes of citizens in Canada, and the older people who are in the galleries now will fight to force the Government to withdraw this measure.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I should simply point out to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie that we are talking about employment income. RRSP investments are personal investments, much like the various financial instruments a good many Members chose to make investments. RRSP payments cannot be considered as employment income because this is a personal investment, whereas pension funds are an employment income. That is the difference.


EFFECT ON WOMEN OF COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister responsible for the status of women. It concerns the Forget Report and what the Minister is doing to defend women against the devastating effects that the Forget recommendations, if implemented, would have on women. In particular would the Minister tell us what her response is to the National Action Committee concerns raised regarding annualization which points out that, while most of the part-time workers are women and seemingly would benefit from the Forget recommendations, most of these people do not work the full year and would
be very badly hit by the annualization. Does the Minister agree that women will be especially badly hit by the Forget Commission recommendations? What is she, as Minister, going to do about it?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, last week, we told the Members from Montreal that we are indeed concerned about the particular problems of women. You are now talking about the fact that the majority of part-time jobs are held by women. It is because of this that we said that we did not yet have a position on the recommendations of Mr. Forget and that the Government has not yet said that it intended to apply the annualization principle. We shall be taking all of this into consideration when we give our response around May 15.


MATERNITY BENEFITS
Lynn McDonald: My
supplementary question is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women. It concerns the maternity benefits recommendations of the Forget Commission Report. Would the Minister agree that equality can go too far, namely, for men to receive maternity benefits that would have to be shared; that the desirable response of the Government would be to ensure parental leave for both parents after maternity benefits; that it would be very wrong to deprive women of maternity benefits for, after all, an act which is not yet an equal opportunity employer?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has already responded in a general way on how we view the Forget Report and the issues in it. It is not only up to me to be concerned on behalf of Canadian women, it is the Prime Minister and my Cabinet colleagues who have worked very hard on behalf of women.


Ms. Mitchell:: You are an advocate.


Barbara Jean McDougall: We understand the need for women to have good maternity benefits. This is one of the areas that my colleague has already said he will be looking at. It is something that he and I have discussed. It is for the attention not just of the Minister responsible for the status of women, but for all my allies sitting in this Cabinet.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs my questions are for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Armenian community has just learned that the Government intends to
December 11, 1986

break its election promises to them. I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister the following questions. Does the Government of Canada acknowledge that the Armenian genocide occurred? Does it agree that the then Turkish Government was responsible for the genocide? Does it agree that the Turkish Government over the years has failed to acknowledge in any meaningful way its responsibility for the matter?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, it is sufficient to say that Canada has and will continue to deplore the tragic events of 1915.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, that is not an adequate answer, if I may say so. The Government made certain promises. The Armenian community looked to the Government, and I believe supported it because of the promises. Without pressing on the particular events that the Government promised would be estabished, I wish simply to ask does the Government acknowledge that the Armenian genocide occurred, and that the then Turkish Government was responsible for it? It is a simple question; simple justice.


Pat Carney: The
Secretary of State for External Affairs has previously answered that point in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Jacques Guilbault: Just like you are doing now, he did not provide an answer.


Pat Carney: He also made very clear the point that we value the contribution that has been made by Armenians to Canadian society.


WINTER OLYMPICS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Canadians are now aware that the 1988 Olympic Organization is seeking $50 million in the form of a loan from the American Broadcasting Corporation. Would the Minister tell the House what has gone wrong and what has happened to the finances of that organization which forces it to seek such a large infusion of cash at this point in time?
Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur
Sport)): Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the Hon. Member that nothing has gone wrong with OCO. OCO is in sound financial shape. If the Hon. Member was ever involved in business, he would know that it is normal business practice to
Oral Questions
try to take care of cash flow difficulties which arise from time to time in a situation of this nature. OCO is simply trying to obtain some advances from the extremely good contract it has been able to obtain from ABC.


Iain Francis Angus: We thought the reason for a corporate sponsor was to get it to pay the bills, not for it to be able to extract more money in the form of loans.


PUBLIC RESPONSE
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, are the current financial problems with OCO because of the dismal response to at least two of the try out events-the skijumping in November and the lack of sales for the World Nordic Combined next weekend?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is so far out to lunch on the issue that he probably does not know the difference between a bob-sleigh and a luge. The fact of the matter is that ticket sales for the Olympic Games have gone beyond anyone's expectations. Financial commitments and identified funds have gone beyond anyone's expectations. I assure the Hon. Member that OCO is in tremendous financial shape and that the 1988 Calgary Olympics will be the most successful in the history of the Olympics.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nystrom:: You skated around that nicely, Otto.


TREASURY BOARD
Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board, but in his absence, I shall direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister. The publication of the terms regarding the Laprade Fund poses a few problems because many questions remain unanswered. Indeed, we may well wonder whether the dice are in fact loaded since an amount has already been put aside to build an aluminium wheel plant in the Louiseville region.


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Gilles Grondin: While the terms were revealed only last Monday-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Gilles Grondin: -it seems that amounts have already been put aside for certain projects. Is this true?


Robert René de Cotret: As I have said many times, no part of the Laprade Fund has

December 11, 1986
Oral Questions
been put aside for any project. There are eligible projects which must meet the usual criteria of government programs for the region and whatever remains in the Laprade Fund will naturally be spent in accordance with criteria we have established, which basically call for the creation of permanent jobs, as we wanted to do at the very beginning, but unfortunately this was not done by the previous Government.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF FUND'S USAGE
Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the President of the Treasury Board. The terms of application are naturally related to the program, but we are concerned about the terms of application of the fund, that is how this fund will be distributed among the constituencies, because we want to know whether the money will be distributed fairly and equitably among the various constituencies involved. That is the most important, in my opinion.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should understand that the Laprade Fund is meant for the Laprade region. Naturally, in this optic, what we want to promote is the creation of permanent jobs in industry, business and tourism throughout the whole region. Naturally, the boundaries of constituencies are often set arbitrarily and they can change, but we have kept the concept of the Laprade zone, and the money which remains in the fund will be spent to improve and complement what is already available under existing programs.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It concerns the 12,000 new uniforms which cannot be used by Maritime Command because they give off such a bad odour. Since the material was produced to the Government's specifications, will the Canadian taxpayer have to pay another $2.7 million to replace these useless uniforms, and will the money have to come from the operational budget?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit concerned, after this question, that my colleagues on this side of the House may be sitting farther from me than they used to. It is an important question. It is one which is being studied at the present time by the Department to determine the cause of the odour. Once we have had a chance to locate the cause of it, we will be looking at what can be done about it, and I will keep the Hon. Member informed.


COMPOSITION OF NEW FABRIC
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is on the same point. Why did the Government not conduct a second set of tests after changing the composition of the new fabric, before it went ahead and ordered almost $3 million worth of uniforms?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, that would also be a very good question, if the premise on which it was based were accurate. My understanding is that in fact the composition of the fabric was not changed and that the composition being used is roughly the same as that being used for various European uniforms.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. He is aware of the desperate need in Canada for more modest and rent geared to income housing. In light of those facts, how could the Minister support the decision on the part of CMHC to make the lowest allocation of co-op housing units in the last 10 years? Is the Minister prepared to utilize the additional funds in the budget to provide for more rent geared to income housing in the current year?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that, as a result of our policies which have evolved over the last two years, we have been able to accommodate more than twice the number of households with supporting moneys and subsidies than any other Government had been able to do in the history of Canada. Dealing with the Hon. Member's particular inquiry concerning the cooperative program, the association came to us and made representations on the number of units which might be constructed under a trial program over the next five years. Basic to that proposal were certain assumptions relative to the cost of projects and financing. Unfortunately those two suppositions have turned out to be wrong and that has-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.


December 11, 1986

On several occasions I have made the point that the use of French in federal departments and agencies is declining, be it in the case of the RCMP which is cutting staff, or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service which is the target of 1,400 complaints, or again the numerous departmental cut-backs. I am referring particularly to linguistic training where staff have been reduced by half and programs are down 25 per cent. 1 would like to ask the Government when it will have enough courage to introduce legislation to amend the Official Languages Act and put teeth in it just so we in this House might know what the Government plans to do with respect to official languages?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first may I say that I totally disagree with the premises of and the lengthy introduction to the question of my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier. With respect to linguistic training, the Government is still fully aware of the need for this program. We are trying to make it more effective and more properly geared to the requirements of our employees. This is what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, and what we will continue to do in this field.
As to a more comprehensive linguistic reform, I believe the Prime Minister has said on many occasions that we expect to be in a position to introduce legislative proposals in the House in the very near future.


DEMAND FOR DETAILED INFORMATION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a strong advocate of patience. They say: "Wait, we will come up with something one of these days." In the meantime problems do crop up, and I have raised this issue many times in the House. One problem was raised in committee yesterday. Can the Minister tell us today-while we wait for a Bill which only God knows when it will be tabled-what this Government will do to make the presence of francophones more visible in the upper echelons of the departments under his responsibility?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier says: God knows when. It is not God knows when-the Government knows when. The Government knows it will not be long now. As Member of a Government which did not do anything since the enactment of the legislation 17 years ago-
Oral Questions


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration regarding a disturbing issue in British Columbia. How can three members of an Immigration Appeal Board, who were appointed prior to September 4, 1984, be allowed to overrule the common sense and good judgment shown by the Minister himself, and also the immigration laws of this country, and give a stay of deportation to a man who has pleaded guilty to, and been convicted of, several counts of buggery and indecent exposure?
Will the Minister assure the Members of this House that he will not allow this potentially dangerous individual to stay in this country, and that he will take immediate action to protect the safety and well-being of the Canadian people by deporting this man without delay?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, we issued a deportation order. As a landed immigrant, the person had a right to an appeal before the Immigration Appeal Board. They stayed the execution. My officials filed a motion to have the hearing reopened. It was dismissed. It is inappropriate for me to comment on a judgment of a quasi-judicial body such as the Immigration Appeal Board.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister will know, according to his departmental hand-outs, that the billion dollar pay-out provides Ontario farmers with pay-outs of $32.20 an acre for wheat; $45.53 an acre for corn, but only $7.80 an acre for soyabeans. Would he briefly explain to the House why soyabean production is being discouraged in Ontario?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, soyabean production is not being discouraged nor is it being encouraged by the program at all. If the Hon. Member wants to be critical of the farmers' formula, then let the Hon. Member be critical of it. I want to be complimentary and congratulate the farm leaders who worked long and hard and put together a very fair and equitable formula.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for York West on a supplementary to a previous question.

December 11, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Kaplan IMMIGRATION


REQUEST THAT MINISTER APPEAL CASE TO FEDERAL COURT
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. It is true that the Immigration Appeal Board has ruled, but the Minister has the option to appeal that decision through the Federal Court. Is the Minister prepared to give the assurance to this House that he will have his departmental lawyers appeal this case to the Federal Court so that his earlier deportation order may have a chance of surviving, and perhaps correct a misconception that you have to do something wrong in this country to enter it in the first place?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is inappropriate for me to comment on the judgment of this quasi-judicial body. There will be no political interference by this Government in a decision of an independent judicial body.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue whose officials are busy reassessing western Canadian feedlot operators by saying, on technical grounds, that they are not in the business of farming and therefore not eligible for certain investment tax credits.
Since this exercise is costing the feedlot operators money in terms of refiling and reorganization, and since it is unlikely that any further tax revenue will be gathered, will the Minister reconsider this process and consider directing his officials to more productive endeavours?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, because my colleague is knowledgeable in this area, he knows that the present interpretation bulletin governing this type of situation is several years old. He also knows that there is an obligation on the part of the Department to audit all sectors fairly and equitably. Having said that, he also knows that our Government is very sensitive to the needs of the agricultural sector. I will give the Member an undertaking to review the matter to see if, in the light of present circumstances, there is a need to reassess the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise Hon. Members that I made an error and did not give the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre a second question. I now recognize the Hon. Member.


AGRICULTURE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to my previous question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the Minister has approved an Ontario wheat pay-out of 101 per cent of the past five-year average price, a corn pay-out of 102 per cent of the past five-year average price yet a soyabean pay-out of only 92 per cent of that same five-year average price, will the Minister explain why he thinks that is fair?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that the formula was not designed by the bureaucrats or by the politicians but rather it was primarily put together by 30 farm leaders working together. What is interesting, Mr. Speaker, is that the particular commodity group about which the Member is speaking was a part of that farm group.
There are other factors to take into consideration, but I believe that we must compliment the farm leaders for fairness and equity. If you look at the typical farm operation in western Canada, it pays about $9,000. If you look at the typical farm operation in southwestern Ontario, it pays within dollars of the same amount that it pays the typical farm operation in western Canada. I think the farm leaders should be commended. I think they should be congratulated, and we look forward to working with them in the future.


André Ouellet: What about Quebec?


PRIVILEGE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, during the Question Period, the Solicitor General claimed that the former Government had decided to close Laval Penitentiary. That is not my recollection. I have just checked with a former official and I can confirm that my position on the subject was misrepresented, that there was no intention to close that prison. Indeed, as the prison population was growing, it became clear that we would need Donnacona, Drummondville and Laval for the prison population.


Mr. Speaker:: I think Hon. Members would not want an incorrect situation to remain on the record. I must advise the House that that is not a question of privilege. That is debate. Perhaps there are other ways to make the point.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wanted to clarify for the
December 11, 1986

record that you had heard yesterday a question of privilege regarding the activities of the government operations committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I certainly did hear it and heard it extensively. I would ask Hon. Members not to use a point of order to get into an argument which was closed off after extensive debate.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder whether the Government Leader could tell us about the legislative program for the coming days. Could he tell us what will follow the debate on Bill C-25 tomorrow and next Monday if possible?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with Bill C-25, the Privatization of Air Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Of what?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Canadair. I am sorry.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I hear some support for that too, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We would not want any other misunderstandings.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is a psychological slip.


An Hon. Member:: A leak of major proportions.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is encouraging to know that there is some support for that initiative.
I will be meeting with the House Leaders at 3.15 p.m. and we will be discussing the legislation for Friday and into next week and putting together a menu which we hope to be putting to the House.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House how soon we may expect to have the new native claims policy. Native leaders in the North and territorial Governments are anxiously awaiting this policy. It has been promised by the Government and it is expected to be imminent. Can the Deputy Prime Minister give us the day on which this policy will be announced?
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot. 1 will consult with the Minister and get back to the Hon. Member as soon as I possibly can.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-25, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment (Mr. Benjamin)
(p. 1866).
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you help me out? When we finished this morning, was there any time left in the question and comment period for the Hon. Member who was speaking?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There were four minutes left in the period for questions and comments on the speech by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault). However, the Chair has ruled in the past that if the Member was not present when debate was resumed we would not proceed with the question and comment period. Therefore, we will resume debate.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that ruling but it is a question and comment period. If it were only a question period, then not permitting questions in the absence of the Member concerned would make sense. However, it is also a time for Members to get up and make comments which may not be questions and may not require comment in return from the Member who made the speech. I personally cannot see the logic behind prohibiting Members-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -who may insist on their right to comment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point just raised by the Hon. Member. However, you will recall that I raised that specific point about a year ago. I was told that if the Member who spoke at the time was not in the House and the comments were directed to him, then we could not possibly entertain any comments since he was not there. I was cut off at that time and I take it you appreciate the fact that the Hon. Member is not here and we cannot proceed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of parliamentary reform I wonder if we could not seek unanimous consent perhaps to allow a comment on some of the content of his speech,

December 11, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
recognizing that it is impossible to make the comment to the individual.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the efforts of my colleagues of the New Democratic Party to continue to comment the excellent speech made by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), but the truth is that, since the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques is not in the House, he can obviously not respond to whatever our friends from the New Democratic Party might say. The Hon. Member can say that he has no question to ask our colleague, but as he wants to say something, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques, who made the speech, should at least be able to make one last comment to close questions and comments. I therefore believe that your ruling is quite legitimate and normal and I leave this matter entirely up to you.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, does this mean that if a Member makes a speech and wants to avoid comments or questions on that speech all he or she has to do is to walk out of the Chamber? If that is what the ruling means, that is not what the reform committee intended when it suggested a 10-minute question and comment period.


Mr. Fennell:: How do you control it?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has ruled on this point in the past. However, the Chair is willing to look at the matter again and report back.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ruling and to help the Speaker make the ruling I wanted to indicate in what area my comments would have been on-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair understands the representations of Hon. Members, especially those made by the two who were on the McGrath Committee, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).
Resuming debate on Bill C-25 with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, one could not ask for a better time to comment on this Government's plans, both present and future, for privatization than after the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) made the Freudian slip of referring to Air Canada when he should have said Canadair. That is further evidence of what the Government has in mind concerning privatization. It is more than what we have seen so far with de Havilland and Canadair.
As a Member of Parliament from Winnipeg I have a particular interest in the sale of Canadair to Bombardier. Many Winnipegers believe for good reason, and I share that
belief, that the recent award of the CF-18 maintenance contract to Bombardier instead of Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg had its genesis in the sale we are now debating which this Bill implements. If there was ever unanimity about anything in Winnipeg, there is unanimity in the anger over the awarding of that contract. The bid by Bristol was technically and financially superior. In the minds of Winnipegers there is unanimous distaste for this purchase of a Crown corporation by a private company, precisely because we believe it may go as far back as when this deal was originally struck, that the Government may have made promises to Bombardier that it would receive the CF-18 contract in return for going ahead with the purchase of Canadair. If that is true, and there is no way to absolutely prove it, and it is ever found out to be absolutely and undisputedly true, then one of the greatest political frauds ever will have been perpetrated on the City of Winnipeg and Bristol Aerospace. They would therefore have been led through the whole bidding and tendering process when the decision may well have been already made at the time the deal this legislation implements was made.
What is it in particular that angered Winnipegers about the CF-18 contract? I want to say for the benefit of Conservatives in the House that I think one of things was that it went against every single principle ever uttered by the Progressive Conservative Party up until its election in 1984. Who more than Progressive Conservative Members stood in this House time and time again to criticize Liberal Governments for making decisions on political grounds rather than on sound business grounds? We can still hear the echoes in this Chamber of Conservative MP after Conservative MP criticizing the Liberal Governments for doing that. Yet what happened with the CF-18 contract? Exactly the same thing. I can understand why the business community is so upset, particularly with the Progressive Conservative Government, because Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament gave them reason to expect that business criteria and business criteria alone would be used to determine who got the contract. I do not say that business criteria should be the only criteria for the awarding of contracts. Yet the Progressive Conservatives did and consistently so. Therefore, when the CF-18 contract was awarded on a different basis, you can understand the confusion, dismay and sense of betrayal felt by the business community, western Canadians, and particularly Winnipegers. They had every reason to believe that if the tendering process was allowed to take its natural course the contract would go to Winnipeg.
The awarding of that contract to Canadair goes against everything the Government has ever said about the way in which to deal with foreign businesses. This corporation was a good foreign corporate citizen. As far as I know, it had reinvested all its profits in the industry in Winnipeg. The Progressive Conservative Government made a career in opposition of criticizing the Liberal Government for the way it dealt with foreign corporations. Good corporate citizens are hard to come by. When you find one you should regard it as a
December 11, 1986

rare thing. Bristol Aerospace reinvested in Canada rather than sending its profits back home. The Progressive Conservative Government awarded the contract on political grounds, going against everything it had ever said about the way in which Governments ought to award contracts.
Many Winnipegers believe that Canadair should have remained in the public sector. However, whether Winnipegers are on the right or the left, whether they think privatization is good or bad, we all agree that if there was a hidden understanding at the time of the sale of Canadair to Bombardier, and if part of it was that the CF-18 contract would go to Bombardier, then that would be a very serious and offensive fraud perpetrated against the people of Manitoba.
I would like to say a bit about privatization. What does the Government think it is up to when privatizing Crown corporations? Does the Government believe it was a sound business move to privatize the corporations which it has? I find mysterious the intensely ideological core which seems to be behind these privatization measures.
Crown corporations cannot win with a Progressive Conservative Government. If they are losing money, that is a sign that they are a burden on the public Treasury, that Government cannot manage a peanut stand, and that Government should not be involved in things which should more properly be left to the private sector which, according to Conservative mythology, can do everything so much better than the public sector. In fact, half the Crown corporations exist because Governments moved in to save the remains of an industry which had been wrecked by the private sector.
However, let not the facts confuse Conservative mythology with respect to privatization. If a Crown corporation is losing money, that is all the more reason it should not exist. If a Crown corporation is making money, that is all the more reason for it to be in the private sector because things which are profitable should be kept in the private sector.
It seems to me that according to Conservative policy there are no circumstances in which public ownership is preferred. When a Crown corporation is losing money, it should be in the private sector. When a Crown corporation is making money, it should be in the private sector because we cannot have Governments making money. There is no circumstance in which it would be all right to have a Crown corporation.
The only conclusion which we can reach is that the root of the Conservative drive toward privatization of Crown corporations is ideological. It has nothing to do with whether a corporation is losing or making money, whether it is providing a good service for cost, whether it contributes to regional development, or whether it serves some other useful public purpose. None of that has anything to do with it in the final analysis.
The Government has developed a hit list of Crown corporations which it would like to privatize. We do not know exactly what is on that list. We do not know which corporations are the Government's favourite, but perhaps the Deputy Prime
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
Minister gave us a hint today when he said "Air Canada" instead of "Canadair". Perhaps that is some indication of what the Government has in mind for us next.
There are other approaches. If people are unhappy with the way in which Crown corporations are run, there are solutions other than privatization. Simply to categorize the situation which we now face as either pursuing the status quo, which is basically a status quo developed by Liberal management of Crown corporations, or privatization, is to restrict severely the choices available. That severely narrows the range of options with regard to how Crown corporations may operate more efficiently, be more sensitive to the needs of the economy, and be more profitable. There are alternatives to selling these Crown corporations at fire sale prices after the public has invested hundreds of millions of dollars, as in the case of Canadair, in a major economic sector.
The people of Canada invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the aerospace industry, and that investment paid off. During the 1970s and early 1980s there were huge losses as a result of a depression in world aircraft markets, but Canadair became profitable a couple of years ago. In 1985, it recorded a $20 million profit and had great expectations for the future. Is that the time to privatize a Crown corporation? According to the Conservative philosophy that Crown corporations should be privatized whenever you can privatize them, it would be. It does not matter to Conservatives whether Canadair was making money, but it matters to us. Not only has the Government divested itself of a profit-making Crown corporation in a very important industrial, technological and economic sector of the Canadian economy, it did so at the same time as the investment made by the people of Canada in that company came to fruition.
Is it a sound business principle to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a corporation and, just when your investment is going to reap some benefit, sell it for next to nothing to someone who will not be accountable to the goals you set for that industry when you made your investment? Does that make any sense unless you have a blind ideological commitment to privatization regardless of the consequences?
I suggest that that is exactly what happened. The Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) is known as one of the ideological zealots on the Conservative side of the House. He wanted to sacrifice a few Crown corporations. Hopefully it will be only a few. Hopefully we will not see the wholesale kind of privatization which has taken place in Great Britain, for instance, as a result of the commitment of Conservative Parties to privatization.
There is no question about the fact there was a strong feeling in the Conservative Government that free enterprisers had to be thrown a bone or two. De Havilland and Canadair are the first of hopefully not too many bones which have had to be thrown to that paricular element within the Progressive Conservative caucus. I just hope the Government has the good

December 11, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
sense, both politically and in terms of this Chamber, not to try to privatize a major Crown corporation which has been part and parcel of the Canadian social and economic fabric for many years. There are a number of corporations which fall into that category, such as the CBC, Air Canada, Canadian National and Petro-Canada. I hope the Government will have the good sense not to do that because, if they try it, I can promise on behalf of all my colleagues that it will have a fight on its hands like it never had before.
I am particularly concerned, as you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, coming from Winnipeg-Birds Hill, that the Government might have designs on Canadian National, although I imagine it would need more time than the Canadian public will give it to get that far down the list. Whatever privatizing the Government is going to do, it had better do it within the next two years because that will be the end of that.
I mentioned earlier that I thought there were different ways of getting at things which have irritated, not just the Government but other Canadians about the way in which corporations are run. A lot of it has to do with accountability and the feeling that Crown corporations become entities unto themselves. They become governments unto themselves in some cases and simply do whatever they like. The best example of that is AECL. It does whatever it likes whenever it likes. It goes through a lot of motions, but those motions are all set up by the Atomic Energy Control Board which is part of the same club. As far as I am concerned, if there was ever a bad example of public ownership-although I am not sure I would want to have it in the private sector-it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. It is not accountable and exhibits all the worst behaviour of Crown corporations.
The key is not to privatize, but to make Crown corporations more accountable, more democratic, more participatory, and bring more people into the decision-making process, particularly in important economic sectors. They should be more responsive to the needs of communities, to the rights of individuals and to the over-all economic health of the country. These are the kinds of things that people who are not seeking simple solutions might be thinking about. Instead, the Government takes a simplistic view that we should take important areas of our economy and turn the future of those important areas over to corporations which do not necessarily make decisions in the national interest, particularly when it comes to multinational corporations, although in this case it is a Canadian-owned corporation. The sale of de Havilland to Boeing would be an example.
The Government is turning important areas of our economy over to decision makers who have the publicly stated goal in life of making as much money as they can, whether they do it in the market-place or by squeezing grants and loans from the Government-farming the Government system, so to speak, in whatever way they can to add to their particular profits. That does not seem to be a very sound way to go about creating economic development. Yet that is just the kind of economic
development we are unfortunately are getting from this Government.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments and then perhaps a question for the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). First, the Hon. Member attempted in his dissertation to try to tie the sale to Bombardier of Canadair with the CF-18 maintenance contract. Certainly, the contract was made independently and had nothing to do with the Government. The Government did not make any promises to Bombardier, or to anyone else who was considering the purchase of Canadair in connection with the CF-18.
The Hon. Member also alluded to the decision of the Government to privatize. I want to bring to his attention that the Budget in May 1985 outlined the basic principles of the Government in carrying out privatization initiatives. The principles are; first, to be sensitive to the concerns of management and employees of corporations when we have considered candidates for sale; second, to consider the impact of privatization on consumers and the market competition; third, to consult with provincial Governments; fourth, to avoid selling at distress prices for the sake of privatization; fifth, to follow commercial objectives when considering the stages of privatization where there may be periods of mixed, private and public ownership; and sixth, to examine all related policy and financial considerations on a case-by-case basis before considering privatization of any given corporation.
Several benefits are expected as a result of returning federal corporate holdings to the private sector. Privatization will reduce the size of government and leave room for more private sector initiatives and will promote market competition and more efficient allocation of resources. It will improve company efficiency through market discipline and by reducing political and bureaucratic impediments. In some cases, privatization may encourage individual Canadians to take part in the ownership of major corporations through equity investments.
I know the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill and his colleagues are having a problem today. They are talking around the issue. They talk against privatization, but I know they have received pretty strong representation today from the unions and the workers in Quebec and at Canadair. That is why we hear these long dissertations today. Would the Hon. Member like to comment on a remark made by his colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), who in debate on December 2 said: "If it is a good deal for Bombardier, is it necessarily a good deal for Canadians? I would say it is not".


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member was but, just in case he did not get the message, we are against the sale of Canadair to Bombardier. Let there be absolutely no doubts about that. I am not often accused of being that ambiguous. If it was not clear that I did not like the sale of Canadair to Bombardier and the privatization of that Crown corporation, for the record I will say now that we are against it.
December 11, 1986

I thought it interesting that the Hon. Member referred to the objectives of privatization as outlined by his own Government and mentioned the objective that Crown corporations not be sold at distress prices merely to transfer them quickly to the private sector. What could be more distressing than this deal? Bombardier is paying $120 million less than the $300 million liquidation value, the $224 million book value, and the $300 million to $400 million estimated technology value. In addition, it will receive $50 million in federal grants in January with $30 million to come, unspecified export financing, a $1.7 billion CF-18 defence contract, no financial obligation relating to Canadair's debt or outstanding liabilities, plus profits of $20 million in 1985 and $2.8 million in the first quarter of 1986. That is not bad for $120 million and the equivalent of $20 million in royalty payments. That is what I call a distress sale. It is what I call doing something for ideological purposes only and for no other good reason.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, I always listen to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) with interest and with benefit. Today I was especially interested in the logic he directed against the Government saying that, the Government feels on the one hand, if Crown corporations are losing money they should be sold, and on the other, if they are making money they should be sold. He accuses us of having a blind ideological commitment.
I want to say that the same logic applied to the argument of the Hon. Member shows that if there is a blind ideological commitment in the House it is one which he and his Party represent. Their reasoning with respect to Crown corporations is precisely as he has described, namely, if a Crown corporation is losing money it demonstrates to the NDP that we need that Crown corporation. In their eyes it demonstrates that it is a public service that cannot finance itself through private efforts and therefore the good money of the taxpayers has to be poured into it. On the other hand, if a Crown corporation is making money then according to the NDP that shows that socialism works. It shows that we need more and more such Crown corporations in the eyes of the Hon. Member and his Party. The blind ideological commitment is across the way. Members opposite want nothing but a blind commitment to use more and more of the taxpayers' money and effort to keep alive Crown corporations, an effort that thus far the people of Canada have not entrusted them to expand.
I wish to point to a questionnaire I circulated in my constituency asking for public opinion on whether or not certain Crown corporations should be privatized. In all but one instance the respondents favoured the privatization of the named Crown corporations. So when the Hon. member speaks about the Government showing good sense, the good sense of the public as I ascertain it is that we want Crown corporations to be privatized as far as possible. Crown corporations should be continued only when there is an overwhelming and obvious reason to justify their continued existence. It is on that
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
pragmatic basis that Conservative Governments have been prepared either to organize or to continue Crown corporations.
The Hon. Member mentioned the CNR. It was a Conservative Government in the 1920s that put the CNR together, when there was a pragmatic need which justified it. When the time comes for a pragmatic value to privatize, then a Government should be prepared to take that step.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a view expressed by Members opposite that somehow when we privatize that the taxpayers do not have to pay any more. Yet I just went into a long description which no one disputed about the ways in which the taxpayers have already paid. With respect to what they have already paid, they will not be able to reap the benefits in terms of the investment they have made. Whatever money is made in the future by Canadair, now that it is in a profitable position, will not go to the taxpayers of Canada. On the face of it, it seems to me that this deal goes against the financial interests of the taxpayers of Canada. It is not something that should be regarded with relief by the taxpayers.
With respect to the so-called blind ideological commitment, the best that I can offer is an example that goes exactly contrary to what the Hon. Member was talking about. The NDP Government in Manitoba recently privatized a Crown corporation, Flyer Industries Ltd. The Government felt that, all things considered, this was the best thing to do in terms of the future of that particular industry in Manitoba, and for all the other reasons that may have entered into it. The Hon. Member is caught out on the facts on this one because there is an NDP Government privatizing a Crown corporation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a couple of questions. Since we socialists have to teach Conservatives about sound business practice, 1 would like to ask my colleague if he agrees that the taxpayer as an investor through his or her Government is not entitled to the same opportunity to receive a return on that investment as is a private investor. In terms of sound business practice is it not true that when a business is sold the buying company buys the accounts receivable and the accounts payable? In this case is it not so that Bombardier is buying the accounts receivable but the taxpayers are allowed to keep the $1.2 billion in accounts payable? What kind of sound business practice is that?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it is not a sound business practice at all. However, it is very characteristic of the type of deals made between Government and the private sector when Crown corporations are being privatized. It is very typical of the type of thing that goes on. It is the taxpayers, the very people whom Hon. Members opposite say they are so concerned about, who get dinged in this kind of process. They are the ones who get to pay without any return on their investment. It is the private sector that gets the fire sale price for the technology of the future. The future of the industry is dumped into its laps for next to nothing. It is the private sector that will reap the profits and not the Canadian people.
2030

December 11, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) who will be the last Member to have 20 minutes in which to make his speech.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Thank goodness, Mr. Speaker. I thank Hon. Members for this chance to enter the debate on this important issue.
If it were not for Crown corporations I suspect that this country would still be so many acres of uninhabited snow. Throughout the history of the country we have seen a tremendous role played by Crown corporations. It was a Crown corporation which developed the intercontinental railway from Ottawa to the East. Crown corporations gave us broadcasting when in its absence we would have been entirely dominated by the United States and its broadcasting system. We saw Crown corporations give us air service at a time when this country would have been left with no option but to be the further extension northward of U.S. services. Crown corporations have been an important line of defence in the protection of Canadian nationalistic concerns against the pressures of the very much stronger, very much more dynamic economy to the south.
That is the backdrop to this debate. Of course, it is not a justification for keeping Canadair in the public sector. To Keep Canadair in the public sector would require a careful analysis of the potential benefit of its contribution to an industrial vision for Canada. Unfortunately, the Government has given us no such industrial vision for the future. Its vision is clouded. It is unannunciated. If anything, it is a vision of somehow surviving, somehow thriving by tying ourselves to the United States with a free trade agreement. We must deal with the question of Canadair not in the way we should, that is, as part of the development of an industrial base in Canada. Instead, we have to deal with it as a commercial transaction.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that this is like a commercial transaction. There would be terrible losses here for any Canadian who pays taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I can give you figures that confirm what I am saying. First, I would like to point out that the Canadian public has invested $2.2 billion in this company! Based on the figures, we also know that the book value of company assets amounts to $478 million. Mr. Speaker, we therefore have a company which has received a lot of money from the Canadian public and which still has a lot of money left.
What price should Canadians pay for all that, Mr. Speaker? I must say that the price is terrible, shocking! It is a price that has nothing in common with the level of costs on the basis of Government statistics which may be found in the comparisons, in the financial aspects of the Bombardier proposal and if we look at the total we see it is less than $160 million.
Mr. Speaker, it is not fair to sell a corporation when there is so much difference between the costs incurred by Canadian
taxpayers and the price paid by the private company for that same corporation. It is not fair.
[DOT]	(1550)

It is for that particular reason that we find ourselves so strongly opposed to this transaction. We are not opposed to it because it is the sale of a public company. That is an important part of it but, as we have indicated, there are certainly cases of public companies being sold to the private sector and there are cases of private-sector companies brought into the public sector. However, to initiate a commercial transaction that is somehow equitable is not the same as to initiate a commercial transaction that results in the Canadian taxpayers getting hosed and ending up with far less of a return than they should be getting. This is something that is not acceptable from a commercial perspective. It would appear only to be justifiable for, as my colleagues have pointed out, ideological reasons.

It is for an ideological reason. It is for reasons that make no sense that this corporation is to be sold at such a low price. We cannot approve of that transaction.

It is also important to note that this company is not some kind of a basket case. It is not a company that is dealing with its future prospects with a grim certainty of facing yet more losses. Again, according to the Government's documents, the net profit of Canadair was $6 million in 1984. In 1985 it was $15.2 million, and in 1986 the forecast profit according to the CDIC plan is $23.8 million. I predict that this case will be exactly the same as the case of de Havilland. After the company was sold the profits started to mount, profits which should have gone to the Canadian taxpayers who financed the incredible investments in the new technology which is now of such benefit to the owners of the company.
In addition to these points, we note again that this transaction is not normal. Again, I refer to government material from Salomon Brothers. Salomon Brothers is not exactly part of the socialist hordes, at least according to its latest membership list. It is clearly indicated within this document that the letter of intent includes provisions which do not conform to commercial norms. In view of the low price and the need to justify this sale, I would have expected Conservative Members to put before us a case for the sale of Canadair. I have not heard that case. All I have heard is that it is a fine thing to transfer things to the private sector. If that is not ideology, I do not know what is.
[DOT]	(1600)
A pragmatic, economic view would surely offer us some justification for this transaction, and that has not taken any precedence in this debate. That is our view. We are not committed to public ownership or to private ownership. As I have stressed in the past, we are committed to improving our
December 11, 1986

position in Canada in the face of very difficult challenges in the years ahead. These challenges will face us in the aerospace industry, the auto industry, and in virtually any industrial sector noted across the board.
We must stop using ideology as the response. It is ideological for me to stand up and say a solution to the automobile problem which looms before us is to nationalize all of the Canadian auto companies. That would be nonsense. It would certainly not be what we would expect to carry out in Government.
If there is a case in this instance for a transfer to the private sector, let us hear it. We have not heard it. We expect that we will hear it during the hearings that we anticipate will take place on this Bill. As in the case of deHavilland, we hope that there will be witnesses called to indicate to us what was contained within their bids, and whether they might have been superior to this ridiculously low bid we have received here. We expect that these hearings will take some time to put the case clearly before us. When these hearings do take place, I hope that it will be possible for those who support this sale to indicate quite clearly why it is that this private transaction to the private sector should be supported. If that evidence is brought before us, I am sure that we will be quite open to argument. So far we have not had that position put forward, and we can only take the ludicrously low price as the basis of our opposition to this sell-out of an important Canadian resource.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions and comments, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James).


Kenneth Albert James: I would like to make a rebuttal to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). In the first place the Hon. Member talked about Salomon Brothers and, certainly not being part of their establishment, I believe that he was referring to their August 11, 1986 letter that talked of non-conformity to traditional commercial practice. The Hon. Member did not read the whole paragraph, and I would like to set the record straight. Salomon Brothers stated:
The only important provision in the LOI that neither promotes Crown objectives nor conforms to traditional commercial practise is that which provides for risk sharing should insurance become "economically impracticable to procure".
As the Hon. Member knows, that was in connection with the serious problems that we have today with liability insurance.
I am sure the Hon. Member also has the letter of June 24, 1986, which is a letter from Marsh & McLennan in relation to this subject. The letter states in connection with Bombardier Inc. that:
They have agreed to purchase insurance without any participation of premiums by the government. In the event the insurance may not be available they propose to share the cost of the claims with the government for a 15 year period on a sliding scale.
The letter further states:
It is obvious from the foregoing that the Bombardier proposal is clearly superior in that it relieves the government of any on-going premium involvement or financial participation in deductibles. We feel there will always be insurance
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
available in some form and therefore the proposals made by Bombardier and CAT in the event insurance becomes unavailable are academic.
In addition, I wish to speak to some other comments made by the Hon. Member of the opposition. Earlier he said that deHavilland would in essence go down the tubes, that it would not be successful. Now he says that it is successful. That certainly gives no credit to private enterprise to that end.
In 1982 and 1983 Canadair lost $1.2 billion primarily due to many write-offs. By the end of 1984 the Crown investment in Canadair had reached $2.2 billion. A comment was made earlier by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) when he was talking about the financial side of this transaction. He failed to mention in connection with that sale that the federal Government has some caveats.
The commitments that are made by Bombardier will be encouraged by the Government through retention of special shares which can only be earned by Bombardier if they deliver on the commitments in R and D, and so on, as the Hon. Member knows well. Additionally, the Government retains the rights to the Challenger technology, therefore preserving the investment of Canadians in this technology over the years.
In many ways, Canadair's technology is now being put together with a skilled workforce, and members of that very same skilled workforce are writing to this Party today and to all of us stating the importance of this sale to Bombardier. So we have Canadair's technology teamed up with a skilled workforce in the Province of Quebec. All of us know that it is very important to the province to make a successful private sector company that will carry on with this very important work.


Steven W. Langdon: Within that range of words, as I identified them, I think there were four points. The first point was with respect to the Salomon Brothers' comments. I wish to quote from the letter of intent:
The LOI also has within it a number of provisions that do not conform to commercial norms. Most (though not all) of these operate directly or indirectly to promote Crown policy objectives. Examples include a provision to preclude land speculation, mechanisms to encourage employment, growth, reinvestment and retention of sufficient working capital and an undertaking not to relocate material facilities outside of Quebec.
So certainly, there were factors other than the insurance factor that were noted within the letter.
Second, the comment of Marsh & McLennan about insurance being available, and again I quote from the Salomon Brothers' letter:
-if insurance becomes unobtainable at economically practicable cost.
That "-at economically practicable cost" clearly can leave much more risk than the Member has implied.
I have a third point in respect of the special shares and the guaranteed royalties. The suggestion of the Hon. Member was that these somehow raised dramatically the price for Bombardier. I had already included them within the price I noted in

December 11, 1986
Adjournment Debate
my discussion. According to available government documents, the special shares are worth, at most, $10 million. The guaranteed value of royalties is worth, at most, $20 million. When added to the $ 120 million cash on closing, the dividend, and the payment for the airport, the total value received by Canadian taxpayers will be well under $160 million for a company with assets of $470 million, according to the August 19, 1986 edition of The Globe and Mail. I suppose one for three is not a giveaway in some people's books. However, it looks like a gross transfer to the private sector. As I said before in a previous speech, it is another gift-wrapped present for Christmas to private enterprise from the Tory Government.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) liberate himself from the ideological incarceration of the previous NDP speaker. It is clear from the very fine speech made that the basis for this consideration should be pragmatic objectives. I should like to dwell for a few moments on that point.
As is very often the case in the sale of a Crown corporation, it is not always possible for a Government to achieve the kind of sale which each of us would like. This was the problem facing the Government of Manitoba when it sold the Flyer bus line. As was reported in the Winnipeg Free Press, it would have been cheaper to close down the company than to enter into the sale, as did that Government. The sale was undertaken after the Government tried for years to cope with a failing Crown corporation, and it ultimately cost the taxpayers of that province $96 million. It would have been cheaper for that NDP Government to close down the company.
Very often a Government cannot obtain the kind of sale its critics and its opposition would recommend. However, there are two gains to the public by the sale of a Crown corporation, as in the case of Bombardier and as in the case of de Havil-land, which I think need to be noted. The first is that the burden is taken off the backs of taxpayers. Year after year taxpayers' moneys were poured into the corporation to cover losses and to subsidize the company. That will finally be brought to a close. Second, by putting the company into the hands of more efficient and effective salespersons and managers, job security is given to the personnel which they lacked beforehand. When representatives are called before the parliamentary committee, the numbers should include the workers in the company who will now have job security.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for being the first I have heard in the debate to address the question of the very poor price received for the company. Frankly, his position has proved the point I was making. In the case of Flyer Industries, it was the takeover of a bus company which was losing money. It was a question of whether it made sense to keep pouring money down that sink-hole. The answer seemed to be no, that it made more sense to privatize it.
In the case of Canadair, we are talking about a company which has made profits for the last two years, and the projection for the coming year is that it will make even greater
profits. Therefore, the choice before them was not to sell the company or face losses; it was to sell the company or keep the company. The company was finally providing to taxpayers the kind of return it should have provided all the time, had it not been for mismanagement under a previous Government.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Pensions-Auditor General's report-Review of private pension plans; the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault)-Indian Affairs-Request that Government intervene to reinstate democratic system in Kanasetake Indian Band; the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau)-Communications-Volunteer fire departments-Radio licence fees.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-25, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment (Mr. Benjamin)(p.l866).
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join in the debate on the privatization of Canadair. It is a significant event in the political and aeronautics history in Canada, although it is not an event about which I am happy.
Years ago when the Government of the day made a policy decision that the aerospace industry must be protected, it was clear that Canadair could not be allowed to go out of existence. At that time it was important for us as a nation that it be retained, and the only way to retain it was by having its assets owned by the Government of Canada, mainly because the private sector failed to ensure its viability. Whether it was through its products, marketing, or whatever, I do not know. It was up to the Government of Canada and the people of Canada to sustain that operation. Sustain it they did for a number of years. Millions of dollars were poured into the industry. I do not have to ask the workers to know that they would rather have real jobs and the money coming to them in
December 11, 1986

that way than being on unemployment insurance or welfare. We must recognize that while it was referred to as a drain, it was an investment in human beings. It ensured that the industry survived and that the workers had paycheques with which to look after their families in an appropriate Canadian way. It was not a drain; it was an investment in the future.
Now the Government has decided, as part of its ideology, to get out of the business and to give it away to the private sector. Let us take a look at what Bombardier is getting for its $120 million. It is getting a company with a Canadian book value of $224 million, a technology value in the neighbourhood of $300 million to $400 million, and a liquidation value of around $300 million. It is quite clearly getting a good deal. It is almost as good a deal as the one given by the Ontario Liberal Government this week to the Four Seasons hotel chain. For a nominal sum of $4 million to sell Minaki Lodge, the private sector picked up $11 million in tax deductions. In effect taxpayers paid to give away that lodge. It is almost the same situation with Bombardier. It is getting much more than the value of the amount to be transferred.
I should like to refer to one aspect of that value. It is my understanding that three Challenger jets are currently grounded in West Germany. They have been grounded since February. They are grounded because Canadair was unable to supply the maintenance manuals in a properly translated form to be used by the German workers. Because of that grounding and because Canadair has been unable to live up to its responsibilities, the West German Government is withholding $60 million owed to Canadair. Where does that $60 million show up, Mr. Speaker? Will that $60 million be paid to Bombardier, and does that actually reduce its cost from $120 million to $60 million? Is it getting an even better deal than we think? Is that money showing up elsewhere? Will it come back to the Government of Canada? Who will be receiving that money? Those are the kinds of questions that should be answered in this House to ensure that Canadians know what kind of a deal their Conservative Government has arranged for them.
We also have to recognize that Canadian taxpayers get to keep Canadair's $1.2 billion long-term debt. I thought when one company bought another company it was a package deal. You got the receivables on one hand but you got the other side of the ledger as well. You get the bad with the good. Clearly, Bombardier is taking only the good. It has not taken the overall responsibilities. Canadian taxpayers will never get that money back. They will not get a return on their investment. It was their investment, not the Government's investment in that company many years ago. Canadair was just beginning to show a return on that investment. I believe that for the last year for which we have information a profit of $20 million was made, a small amount compared to the $1.2 billion of long term debt, but it was a start. That money could have been used to help to pay for other worthwhile projects in Canada,
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
projects paid for by the Government of Canada. I think the Government is wrong in deciding to privatize this company.
I can understand, as others have said, that if you have a situation where a company owned by the Government has a questionable value that requires massive amounts of money on an ongoing basis with no return, there would be a need to wind it down to see if somebody in the private sector would be willing to take it over. I come back to Minaki Lodge in Ontario. Taxpayers paid $50 million for that. One million a year is still being paid out to operate it. Minaki Lodge should never have been owned by the Government of Ontario. It had no business being in that kind of a situation. Ironically, it was Ontario's Conservative Government that nationalized Minaki Lodge and nationalized Cancar Rail in Thunder Bay, but a Liberal Government sold them. Here we had federal Governments nationalizing industry and Conservative Governments selling them. It just proves once again that there is no real difference between the Liberals and Conservatives in this country when they change hands, federally or provincially.
Those are my few contributions to the debate. Perhaps the Hon. House Leader in his business question today was giving us advance notice of yet another attempt to privatize something when he referred to this Bill as the privatization of Air Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion of Mrs. McDougall:
That Bill C-25, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The first question is on the amendment of Mr. Benjamin:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words "that" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-25, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the amendment lost.


An Hon. Member:: On division.

December 11, 1986
Sitting suspended
Motion (Mr. Benjamin) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion agreed to on division.
Motion (Mrs. McDougall) agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It had been our intention to call Bill C-3 at this time. However, it is my understanding that the Minister and the critics for that Bill are presently before the committee. Under those circumstances, I think it would be in order to suspend the sitting until five o'clock and at that time Private Members' Hour could commence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Parliamentary Secretary's proposal?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House is suspended until 5 o'clock p.m.
At 4.28 p.m., the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 5.02 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
PROVISION OF LOW COST LOANS TO FOOD PRODUCERS Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of establishing an Agribond program that would provide for low-cost loans to hard pressed Canadian food producers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to present this motion to the House today. I am hopeful that Members of Parliament will in good Christmas spirit support the consideration of it. After all, it simply asks Members to put on record the fact that we are committed to the concept of the family farm. It asks Members to say that we want to see the family farm continue as a viable food-producing unit in Canada.
This motion is but one option in terms of providing longterm low interest funding for family farms and family ranches.
Basically, it is an appeal to members of the Government to stand up and say that the Government of Canada is 100 per cent committed to the family farm and the family ranch and that it is not about to cave in to the pressures of agri-business or corporate agriculture.
I need not go into the details of the virtual pending crisis facing our farm community. Something in the neighbourhood of 40,000 farms face critical financial crisis, and many more are experiencing serious financial difficulties. The situation worsens by the month. I know that in my constituency of Kamloops-Shuswap on a drive through any traditionally productive agricultural valley today the most predominant feature on the landscape is the for-sale sign. As a matter of fact, some of the valley drives have become known as drives through "Billboard Alley" because of the huge signs setting out lands for sale and various financial arrangements that can be arranged and so on. It is a very serious situation. It exists in all parts of the country and has been recognized to a certain extent by the recent government initiative to assist some of the hard-pressed grain producers. For virtually every single area of agriculture we could say that a similar situation exists.
In my own constituency, which I do not think is unlike most rural areas, we see, two or three generations later, the sons and daughters of those who cleared the land or broke the soil being forced off the land. In many cases they are being forced into seeking off-farm incomes. It is a very serious situation.
What the motion proposes is that as Members of Parliament we recognize that there are solutions to the very serious problems, the most critical of which is the debt equity ratio which our food producers face, as well as the massive capital costs which really prohibit young people from going into agriculture. We have an aging farm population. Our food producers are getting older and older and young people are not able to enter the profession. The average capital cost now for a farm or ranch is about $400,000, including land, equipment and building costs-to say nothing of the annual operating costs.
This is a very serious situation, one of the answers to which is the provision of a mechanism through which long-term low interest money can be obtained. Of course, the agri-bond concept is one which would allow that. Another solution which my Party has put forward on many occasions is with respect to parity pricing. In this situation what a farmer or rancher received for his goods would be a reflection of his costs. As a result of a parity pricing situation they would be able to maintain their operations.
Let us talk for a moment about agri-bonds. It is a concept that has received the support of all sides of the House as indicated in speeches by Members and their rhetoric over the years. It is an idea which was referred to the Finance Committee some months ago. In its final report the committee recommended that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) consider the advisability of establishing an agri-bond program and it set out some conditions. The first is with respect to eligible borrowers, which would include any farmer whose
December 11, 1986
[Stage Direction]
equity is between 20 per cent and 50 per cent of assets. Such a program would be operated by the Farm Credit Corporation. A maximum of $300,000 per borrower would apply over the long term in terms of providing predictable interest rates.
Over the years many people have gone on record to say that they support this measure. On February 7, 1984, the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) had this to say:
Mr. Speaker, this motion is exactly the same as a motion presented by myself and 10 other Members of Parliament on November 24, 1983. The 10 were, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), the Hon. Member for Cariboo- Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway), the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), the Hon. Member for Wetaskawin (Mr. Schellenberger), the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer), the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville (Mrs. Cossitt), the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King), and the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers).
In my seven years as a parliamentarian I remember hearing many Members of Parliament, both from the Conservative Party and from the Liberal Party, follow the lead of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), who time and time again has made the case for long-term low interest financing for farmers. He has suggested that some form of agri-bond would be an obvious course to follow.
In closing, I wish to say that if we were to support this motion it would help young people get into farming. It would allow prospective farmers and ranchers to develop themselves in these professions. It would help farmers who are presently experiencing a debt crisis and who have found themselves through no fault of their own in most cases in an impossible and increasing debt situation. Perhaps most important of all, it would provide a vehicle for investors to invest in agriculture. In this way people who want to buy or purchase an agri-bond would know that the money they are investing in the future of Canada is being invested in the future of agriculture in terms of the future of the family farm or the family ranch. It could even be tailored so that it could be invested in agriculture in the investor's part of the country. In this way people taking out agri-bonds would be able to say, yes, I have played my role. I have done what I could as an investor to put money into the hands of ranchers and farmers who are my neighbours or members of my own family. It is a tremendous vehicle.
The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) indicated that both provincially and federally the Conservative Party supports the idea of agri-bonds. This is the acid test today. We will see whether all that has gone on before is mere rhetoric or in fact that members of the Conservative Party in this House actually support a vehicle which they have said on many occasions they support. It is a vehicle which would place low interest long-term money into the hands of our food producers and allow this matter to go to committee for further examination.
Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate initiated by my honourable colleague for
Agri-bond Program
Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on the subject of agri-bonds. Of course, Mr. Speaker, my colleague has just suggested in his conclusion that it would be the true test if Conservative Members were to support his motion. I would like to tell that NDP Member that his party has always been making promises but has never had an opportunity to keep them, so making promises comes easy, and I would like to come back to this.
Mr. Speaker, everyone does recognize how urgent it is to deal with the matter of interest rates, and this is still more obvious to this Conservative Government because many of our Members also are farm producers. This means, Mr. Speaker, that certainly we need no advice from the New Democratic Party, and much less from the Liberal Party in order to know what we have to do to help farm producers across the land. It would seem, Mr. Speaker, that both Opposition parties, and especially the Liberals do not seem to understand that this Government, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) are not acting unilaterally but hand in hand with the provinces and farm groups to find adequate solutions to the problems that the farming industry is now facing.
Of course, we are not pretending that we know everything or that we have cure-all programs, as the Opposition parties are so prone to point out, and we are well aware of that. However, the progress made by this Progressive Conservative Government over the last two years where agriculture is concerned shows how much that industry is important to us and to all Canadian consumers.
Mr. Speaker, when we were elected in September 1984, the interest rate charged by the Farm Credit Corporation was 16 3/4 per cent; that was a shameful rate, and it was the clear, obvious and definite proof that the Liberal Government had knowingly abandoned agriculture, knowingly ignored the young farmers. Now that they are in Opposition, Mr. Speaker, they are urging us to make good the wrongs they did over the last 20 years. This is what the Minister of Agriculture, together with his provincial counterparts, obvious sectors of the economy and farmer's unions are doing, this is what we are doing as we showed once more this week by announcing a $1 billion assistance package for Canadian farmers.
Mr. Speaker, to give but one example of Liberal incompetence in the farming industry over their last mandate and the last 20 years, I would like to point out the crop losses caused in 1983 by drought in my own Province of Quebec.
The producers had experienced a crop loss. They sent an application to the federal Government-the Liberal Party was in power at the time-asking for help, but it was turned down. Mr. Michel Veillette, who was then the Liberal Member for the Champlain riding, followed his Government's recommendations. He said no, on the ground that Quebec was supposed to pay. But following our coming to power in September, 1984, Mr. Speaker, we have worked together with 1'Union des producteurs agricoles and our Minister of Agriculture to give back to Quebec producers the nearly $30 million to which they were entitled. We have compensated them for their crop losses, because the Progressive Conservative Government had made a

December 11, 1986
Agri-bond Program
firm commitment during the 1984 election campaign to help our farm producers.
That is a convincing argument, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying a while ago, under a Liberal administration in 1983-84, the Farm Credit Corporation was lending money at 16 3/4 per cent interest. I should like to remind the Hon. Member who is laughing because her Government had lended money to farm producers at 16 3/4 per cent interest, that it is now lending at 10 3/4 per cent interest rate, and that was a commitment and is an achievement of this Progressive Conservative Government.
Thanks to these 10 3/4 per cent interest rates, Mr. Speaker, our producers are showing renewed confidence in the future and are working very hard to produce for Canadians food of the highest quality. I know that it is not enough, Mr. Speaker, and that we will have to continue working over the next two years with the Prime Minister, together with farm organizations and provincial Governments, in order once and for all to offer decent interest rates to farm producers generally. We have set up several mechanisms, even though Members of the Opposition seem to think that we have done nothing over the first two years- but we have set up several organizations to help farm producers facing financial difficulties! Let us not forget that, after we came to power in 1984, we renegotiated interest rates, which were at 16 3/4 per cent, to bring them down to 12 3/4 per cent. We set up Farm Debt Review Boards, Mr. Speaker, and implemented the 6 per cent policy for farms on the verge of bankruptcy. These are, Mr. Speaker, concrete evidence of what our Government has been doing. What more can you ask in two years? I would like to ask the Opposition, Liberals and New Democrats, that, instead of being against everything we propose, they help us adopt quickly policies which would allow our farmers to take advantage of reasonable interest rates. And we are doing just that, Mr. Speaker. Liberals, for example, cannot ask us to do in two years what they could not achieve in twenty. We have to catch up, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we are doing. With some cooperation from the two Opposition parties, if they would only agree to forget their partisanship and to work with us, as we are presently doing with farm organisations and provincial governments, we could, in a very short time, give farmers across Canada decent interest rates which would ensure that farming remains a major economic sector in our country.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few words on the motion put before the House by the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) concerning agri-bonds. I think we just saw a beautiful demonstration of a Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Agriculture being totally rattled, into orbit, confused, distracted and on the defensive. I have never seen anything quite like it. It does not surprise me, because in looking at the record of the Government over the last two
years we can see why he is a bit nervous at the prospect of trying to defend the Government's position with regard to agribonds.
Of the 338 promises made by the Tory Party during the 1984 general election campaign let me refer to nine or 10 that have not been kept. Promise No. 3 was that the Tory Party would allow the Farm Credit Corporation to offer agri-bonds so that farmers could have access to reasonably priced funds. That promise was followed up in the spring of 1985, about three or four months after the Conservative Party came to power, with the unanimous report of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. That committee, composed of a majority of Conservative Members, recommended an agri-bond program. By that time in the fall of 1984 the farm debt crisis had been well catalogued by the Farm Credit Corporation. That committee report unanimously recommended that an agri-bond program with 8 per cent interest over a five-year term up to $300,000 per borrower be provided with the idea that it would be targeted toward people who were in serious financial difficulty allowing them to write down mortgages to 8 per cent whether they were with the FCC, or with other private institutional lenders.
I can certainly see why the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary was a little in orbit this afternoon, and very much on the defensive. If the rest of the promises are read, it will be seen that there are further recommendations that the Government would extend and expand the Farm Credit Corporation's special interest rates subsidy program, which of course they did not do.
Further on there was a commitment to allow the necessary funding to assist producers in refinancing their loans at current prevailing rates. Looking at the inventory of mortgages of the Farm Credit Corporation, 32 per cent of all the FCC loans were financed between 12.75 per cent to 16.75 per cent. Most of those 12.75 per cent mortgages were simply the $575 million conversion program of funds that were not used in the 1984-85 fiscal year of the Farm Credit Corporation to convert to mortgages over 14 per cent; not mortgages of 13, 13.5, 13.75, 14 per cent, but mortgages over 14 per cent down to 12.75 per cent. Those funds were in the FCC account and had either been borrowed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or from private markets which were in the FCC loan portfolio and were available to be loaned and were done at a conversion in that regard.
We looked through the Budget of 1985, and we have had the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs before the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), but there has been no decision with regard to assistance for the farm debt crisis, even though 39,000 of our youngest, most productive, and most technologically advanced farmers were facing serious financial difficulties. Since that time, many of those farmers have gone into bankruptcy or have been foreclosed on. Even though there was a unanimous recommendation of the
December 11, 1986

Conservative members on the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, there was nothing in the Budget.
So we come around to the Budget of 1986 and, lo and behold, we see the commodity based mortgage which theoretically provides interest rates as low as 6 per cent, if the farmer has a low enough equity position in the farm. Many of the farmers will be financed at 7 and 8 per cent. But if we look at the Budget Papers, it is found that the write-down of those FCC mortgages provides only $20 million. Looking at what the provinces are doing, Alberta has a $2 billion program at 9 per cent; Saskatchewan has a $1 billion program of assistance at about 6 per cent. The Ontario Government has a program of some $50 million a year to assist in writing down interest to as low as 8 per cent.
But there are a few other catches in the commodity based mortgage. If the commodity value goes up, such as hogs have gone up by 25 per cent this year, and beef has gone up by 15 per cent, then the principal of the commodity based mortgage goes up. If that continues to rise, the individual who thought he was getting a mortgage at 6 or 8 per cent, or what he was eligible for as a result of the level of equity that he had in his property, ends up paying some 12.75 per cent at this time, or last spring it was 13.25 per cent. If he wishes to pay out the mortgage, he has to pay out the entire mortgage at that level.
On Budget night what looked like a program of $730 million over two years at 6 per cent, over the 10 year life of most of those mortgages turns out to mean that the individual will have to pay 12.75 or 13.75 per cent interest on those mortgages. If you do not have a FCC mortgage you are not eligible for any assistance. So the commodity based mortgage which looked great on Budget night has a number of adverse aspects to it, which certainly make it less attractive than programs of real support such as many of the provinces have adopted.
One other point I would like to make in the agri-bond debate is that a group of Members of Parliament went to Washington to look at its agri-bond and revenue bond programs in January of 1985. It was clearly found there that in the cost of the agri-bond system much of the benefit flows to the brokers, to the lawyers, and so on. We, on the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, came to the conclusion that if an agri-bond program is going to be provided, it should come from the FCC. The Government takes the money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, writes it down to what the concessional rate is at 8 or 9 per cent, and the interest paid on that becomes non-taxable if the principle which is very similar to the small business development bond is used. In that manner, it is targeted toward younger farmers who are not in a taxable position where the interest write-off is not so important, or to farmers in financial difficulty where, because of their financial position, the write-off is not so valuable.
The agri-bond idea is one which the Government has committed itself to. I hope that they will allow it to be reviewed by the committee, as the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has suggested tonight.
Agri-bond Program


Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak to this Bill today. Before I begin to outline some of the activities that this Government has been involved in, I realize the mover of this motion pointed out that we have a crisis in agriculture. Nobody on this side of the House would disagree with that statement. The Hon. Member also pointed out the initiatives that this Government has taken that have helped the agricultural sector.
I do have some difficulty with the comments of the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), who should know better since he has been in touch with the agricultural community for many years. The Hon. Member spoke about the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture having his head in orbit. I would say to the Hon. Member for Algoma that he must have had his head in the sand during the past two years, and has not watched what the Government has been doing.
I realize it is very difficult for the Official Opposition Member to speak kindly of the Government, especially considering that it did ignore agriculture for many years. Its advice to the farming community was, expand, expand; spend, spend. Get yourself into a great deal of debt and hopefully you will get out of it. That was the Government advice to the agricultural community for many years. Today, those same farmers who took the advice of the opposition Party when they were in power are the ones who today find themselves in the greatest difficulty.
One of the saddest things that we have to do as Members of Parliament is talk to young farmers who come into our offices looking for assistance. They always say they wish they had not taken the advice of the previous Government and borrowed and spent and got themselves into the position they are in today". The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) should hang his head in shame for the position in which his Government has put many young people in agriculture today. The Conservative Government is trying its best to help alleviate that situation.
I am pleased to outline some of the achievements of the Government. On the matter of the agri-bond program, as was pointed out previously by Hon. Members, the program went before a committee where its proposals were studied. One matter raised before the committee was why anyone would invest in an agri-bond program when he or she could obtain a better deal some place else. Farmers like everyone else will not invest in a program if they can go to the bank and obtain a better interest rate. If the Government must subsidize an agribond program, why should it not be done through the Farm Credit Corporation and its programs? Basically that is what we have done.
As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, when we took office, interest rates were 16.75 per cent. Now they are down to 10.75 per cent. The pressure for an agri-bond program is not the same as it was in 1984.

December 11, 1986
Agri-bond Program
I should also like to refer to the changes in the financing of FCC. The Government has brought these to light and has looked into financing programs for young people and those who are in serious trouble.


Mr. Belsher:: Tell them about the slippage.


James Eber Caldwell: Yes, in an agri-bond program slippage takes place, money is lost, and it requires the setting up of another bureaucracy. Why not do it with existing agencies such as the Farm Credit Corporation?
Some people may not realize just how big is the Canadian agricultural sector. Some 1.6 million Canadian jobs depend upon that sector. It is especially important to western and eastern Canada. Many rural towns especially depend upon the farm community for economic stability. In one way or other agriculture matters to all Canadians.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) pointed out Tuesday to the Outlook Conference, when farmers are hurting, the nation is hurting. The Government understands very well the importance of agriculture. We have demonstrated our commitment to the farm community with action. This is why we responded to the problems facing grain and oilseed farmers with a $1 billion assistance initiative, the Special Canadian Grains Program.
The Hon. Member for Algoma pointed out that there was nothing in the Budget for farmers. I point out to him that not everything has to be in the Budget. Over the next year $1 billion will be in the hands of farmers. The program is the largest single special program ever undertaken on behalf of Canadian farmers. However, it is not the Government's only agricultural initiative, far from it. Since the beginning we have placed agriculture at the top of our list. It was a priority at the last two conferences of First Ministers and in the Speech from the Throne. Agricultural initiatives introduced by the federal Government have contributed to the stability of the farm sector. Our actions have benefited western and eastern farmers-all farmers.
We introduced farm debt review boards. At least one board is operating in each province right now. They have the power to halt foreclosure actions against farmers for up to 120 days. This gives farm families the breathing space they need to negotiate alternatives to foreclosure with their creditors. The boards are in place to help them do that.
We introduced new and more flexible lending programs through the FCC. The commodity-based loan program has proven to be very popular with farmers. It now represents close to half of all new FCC lending. The shared risk program represents 13 per cent of all new lending under the Farm Credit Act. We committed $80 million to writing down rates over five years on about 5,600 high FCC loans.
We also introduced the Canadian Rural Transition Program which, for the first time, extends benefits to farm families that have reached the point where they are financially unable to
continue farming. So far three out of four applications, on average, are being approved.
We introduced a lifetime capital gains tax exemption of up to $500,000 on the sale of farm property. We introduced farm fuel tax rebates which will amount to a savings to farmers of about $160 million over two years. We are pushing harder than ever to sell Canadian grain, and we have met with success. This year we signed a new long term grain sales agreement with the Soviet Union, calling for the purchase of at least 25 million tonnes of Canadian grains. We reached a five year agreement for 2.5 million tonnes with Egypt. We also reached a three year grain deal with Brazil. Nowhere are these achievements on the international grains market more important than in western Canada where most of our grain is produced.
Finally, the approach of the Government has led to lower interest rates. Every one-point decline in interest rates represents an annual savings to the farm community of more than $100 million. Despite our many initiatives on behalf of farmers, we recognize that everything is not right yet. We intend to do more.
We believe that long term stability of the farm community depends upon Governments and farmers working together to plan the future. This is why the national agricultural strategy is so important. Every federal and provincial Minister of Agriculture has endorsed it. The strategy is our blueprint for the future. It is not a detailed plan of action. Rather, it is the framework within which Governments and farmers can work together.
The Government is certainly not ignoring the agricultural sector of Canada. We will continue to bring in programs to benefit farmers across the country, from the East to the West. They can count on us as a Conservative Government to do a good job for them.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great pleasure to speak today on the motion concerning the agri-bond program presented by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of establishing an agribond program that would provide for low-cost loans to hard pressed Canadian food producers.
Essentially I agree and have agreed for some time that some system must be established to take the burden of debt, particularly high interest rates, off the backs of Canadian farm producers. However, I wonder how many Hon. Members remember that five years ago interest rates in Canada reached 22.75 per cent. Since that time we all know that they have come down.
During the debate today it was interesting to hear an Hon. Member opposite talk about commodity loans at 6 per cent, 7 per cent, and 9 per cent, and about some FCC loans presently being as low as 7.5 per cent and 8 per cent. This is not to say that the motion before us is not a good one. I think it is the
December 11, 1986

long term solution to a very difficult cyclical problem experienced by farmers. At times they may be doing well and commodity prices may be doing well. Then they are hit with drought, sometimes repeatedly, or a plague of grasshoppers. A number of such things can happen to them. Suddenly the benefit of the one good year is taken away by four or five bad years. There must be some way to improve the situation, and possibly an agri-bond program could do it.
Let us look at what has happened since the Government took office. Let us look at the trend and direction it has taken. I do this because I think the agri-bond issue is not the priority it was when interest rates were running from 18 per cent to 22 per cent. Although it still should be held high on the agenda and not put on the back burner, the emergency of four years or five years ago does not exist today.
Direct Government payments to producers have increased by more than fourfold, from $659 million in 1980 to an estimated $2.8 billion in 1986. To that $2.8 billion we can add another $1 billion for the 1986-87 fiscal year. One payment comes next spring, $300 million and $700 million. Direct Government payments have been particularly high since 1984. Let me repeat that. Direct Government payments have been particularly high to the farm community, the food producer, since 1984. In 1986, direct payments accounted for more than 10 per cent of total farm cash receipts of the average food producer in Canada. That is increasing and has increased since because of this last pay-out. That is a massive subsidy and a massive direct payment to the food producer, one that I support.
Interest rates at the same time have drastically reduced the carrying costs of farm debts through the farm debt review boards that our Government has established and through the Farm Credit Corporation. There have been write-downs on interest rates. There have been programs jointly put into place and jointly agreed to by the various provinces and the Government. All of those things have worked together to reduce substantially the carrying costs of any debt load a farmer might have.
It is not all roses yet. We know we have problems. We know, for example, that there are farmers still losing ground. Their equity base has eroded completely. Many small businesses are in exactly the same position. I have always considered the family farm as a small business. It is treated that way under the tax system and by the producer himself. The lending institutions have always looked at it that way. There is something very special about a food producer. Without him our whole economy deteriorates and falls apart. It has often been said-I forget who said it-you can burn down a city and you can burn down a town, you can destroy the city and you can destroy the town, but like magic, like mushrooms, they will spring up again somewhere else. But if you destroy the farming community, the land and the farms, the cities will wither and die. That is very true and we all know that.
Agri-bond Program
I wonder whether all Members realize that the total federal and provincial Government expenditures for agriculture have today increased to about $4.5 billion annually.
Let me come to agri-bonds. One of the problems with the agri-bond is how to design the instrument in such a way that it will be attractive either to retiring farmers or to the investment community. As a result, it is taking time to study. Members who have worked on this question recognize the real necessity of an agri-bond system which would take some of the burden off the taxpaying public in the programs that we have established. How do we do it is the question. How will the instrument be sold? How will it be presented to the public in general. Those are the questions to be answered and they are under study. I do not think just because we have not brought in an agri-bond, as we indicated we would, that this concept is dead or that we have put it on the back burner. It is not a priority at this time because interest rates have descended from the 22.75 per cent, the very high of five years ago, to the present levels which have become quite manageable. Many producers have interest rates at the 7 per cent level.
I would like to remind Hon. Members that over $5 billion in credit at reduced interest rates has been provided to farmers in financial difficulty through various federal and provincial programs since 1981, primarily programs designed for refinancing. All steps that are taken are taken with the idea that sometime we may come up with an agri-bond that will take some of the burden away from governments. The majority of farmers in financial difficulty are being financed today by federal and provincial credit agencies.
1 am not sure whether the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap whose motion is before us today would accept the idea that federal and provincial credit agencies should do all of the financing. That seems to be the kind of thing that would sit with the philosophy of the New Democratic Party. In my view, the agri-bond itself would be a private instrument, probably marketed through the chartered banks, credit unions or the financial institutions across Canada, or the financial markets, in some way, listed on the stock exchange. One would hope that that kind of instrument could be developed and that is what we are looking at.
I am rather surprised that the Member put this motion before us when $5 billion in credit at reduced interest rates has been provided to farmers in financial difficulty from various federal and provincial agencies. I see that you want me to wind up, Mr. Speaker, and I will. But let me say one thing. Today the majority of farmers in financial difficulty are being financed by federal and provincial credit agencies. I firmly believe that we will develop an agri-bond in due time.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to get into this debate primarily because of some of the things the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) stated. I want to respond to them before I deal with the agribond issue. He asked the question, I think, rhetorically, do we support the family farm. Let me tell the Hon. Member that

December 11, 1986
Agri-bond Program
that has been a Conservative policy over the years. I do not have to tell him of the popularity of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) who is known throughout Canada. If he goes into a riding such as min,e where century farms abound-I am sure they do not in other parts of the country-and talked to the farmers there he would find that they remember with tremendous affection the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) who was the Agriculture Minister in the Diefenbaker Government some 25 years ago. He was an example of the feelings all members of this party have towards farmers.
Granted, farmers have had a plethora of problems coming at them from all sides; drought and insects in the west, heavy rains in the east and high fuel prices-you name it, the farmers have been bothered by it recently. However, those problems have all been met by a sympathetic Conservative Government, not with the Salmon Arm salute which the former Prime Minister gave, not with the question, why should we try to sell your wheat. They have been met with real answers; cash where it was possible, credit where it was necessary.
I took last week off and drove by car to Des Moines. That is a long drive at this time of year. I took three young men from my constituency. They are all involved in agriculture in one form or another. We went there to sit in on a conference put on by a firm which publishes a magazine called Successful Farming. The conference was called "Adapt 100". When the ad for this conference was first brought to my attention by a young neighbour, a very aggressive, thoughtful and, I think, successful farmer, we looked at it together and decided we should go down, listen in and see what they were doing. We were astounded. They set out 100 new ideas for farmers, 100 ways that farmers could improve their marketing and production. There were ideas to change methods of production. There were ideas covering all aspects of farm life. What a tremendously encouraging sight it was.
The conference was going to be held in a convention centre in Des Moines. That is not a very big city, about the size of Ottawa. Before they were finished they had to move the opening ceremonies to an arena; over 5,500 people came to that conference just to hear the new ideas. They started at seven o'clock in the morning and went through until nine o'clock at night, thirsty and hungry for new ideas.
Some of the things that came out of this conference were very interesting. One thing I learned was that on average 50 per cent of U.S. farm income last year came from government subsidies. I would like to relate a couple of vignettes from which I got a great chuckle. One chap was expounding about farmers producing corn at $50 a tonne and losing money, whereas Mr. Kellogg sold that corn for $3,600 a tonne and you can bet your life he made money. That same corn was sold for birdseed, together with other grains, at $2,800 a tonne. Once again, everyone made money.
I want to deal a little more pointedly with the motion. The issue of farm finances has been one of this Government's highest priorities. Agri-bonds were proposed as a means of providing farm credit at more favourable interest rates. The Government introduced a number of other measures to this end in its short two years of life. Our initial steps to help farmers included reduced interest rates for those FFC borrowers who were locked into higher rates. The shared risk mortgage program has been dealt with at some length. In addition we expanded the mandate of the FCC appeal boards to provide third party review of farm credit loans under foreclosure. We made farmers effectively free of the federal sales tax on farm fuels and increased the maximum advance under the Advanced Payments for Crops Act.
I know that at least one more of my colleagues wants to speak in this debate so I will move quickly. Others have mentioned, and I will not repeat, the federal Budget which announced farm assistance programs and commodity-based mortgages of which my friend from Algoma was so critical. Farmers in my area seem to find some benefit from that program. Then we have the rural transition program. In addition, assistance continues to be provided to farmers through the Western Grain Stabilization Act, the Agriculture Stabilization Act, crop insurance and dairy and other programs of the federal Government. Direct payments to producers under these programs exceeded an estimated $1.5 billion in 1985.
I will close by saying that our commitment to agriculture was reconfirmed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on October 3 when he indicated in this House that he intended to deliver an additional $1 billion into the hands of Canadian farmers. Just this past week he appeared before the Agriculture Outlook Conference with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and announced details of the plan which you and I and others know has been so well received. We are not embarrassed at all over the fact that the agri-bond program is not yet in place. This Government has done a tremendous job for farmers and will continue to do so.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, 1 must commend the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) for his speech. He touched upon many of the points about which I was anxious to speak. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) insinuated in his remarks that if the Government did not adopt this motion it would show that it did not care about farmers. Nothing could be further from the truth and he knows it. He should not use insinuation to get his point across. However, maybe that is what the job of being in opposition is all about. Nonetheless, I can assure all Members of this House that the actions taken by this Government are on the side of farmers and agricultural production.
In the few remaining moments I have I would like to touch upon what we as a Government have done on agriculture in relation to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We have been pushing for the inclusion of agriculture in the new round of negotiations. We have been successful because of the
December 11, 1986

efforts of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in making the issue of agricultural subsidies a major point of discussion at the Tokyo Economic Summit last May. The Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board succeeded in bringing together representatives of the world's five major grain exporting nations in Whistler, B.C., to discuss this issue. The Secretary of State for External Affairs led Canada's delegation to Uruguay for the new GATT round. He, in concert with other nations, successively pushed for inclusion of this item in the GATT round. That is just another example of how this Government is concerned about the welfare of farmers and about what happens in agriculture.
In conclusion, our action plan for agriculture is very clear. The Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings referred to the $1 billion pay-out this week. I can say that we will continue to represent the interests of farmers at the international level and of course here in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ellis):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that you had the benefit of knowing my late father. That is most unfortunate because I know you would have liked him very much. My late father was a man who our friends and colleagues in the New Democratic Party would have described as an ordinary Canadian. To me he was a very extraordinary Canadian, just like your own father, Mr. Speaker, just like millions of other Canadians across this land.
One thing that was dominant in my father's life was his pension plan. His pension plan was extremely important to him and played a major role in all the decisions he made throughout his adult life. That was understandable. I know you will understand that when I tell you that my father worked for one company for more than 40 years. He went through the Great Depression, as did so many others. He knew what it was to work, he knew what it was to be out of work, and he knew what it was to have the fear of a lack of financial security. That fact was a great influence in his life. Financial security and his pension were always important to him because he had lived through the Depression.
Adjournment Debate
In addition, he lived through the Second World War. He knew the problems of financial security and the lack of financial security which resulted from the Second World War. He knew the problems of widows and children who had no breadwinner in the family and had no financial security.
Throughout his entire adult life he worked with people from similar backgrounds, people who had the same concerns and experiences, people who knew the problems of a lack of financial security. He knew as well of the financial security, concerns and problems of single women because he supervised a great number of women. At that time the women in the workforce were mainly single women. Women were and still are underpaid and still lack adequate pension plans. It was most important to them to have at least a modest form of pension plan. That financial security was an essential cornerstone of their existence. My father knew as well of run-away inflation which ate into savings and pension plans and turned them into a very modest sum compared to the work done to save for retirement.
In addition, he knew the background of his ancestors, his father, his grandfather and his great grandfather. In the history of our family people have died in abject poverty because there were no pension plans, there was no security. It was through the combination of all these influences on my own father's life and, through him, on my own life, that I understand, just as he did, how important pension plans were and are and what a major role and priority pensions play in the lives of so many people.
I know your father, Mr. Speaker, would feel devastated, as my father would, if suddenly his pension plan collapsed or failed. That is something on which you and I, Sir, as guardians of federal pension plans, must keep a very close eye. I am concerned, and I am sure you are as well, Mr. Speaker, that two banks have gone under just in the last short while. That is why, again, it is so important that all pension plans under federal supervision be properly looked after and policed.
The Auditor General has given us a warning that there is some problem and we have to be on our guard that perhaps these pension plans are not being adequately policed. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves, for instance, about the lack of on-site inspections, the question of proper appraisals, investments, real estate or mortgages, about loan concentration problems and why 16 financial institutions under federal control and supervision have failed since 1980. Those are all questions we must be concerned about. I know you are just as concerned, Mr. Speaker, as myself.
We are happy that our own Department of Insurance is coming out with a new Pension Benefits Standards Act as of the first of the year. We are happy that all of the ways of looking after these things are being reviewed, but at the same time we want to make sure they do an even better job than they have been doing. I hope tonight we will receive assurances from the Parliamentary Secretary that those pension plans of

December 11, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Canadian senior citizens which are supervised by the federal Government will be adequately protected not only for today but for years and years to come.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in answering the question and comments by my hon. colleague, I would first like to stress that those plans mentioned by my colleague, the pension plans, are examined when they are tabled. Secondly, they are reviewed at least every three years or at even shorter intervals. Such examinations involve ascertaining that those plans meet legal requirements, assessing actuarial liabilities and reviewing the assets of those pension plans to make sure that they are properly run.
The report of the Auditor General actually refers to another inspection program, an on-site inspection program as opposed to the review program I just mentioned. Admittedly, on-site inspections are not carried out by the Department of Insurance in the case of every plan. But the program has been giving very satisfactory results to date, and there have obviously been fewer on-site inspections than for the rest.
The Auditor General clearly raised a number of questions dealing with the inspection practices of the Department of Insurance with respect to the supervision of pension plans. At that stage, the Department of Insurance, as you know, Mr. Speaker, initiated a study to get the facts and verify the allegations of the Auditor General.
That study would include a detailed cost-benefit analysis of increased supervision, based on the fact that most of the cost of that increased supervision will be assumed by the pension plans themselves in the form of registration fees required by the law.
We know, Mr. Speaker, and no doubt my hon. colleague knows that 95 per cent of the contributors of those pension plans under federal control contribute to specific benefit systems. If the investment performance of the plan does not meet the actuarial projections, the employer has an obligation to complement the assets portfolio so that adequate provision is made for the payment of benefits.
I therefore think that this should alleviate the concerns raised in the remarks of my hon. colleague. He also knows that the Government is presently drafting changes in the federal pension plans legislation.
A number of changes have already been introduced and will result in improved survivors' benefits, pension transferability as well as a faster devolution of pension rights.
These explanations, Mr. Speaker, should take care of all the concerns expressed by my hon. colleague.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTERVENE TO REINSTATE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM IN KANASETAKE INDIAN BAND
Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, on October 30 I put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) about a particular problem at the Kanasetake Reserve in Oka. The reserve is now referred to as Kanasetake. Before, it was Oka, and I say this for the benefit of those who might not have been aware of the change.
Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister whether he had the authority to intervene in matters concerning the manner in which the band's chief and council members are elected and how they administer the band.
The Minister replied that he did not intervene or interfere with the elections or customs of the Indian government of the Oka band.
Mr. Speaker, what happens when there are two factions with totally different positions and there is a tie? Who decides? Does the Minister intervene to "split the band" or does he try and find out what the problem is with the system?
Mr. Speaker, I have here a submission that was presented to me by representatives of the Kanasetake Indian League for Democracy, which says: That in 1979, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had recognized a hereditary system according to the Custom & Hereditary Chief formula, with 81 people who raised their hands in the hall, although there were 270 members who were eligible to vote present. That is what that this group had to say.
The band council, elected according to the hereditary system, says that they were duly elected according to the system they had always had, and that after elections were held in 1971 and 1979, the Indians who were against the system went to court. There were a number of problems with provincial court that heard the case, and later, they said: No, this is a federal matter, and so forth. On November 12, the same clan mothers decided to unseat the big chief they had elected, and the band members who were not aware of this-there might be a communications problem-but they were not aware of this at all, and, Mr. Speaker, as I explained earlier, they came to see me and asked me to intervene. I will read the last paragraph of the letter which says, in English, and I quote:
On behalf of the Oka Band Members who have signed this petition, I will appreciate this matter being addressed to the House of Commons without undue delay, from the viewpoint of acquiring government recognition of the fact that the people of Oka, no longer, cannot nor will not tolerate a dictatorship and are in desperate need of government assistance to entrench the democratic process once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was told 230 members of the Kanasetake Band had signed the petition, out of 537 registered members. The petition reads as follows:
December 11, 1986

"We, the undersigned, members of the Kanasetake Reserve, would like to select candidates for the big chiefs position and for other chief positions that will be available in the future. We also want to be able to have a say in the final selection and also in the term of the chiefs mandate".
Mr. Speaker, it seems important to me that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) should be involved in an issue as basic as democracy when a dispute seriously divides a community plagued with economic conditions of a most prejudicial nature because many of its members live on welfare and there are no jobs. The Kanasetake Band does not live on a reservation as defined by the Indian Act. This is rather a federal land. This fact has given rise to various problems because they would like to be recognized and have their own territory.
Recently a decision was made and their land claim is now completed.
Now I would like the Minister to tell us what he intends to do about solving once and for all the problem raised by the Kanasetake Band's election system and since a new chief has just been elected it would perhaps be possible and I am looking forward to a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault) has raised a question about the Kanesatake Band system of local government and more specifically the method of selecting the chief and council. The present system of government, which is sometimes referred to as the life chiefs system, is rooted in the customs and traditions of the Iroquois confederacy and is viewed by many band members as a vital link with the Mohawk cultural tradition and a guarantee that the future maintenance of Mohawk identity will continue.
The band members opposed to the traditional chiefs' system are of the opinion that such a system is elitist and that it perpetrates the domination of the band membership by a few individuals. It should be noted, however, that the current system was adopted voluntarily by the majority of the band membership in 1969. Therefore, the solution for which the Hon. Member is looking lies within that system. It is the right and prerogative of the band members to amend or reject the current system by an additional majority vote.
As has been stated in the House, it is inappropriate for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) to interfere in any of the band affairs or to attempt to alter unilaterally its elective system. With respect to the Kanesatake Band there is also a compelling legal reason restricting ministerial action on the band's elective system. The lands occupied by the Kanesatake Band known as the Oka Reserve were purchased by the federal Government in 1945 for use by the band. However, strictly speaking the lands are federal Crown lands, not reserve lands, although they are
Adjournment Debate
commonly referred to as such. Therefore, the election provisions in the Indian Act, which apply only to reserve lands, cannot be invoked in this case.
As mentioned earlier, not only would a ministerial intervention be inappropriate, but the Minister is not in a legal position to take direct action to solve these difficulties. Officials are prepared to continue to work with the various factions in the band to seek a solution. The Minister is sympathetic to the difficult situation faced by the band, and would like to see a successful and early resolution of the problem. However, it must be recognized that the initiative to change is essentially in the hands of the band membership itself.


COMMUNICATIONS-VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS-RADIO LICENCE FEES
Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, on June 26, 1986, the then Minister of Communications tabled legislation in the House which would require that federal and provincial government departments, agencies and municipalities, pay radio station licence fees on the same basis as private users. The consequences of this measure were not immediately apparent, but in due course they became known.
The many volunteer fire departments throughout Canada were included with those organizations which were going to be required to foot the bill for these changes. It was my feeling that those volunteer agencies could not afford this, and it should not be required.
In the course of the next few weeks, while continuing to receive more and more requests from unhappy volunteers, I made representations to the Hon. Minister on behalf of my constituents, and indeed all of Canada's volunteer firemen. Local fire departments and municipalities began a concerted effort to convince the Department of Communications that this measure was neither beneficial nor cost effective for our many volunteer fire departments.
Many of them passed resolutions such as the following:
WHEREAS fast, dependable communications are necesssary for municipal police, fire and public works departments and are demanded by the public they serve;
AND WHEREAS two-way radio plays a vital role in the communication network of most Nova Scotia municipal units;
AND WHEREAS a news release dated June 26, 1986 from the office of the Minister of Communications (distributed to N.S. municipal units by the Halifax office of DOC on September 9, 1986) stated that starting April 1, 1987 municipalities, along with provincial government departments, will pay radiolicence fees on the same basis as private users;
AND WHEREAS this will result in a 400 per cent annual increase to the cost of obtaining radio licenses;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities requests the Government of Nova Scotia to do everything possible to attempt to have the Department of Communications reverse their policy of license fee increases;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities forward its concern over this unfair cost increase to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for support at the national level.

December 11, 1986
Adjournment Debate
The small municipalities and the volunteer fire deparments are the focal points for many of our rural communities. These dedicated citizens who devote so much of their time to public service certainly deserve and indeed have been assured of this Government's support and encouragement.
In the Throne Speech we promised further support to encourage the growth of volunteerism in our society. The proposed increases in radio licence fees would have averaged 400 per cent in Nova Scotia. I received 18 written submissions from volunteer fire departments within my riding seeking my co-operation and assistance in opposing these increases.
At the conclusion of the many strong representations made to the Hon. Minister in the House last Monday, I asked whether or not she had been able to resolve this matter. I was very pleased to hear her response, which I shall read:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for South West Nova for his representations on this issue. Indeed, I have received representations on the issue from a number of other Members.
I should like to advise him and the House that I have decided to defer for the time being any changes to the regulations as they apply to radio licence fees for municipalities and volunteer fire departments.
I should like to commend the Hon. Minister and the Department of Communications for accepting the recommendations made on the matter. Indeed it is gratifying that the outstanding efforts of many volunteer firemen have been acknowledged in this way.
Since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Mailly) is present in the Chamber this evening, I ask her to make a few comments on the subject.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the question of my colleague. As the Minister said in response to his question of December 1, she gave serious consideration to his representations and concluded that she would not change anything to the preferential treatment now given to municipalities, therefore to volunteer fire departments in the communities represented by the Hon. Member and in other localities throughout Canada.
The Hon. Member had asked the Minister whether she would be prepared to refrain from taking regulatory measures likely to increase municipal radio licence fees. If I understand correctly, the Hon. Member's question specifically related to volunteer firemen, and his concern was due to the existence of the Bill which had been introduced in June and to which my colleague was referring.
First I should like to point out that Bill C-3 which will probably come up for second reading tomorrow and which has already been studied by the Senate has nothing to do with regulations governing municipalities and volunteer fire departments. Therefore he should not worry. This Bill has nothing to do with municipal preferential treatment. It is simply a matter of making the provinces and federal Government departments pay their share of radio licence fees. Until now, Mr. Speaker, both these groups had been exempted and Bill C-3 concerns them, not the municipalities.
The Minister will be holding consultations precisely to decide just how municipalities should fare with respect to the cost recovery operation mentioned by the Minister of Finance in November 1984. Clearly the Minister does not want to create problems for smaller municipalities and she understands quite well the importance of volunteer fire departments as well as the services they provide to thousands of small municipalities throughout Canada. Therefore, she will show the greatest responsibility and compassion before deciding what to do regulation-wise concerning municipalities. But it is not for today and it has nothing to do with Bill C-3. I should like to assure my honourable colleague that the Minister has duly received his representations and indeed, she has personally congratulated him for the effort he is making on behalf of his constituents.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 6.29 p.m. the House adjourned.

Friday, December 12, 1986