1986-06-26

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour to lay upon the Table copies of a document entitled "White Paper on Election Law Reform" in both official languages.
After the other documents have been tabled I would like to rise on a point of order with respect to the disposition of this report.


PETITIONS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the response of the Government to 18 petitions as follows: 331558, 331-561, 331-576 to 331-579 inclusive, 331-585, 331-595 to 331-602 inclusive, 331-613, 331-617 and 331-641.


ELECTIONS, PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURE REFERENCE OF WHITE PAPER ON ELECTION LAW REFORM TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among the Parties and I think Your Honour would find a disposition to accept the following order by unanimous consent and to pass it without debate. It is as follows:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, the document entitled "White Paper on Election Law Reform", laid upon the Table earlier this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure; and
That the same Committee shall make its Final report thereon not later than Wednesday, October 8, 1986.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker,
I too rise on a point of order. We have no difficulties with this matter as long as a commitment is given that the hearings will start in September and not before.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have informally discussed the agenda with the critics of each of the Parties. It has been agreed that the summer be used for the receiving of submissions and petitions with respect to the White Paper, but that the formal hearings of the committee and its deliberations not take place until September.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Tom Hockin (London West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the final report of the Special Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations in both official languages.
This report is the culmination of one year's work carried on by both Houses of Parliament. The committee presented an interim report on August 23 with regard to the invitation for Canada to participate in the SDI and on the question of bilateral trade relations with the United States. Most of what the committee had to say on these specific questions was said at that time.
Today we present our final report on the broad spectrum of Canada's international relations. You will find here, Mr. Speaker, 120 recommendations and conclusions related to amplifying Canada's influence internationally, safe-guarding peace and security, expanding trade, aiding international development, promoting human rights, improving relations on a broad front with the United States and other countries, and developing a northern dimension for Canada's foreign policy. We commend it to the attention of the House.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that since members of the New Democratic Party who sat on the committee were not able to

June 26, 1986
Committee Reports
append a statement to the report which has just been tabled we will be issuing one later today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS-FOURTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2) the committee requests that the Government provide a comprehensive response.
The committee is of the opinion that the Department of Finance was negligent in its management of the SRTC program. The program never performed as intended and emerged as a costly tax loop-hole. At last count the Crown faces uncollectable taxes in excess of $900 million.
The consultation process was neither well planned nor comprehensive and resulted in an unanticipated demand for SRTCs. The quick flip procedure and inadequate definition of and control over qualifying research activity encouraged abuse, reduced the funds available for genuine research and created bad debts to the Crown.
The committee believes that certain important danger signals were in evidence very early and that the Department of Finance failed to establish from the outset an evaluation framework to be aware of and to respond to problems as they developed.
It is the view of the committee that Parliament must be informed of changes in the interpretation of tax expenditure legislation and the estimated costs of every major tax expenditure program.


FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS-FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
The report is an addendum to the committee's report of November 6 last dealing with financial institutions generally. The committee confirms the terms of that report, but adds amendments to recommendations in the report to deal with the situation in which non-financial companies gain control of financial companies. It is the committee's view that this type of activity is wrong, that it seriously impairs the security of depositors and that it is an unfair abuse of the financial system. The committee believes that ownership beyond 30 per cent by a non-financial company of a financial company should be barred.


SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY-FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Science, Research and Technology I have the privilege of presenting the committee's first report in both official languages.
In accordance with the committee's mandate under Standing Order 96, the committee has heard evidence from industries concerned in relation to the process used by Revenue Canada to define scientific research and development for tax purposes. Your committee has considered the effects of the guidelines on industry and on research and technology policy in Canada. As a result, your committee therefore recommends that Revenue Canada release the draft guidelines for scientific research and experimental development to allow industry to have a 60-day consultation period before the guidelines are finally determined.


STRIKING COMMITTEE-FORTY-FIRST REPORT
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Forty-first Report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to raise a point of order with you today. I have sought the advice of the Chair and the Table on this point and I would like to make sure I understand what is at hand.
This morning, we heard some reports being tabled and a request was made of the Government to respond to the reports under Standing Order 99(2). Within 120 days of tabling a report, the Government should give a comprehensive response to it.
What happens to those requests if prorogation of the House were to happen in September, for example? Is it an Order of the House and is it therefore within the rights of committee members to expect the Government to follow through with a response within 120 days as agreed or, on the other hand, does the prorogation of the House interrupt Standing Order 99(2) so that the requests would cease with the prorogation of the House?
I wonder if you would address that question, Mr. Speaker, because of its importance to many of us. There are a half a dozen reports now requiring a comprehensive response and I would like to know what the ruling would be.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. The only answer I can give him at the moment is that I must reserve. I simply do not know the answer to that question. I would be happy to reserve on it and return to the House with an answer.
June 26, 1986


PETITIONS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by several dozen constituents of Thessalon, Ontario, expressing their concern over the operation of the Morgentaler clinic in Toronto.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the work done by Mr. Flynn from Kamloops I am presenting a number of petitions from people who are concerned about the Government's decision to include various types of income when calculating UI benefits including pension income, particularly for people in the RCMP and the armed forces. The petitioners are simply asking the Government to reconsider this punitive situation in which they have been asked to pay into insurance programs knowing that they cannot collect if they are in the armed forces and other groups.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition from about 100 residents of the community of Sweaburg in the constituency of Oxford who are objecting to and opposing the construction of an 800-foot television tower in their community without hearing the views of the people of that community. They humbly pray and ask Parliament to halt the construction of this tower until those proper hearings in the community can be carried out.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present some 34 additional petitions in the effort of many constituents of Ottawa-Vanier, residents of the National Capital Region and visitors to our city to have the grounds of the Governor General's residence open to the public. I know that there has been some improvement in the situation today. The door is ajar a bit, but in the name of the petitioners I would like to ask the Government to review the decision and to consult with the group of citizens representing thousands of constituents and citizens of Canada who want to enjoy the grounds of the Governor General at the same time as maintaining the security of the Governor General.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-292, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (life imprisonment).
Intoduction of Bills
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting to the House what I believe is a unique option to amending the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to the very emotionally charged issue of capital punishment for various degrees of murder, and in particular first-degree murder or second-degree murder where the murderer had previously been convicted of culpable homicide.
This Bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code by eliminating parole of any kind for those convicted of the above-mentioned crimes. That is, life imprisonment will mean for the rest of his or her natural life without parole.
What is new in this Bill is that an option will be given to a convicted murderer to take his or her own life within 90 days of a final appeal process by a self-administered, orally ingested lethal substance.
The Bill also increases the minimum punishment for high treason or second-degree murder from 10 years to 25 years.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member 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. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-123, an Act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, the Foreign Insurance Companies Act and the Winding-Up 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. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-124, an Act to amend the Radio Act.

June 26, 1986
Business of the House


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.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



RAILWAY ACT


Marcel Masse: for leave to introduce Bill C-125, an Act to amend the Railway 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.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1986 MEASURE TO ENACT

Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-126, an Act respecting national transportation.


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.

Donald Frank Mazankowski: for leave to introduce Bill C-127, an Act respecting extraprovincial motor vehicle transport.


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. Jake Epp (for the Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-128, an Act to amend the Judges Act and other Acts in relation to judicial matters.


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.

Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. Is he able to give some sort of explanation of why so much legislation is being introduced the day before the House rises for the summer recess?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I will have to take that question as notice. I will be pleased to get back to my colleague as soon as possible.


QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that Question No. 554 will be answered today.

June 26, 1986


MEDICAL DEVICES
Mr. Young: 1.	(a) In (i) 1980 (if) 1981 (iii) 1982 (iv) 1983 (v) 1984 (vi) 1985, how many accidents involving the use of medical devices were reported to the Bureau of Medical Devices (A) how many were reported by the product manufacturer or supplier and by hospitals or physicians and other medical practitioners (c) how many reported accidents resulted in (i) physical injury (if) death?
2.	Did the Bureau investigate each reported accident and, if not how many were investigated?
3.	Did the Bureau initiate criminal prosecutions as a result of the investigations and, if so, how many?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1 (a) For the six years requested, the numbers of reported device related incidents are:
Number of reports received:
0) 1980	(ii) 1981	(iii) 1982	(iv) 1983	(v) 1984	(vi) 1985182	285	239	244	324	347(b)	(i) 1980	(ii) 1981	(iii) 1982	(iv) 1983	(v) 1984	(vi) 1985Reported by:	Product Manufacturers or suppliers	8	7	3	2	13	35Hospitals	19	37	40	39	127	78Physicians	12	26	48	86	32	94Other medical staff	110	174	111	89	121	112General Public	33	41	37	28	31	28
(c) (i) and (ii) The classification system for reported accidents includes those that actually resulted in death or physical injury and those that have the potential to do so. The system addresses actual and potential accidents equally but does not differentiate between the two.
2.	Every reported accident is investigated but the depth and completeness of each investigation depends upon the severity of the hazard and the assigned priority.
3.	Criminal prosecution constitutes only one of a range of ! possible remedial and corrective measures available to the
Bureau. Over the six-year period in question the Bureau has implemented all of the following measures, except criminal prosecution:
Order for Return
Remedial Measures	Addressed to
A.	Advisory measures, including:
1.	Medical Devices Alerts
2.	HPB Information Letters
3.	Safety Guidelines
4.	Standards
5.	Individual letters
6.	Scientific publications
B.	Directives or recommendations for device improvements or manufacturing changes.
C.	Directives or recommendations for labelling improvements.
D.	Regulatory and compliance measures including:
1.	stop sale by manufacturer
2.	recall or corrective action
3.	seizure of stock
4.	refused entry to Canada
5.	criminal prosecution
Manufacturers
To transfer technological know-how developed by the Bureau, to suggest new methodologies, to advise on compliance with the Act and regulations, etc.
Users
To make users aware of hazards, to correct misunderstandings, to provide education and training to prevent misuse and human error.
Manufacturers, when the Bureau considers the hazard or ineffectiveness to arise from design errors or improper manufacturing.
Manufacturers, where the directions for use or other labelling are considered inadequate.
Manufacturers, when a serious and present hazard is discovered, or cooperation is not forthcoming, or the device is fraudulent, etc.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 370 could be made an Order for Return, the Return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 370 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Malepart: 1.	In (a) Canada (ft) each province (c) each municipality (d) each regional country, what amounts were (t) spent in 1984 (ii) allocated for 1985 under the Residential Rehabilitation Assitance Program for the rural or urban segment of the program?
2.	In (a) Canada (ft) each province, what amounts were (0 spent in 1984 (ii) allocated for 1985 for co-operative housing under the RRAP program?
3.	Under the Rental Assistance Plan, what amounts were (a) spent in (i) 1983 (ii) 1984 (ft) allocated for 1985 in each province?
4.	(a) Under the program provided for in Section 56.1 of the National Housing Act, how many housing units were built in each province in 1984 (A) what amount was (i) spent in 1984 (ii) allocated in 1985, in each province and in Canada, for public housing, co-operative housing and non-profit organizations?
Return tabled.

June 26, 1986
Order Paper Questions


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C- 111, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff and to amend an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, last evening I began my comments on Bill C-l 11 by saying that the Government reacted to the American tariff on shakes and shingles by imposing a tariff on books and on computer parts such as semiconductors and chips. The Government picked up the gun but forgot to aim. As a result, we shot ourselves in the foot; the Government shot Canadians in the foot.
I should like to refer to the thrust of the comments of industry representatives who spoke at the time the retaliatory tariff was announced. They appeared before the legislative committee, and in essence the thrust of their comments was: "Protect us from ourselves". A few more shots like this in the foot, and the whole country will be limping much more seriously than it is at present.
I think it is important to make some thorough comments at third reading stage of the Bill. Very little attention was paid to it as it went through the various stages in the House. At second reading, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent) devoted two whole sentences to the tariff. He offered no justification or explanation. No one spoke in favour of the tariff in committee, not a single person. Of course it was an expedited committee hearing. I have had an opportunity to look at yesterday's edition of Hansard, and not one Member spoke in favour of this tariff. In fact, not even one member of the Conservative Party intervened in the debate.
The average Canadian assumes that Parliament is here to serve Canadians. The average Canadian assumes that when the Government introduces a measure in the House and when Parliament acts, it is designed to help Canadians and the Canadian economy. The average Canadian assumes that it is designed to provide jobs or some tangible benefit for Canadians. However, it should be clearly understood by all Members of the House and by all Canadians that the tariff on books and on computer parts such as computer chips will hurt Canadians.
It will hurt Canadian consumers, Canadian workers, Canadian companies, and the Canadian Government. It does not achieve any recognizable objective.
The Government is imposing a tariff on computer chips and other parts as part of a so-called retaliation to the American tariff on cedar shakes and shingles. One might think that this will help manufacturers or companies. One might think that if a tariff is imposed on imported computer parts and chips, it will allow domestic manufacturers to be more competitive and it will increase the sales of Canadian firms. That is not true, because we do not manufacture any substantial quantity here in Canada.
Mr. Gordon Gow of the Canadian Advanced Technology Association appeared before the legislative committee on Bill C-l 11. He indicated that up to 80 per cent of the manufacturing parts and components used by the Canadian industry come into Canada from foreign sources. All the Bill does is increase costs to Canadian manufacturers. In reply to a question by a member of the committee who asked whether the Bill would diminish the competitiveness of Canadian manufacturers outside Canada, Mr. Gow replied: "Absolutely". He was asked again whether he believed that the tariff would stimulate the development of an industry here in Canada which would build these products, and he answered as follows:
No, I think if anything it will stimulate the extraction of some of these businesses to other locations to do the manufacturing.
It will lead to an exodus of manufacturing from Canada. Manufacturing which could be done here will be done in other countries because costs to Canadian manufacturers are being increased. This tariff will raise costs to Canadian manufacturers who have no choice but to pass them on to consumers. It will also affect the competitiveness of Canadian companies. If they are required to raise their prices in order to pay the tariff, their prices will be less competitive vis-a-vis their competitors. It will hurt sales. It will hurt jobs. We even heard some indication that it might lead to the loss of some companies, to the closing of some companies.
It bears repeating what Mr. Gow said before the committee. He said:
I do not see how this Bill C-111 does us any good. It is entirely a lose, lose, lose situation.
What I mean is that the government loses, the Canadian consumer loses, and the industry loses. The government loses on the basis that I do not believe it meets the objectives of the bill, the industry loses because it keeps us from being competitive, and the Canadian consumers lose because they now have increased costs.
It is quite remarkable that when this so-called retaliation was announced by the Government I got a call from a reporter for The Washington Post. It is not often that a Member of the Canadian Parliament gets a call from a member of The Washington Post. This journalist, who is based in Toronto, asked me what the explanation was for this Bill. He could not believe it, nor could he understand it. I tried as best as I could to explain the Government's rationale. I could hear the guy
June 26, 1986

laughing at the other end of the line. Indeed, I could hear the laughter all the way from Washington when this Government declared a counter attack that hurts Canadians more than it hurts Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear: Canadians ought to know that this response, these reprisals are going to cost them a lot of money. About $80 million will be paid by the Canadian consumer as a result of this tariff on books and computer parts and chips. This was made very clear by all representatives from the industry who appeared before the legislative committee that examined this Bill, and it was indeed said by those same representatives when the Government's decision was announced. They said that this decision would do Canadians a more harm than the Americans. Why? Because these goods, these computer parts and chips, are not manufactured in Canada. Canadian companies are obliged to order their supplies from the United States. They have no choice, Since we have no major Canadian industry that would be able to fill these orders. These companies will be obliged to increase their costs and to transfer those costs to the consumer, and this, as I said earlier, is going to affect the competitive position of Canadian companies.

I suppose one has to ask why are we doing this. Why are we imposing a tariff on Canadian computer chips and parts, a measure which will cost Canadians and will cost Canadian jobs. The only answer I could come up with is that we are paying for the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) education, albeit an imperfect one at that. His reaction when the President of the United States imposed the tariff on cedar shakes and shingles was exceedingly strong if you remember, Mr. Speaker. It reminded me a bit of a lover's spat. I think it demonstrates what we have been saying all along, that the Government and the Prime Minister have entered into these negotiations under false pretenses. They have entered into the negotiations assuming that by cosying up to the President, by being friends with the President and by supporting the President's initiatives in foreign policy and in many other areas we would somehow get an advantage which would translate into a trade negotiation, a deal that would be to Canada's advantage.
Lately, however, we have seen the Prime Minister say that he is prepared to walk away from a bad deal. But he contradicts himself. He says that he is putting his job on the line, that the next election will be fought on trade. When the Prime Minister puts so much importance into one single issue, when he says that his future rests on it, that the future of his Government rests on it and that he is prepared to fight the next election on it, I challenge anyone in this House to tell me whether that language supports the PM's other statement that he is prepared to walk away from a bad deal. I say the two statements are totally contradictory, that the Prime Minister, because he is staking his whole credibility on this trade
Customs Tariff
negotiation, will be willing to do anything and to give up anything in order to arrive at a deal to salvage his credibility.
It is from contradictions of this nature, from an incoherent negotiating strategy, that we arrived at this decision which, as I have tried to explain, will hurt Canadians and will not help our negotiating position one iota. If this will help Canadians and our negotiating position, why did not even one Member of the Conservative Party either at second reading, in committee or at third reading stand up to defend this Bill? That does not make any sense, Mr. Speaker.
This measure confirms also what we have tried to say, time and time again on our side of the House, that trade is not enough, that it is no substitute for the appropriate policies in the area of education, training and research. I invite you, Sir, to have look at today's editorial cartoon in The Citizen here in Ottawa. The editorialist captures the problem far better than anyone else. The cartoon is headed:
"Canada Prepares For the Launch into Free Trade-"
The cartoon shows a Canadian under a crane with a whole series of weights being placed on his head burdening him down. The first weight entitled:	"Reduced education
spending". The second weight is entitled "Reduced scientific research", and the third weight which is being lowered onto the head of this unsuspecting member of the Canadian public is entitled "U.S. Book Tariff'. We could add many other weights, including the weight about which I have been talking, the additional tariff on computer chips and parts. Of course this unsuspecting Canadian, a person who is supposed to represent all Canadians, is reading a piece of paper upside down which says "So long dummy". That is the way we are launching and preparing ourselves for free trade, by burdening Canadians with a series of weights that will only prevent us from competing in this global market.
In conclusion, if there is any lesson for Canadians to learn through the imposition of this tariff it is that it is not enough to defend ourselves against the U.S. Government, that we must defend ourselves against our own Government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speake, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-111. This is a very important Bill, as you well know. It has the potential to do great and wonderful things, but I am afraid it fails to do them. One of our problems in this House is that we seem to name our Bills incorrectly. The title of Bill C- 111 is "An Act to amend the Customs Tariff and to amend An Act to amend the Customs Tariff'. That does not tell us very much. I think a more appropriate title would be "An Act that Gives the Impression that Canada is Helping the Caribbean Countries and an Act to Close Down Many Medium and Small Canadian Businesses doing Work in the Computer Chips and Computer Parts Industries". That would be a more descriptive title for the Bill and would outline what this Bill does.

June 26, 1986
Customs Tariff
Bill C-lll is broken down into three parts. I will leave to another debate the latter part which extends the time limit for dealing with pornography. I would like to spend some time discussing the first two parts of this Bill.
The first part is presumably designed to help trade between Canada and the Caribbean countries. When the Prime Minister was in the Caribbean he made glowing speeches about how Canada would work closely with its Caribbean brothers and sisters to assist them in developing their economies and provide trade opportunities which hitherto did not exist between those countries and Canada. There were all sorts of toasts and glowing comments made and editorials written. It was going to be wonderful. We then saw the introduction of Bill C-lll which gives the impression that Canada is opening up its trade door with the Caribbean countries when in fact it really does not do that. This Bill leaves out some very critical products.
You have travelled extensively, Mr. Speaker, and probably know the Caribbean as well as anyone. Industries in the Caribbean often include textile factories, garment factories, footwear factories and leather products. Not surprisingly, these are all exempt. This Bill says that we are not interested in trade in these particular areas. The products which have been exempted are those which are most extensively produced. By exempting those we are saying that we are not particularly interested.
However, that is not the onerous part of this Bill. Bill C-lll has a value added clause. The Government likes the value added concept and plans to introduce it across Canada in the next few months. It may be renamed "the business transfer tax", but the Government likes the idea of value added. Presumably that is why the Government suggested we would have free trade in items from the Caribbean if there is a 60 per cent value added to the product in the Caribbean country. That is extremely problematic because, of the products manufactured in the Caribbean countries, a great deal often come from offshore and it is very difficult to produce up to a 60 per cent value added.
The European countries have what they call very punitive value added measures which apply to the Caribbean countries. They normally apply approximately 50 per cent. The United States has applied a 35 per cent value added criterion. While presumably trying to assist the people in these countries, Canada has added 60 per cent which will prohibit a great number of commodities from being imported into Canada.
It is very clear that this Bill was hastily, and perhaps even thoughtlessly, designed. My friend, the Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon) suggested in the legislative committee that we ask some representatives from the Caribbean countries how they feel about this part of Bill C-lll. Members of the government Party said there was no time for that. We, therefore, made a few phone calls. We spoke to people in the embassies. The Jamaican people indicated that this would not help them much at all. They were not certain it would provide any assistance. They were quite disappointed because they,
along with a number of other countries in the Caribbean, had made special requests, particularly with regard to allowing the exportation of various alcohols to Canada. There has been no action taken on this. When one thinks of the Caribbean one often thinks of the rum which is made there from local materials.
Another item of major import importance is cigars. However, we have increased excise taxes on cigars to negate any advantage that a tariff relief would give to these particular commodities. The representatives of the Caribbean countries are voicing disappointment that this is the result of the great initiative of the federal Government of Canada.
Small and medium-sized Canadian businesses in the computer chip and computer parts industries were just getting nicely off the ground. We were beginning to trade very effectively as a result of an agreement signed earlier this year with Japan and the United States which allowed the free interchange of computer chips and parts. That was welcomed by the industry. It was proclaimed as a major step forward which would provide a whole range of new market opportunities for our fledgling Canadian businesses in these areas. However, Bill C-lll is now going to turn this intiative around by increasing duties on computer chips and parts. Why would we totally reverse ourselves in a matter of weeks? The reason is that the Government has decided it will get the United States, that it will show the United States how tough we are by closing down a number of our businesses. That is not the approach many of us expected from the Government.
The Government was caught up by the tariff on shakes and shingles levied by the United States. From the record it is very clear that while the pressures were mounting in the United States to launch a petition against the shakes and shingles industry our Government did nothing. Day after day in the House of Commons a number of people raised the matter and asked the Government what it was doing. The Members opposite simply said that they had faith that President Reagan would not do this nasty thing to our shakes and shingles industry. I remember the Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) in particular saying that. It was incredulous that he would have faith that the President of the United States would look out for our shakes and shingles industry. Apparently the Government did, because when the tariff was imposed the Prime Minister was caught totally off guard. He wrote a little letter of outrage, after the fact.
The Government wondered how it could retaliate against the Americans. It decided to break the agreement with the United States which allowed for duty-free importation between our countries of computer chips and parts. The effect of this is very clear.
The committee heard witnesses on this issue. One was Mr. Gordon Gow of the Canadian Advanced Technology Association who is also the President of Gandalf Systems Group. He said quite bluntly that he did not see how Bill C-lll does us any good. He went on to say that it is entirely a lose, lose, lose situation. The Government loses, the consumer loses, and the
June 26, 1986

industry loses. This comes from the top spokesperson in this area.
We heard from Mr. Allan Aiken of the Canadian Semiconductor Design Association. He gave estimates in the committee which indicated that the cut-back in profitability as a result of these so-called retaliatory tariffs could end up putting some of these important semiconductor products right out of business. Mr. George Best, President of the Canadian Business Equipment Manufacturers Association, said that the previous tripartite agreement with the United States was a very good agreement which his members supported, but that they were dismayed at the reimposition of Canadian tariffs on computer parts and semiconductors. The witnesses from the industries said that this was a total lose situation.
When witnesses come before the committee and say those things, when everyone from the private sector who has spoken out on this Bill has said it is a disaster, when members of the Opposition stand in their places here and in committee and try to point out what the Bill is going to do to Canadian business, we listen very carefully to hear someone from the Government benches rise and explain how this is good for Canada. If it is going to hurt Canadian companies, lay off Canadian workers and knock us out of international markets, why are we doing it?
I plead with my friends opposite, with members of the Cabinet who are here today, to stop this nonsense. We have to rethink this Bill. Unless I hear a single person opposite rise and say this is a good idea, I just cannot imagine that later today we are going to vote on this Bill because it is in the best interests of Canada. I thought it was our job to pass legislation to assist Canadians, provide job opportunities and assist business. Yet this Bill does exactly the opposite. Not only does it damage Canadian business, it does very little to develop our trading relationships with Caribbean countries. It is for those reasons that we as New Democrats will certainly be voting against the Bill. I again plead with my friends in the Conservative Party to just take a few minutes and explain how this is going to do Canada, Canadians and Canadian industry any good.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act


CANADA PENSION PLAN AND THE FEDERAL COURT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-116, an Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Federal Court Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare.
Mr. Speaker:: There are three motions set down for debate at report stage of Bill C-116. Motions numbered 1 and 3 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately. Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-116, be amended in Clause 23
(a)	by striking out lines 12 to 15 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"a judgment of nullity of a marriage on the Minister's being informed of the decree or judgment, as the case may be, and receiving the prescribed information".
(b)	by striking out lines 5 and 6 at page 29 and substituting the following therefor:
"earnings under section 53.2 or 53.3,
(b)	that provision of the spousal agreement is expressly permitted under the provincial law that governs the spousal agreement, and
(c)	that provision of the spousal agree-".
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-116, be amended in Clause 33 by striking out lines 23 and 24 at page 45 and substituting the following therefor:
"under this section,
(b)	that provision of the spousal agreement is expressly permitted under the provincial law that governs the spousal agreement, and
(c)	that provision of the spousal agree-".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The purpose of the two amendments is to bring in mandatory credit-splitting along the lines agreed to in the federal-provincial agreement. We had extensive discussions with various interest groups, including the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. If I might just read a very short excerpt from their letter to me dated June 18, 1986, as follows:
-this is to confirm that the National Action Committee on the Status of Women supports your motions-to amend the credit-splitting and assignment clauses of Bill C-116.
We are satisfied that these amendments make Bill C-116 much fairer to women by making credit-splitting on divorce mandatory unless a province expressly legislates otherwise, and by restricting the conditions under which people can renounce their right to a share of their spouses' Canada Pension Plan credits upon retirement.
I think that letter is self-explanatory. I hope the motions will be supported.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Table for a copy of Bill C-l 16. It was brought to me and then went for photocopying. Apparently the House is running short of these Bills. It is an important Bill and I just want to know

June 26, 1986
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
that everyone knows what we were talking about; the Bill is hard to get.


Mr. Speaker:: Maybe we should charge for it.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the principle of making the splitting of credits mandatory is one that we support. We are glad that the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) has introduced this measure and we support it.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to confirm that following representations by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and extensive discussions between myself, the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) and the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), the amendments put forward today reflect what the Hon. Member for Sudbury had in fact moved in other motions. I had intended to do so myself as well, but because of the language contained in the Hon. Member for York-Scarbor-ough's amendments we did not see any need. His amendments do exactly what we all intended to do.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3 agreed to.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-l 16, be amended in Clause 24 by striking out line 7 at page 32 and substituting the following therefor:
"payable for a month".
He said: Mr. Speaker, as Members know, there is a disability provision in the present Canada Pension Plan. In the drafting of the changes there was a question, although we thought the point was covered, as to whether those people currently receiving disability pensions would be beneficiaries of the higher amount which the amendments incorporate. As the wording in Motion No. 2 clearly spells out, those now receiving disability will get the greater amount should the Bill be passed.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take too much time because the points I wanted to make on behalf of my Party were made on second reading debate and in committee. However, I do want to say one or two things which are of primary concern to myself and my Party.
We would like to have some assurances from the Minister that the increase in benefits to persons considered disabled are not going to be syphoned off by insurance companies because of the bridging benefit which exists in many private plans on disability benefits. This has happened very often in the past and I think it would be extremely unfortunate if that were to continue. There is little sense in us increasing benefits for persons who are disabled simply to see an insurance company take that money. It would not be of any benefit to the disabled person.
The other concern I have is about the review committee that is being set up under this Bill. I am a bit fearful that this new review committee will adopt a very clinical attitude toward a person who is disabled rather than taking a look at the disability itself and the individual's personal circumstance.
There are some other areas in the Bill which I think could have gone further, but the Minister has assured us in committee that the discussions that took place previously between the federal and provincial Governments are to continue, and that we will probably see further amendments to the Canada Pension Plan within the next year or so. On that basis I would welcome the opportunity to have some further input into those discussions prior to these negotiations beginning to ensure that the concerns we have will receive proper attention in these discussions.
On that basis our Party, speaking for myself and on behalf of the Party, support the amendments in so far as they go in this particular Bill. We do recognize that there will be a significant improvement in benefits, particularly for disabled Canadians, and any improvements in these benefits are welcomed by us.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to delay the Bill, but I would like to register a very serious reservation with respect to the potential impact of this Bill on the well being of women. I do not think that the lot of widowed women in our society is improved to the degree that we had hoped. I am pleased the Minister is going to review this issue very carefully, along with the five-year review, the committee, the disability pension and the way it relates to old age security moneys, et cetera. There are many issues in there with which I hope you are able to come to a better accord with the provinces to enable our older people in our society, over time, to live more conveniently and with less poverty at their door.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of Mr. Epp (Provencher). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
June 26, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 agreed to.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that the Bill as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with special pride that I speak once more on Bill C-116 on third reading. As Members know Bill C-116 amends both the Canada Pension Plan and the Federal Court Act.
I want to thank at the outset the Chairman of the Standing Committee, the Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) who chaired this committee, the committee members, and as well my critics from the Liberal and the NDP Party who have been most helpful in their suggestions and co-operative in their work in attempting to get this legislation passed before the House rises for summer in order that the plans can be put together in a practical way so benefits for January 1, 1987, might take place.
When I presented this legislation to the House of Commons two weeks ago I stated that it represented the culmination of several years of co-operation and consultation among Canadians on the subject of pension reform. Since the Bill's introduction I have listened with interest to concerns regarding the legislation, points which have been expressed in the House and in the committee. I have already taken the opportunity to respond directly and explicitly to members of the Opposition Parties on their valid and pertinent questions.
I know that it is uncommon for Ministers to rise in the House and to mention staff members in terms of the work that they have done on the Bill. I intend to break with that tradition this afternoon and mention one Mr. Michael Hatfield for the work he has done on behalf of this Bill. Mr. Hatfield is on my staff, and I think it is not inappropriate to mention his name because at the time the parliamentary task force on pension review was looking at this issue, during the previous administration, Mr. Hatfield was asked to come on as a member of that task force, that is as an adviser to the task force. Much of the work that was done at that time is finding fruition in this Bill, and I commend him today.
Originally I had intended to discuss these issues today at some length. However, because of time constraints and in light of the agreement which Opposition Members have given support to which will facilitate the Bill's prompt passage I will speak very briefly today.
I refer, for example, to the provisions for the division of the Canada Pension Plan credits on marriage breakdown. There has been criticism that this provision is not automatic and not mandatory. I would like to emphasize that effective January 1, 1987 this provision will be mandatory in all cases of divorce, except in those cases where both spouses have previously and
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
specifically waived claims on each other's pension rights, and where this agreement is expressly permitted under provincial law, as has just been agreed by this House in approving the motion of the Hon. Member for York Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan). I thank him as well for the work he has done.
As well, it should be noted that the House has also approved a technical amendment to Bill C-116 referring to the disability sections.
I believe it would be useful today for me to repeat the four concerns which dominated the federal-provincial discussions which led to the Canada Pension Plan amendments now embodied in Bill C-116.
The first of these was to maintain the long-term health of the pension plan's fund. The second was to ensure the affordability of premiums paid by working Canadians and their employers. The third was to adapt the benefits to the changing needs of Canadians, and the fourth was to maintain parallelism with the Quebec Pension Plan.
It was mentioned today by the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) that there should be further changes made relative to the position of women and their pension plans and spouses allowances. I am well aware of them. I believe the changes the Government brought in earlier on widows, amendments to the Old Age Security Act has helped. I believe this Bill further helps. I think all of us realize that as society is developing and evolving further changes will have to be made. I have committed myself, as Minister of National Health and Welfare, to further discussions in those areas. I make that commitment to the House again today.
A comprehensive information package concerning Bill C-116 has been distributed to all Members of Parliament and to Senators. I would like, therefore, to summarize the main dispositions of the Bill and what the legislation will provide for: first, the development of a 25-year schedule of Canada Pension Plan contribution rates to be reviewed at least every five years; second, a gradual increase in contribution rates from the present 3.6 per cent rate to 7.6 per cent by the year 2011; third, the maintenance of the Canada Pension Plan Fund at a level equal to approximately two years of benefits in the long term; and fourth, actuarily adjusted pensions as early as age 60 or as late as age 70.
In addition, the legislation will provide for increased disability benefits and an easing of the eligibility criteria for them. More work is needed on the question of disability. This is one area of the Canada Pension Plan which has a discretionary aspect, relative to medical advice. We must be sensitive to some of the points made in terms of discerning who is eligible for the disability pension.
As well, the legislation provides new rules governing credit splitting on marriage breakdown, as well as for pension sharing on retirement for married and common law couples; the continuation of survivor benefits on remarriage; improved

June 26, 1986
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
children's benefits, also relating to survivor benefits; changes to the rules governing maximum rates for combined pensions; and a number of significant minor amendments.
That is an impressive package that the House is passing today in Bill C-l 16.
In closing, I want to assure my colleagues that the reform of Canada's pension system has not come to an end. The Government places great emphasis on further changes and amendments throughout the pension spectrum. The passage of Bill C-116 does not mean that we are putting pension reform on the so-called parliamentary back burner. Rather, it stays on the front burner where Canadians generally and Members of the House will want to see the full heat retained. The Government has made significant progress in terms of that pension reform.
As well, I am confident that the results of further cooperative efforts will be a system of income security for Canadians that will respond better to their needs in the years ahead. People have asked me with respect to the Quebec Pension Plan, and particularly the Canada Pension Plan, if they will have a pension when they retire. I am sure all Members have been asked that question. With the changes that are being brought in today with the passage of Bill C-l 16, the pension fund is secure. There will be a pension for those who have paid into it up to today, plus these improved benefits once the Bill is passed through the House and the other place before we rise for the summer.
This package is the result of much co-operation. It is a positive step forward for the Government of Canada and it will benefit all Canadians. I commend this Bill to the House and thank the House for the co-operation I have seen in the passage of this Bill.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in participating in this debate, I first want to pay tribute to the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) who is on other duties today. I want to echo the sentiments of the Minister when he expressed appreciation for the Member's co-operation and input.
The House will recall that the Member for Sudbury initiated a review on behalf of the then Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Hon. Monique Begin, in 1983. That thorough review which began in 1983 finds its final development and conclusion in this debate today in the House of Commons and the Senate. Therefore, we are indebted to the Member for Sudbury for having put on the map a number of improvements that were needed for the benefit of Canadians who enjoy the protection of the Canada Pension Plan.
On June 11, the Member for Sudbury identified a number of areas about which he felt strongly. He suggested improvements that the Government could make in these areas, which include disability, eligibility criteria for disability and the flat benefit portion of the CPP disability pension.
Bill C-l 16 proposes an increase in the flat rate from $91 to $233 for people who will receive the disability pension as of
January next year. That is a welcome development because, although people wanted a greater move in that direction- since $233 a month as a flat rate is still very modest- it is an expression of a will to further improve the disability pension for Canadians who qualify for it.
We are still unhappy about the definition of disability, which is extremely restrictive. The statement, "indefinite duration or severe and prolonged", causes applicants to appeal and prolong the process on occasion. No doubt it is sometimes a worthwhile exercise because it results in the acceptance of an application at higher levels of appeal.
The history of contributions is still very strict. If I understand Bill C-l 16 correctly, the contributions still must be made during at least five calendar years out of the last ten in the contributory period or for at least two of the last three calendar years, or for at least the last two calendar years if the contributory period has only been two years long. A number of people who withdraw from the labour force because of a temporary disability discover that their disability is not temporary. When it comes time for their medical adviser or themselves to decide to apply for a disability pension they discover that it is too late, because they do not have the required number of years contribution under the law. This comes as a shock to workers, particularly those in the industrial centres of the country, as well as in rural areas. This measure should be improved to provide a better way of dealing with these problems. I am sure many Members have come across similar situations with their constituents. There must be a solution to the problem so that some people with very legitimate cases are not disqualified because of a lack of knowledge of the law, language handicaps, or other reasons. They only discover when it is too late that they do not have the number of years required.
I am pleased that the Minister is in the House today. I know that he is making note of what I am saying and will try to find a solution to this aspect of the disability benefits that requires attention. I am sure this problem is testing the admistrative skill of those in charge of the Canada Pension Plan.
On the question of children's benefits, as the Member for Sudbury has said in the past, we see this as a desirable development also emanating from his study.
With respect to the basic levels of survivor benefits, we would like the 25 per cent gradually increased over the years in order to generate a higher pension. We realize that this cannot be done in a vacuum and that it will require an increase in the rate of contribution. I know that this is a very divisive and difficult topic. Nevertheless, as we acquire experience and as this fund builds up, hopefully we will find ways of making contributions that will also permit basic retirement benefit levels which, more and more, will reduce the poverty level that some people do have to face when they come under the regime of the Canada Pension Plan. I think that, philosophically, perhaps, we can find a common ground on this matter.
June 26, 1986

I would really like to bring this area of contribution rate changes to the attention of the Minister. He knows that there will be a .2 per cent increase of pensionable earnings each year until 1991; however, there will be a drop of 2.15 per cent. I wonder why we should be facing a slippage in that area, from 1992 to 2001, instead of maintaining this same rate or even gradually, fractionally, increasing it in order to give strength to the fund and permit certain improvements that Canadians expect from their Canada Pension Plan.
Moving on to the subject of pension for older single women, as the Hon. Member Sudbury has pointed out on a number of occasions in committee and at second reading, we do support the Cofirentes formula or approach, because we see there a potential for strengthening the regime to protect older single women. We would therefore urge the Minister to explore that in a manner that will result in amendments in the next Bill that hopefully will see the light of day in the next session. We do favour the model that has emerged under the name of Cofirentes, and we do see there an approach that has potential.
Where we have a disappointment, as I am sure many Canadians do, and this is where the critical and concluding part of my intervention begins, it is that there is no provision in the Bill for homemakers. I can assure Your Honour and the Minister that there are many women who are engaged in highly productive and useful work at home who are desperately waiting for the day when an announcement on this measure will be made. We realize how cumbersome the process is, but it did start by way of an analysis of the potential for homemakers three years ago.
We really must register on the floor of the House the legitimate aspiration on the part of many, many women across the country who have never taken up conventional employment, by way of a job with an employer, with contributory payments being made, eventually resulting in CPP payment, but who, as the Minister knows as well as I do, have worked for years in a variety of ways at home within the family. These women when they reach age 60 or more find no tangible recognition given to them by society for having made a contribution, because this contribution somehow did not take the form of deductions. Here there is a social injustice which I do not think has any party connotation. It is a burden that we all share, one we must face and one for which we must find an answer.
Some four months ago, on a radio program concerning homemakers' pensions, I just touched on it-not very much in depth, I must admit. I was astounded at the volume of mail in response in subsequent weeks. It really touched what we could term in political words as being a raw nerve. Therefore, from a political point of view, in the best meaning of the word "political", we have here an issue that we must address, no matter what the cost.
A number of suggestions have come forward from NAC, from labour, from a number of organizations, from party
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
platforms. I think the party platforms of all three Parties in the House are saturated with suggestions on homemakers' pensions, as well, so the time is overripe for taking action. I hope the Minister will use his term in office to engrave his name in stone, virtually, by being the one to bring in the homemakers' pension. He will go down to eternity because of that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: "Eternity."-hopefully it's up and not the other way.


Mr. Caccia:: Go up; sorry. The Hon. Minister is quite right. There is nothing that really touches the sentiments of a family, particularly concerning women, but also men, than to suddenly see a member of the family who has worked all her life not being covered because of reasons that are unexplainable. We are now in the year 1986. The issue is overripe, as I said. The input has been made by a number of organizations as well as political parties. An answer must be found.
Finally, on the question of flexible retirement, I can only report to Your Honour and to the Minister that people from where I come are simply furious about this measure. They feel that it is not fair to have a reduction of pension by any amount when entering their sixties, particularly those who are engaged in heavy duty work. A portion of the population is engaged in such work. You name it, construction, mining, fishing, farming or forestry. These are people who, upon reaching the age of their sixties, are physically worn out and look forward to an early retirement. It is from them that this cry of anguish comes, saying, "Look, why should we be penalized by 30 per cent?"
I submit to Your Honour and to the Minister that the route to go is to introduce the possibility of retiring at the age of 60 at the same rate. There will be those who will not want to retire at that age because they are productive and do not see themselves as being ready for that; but there are others who will. To impose, so to say, a penalty or a reduction of 30 per cent is not acceptable. That sentiment, with which I fully concur, comes mainly from people who are not engaged in white-collar activities, but rather from those engaged in heavy duty work, from a certain number who feel that they have just physically had it. They want to quit. They say, "Why should we be penalized by 30 per cent?"
I would like to encourage the Minister to look at this question of early retirement at the same pension rate, in conjunction with long-term policies of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). This matter has to be seen in a broader context, namely, one that relates to incentives, if one wishes, to retire from the labour force, perhaps in order to make room for those who are in the younger age levels. This should therefore be seen as a social measure which, however, has employment potential and, therefore, an over-all governmental significance, perhaps going well beyond the scope of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Maybe then the argument of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) could be a stronger

June 26, 1986
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
and heavier one, seen within the parameters of pension as well as employment. I am sure that the Minister has already thought about it. Presentations have been made to him about the merits of retiring at the age of 60. However, I do reject, as firmly and calmly as I can, the notion that retirement at age 60 should be coupled with a reduction in pension. The level should remain the same. It should be open to those who want to take advntage of it. The numbers will not be that great, since increasingly people find it desirable to maintain a productive life over the years, in fact well beyond what we have come to expect in the past. However, there are certain occupations and certain individual situations in which this option is a desirable one.
[DOT]	(1230)
Since democracy is a way of offering options and diversities, I submit that this is one way of doing it, but doing it without penalizing the recipients of the Canada Pension Plan by one cent. If the losses over 10 years, let us say between the ages of 60 and 70, are multiplied, then it would be a substantial sum, assuming that a person's life-span terminates at the age of 70. That is not the route to go.
I am sure that the Minister, who has a sense of fairness, will understand this message which really comes from the street level. People stop us on the street and say: "We have heard about this measure, the Bill that is going through, but to me personally it is not the type of measure I can accept. If I choose to retire at age 60 I do not want to be penalized by 30 per cent, or even by one cent for that matter".
Perhaps I have belaboured the issue at too great a length, but I had to convey the sentiments together with the logic of this criticism. I am grateful for the fact that the Minister has patiently listened. I look forward to the next Bill he might introduce, possibly some time next year, which will include some of the measures that are missing from the present one. I am sure that he, along with all Hon. Members, want to see these measures incorporated in a new Bill, since we believe that the Canada Pension Plan is an ongoing process. It cannot level off or become stagnant. It is an important instrument for social progress and economic stability. As I mentioned previously, it is an important instrument which has to be looked upon within the broader scope of our employment policies.
[DOT]	(1240)


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak at the third reading stage of a very important Bill. It does not happen very often that we can amend a Bill here in the House of Commons, and that is the case with the Bill before the House today which is an Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Federal Court Act.
Mr. Speaker, some parts of this Bill contain very positive changes with respect to disability benefits, division of earnings in case of divorce and survivors' pensions.
On the other hand, there are other amendments the Government would have us believe will be of tremendous benefit to Canadians ... First of all, I think we should look at the Bill itself, whose purpose is to increase the premiums paid by all Canadian employees and employers into our pension plans.
This premium increase, Mr. Speaker, will increase the revenues of the CPP Fund and, through loans, those of the provinces, including Ontario, and even Quebec, because although Quebec has its own pension plan, it also borrows from the Canada Pension Plan.
But, Mr. Speaker, the most important point to keep in mind is that not only will working men and women have less income to meet their needs because they will have to pay higher retirement plan premiums but in return they will not draw increased benefits once they have retired. They advocate an increase, but if ever those people become disabled or something else happens ... Mr. Speaker, the Government claims it is seeking to establish less stringent pension standards and has drawn inspiration from the Quebec provincial plan.
Mr. Speaker, I want to give figures and illustrate the consequences which ordinary Canadians will face if they decide or are forced to retire at age 60 under the Quebec Pension Plan. Quite simply, a resident of Ontario, Alberta, New Brunswick or Saskatchewan will be in the same predicament as someone living in Quebec.
Right now the maximum Quebec Pension Plan benefit paid to a person aged 65 is $486.11. Should somebody in Quebec opt for retirement at age 60 he or she gets $340.28 in QPP benefits, which amounts to a penalty of $145.83 a month, or an annual loss of $1,749.96.
In my opinion, Mr Speaker, it is too much to expect a person to contribute more with a view to retiring early at age 60 and at the same time penalize the same person to the tune of $1,749,964 a year.
Mr. Speaker, Quebec welfare benefits amount to $456 a month, yet Quebec Pension Plan benefits are only $340.28- way below the poverty level, in fact below the misery level.
We know that quite a number of people between the ages of 60 and 65 live under the poverty level, yet the Bill under consideration will only push even more people under the poverty level, as if we wanted to make sure that there will always be poor people becoming even poorer.
The alternative is a joke. Some people may decide to retire only when they get to be 70-they know the penalty for retiring before 65 is 6 per cent a year, whereas the incentive to continue working until 70 is an annual bonus of 6 per cent-so they are told: If you retire at 70 and wait until then to draw your Quebec Pension Plan benefits-and now the Canada Pension Plan benefits-you will be entitled to 130 per cent.
June 26, 1986

Well now, says the prospective retiree, 130 per cent is quite interesting, I will think about it.
I have the figures. As I said, the maximum paid to a Quebecer aged 65 is $486.11. The reaction is predictible: Well,
I will follow the Government's recommendation, go on working or stay home but wait before applying for QPP or CPP benefits because they told me I would get 6 per cent more. I am told I will draw $515.28 at age 66. Mr. Speaker, he figures he will get $29.19 a month or $350 more a year if he waits until age 66. But what they are not told-and I suspect no Member will urge a constituent to wait until age 66 or 70 to draw his or her pension benefits-is that a person has to agree to do without a monthly income of $486 for one year beginning at age 65. To get $350 more a year, he or she has to accept a $5,833 loss, and this money stays in the Government coffers.
Mr. Speaker, what do you put in a Bill which is nothing more than window-dressing? It provides no benefit unless someone with a lot of money says: I shall not take my pension benefits immediately because my taxation level will be very high. However, Mr. Speaker, you do not legislate for the most wealthy.
Let me give you an example of someone in Quebec who waits one year and, instead of retiring at 65, decides to do so only at 66. He loses $5,800 to earn $340 the next year. However, the Government is saying: The system will be more flexible between the ages of 60 and 70. Under 65, you lose 6 per cent a year, which means 30 per cent in five years. You lose $1,749 each year throughout your life because your pension will always be indexed all your life on the basis of the low amount which you received the first time.
The publicity tells a different story, even though the Prime Minister will certainly pat himself on the back at the end of the session in spite of the recent scandals because he succeeded in passing two good Bills for pensioners. Look at what will happen according to the Conservative Government. Even though you retire, you can decide to receive your benefits under the Quebec or the Canada Pension Plan at the age of 70. This means that, at 70, instead of having $486.11, you will get $631.94. or $145 more each month. However, during those five years, you will have to do without $29,000 in income that you will have left in the pension fund to be entitled to receive $1,749 more each year.
Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense to include in a Bill something that no one here would recommend. Let us suppose that someone who is 65 years old goes to the Office of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and asks for some advice: "Should I retire now since I have my private pension plan and you have passed some new legislation? I do not need that much money right now as I can make both ends meet. Would it be better to invest as you have said and leave my Canada Pension Plan benefits in the pension fund and wait until I am 70 to receive 30 per cent more? It sounds interesting. Is it like at the bank?" Would the Minister honestly and sincerely be able to tell this person: "Yes, the legislation tells you to leave your money where it is and you will then receive
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
30 per cent more." It is not true. The Minister cannot tell me that he would say to someone: "Do without $29,000 in income and leave this money in the fund so that we can give you $1,700 more later." It is impossible. It is illogical, Mr. Speaker. It was unacceptable in Quebec where the PQ passed similar legislation. Very few people take this option. It is window-dressing. It is only camouflage, Mr. Speaker. This is the problem with this Government. It is the same for the way the pension entitlement is shared when a couple separates.
A while ago, the Minister introduced the Spouses' Allowance Bill to help widows and widowers and be discriminated against single, separated and divorced people. Now, as he wants to makeup for it, he gives more money to someone who is separated than to someone who is not separated or to widows and widowers.
Mr. Speaker, all this has been done thoughtlessly and illogically. All the Members of the Opposition, the NDP, the Liberal Official Opposition and even some Conservative Members will admit that they have been pressed to pass this Bill. It is true that it will result in some improvement. But, Mr. Speaker, is there one Conservative Member-


Mr. Ricard:: What improvement!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Is there one Conservative Member, yes, of course, there is the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard) can he tell me, when a man of 65 drops in his constituency office and says: Tell me, you are the expert, you voted for a legislation, you said it was very good, it is right here in this press release. Would I be better off if I waited till next year to draw my Pension Plan benefits? If that question was put to me, my answer would be: Grab it immediately, otherwise the Government will get away with $5,000 and you will get $340. Unless one is a swindler, a Government swindler who would say to his constituents:
Mr. Speaker, as an individual each one of us will be ready to advise people to do differently than what is being offered. Why then should we act as hypocrits and put that in the legislation? Why did the Minister accept that such a thing be included? Why did he not say that people between 60 and 65, as my colleague suggested earlier, why did he not leave them with the same amount? Why deprive anyone of $340.28 a month, Mr. Speaker? Can anyone live on what is left? Look at what will happen! Government coffers will get fatter because those are hidden tax increases. The Minister will reply: No, that is a contribution to the Pension Plan. But people get nothing in return. Millions and billions of dollars will go into the fund, and that money is lent to provincial Governments, people do not pay back, do they go on increasing contributions? This is like merry-go-round.
On top of that, people who depend on social welfare in Quebec get $456 a month, and this is paid 50/50 by the Federal and Provincial Governments. So these people are forced to draw Pension Plan benefits because they have contributed. Let us say the maximum amount, $340. So those $340 are deducted from $456, and that person remains poor.

June 26, 1986
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
Officials are running around the place, the federal Government clears out everywhere. Mr. Speaker, people have no need for that kind of thing. What the poor need is people who look down at things and attempt to improve them. I know the Minister, the Government, whatever their political stripe cannot afford to hand out everything. But when something is being done, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we should go sensibly about it, and improve things step by step, because everything cannot be done in one shot. Why should we try to discriminate against people in need, as the Minister did with the spouses allowance? People who were excluded were mainly women, whether single, separated or divorced. So now he comes with another bill which will penalize age 60 and 65. We hear about unemployment, we are told we should consider early retirement as my colleague suggested, and this is something that would be needed, becuase everyone in the workplace who would like to retire at age 60 should be able to do so and make room for younger people. Some people are looking forward to that, Mr. Speaker. Some people took early retirement before January 5, and they were entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. There again they were cut off, Mr. Speaker, another thing the Minister reductant to talk about. And now he is going to save on welfare benefits. Because of the $340 they will be getting from the Quebec Pension Plan, he takes away from them the unemployment insurance benefits. The guy was entitled to those benefits, because he lost his job or his plant shut down. It is always those same workers who pay all their lives, becuase this is a contribution increase, Mr. Speaker. His take-home pay will be smaller, because next year he will be paying $24 more and, on top of that, he will be paying his employer's extra contribution becuase that increase in costs, his SMB employer will not be able to absorbs it. His employer will increase the price of his goods, and the consumer-worker automatically will be paying on both contributions. And in return, Mr. Speaker, he is again penalized.
I know that other colleagues will rise on this Bill and will deal with other aspects. My colleague from Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) dealt with the matter in committee, and while there are amendments concerning women put forward by the women's association, my colleagues from Mount Royal worked hard in that area to get the Government to realize its proposals were unacceptable. Let us look at a table, and my colleague from Montreal can deal with that-


Sheila Finestone: Exactly.


Jean-Claude Malépart: A married woman who becomes a widow will receive $240 per month, the same amount as before the legislation was amended. However, if that same woman was separated, she would get $320 per month. Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with that Government. With respect to the spouses allowance, the separated woman is told: "You should have stuck with your man. We had nothing to do about it so you are penalized." The other woman is told: "You have stayed with your man but now you are a widow, it is too bad but you will lose some money." Mr. Speaker, there is no logic as far as separation are concerned and the way they figure that
out. If the Minister is no good at arithmetic, there are some qualified officials, Mr. Speaker, and if he cannot find them himself, there are people in our party who could suggest fair and adequate measures for everyone taking into account the valid claims of those people.
Mr. Speaker, this aspect of the Bill is surely negative. The flexibility of the pension plan ... I think that my time has expired but I have clearly shown that all Canadians who know that they have the opportunity-as offered by the Government to receive increased pension benefits when postponed between age 65 and 70-should not take advantage of that offer because it is a trap. The only one that gets rich and makes a good bargain is the fund while the pensioners are the losers.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Minister say that this was not a true pension reform but only a mini reform and I hope that when the time comes to make the true reform, he will correct all those inequities if he is still there.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, he must have misunderstood, because this cannot even rate as a minireform.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to associate myself with the remarks the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has just made. Like most everybody, I believe that we agree on the reforms which are made to the disability pension. We are glad the Minister has decided to start by increasing the disability pensions for people who just cannot work any longer.
I am happy to associate myself with the remarks of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). Legitimate concerns have been expressed on all sides of the House in respect of true pension reform as it relates to those people who have retired. I should like to spend just a few moments, however, suggesting that I am very happy with the increases in disability pensions. However, I see a couple of problems, one of which the Minister may want to clarify.
As a person who does a lot of work in the area of disability in my riding, I see one current flaw in the Canada Pension Plan as it relates to the eligibility period. I am sure the Minister will know, as did his predecessor, that under the current law, and as restated in this particular Bill, there is an eligibility period in which to receive Canada Pension Plan disability benefits. One is required to have worked five years of the last 10 years or, as a result of the new changes, two years of the last three years. A problem often occurs, and I hope the Minister will address it, if not specifically in the Bill, then perhaps with a change in regulations or by way of a clarification. Oftentimes in my own riding I find that people are disabled as a result of a work injury. They are on workers' compensation for a number of years, but they hope they might be able to get back into the workforce. In some cases, they do not know they might be eligible for Canada Pension Plan
June 26, 1986

disability, and the prescribed five-year period has elapsed. They find themselves in a situation where they are not working. They have retired from the workforce as a result of disability, and it is a bona fide disability which renders them incapable of working. However, because of language reasons or other reasons, they did not apply before the first five-year period and so became ineligible. I have written to the Minister and even to the previous Liberal Minister on a number of occasions about bona fide disabled people who should have qualified but did not know about the program. In some cases, they applied and were deemed to be not entitled. However, as a result of an appeal process, they might have been entitled.
I understand the concern of the Minister about not moving with an over-all open door policy involving someone who is not working and wants to apply 20 years later. However, if one can prove for the purposes of the Canada Pension Plan that there has been an ongoing and sustained injury or illness beyond the five-year period which has been a major contributor to the person's inability to work, one should be able to apply for the Canada Pension benefit beyond the five-year period. Some persons in my riding have simply been caught by the language trap. They have come into my office in the sixth year. They did not know that they were entitled to it, or perhaps in the beginning they put in an application but did not follow through on it. Often they find themselves living on WCB compensation benefits or welfare, even though they had worked for 15 years or 20 years, because they did not meet the five-year requirement.
There is a flaw in the current legislation. While I understand that the Minister is expanding that particular definition a little for the purposes of disability, I think there should be a clause which suggests that if a person is disabled and has suffered a continuing disability before the five-year period lapses, he or she should be eligible. That is one recommendation I would make to the Minister.
I should like to refer to the other areas which have been outlined. We are looking for a more significant package of pension reform as it relates to involving everyone in the Canada Pension Plan including homemakers. We want to see coverage which will benefit every Canadian who is contributing in a meaningful way, as is every Canadian, particularly people who are working in the home. They should be evaluated and should be eligible to apply for benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. We are looking for more major reforms in that area.
In the interest of passing the aspects of this Bill which will increase the benefits to disabled workers, we are certainly prepared to support it in the short term, although we hope the Minister will come forward with more specific legislation, also as it relates to the issue of early retirement. I am happy the Government is introducing this concept. It is part and parcel of changes which have come about as a result of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, I am concerned about losses which are incurred between the ages of 60 and 65 years which may in fact put flexible retirement beyond the reach of most
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
ordinary people. From my experience in my own community, people who seek, want, and need early retirement are oftentimes those who have worked in factories, often in low-paying jobs, and have suffered the most physical wear and tear. Better earning professionals, whether they be Members of Parliament or judges, can remain in their jobs almost forever. However, often it is the assembly line worker, the textile worker, or the shoe factory worker who needs an early retirement because the physical wear and tear of the job is such that the worker cannot carry on beyond the ages of 55 or 60 years.
I am happy to see a move in that area, but I should like to see an amendment at some point which would provide for an earlier retirement period to permit persons to take advantage of the same level of benefits as they would at the age of 60 years. I am concerned about some of the CPP provisions. I know we want to move this piece of legislation ahead for the benefit of those people who will be applying in the near future, but I am very concerned about the limited application of the five-year period which disqualifies any bona fide people who should be receiving benefits.
I guess we will see the results of the inquiry, but I should like to refer to my experience over the last number of years in dealing with federal and provincial Governments in respect of compensation issues. The Canada Pension Plan has been reasonably flexible in its interpretation of who is eligible. It has taken into consideration factors beyond what we call in the business "the meat chart factor", which is often considered in certain provincial disability plans. For example, a worker who does not speak the language, has a very low level of education or perhaps no education at all, and cannot read or write may be given the benefit of the doubt in a Canada Pension Plan application. That flexibility has served well the recipients and other Canadians. While I am prepared to see what is the verdict in terms of the review, I understand that specialists will be reviewing the application in order to bring some kind of uniformity into the Canada Pension Plan system. I would hate to see the CPP system go the route which has plagued provincial government compensation plans for years. They look at only the physiological aspect of the effect of any disease or illness. They do not look at the totality. That has been a hallmark which has served the Canada Pension Plan well. I would not want to see us move in the direction of provincial plans which I would prefer to see take a broader approach. For example, if I were to lose my tongue it would probably cost me a lot more dearly than it might somebody else.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: However, if I were to lose a leg, I could in most instances carry on and do my job. If another worker were in a situation where he used his arms, lived by his brawn and did not have the language and the other skills to move into a secondary or a further occupation, he or she should be granted the benefit of the Canada Pension Plan in a more flexible fashion than somebody who has the ability to get out and get

June 26, 1986
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
another job or somebody who can be employed in a sedentary job that comes only with education and further communication skills.
I would hope that flexibility, which I think has been good in the Canada Pension Plan, remains. I do not want to see us get into a situation where we simply look at the physiology or the etiology of the symptom, the presenting symptom as you would say, and force a lot of people into the situation which they sometimes face with compensation. They end up on welfare because they have been denied benefits that should rightfully be theirs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since there are no further questions or comments, we shall resume debate. The Hon. Member for the Beaches (Mr. Young).


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on third reading will be extremely brief for the very reason I gave earlier at report stage. The case I have made at second reading and in committee on behalf of my Party is on the record. I do not see any need to take up the time of the House to restate it.
Let me refer to the cost of the increase in benefits, whether sufficient enough or not, and the 6 per cent reduction for each year of early retirement as a cost. When I asked the Minister in committee why 6 per cent and not 2 per cent or 3 per cent or 4 per cent, the response that I received was that according to the Government's actuaries it was a proper formula to be used with respect to the funding of the Canada Pension Plan. Also at second reading debate and in committee I pointed out to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) that under the provisions of the existing Act, I believe it is Section 116, when the Government proposes any Bill to the House of Commons to amend the Canada Pension Plan Act, the Government is also obliged to provide the House with actuarial information on what the impact of those amendments will be on the Canada Pension Plan. I have not seen the actuarial statements, even though I have requested them on several occasions. It places Members in the Opposition and on all sides of the House in some difficulty. We are faced with the Government negotiating amendments to the Canada Pension Plan with its provincial counterparts and then coming back to the House of Commons with a negotiated settlement and saying: "Here you are. Rubber stamp it. Unfortunately, if you make any amendments to the Plan it will require us to go back to the negotiating table with the provinces." If that were to happen, given the implementation time required to place those amendments into effect which, as I understand it, is a minimum of six months, and if we were to insist on proposing amendments and the Government accepted them, there would be a delay in the implementation of the improvements that we all want to see.
Here we are stuck in the situation where not only do we not have too much to say as to whether the amendments being brought forward by the Government are satisfactory from our point of view, but we will not be given the actual information required under the existing Act.
Let me simply state the case again. I have said to the Minister previously in committee, at second reading and privately that the process used is not satisfactory. I do not think it lends itself to the democratic process we are used to in Canada. The next time that we go into these kinds of negotiations, there has to be some process where Members on all sides of the House, particularly those in opposition Parties, are allowed to do their job in this place. We should be able to offer constructive criticism and to bring forward suggestions about legislation. We need to have a much more open exchange of information so that we can act in the best interests not only of our constituents but in the best interests of the people across the country whom we are trying to serve.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to support the Bill.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will not be very long. I apologize to the House for being absent at the very beginning of the debate. I recognize that at this late stage in the debate the little that I can say will not make any difference to the Bill. That, however, will not prevent me from outlining two major points to the House.
First, we feel that the Bill does not go as far as we would have wanted it to go. We have two major areas of concern: one, disability and, two, that there is a reduction in dollars when one takes early retirement.
Last but not least, I welcome the remarks made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) when he indicated that this is not the end of the reform but just part of the process and there will be forthcoming improvements to the Canada Pension Plan. In terms of social legislation, one approaches this step by step. The fact that we have reservations does not take away from the fact that we will support the Bill, however.
Having said that, I agree that the time is late and that there are other pieces of legislation before the House. I want personally to thank a number of people who have been actively involved in the area of pension reform over the last several years, including not only on my own staff, Nora Valantin, but in addition, Michael Hatfield who has done a tremendous amount of work at the committee level. They deserve a great deal of credit for getting the legislation to this stage, and I thank them.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.
June 26, 1986


PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT, 1985 MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-90, an Act respecting Pensions Plans organized and administered for the benefit of persons employed in connection with certain federal works, undertakings and businesses, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are 19 report stage motions on today's Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-90, an Act respecting Pension Plans organized and administered for persons employed in connection with certain federal works, undertakings and businesses.
Motion Nos. 1 and 9 will be grouped for debate. As Motion No. 9 would make use of the Consumer Price Index as a measure for the adjustment of the values existing in the Pension Index, the definition of the Consumer Price Index contained in Motion No. 1 is consequental on Motion No. 9 being carried. Therefore, a vote on Motion No. 9 will apply to Motion No. 1.
Motion No. 2 will be debated separately and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 3 and 4 relate to part-time employees and will, therefore, be combined for debate. A vote on Motion No. 3 will apply to Motion No. 4.
Motions Nos. 5 and 6 will be debated separately and voted on separately. Motion No. 7, in the opinion of the Chair, is consequential on Motion No. 12. As Motion No. 13 deals with the same clause of the Bill, all three motions will be combined for debate and voted on as follows: A vote on Motion No. 12 will apply to Motion No. 7. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 12 obviates the question being put on Motion No. 13. A negative vote on Motion No. 12 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 13.
Motions Nos. 8, 10, and 11 will be debated separately and voted on separately.
Motion No. 14, also in the name of the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), has given the Chair some procedural difficulty in that it would affect the formula by which the pension benefit is determined and, as such, might increase the amount of contribution made by Crown agencies. As this is difficult to determine, the Hon. Member will be given the benefit of the doubt. Motion No. 14 will be debated separately and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 will be debted separately and voted on separately. The House will begin debate on the first grouping, namely Motions Nos. 1 and 9.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In your ruling about the grouping of amendments you suggested grouping Motions Nos. 1 and 9. I believe there would be consent to group Motion No. 14 with them because Motions Nos. 1 and 14 form a package with regard to what the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) is suggesting. Although you
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
have suggested that Motion No. 14 be debated separately, I think there may be consent by the Hon. Member who moved the motion to include Motion No. 14 with Motions Nos. 1 and 9.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for that?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I have no qualms about that suggestion made by the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan).


Neil Young: It makes eminent sense to me also, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Therefore, we will group Motions Nos. 1, 9, and 14.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 22 at page 1 the following:
""Consumer Price Index" means the Consumer Price Index for Canada, as published by Statistics Canada under the authority of the Statistics Act;".


Neil Young: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 13 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"ance with section 19 and a Pension Index adjustment calculated in accordance with subsections (1.1) to (1.3).
(1.1)	The Pension Index for any calendar year shall be calculated, in the prescribed manner, as the average for the twelve month period ending October 31 in the preceding year of the Consumer Price Index for each month in that twelve month period.
(1.2)	For any year for which the calculation required by subsection (1.1) yields a Pension Index that is less than the Pension Index for the preceding year, the Pension Index shall be taken to be the Pension Index for the preceding year.
(1.3)	Where at any time the Consumer Price Index is adjusted to reflect a new time basis or a new content basis with a resulting percentage adjustment being made in the figures for that Index, a corresponding percentage adjustment shall be made in all values existing in the Pension Index."


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-90, be amended by adding immediately after line 5 at page 35 the following:
"26.1 (1) Where a pension benefit or a deferred pension benefit was payable after December 31, 1986, the whole or the portion of the benefit, as the case may be (in this section referred to as the "relevant amount of the benefit"), shall be adjusted in each calendar year, as of a prescribed day and in such manner as is prescribed, in accordance with subsection (2).
(2)	The adjustment shall be such that the amount of the pension benefit or deferred pension benefit for the purposes of the plan on and after the prescribed day is an amount that is not less than the amount of the benefit for the purposes of the plan immediately before that day plus the lesser of,
(a)	60 per cent of the product obtained by multiplying:
(i)	the relevant amount of the benefit by
(ii)	the ratio that the Pension Index for the year bears to the Pension Index for the year immediately preceding that year; and
(b)	8 per cent of the relevant amount of the benefit.

June 26, 1986
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
(3)	Any amount that is added to a pension benefit or a deferred pension benefit in any calendar year pursuant to adjustments in that year is deemed for any subsequent calendar year to be attributable to membership in the pension plan after December 32, 1986.
(4)	Where, in relation to any calendar year, a pension benefit becomes payable or the entitlement to a deferred pension benefit arises less than a full year before the prescribed day as of which the benefit is required to be adjusted in that calendar year, the maximum amount that is required to be added to the benefit by way of such adjustment in that calendar year is the maximum amount that would otherwise be required to be so added multiplied by the number of days that the benefit was payable before the prescribed day and divided by the number of days in the calendar year.
(5)	The Pension Index for any calendar year shall be calculated, in the prescribed manner, as the average for the twelve month period ending October 31 in the preceding year of the Consumer Price Index for each month in that twelve month period.
(6)	For any year for which the calculation required by subsection (5) yields a Pension Index that is less than the Pension Index for the preceding year, the Pension Index shall be taken to be the Pension Index for the preceding year.
(7)	Where at any time the Consumer Price Index is adjusted to reflect a new time basis or a new content basis with a resulting percentage adjustment being made in the figures for that Index, a corresponding percentage adjustment shall be made in all values existing in the Pension Index."


Neil Young: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, in the interpretation section of the Act there is no definition of the Consumer Price Index which is referred to in the Act. The purpose of this amendment is to define the Consumer Price Index.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, that is quite correct. The decision by the Chair to group Motions Nos. 1, 9, and 14 brings to the fore the need for inflation protection, which is one of the major reasons I put these amendments forward. I would like to speak to all three motions which illustrate my disagreement with the way in which the Government has proceeded with amendments to the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act. The matter goes beyond that Act.
Bill C-90 is a combination of over 12 years of debate on the need for an overhaul of private pension plan legislation. Bill C-90 will affect only those workers who fall within federal jurisdiction. However, it also goes a long way toward standardization of private pension plan legislation in the country. As a result, there have been extensive negotiaions with provincial Governments toward standardizing private pension plan legislation. Among other things, it will overhaul and improve the portability and vesting which takes place in private pension plans.
I am upset that with the exception of Manitoba no provincial Government nor the federal Government has taken the lead to mandate inflation protection in private pension plans. That is a major error in the legislation before us. As Chairman of the all-Party Committee on Pension Reform I travelled in every province and both Territories. Extensive public hearings were held on this matter. With the exception of the business community, every group which appeared before the pension task force asked that inflation protection be a mandatory requirement of private pension plans.
In the last two or three years we have become complacent in that there has been a significant reduction in the inflation rate in the country. Prior to 1983, at the height of the period of time in which pension reform was being studied by the allParty task force, inflation was in the 12 to 14 per cent range. As a result, many people who retired in 1980 on what they thought would be adequate pensions found that after three to four years of double-digit inflation their purchasing power was cut in half. As a result, they asked that, in addition to making private pension plans more portable with earlier vesting, we should institute a minimum degree of inflation protection.
The previous Government accepted the bulk of recommendations of the task force with regard to private pension reform as well as public pension reform. The then Minister of Finance, Mr. Lalonde, accepted the principle that if private pension plans were to be of any use to workers they should have a degree of mandatory inflation protection. That is why we have put a formula in Motion No. 14 which includes a capping to a maximum of 8 per cent as well as a mandatory inflation protection for the workers of the country.
I believe that the majority of the workers in the country will be very upset with the way in which the federal Government has failed to lead the nation with regard to pension reform. I do not believe it is good enough to say that the package before us is the only one which is possible with consensus. When the rule of consensus is applied to democracy, you end up with mediocrity. In every instance we have witnessed a Volkswagen approach to pension reform.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the Bill before us is a step backward. It is a step forward. I believe that when Bill C-90 becomes legislation the workers in the country will be far better protected than they were previously. Under the existing legislation, before a worker's pension credits and the employer's contributions were locked into a vehicle the worker had to have worked for that company for 10 years or be at least 45 years of age. That work pattern does not match the emerging work patterns of today's generation of Canadians. That is why the recommendation to go to a two-year vesting period is so critical. These kinds of improvements are important for the protection of workers' rights. However, the one major area where I have serious doubts is where the Government has failed to mandate inflation protection so that workers when they retire can look forward to an adequate retirement income based on known inflation protection. It seems to me that if the business community is going to live up to its obligations, the law should require them to mandate inflation protection for their workers. Those workers have worked hard for the businesses and deserve an adequate retirement income. Yes, there is a price to be paid. The business community said it could not afford that price. I say to them that if they are not prepared to pay the additional cost then they should stand back and allow the Government to simply double the public pension plan system so the workers are adequately protected in that way.The onus is on business and also on the federal Government to give leadership in this area.
June 26, 1986

I will have other opportunities to speak to other amendments to this Bill later on, but those were the major points I wanted to make with respect to the grouped of Motions Nos. 1, 9 and 14.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, I might say that I personally have some sympathy with the direction of the amendments. Indeed, the Government accepts the long-term desirability of having inflation protection entrenched. However, we need to consider carefully how we do it.
During the pension debate in 1981, and indeed over the last 10 years, there was general recognition that pensions have to be protected over the long term for the viability of the private pension system. Unfortunately, in 1982-83 we ran into a severe economic downturn. The recovery across the country has been very uneven. I am sure all Members are aware that only Ontario has had a vigorous recovery so far. In our consultations with the provinces we were then unable to achieve consensus to entrench inflation protection at this time because of the added cost it would impose on industries in areas which were having real trouble even surviving in some cases. Therefore, we took the twin route of requiring, in the federal sector, reporting on what companies were doing about inflation protection, in order to identify the source of funds and apply moral suasion to people to go ahead. As well, we provided incentive in the Act by saying that employers can reduce the cost of the fifty-fifty cost sharing if they opted for inflation protection.
I regard that particular incentive as an important step forward. I hope Ontario will also adopt the same incentive. Between the federal Government and the Province of Ontario we regulate some 60 per cent of the workers in this country and we can provide a powerful vehicle to see that, through a voluntary mechanism, these results are achieved in the end.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith). The importance of a pension scheme- there is also the importance of an indexing formula to ensure that the benefits people will get will increase at the same rate as the cost of living index.
Mr. Speaker, I have in mind several people who are now listening to us and who retired five, eight, or even three years ago. At that time, these people could get the Government's basic pension-either the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan, depending on where they lived-which was indexed, together with a private pension plan which, unfortunately, was not. At the time, the sum total of his incomes was such that a pensioner, after having contributed for 30, 40 or even 50 years of his working life to get not a golden pension, but at least one which would have made it possible for him to live decently, discovered, three, four or five years after having invested that money in his private pension plan, together with
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
the amounts paid by his employer, that he had given up the increases in contributions which the employer pays into the employee's pension plan, taking into account a reduction or lack of increase of his net benefits or income.
Mr. Speaker, these people realize today that they need the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Why do they need it? Because the Guaranteed Income Supplement is one of the programs implemented under the Old Age Security Pension Act for all Canadians who, when the Quebec Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan were introduced, had not been part of the labour force or had been unable to contribute. But it is for people who live below the poverty line. And these people, after five, three or eight years find themselves in such a situation that they must collect the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and they must abandon all the fine projets they had made, thinking that they would have enough money, having saved to live on a decent pension. They realize now that they do not have enough money because the private pension schemes to which they had contributed were not indexed.
Together with my colleague the Hon. Member for Sudbury, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is one of the major shortcomings of Bill C-90, and that these people, come election time, will remember this Tory Government's decision. I have the relevant figures here ... in a little while, at third reading stage, we will deal a little more with the fact that the National Council on Welfare is benefiting from poverty, which shows that a high proportion of senior citizens, most of them women, live below the poverty line.
Mr. Speaker, the two bills we are dealing with today do not remedy- And especially the lack of an indexing formula for private pensions schemes will not prevent people from living in poverty in the future. I am sure that most Canadian workers, men and women alike, will remember their Tory representatives for a long time.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say a few words. In the years I have been in Parliament there has been no change in legislation more important, and which brought more benefits to the people of Canada, than the decision made in the minority Parliament of 1970 to 1972, over the opposition of the Conservatives, to index the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security benefits. Until that time pensioners had to wait for years until, at some point shortly before an election, one Party or the other promised an increase. They fell behind year after year in the real value of their pensions because of the increased cost of living. As a result of the decision made in that minority Parliament, the benefits which are paid to the pensioners, both through the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security pension, in 1986 are worth in real money just about what they were worth 13 or 14 years ago.
That would not have happened had we not indexed those pensions plans. Unfortunately, private pension plans do not do

June 26, 1986
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
that. As other Members have pointed out, people who retired ten or more years ago thinking that between the private pension plan benefits, their Old Age Security benefits, and their Canada Pension benefits, they could live pretty comfortably, found that as the cost of living went up, and particularly in those years when the cost of living was going up by 10 and 12 per cent a year, they were not able to live as they had expected.
I had hoped that when we made these major revisions of the laws governing private pension plans we would see the absolute necessity to index those plans and to require the employers to go along with indexing of plans.
I am not too surprised that the Conservative Party was not prepared to bring in that kind of provision. I do not hold out the hope, held by the Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan), that the Government will learn from experience and will suddenly become more generous than it was in the past and that it will do the right thing. The Government has not done the right thing until now. It has looked on the private pension plans as something which it controls and on which it makes all the decisions. I want to support these amendments and I want to say that I regret, and that is putting it mildly, the refusal of the Conservative Party to go along with that very necessary step.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 9 standing in the name of Mr. Young. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motions Nos. 1 and 14 standing in the name of Mr. Frith. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded divisions on the proposed motions stand deferred.
Is the Hon. Member rising on a point of order?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 18 both deal with the subject of withdrawals of surpluses from pension plans. I believe there might be a predisposition of the House to debate the two motions together.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, both of those motions are put forward in my name, and that is agreeable with me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Neil Young: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 8 by striking out lines 40 to 45 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"er's own moneys, and an employer shall
(d)	be deemed to hold the amounts referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) in
trust for members of the pension plan, former employees, and any other
persons entitled to pension benefits or refunds under the plan, and
(e)	be prohibited from withdrawal, "skimming" or removal of any pension
fund surpluses in any manner or for any purpose whatever".
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 29 by striking out lines 47 and 48 at page 38 and lines 1 to 9 at page 39 and substituting the following therefor:
"of the employer".
He said: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to spend too much time on this motion because the intent of the amendment is so obvious to me and any right-thinking Canadian.
What this motion does is to prevent an employer or the administrator of a pension plan from stepping in and grabbing excess earnings from that plan for their own purposes.
The most blatant case that has come to everyone's attention in recent times is that of Conrad Black and what he did in Dominion Stores to their pension fund and the surpluses. He just walked in there and lifted $62 million out of that pension
June 26, 1986

plan and used it for purposes no one knows about except Conrad Black.
I want to point out to you that at the federal level alone in 1980 some $93,806 were taken from plans under federal jurisdiction. The following year that jumped to $1,365,700, and between then and 1985 there has been an increase each year, until finally in 1985, $30,023,343 was lifted out of pension plans under federal jurisdiction. Much of the same kind of thing has been happening to pension plans under provincial jurisdiction.
It comes down to a point, I think, where a real principle is involved here. If you listen to the administrators of pension plans and employers, they make the argument that pension funds belong to them. Therefore, if any surplus is created, it is their right to step in there and use the surpluses for their purposes, and the same when a pension plan is being wound down.
I reject that argument totally. Pension funds belong to employees, not simply to employers. If, indeed, there is a surplus in a pension fund due to wise investment practices, then that surplus should not be used simply for an employer's own purposes, it should be used for providing increased benefits to pension plans such as inflation protection and survivors' benefits. It could be used for all kinds of purposes to make retirement a little easier for Canadians who have worked hard, in many cases for the same employer all their lives.
The purpose of this amendment would be to say, in effect that the employers who have managed to do this successfully over the past years are not going to be able to do it any more. If a plan has earned excess interest, that money should be used to improve the benefits that are payable to retired employees.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go over the points made by my colleague from Beaches (Mr. Young), but I think it is important to note that one of the provisions in this Bill is going to allow for the first time pensioners the right to stay and sit on management boards of pension funds.
I know that as Members of Parliament we have all been beseiged by requests from individuals who have worked for CN and for other companies who, once they have retired, have lost all rights to have their pensions protected. This is not a criticism of the unions, but it certainly is a criticism of the companies in my view. Once a worker has retired they no longer care about the health and welfare of that worker who for so many years gave of himself to ensure the viability and productivity of the company.
The issue of surpluses is very technical and complex. I want to note that under this legislation, for the first time pensioners will be allowed to sit on the management board and have their rights heard by unions and management alike. For far too long, surpluses in this country have been used to improve unit benefits for those workers in the workforce but have done
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
absolutely nothing for those workers who are on pension. That was fundamentally wrong then, and it is wrong now.
I believe this Bill should tighten even further the ability of companies to use surpluses. Pensioners should have a right to say how those surpluses should be used. Those surpluses have been built up during years in which pensioners have been in the workforce, and those surpluses should be divided so that the benefits do not only go to the workers of the day but that they go to the pensioners of tomorrow.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to add to the remarks made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). In most private pension plans, the employee contributes perhaps 5 per cent, 6 per cent or 7 per cent of his earnings. The employer rarely matches that contribution but agrees to contribute what is required to give the employee the pension he has earned when he retires. I agree with my colleague when he says that that money belongs to the employees. While it may be legal, it is essentially theft when the employer takes the surplus.
Therefore, I believe every Member should support this amendment.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I also want to support the amendment moved by the Hon. Member. As he mentioned it, Mr. Speaker, a pension plan surplus does not belong to the business concerned only and the example of C<jnrad Black clearly illustrates the shortcomings in the management of private pension funds. However, the principle involved can also apply to the management of the Canada Pension Plan. I think that there is still plenty of progress to be made and this is why a while ago I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he will go on with the pension reform because both bills under consideration are just a mini-reform.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.
14892

June 26, 1986
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 18 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motion Nos. 3 and 4 relate to part-time employees and will, therefore, be combined for debate. A vote on Motion No. 3 will apply to Motion No. 4.


Neil Young: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 14
(a)	by striking out line 17 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor: "work on a full-time or part-time basis for an employer".
(b)	by striking out line 23 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor: "pletes three months of continuous".
(c)	by striking out lines 28 to 42 at page 18 and substituting the following
therefor:
"sion plan, the day on which three months have elapsed since the employee
was first employed with a participating employer."
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-90, be amended by deleting Clause 15.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motions No. 3 and 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion Nos. 3 and 4 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motions Nos. 5 and 6 will be debated separately and voted on separately.


Neil Young: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 17 by striking out line 44 at page 21 and substituting the following therefor:
"member for a continuous period of two years or has been employed continuously for two years".


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 5 negatived.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 17 in the English version by striking out lines 4 and 5 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
"plan, to a deferred pension benefit, based on the mem-".


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Motion No. 6 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motion No. 7 will be combined with Motions Nos. 12 and 13.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 18 by striking out lines 34 and 35 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
"18.(1) Except as set out in section 25, a pension plan shall provide".
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-90 be amended in Clause 25 by striking out lines 5 to 44 at page 30, lines 1 to 50 at page 31 and lines 1 to 35 at page 32 and substituting the following therefor:
June 26, 1986

"25.(1) In this section, "marriage breakdown" means divorce or separation "separation" means the separation of two persons who are spouses of each other.
(2)	Notwithstanding section 18 and subject to this section, pension benefits or pension benefit credits shall be divided between the member and the member's spouse in accordance with subsections (3) to (8).
(3)	Where a pension benefit is payable to a member under the plan at the time the marriage breakdown occurs,
(a)	a pension benefit, the present value of which is equal to one-half of the present value of so much of the pension benefit payable to the member as is attributable to membership in the plan during the period that the marriage existed before the marriage breakdown, shall be payable to the spouse as of the date of the marriage breakdown; and
(b)	the pension benefit payable to the member shall be reduced accordingly.
(4)	Where the member is entitled to a deferred pension benefit under the plan at the time the marriage breakdown occurs,
(a)	the spouse shall be entitled to a deferred pension benefit, the present value of which is equal to one-half of the present value of so much of the deferred pension benefit to which the member is entitled as is attributable to membership in the plan during the period referred to in paragraph 3(a); and
(b)	any pension benefit that becomes payable to the member under the plan at any time after the marriage breakdown occurs shall be reduced accordingly.
(5)	Where the deferred pension benefit referred to in subsection (4) becomes payable to the member, the spouse's deferred pension benefit shall become payable as a pension benefit in accordance with the terms and conditions of the plan on the later of,
(a)	the day on which the pension benefit becomes payable to the member; and
(b)	the day on which the spouse attains the age at which an employee becomes eligible for an immediate pension benefit under the plan; provided that the spouse is alive on the later of these two days.
(6)	Where a member who is entitled to deferred pension benefit referred to in subsection (4) dies before the benefit becomes payable, the spouse's deferred pension benefit shall become payable as a pension benefit in accordance with the terms and conditions of the plan on the later of,
(a)	the day on which the member would have become eligible for an immediate pension benefit under the plan; and
(b)	the day on which the spouse attains the age described in paragraph 5(b), provided that the spouse is alive on the later of these two days.
(7)	Where neither subsection (3) or (4) applies but the member would have been entitled to an immediate pension benefit or a deferred pension benefit if the member's service under the plan had been terminated at the time the marriage breakdown occurred, for the purpose only of making the division pursuant to this section,
(a)	the member shall be deemed to have become entitled to a deferred pension benefit at the time the marriage breakdown occurred by reason of termination of his service under plan;
(b)	the spouse shall be entitled to a deferred pension benefit, the present value of which is equal to one-half of the present value of so much of the deferred pension benefit to which the member is deemed to have become entitled as is attributable to membership in the plan during the period referred to in paragraph 3(a); and
(c)	any pension benefit that becomes payable to the member under the plan at any time after the marriage breakdown occurs shall be reduced accordingly.
(8)	The pension benefit referred to in paragraph 7(b) shall become payable to the spouse as a pension benefit payable in accordance with the terms and conditions of the plan,
(a)	on the later of the two days described in paragraphs 5(a) and (b), where a benefit under the plan becomes payable to the member; or
(b)	on the later of the two days described in paragraphs 6(a) and (b), where the member dies before he or she becomes entitled to au_ immediate pension benefit,
provided that in each case the spouse is alive on the later of the two days.
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
(9)	The provisions of section 18 and subsection 25 (3) to (8) are subject to the terms of any order of acourt or an agreement between the member and the member's spouse."


Neil Young: Motion No. 13
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 25 by striking out lines 33 and 34 at page 30 and substituting the following therefor:
"divorce, annulment, separation or the dissolution of a common-law relationship, be divided equally between spouses to reflect the pension credits earned during the period of the marriage or relationship unless the courts or the parties themselves determine otherwise."


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to Motion No. 12 because it involves an important principle.
In the May 1985 Budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) promised that pension benefits would be split equally between spouses upon marriage breakdown, unless the courts or the parties themselves determine otherwise. This has not been the case with Bill C-90. Instead, the Bill cedes jurisdiction to provincial matrimonial law.
As pointed out by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Bill C-90 makes credit splitting subject to the applicable provincial property law. This means that credit splitting will be uneven across the country. Ex-spouses will be entitled to some share in their spouses' pension credits in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
In New Brunswick, they will have uncertain rights, and in Quebec and Prince Edward Island, they have no rights to the credit splitting at all.
That is why Motion No. 12 is there, to establish the principle that in private pension areas that fall within federal jurisdiction, there should be a mandatory splitting so that the spouses can have equal access to the pension credits.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 12 and 13 speak to the same matter. Very simply, we have just passed a Bill amending the Canada Pension Plan, which would provide for that kind of mandatory splitting. To be consistent, why the Government did not include that amendment in Bill C-90 escapes logic. In my remaining time, I would simply like to agree with the arguments that have been presented by the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), based on strong arguments that the legislative committee heard from the National Action Committee on Women, and say that it would be the right thing to do.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, as the two Hon. Members have previously pointed out, earlier today, we entrenched credit splitting in the CPP Bill. This was negotiated with the provinces in late 1985. The basic package in the PBSA was put together in early 1985, and we did not have agreement at that time with respect to credit splitting, but we have given a verbal undertaking-and I will confirm it on the floor of the House

June 26, 1986
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
now-that we will put this on the agenda of the next federal-provincial conference with respect to pensions to see whether we can reach a similar agreement in this Act as that which we have reached regarding the CPP so that we can entrench the matters that Hon. Members desire. However, right now it would be unconstitutional for us to take unilateral action.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A vote on Motion No. 12 will apply to Motions No. 7 and No. 13. Therefore, the question is on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next motion is Motion No. 8 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).


Neil Young: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out line 32 at page 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"reflects reasonably current interest rates levied with respect to ninety day
treasury bills".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 8, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next motion is Motion No. 10.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 21 in the French version by striking out line 14 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"minees sont augmentees du montant de la prestation de pension pouvant provenir de l'excedent even-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Ail those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Nay, just for the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 10 (Mrs. McDougall) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next motion is Motion No. 11.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Motion No. 11
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 23 by striking out lines 6 to 44 at page 29 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) A member or former member of a pension plan who is entitled to a deferred pension benefit pursuant to subsection 17(1) (or, in the case of a member, would be so entitled if the member ceased membership in the plan) and dies before commencement of payment of that pension benefit but after becoming eligible for retirement in accordance with subsection 16(2) shall be deemed
(a) to have retired for purposes of the survivor benefit; and
June 26, 1986

(b) to have been entitled to the joint and survivor pension benefit payable pursuant to section 22, without regard to subsection (5) thereof, in respect of that deferred pension benefit.
(4) In the case of a defined benefit plan, where
(a)	in the circumstances described in subsection (1), (2) or (3), a surviving spouse is entitled to a payment under a group life insurance plan on the death of the member or former member of the pension plan,
(b)	the group life insurance plan is one that is approved by the Superintendent for the purposes of this subsection, and
(c)	the group life insurance premiums are paid in whole or in part by the employer,
the pension plan may provide for the reduction of the benefit payable under subsection (1), (2) or (3) by an amount equal to that part of the group life insurance payment that can be considered to have been paid by employer premiums, calculated in a manner satisfactory to the Superintendent, but
(d)	the actuarial present value of that reduction may not exceed the amount of the payment to which the surviving spouse is entitled under the group life insurance plan; and
(e)	in the case of a contributory pension plan, the reduction may not reduce the benefit payable to the surviving spouse to an amount less than the aggregate of the member's required contributions together with interest in accordance with section 19."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 11 agreed to.


Neil Young: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 27 by striking out lines 17 to 24 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
''a pension plan shall use annuity factors that do not differentiate as to sex."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985


Neil Young: Motion No. 16
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 28 by striking out line 10 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"death or termination, as the case may be: and
(e) that the collective bargaining agent for the member of a plan may on the agents own initiative,
(i)	examine the documents filed with the Superintendent pursuant to paragraph 10(1) and or (2) or section 12 or any regulations made under paragraph 39(i), at the Canadian head office of the Administrator or at such other place as is agreed to by the administrator and the agent, and
(ii)	order, in writing, a photocopy of any such documents."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 16. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Motion No. 17
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 28 in the French version by striking out lines 13 to 16 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"ments vises a l'alinee (l)(c);
(b) expedier, sur paiement des frais raisonnables qu'il fixe, les exemplaire demandes au titre de l'alinea (l)(c)."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 17. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.

June 26, 1986


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
Motion No. 17 agreed to.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Motion No. 19
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 36
(a)	by striking out lines 36 to 44 at page 43 and substituting the following
therefor:
"(a) is ordered by a court pursuant to provincial property law (within the
meaning of subsection 25(1)); or
(b)	is made pursuant to a written agreement between the spouses."
(b)	by striking out line 1 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) Any agreement or arrangement".
(c)	by striking out line 9 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply in".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 19. Is it the pleaser of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
Motion No. 19 agreed to.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean) has stated repeatedly,
especially since his recent refugee policy, the importance of appointing\ well qualified individuals to the Immigration Appeal Board. Immigrant organizations have also stressed that appointees need the prerequisites of competence and experience in order to make sound decisions. In refugee matters, particularly, error can lead to certain death. Earlier this month, however, the Minister made seven new appointments to the Immigration Appeal Board, six of whom had direct links to the Conservative Party.
Being a volunteer, an organizer, or fund-raiser for a past provincial or federal candidate with the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, does not, in itself, constitute legitimate qualifications. If the Minister is serious about his stated intentions and is genuinely concerned, he will revoke such blatant partisan appointments. They do nothing but offend the integrity of the entire immigration process.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, what is in a name? For Canadians and visitors, we identify our national parks and historic sites with a name, Parks Canada. One would think that this title, short, historic-and, yes, even patriotic-would appeal to the Government. Apparently not. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is renaming Parks Canada "Department of Environment-Parks"-an uninspired, long, dull name.
The cost of renaming? Probably into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, from changing the letterhead on stationery, to repainting signs and vehicles, to altering literature. At a time when the Minister is complaining of insufficient funds to do worth-while things, where will the money come from? Will more scientists be laid off to pay for McMillan's silly idea? Will environmental programs be further weakened? Only the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that such a comment, direct and by name, is out of order.


Charles L. Caccia: I regret that, Mr. Speaker.
Only the Minister knows. What is clear is that the pride of Parks Canada employees has been hurt. A fine tradition has been dealt a mortal blow, a respected identity has been eliminated surreptitiously.
June 26, 1986



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that there may be some doubt about the Government's commitment to preserving Canada's fragile environment. I promise any and all sceptics that the Mulroney Government is solidly in favour of assuring all Canadians that there is clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. It is ludicrous to suggest environmental matters will be put on the back burner. The Government has introduced stringent measures for the control of acid rain at industrial and vehicular sources.
No other federal Canadian Government has dared to tread where this Progressive Conservative assembly has soared. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has pledged his allegiance to the environment. The excellent Minister he appointed to the environmental portfolio is the manifestation of this Government's positive action. For the first time in history this country has the ear of the political machine in the United States regarding transboundary pollution. The Canadian environment has never been in safer hands.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, just six months ago the Opposition vilified the Government over the divestiture of de Havilland-a moneylosing Crown corporation. The Liberals, who poured over $800 million of taxpayers' hard-earned money into de Havilland, criticized the sale to Boeing as being a bad business deal for Canada.
What are they saying now? With Boeing's strength and marketing know-how, 49 Dash-8s have been sold for over $400 million; $25 million has been invested in plant modernization; product line has been expanded to include components for the 747; and 250 new jobs will be added.
Clearly what had been a millstone around the neck of the Canadian taxpayer has been transformed into a productive job-creating enterprise-proof positive that government, which has the power to tax and to regulate, does not have to own or acquire businesses which can be better run by the private sector.
Let us work on Canadair next!
S.O.	21 TRADE



SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, today the International Trade Commission took one more step against the softwood lumber producers in this country. Once more the legitimacy of the Conservative thrust for free trade with the United States is being undermined.
What is so frightening is that we know we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. I have here in my hand the so-called "second letter" from President Reagan to Senator Packwood on this issue in which he says clearly: "I want you to know that I am committed to finding a rapid and effective solution to the Canadian softwood lumber problem which restores for the American lumber industry a fair opportunity to compete".
If they do not get their way through this ITC countervail thrust, then they will find another way to get us. Poor British Columbia and poor Canada. We are paying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, since we will soon be leaving this Chamber for the summer recess, I would like to take this opportunity to urge my Liberal colleagues from the Montreal area to reflect on what has been achieved by this Government since September 1984, so they can inform their constituents objectively on what has been done in Montreal in the last 20 months. In the Montreal area, 46,000 new jobs have been created since September 1984. The number of unemployed workers has dropped by more than
9,000.	The value of building permits issued rose from $295 million in the first quarter of 1985 to $500 million on the same date in 1986. Hundreds of businesses have started projects that are important for the entire Montreal area. Retail sales have increased by more than 18 per cent.
I hope that during the summer, our Liberal colleagues will find it within themselves to admit their lack of objectivity and frankness vis-a-vis the many achievements of this Government in the Montreal area.

June 26, 1986




Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, since tomorrow will be the end of this session and the Hon. Member for Longueuil (Mr. Leblanc) is giving me a chance to take stock of what the Government has done since January, I think the following summarizes it neatly: goof, goof, goof, scandal, scandal, scandal! It started in January with the resignation of the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) in connection with the Gulf affair and Montreal East. Subsequently, a series of scandals took over, starting with the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, Mr. Stevens, and followed by the resignation of the Hon. Member for L'Assomption and the charges laid against the Hon. Member for Gamelin (Mr. Gravel), and on top of all this, the extravagant spending of taxpayers' money by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
Mr. Speaker, we also had the absolutely scandalous cuts in unemployment insurance for early retirees, where the Prime Minister goofed again, the cuts in New Horizons programs for senior citizens and the lack of any genuine legislation the Government could have introduced for the benefit of those early retirees.
Mr. Speaker, we can say that after "Goofy Joe", we now have "Brian the Goofer".



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak of the turmoil being created in northern New Brunswick by the policies being carried out by CN management. In the regional centre of Campbellton we have witnessed the alarming decline of CN jobs for 10 years now, from 1,200 to 350. The cuts continue. At the same time revenues generated in our region certainly turn a substantial net profit for CN.
I question the motives of CN management and its apparent burning desire to destroy completely a once great and still profitable business in northern New Brunswick. It seems that some company officials are more interested in empire building than they are in finding alternatives to laying off workers. I call on the Government to put an end to CN mismanagement and the resulting lay-offs and flow of jobs out of the area.
CN, just who in the hell are you in business for anyway?



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, June 28, communities all over Canada will be celebrating Armed Forces Day. Over the years this national event has allowed Canadians from all walks of life to see firsthand how the men and women of our Armed Forces serve the vital interests of Canada.
I am fortunate to have in my riding one of the many bases that are distributed all over Canada. I am talking of CFB London, Wolseley Barracks, which will be celebrating its one hundredth anniversary tomorrow. CFB London is the home of the First Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment which has distinguished itself as one of the finest infantry units in Canada. The 600 men and women at CFB London serve all of southwestern Ontario by providing services to militia units, cadet corps, and other military establishments.
I am sure that I speak for all Members of this House when I express my appreciation for our Armed Forces. While we may not mention it every day, we appreciate that they are working for peace in places such as Cyprus and the Middle East; that they are protecting our coastline and maintaining our sovereignty in the North; and that they are honouring our commitment to our allies in NATO and NORAD.
To all members of our Armed Forces I say a heartfelt and warm thank you.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, there have been strange things going on in Alberta for some time. However, the means by which the federal and provincial Conservatives have chosen to bust unions has taken on a grim new reality.
On Monday, at a Slave Lake plywood plant, 30 RCMP officers arrived to confront a strike force of 100. The strikers were in full compliance with an existing court order. However, the RCMP waded into the strikers, assaulted and arrested seven of them, including Harold Hawley, the IWA organizer. The RCMP singled him out, leaped on his back and choked him unconscious to the ground. The RCMP labour liaison, Constable Cliff Munroe, turned off his video camera while Harold Hawley was choked to the ground and thrown into a van.
Who ordered the RCMP out to bust the legal pickets at Slave Lake? Who ordered the mugging and detention without bail of Harold Hawley? What is the connection between the owner, Mrs. Margaret Campbell, and the Conservative Party? How far does the Conservative Party intend to go in removing
June 26, 1986

rights from Canadian workers? The assault on, and detention of, Harold Hawley without bail answer that question.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) had best investigate and arrest those responsible for attacking these Canadian citizens.



PUBLIC SERVICE


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has kept another promise. Yesterday the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) announced that legislation will be announced this fall concerning superannuate pensions. Past commitments will be fully honoured and no changes will be made in benefits earned to the effective date of change.
Those who paid for indexed pensions in the Public Service, RCMP and Armed Forces will have them fully indexed through a grandfathering process. For present employees, pensions arising from service to their credit prior to the effective date of change will also have guaranteed indexing. Automatic indexation will disappear.
The Government will appoint a new 14-person pension management board to permit joint employee-employer operation of the Public Service plan that will now be managed on a sound financial basis. Conservative Members from across the country fought hard to keep this promise. This announcement is not only good politics but good business.



FUNDING OF WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to the emergency meeting between the Secretary of State and women's groups funded under the program concerning the promotion of women.
The purpose of this meeting is to convey to the Minister the concerns of women's organizations over funding because a number of problems have cropped up in recent months.
Among the groups which have experienced difficulties I might mention the Quebec Federation of Women, the Cahiers de la femme, the Pictou Women Centre, the Port Alberni Women Resources Centre.
I know that Conservative Members have intervened to stop payments. I also know that cases approved by Secretary of State project agents have been piling up on the Minister's desk for a month. Political interventions have never been so numerous in the field of grants to women's groups.
Mr. Speaker, time has come for the Conservative Government to examine its conscience with respect to the funding of women's groups, and these women are here to lend it a hand.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, the summer break is starting on a high note for western Canadians. The residents of Saskatoon are delighted that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and senior cabinet Ministers will be in Saskatoon for a meeting of the Priorities and Planning Committee from July 2 to 4.
During the election campaign of 1984, the Prime Minister pledged to bring western Canada back into the federal Government after 20 years of neglect. He appointed 12 cabinet Ministers from western Canada, and held the first First Ministers' Conference of the new Government in Regina. The P and P meeting in Saskatoon is another strong signal that western Canadians count for and can count on this Government.
My constituents are looking forward to meeting the Prime Minister and cabinet Ministers in Saskatoon next week. They know that the views and concerns they express will be heard. We saw the damage done to our country because of the Liberals' regional biases. On behalf of Saskatoon East, I thank the Prime Minister for putting a stop to regional prejudice and making western Canada count as well.



PETRO-CANADA RECOMMENDATIONS OF RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION

Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) the report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and its recommendations concerning Petro-Canada. The commission has made it very clear that Petro-Canada should be used as an instrument of public policy, contrary to what the present Government believes.
The Government says it believes in promoting competition. The RTPC has stated that the Government has a unique

June 26, 1986
Oral Questions
opportunity to do just that in the petroleum sector through Petro-Canada. The commission recommended that Petro-Canada not discriminate against independent marketers, stop its practice of refusing to sell off gas stations to competitors, and end rack pricing. It also called upon the Government to establish a parliamentary committee to review Petro-Canada every five years.
I think the recommendations are worthy of support. This is what my Party has been saying all along. Canadians paid for Petro-Canada and we deserve to have it act on our behalf. Right now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is using Petro-Canada to shield her friends in the big oil companies-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.
* *
*



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, last week an event occurred that- deserves the attention of the Canadian Parliament and all Canadians. A claim was filed before the Commission on Human Rights at the United Nations against the Government of Japan, on behalf of the Canadian Hong Kong Prisoners of War. Those are the Canadians who were held in Hong Kong for several years during the Second World War and were mistreated, used for slave labour operations, and generally suffered great harm. They have gone unnoticed in the four decades since the end of the war.
We in Parliament have shown great sympathy to the Japanese mistreated by the Canadian Government, and support their claims. Let all Canadians, including those of Japanese origin, support the Hong Kong Prisoners of War. They deserve remedy for the harm they suffered, and the UN has the ability to carry out that remedy.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Where's the Tory front bench?


Mr. Crosbie:: Where's the Liberal front bench?


John Napier Turner: In the absence of the Prime Minister, and as the Minister of Justice has just pointed out, in the absence of the entire front bench except for him, I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. In voting this morning on the Canadian softwood lumber export issue in the United States, members of the United States International Trade Commission were obviously aware of President Reagan's promise to American Senators as indicated in the President's letter to Senator Packwood that he was committed to finding a rapid and effective solution to the Canada softwood lumber problem.
Harassment against our exports which currently enjoy free trade continues on the American side. Has the Prime Minister instructed our chief trade negotiator, Simon Reisman, to place the issue of softwood lumber exports to the United States at the top of the agenda so that this continued harassment by the American quasi-judicial and political process does not continue during these negotiations?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, this morning's decision was not unexpected. The onus of proof that is required for a preliminary determination of injury is very low. Indeed, since 1980 a preliminary finding of injury has been made in 90 per cent of all cases that have come before the board. I would also like to remind the right hon. gentleman that in 1983 when we won a case, there was also a preliminary finding of injury.
[ Translation]


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
John Napier Turner: have a supplementary for the Minister. He seemed to be very pessimistic in his answer to the House. Canadians are now paying through the nose for the few votes the President had to swing in the U.S. Senate so that his Government could take part in free trade discussions with Canada. My question is as follows: Will the Minister, in the next phase of this political or quasi-judicial inquiry, appear in person to conduct Canada's counter-attack before the U.S. Department of Commerce?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I am not at all pessimistic. Indeed, to the contrary, I am very optimistic. I think Canada has a very good case here. The federal Government, the provinces, the industry, and labour united unanimously at our meeting in Vancouver to fight this case. We are going to fight it and we are going to win it. I am optimistic that that will be the outcome.


UNITED STATES PRESIDENT'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, how does the Minister explain the implicit sympathy of the U.S. administration reflected by the President's letter to Senators from Oregon, Montana, and Idaho, saying that they were going to solve the Canadian lumber problem, with the

June 26, 1986

Prime Minister's recent statement that he and the President had arrived at an arrangement whereby further protectionist measures would not be anticipated on either side of the border?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would again like to point out to my right hon. friend that indeed this is not an action by the administration; this is an action by the American lumber industry pursuant to its laws which are presently in force. I would also like to point out that the Right Hon. Member and his Party should get on side and unite in our thrust to have an agreement between our two countries to prevent this very kind of thing from happening in the future.


TERMS OF QUEBEC ACCORD
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of International Trade. At the Quebec City summit, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister signed an agreement stating that they committed themselves to halt protectionism in cross-border traffic in goods and services. Why is it that since that agreement has been signed there has been American trade action on fish, softwood lumber, shakes and shingles, and now even cut flowers? When will we ask the American President to live up to his part of the bargain, or will we start asking for a renegotiation of the Quebec City agreement so that we can get a fair deal?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the Hon. Member that in almost every case these are not actions by the administration but indeed are actions which have been taken by American companies or American citizens, as is permitted under their law, and as our cattlemen are doing under our law in respect of EC beef, and as Ontario corn producers are doing in respect of corn coming in from the United States. Mr. Reisman has in fact had discussions with his counterpart about this to date, and I am hopeful that actions in the future, where possible, will be contained.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, what kind of dark hole has the Minister been hiding in? The President of the United States undertook the action on shakes and shingles. He wrote a letter to Senator Packwood saying that he would find a solution. Where has the Minister been? Why are we not giving full authority to our negotiator to insist that the question of American trade harassment be the No. 1 priority in the negotiations, and that we will not go on with the negotiations until that problem is resolved?


James Francis Kelleher: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is inconsistent. On the one hand he wants us to negotiate with the
Oral Questions
negotiator to try to stop the harassment. However, on the other hand he is not prepared to support our Party and the Government in the talks which will end the harassment in the future.


Lloyd Axworthy: When?


James Francis Kelleher: I think he should try to make up his mind on where he stands on the issue.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns a related subject. Yesterday the Government announced that it intended to yield to American pressure by bringing in legislation as early as tomorrow which could result in a $200 million increase in the prices which Canadians pay for drugs. Simultaneously the ITC in the United States today made a decision which could cost us thousands of jobs in the softwood industry. My question is a straightforward one. Why does the Government continue to sacrifice Canadian interests at the very time when Americans continue to take a whack at us?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Leader of the NDP that the projections he makes or the conclusions he has already drawn should await the legislation before he makes any final conclusions.


John Edward Broadbent: Canadians in publishing, shakes and shingles, textiles, and shoes have all seen the kind of action the Government produces. It has been nothing but bad news for Canadians.


CANADIAN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, again I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister, because presumably he has responsibility for the Government today, if someone has. In his letter to Senator Packwood, President Reagan said that all "other pending trade irritants must be resolved" before an agreement is presented to the U.S. Senate for ratification. Is the Government not taking this terrible action on drugs in Canada because the Vice-President of the United States came here two weeks ago and requested the Government of Canada to change our law in their interest, not ours?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the premises or with the question itself. We are taking action on pharmaceuticals and drugs because this Party, unlike other Parties, respects the right of private property.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Francis Kelleher: We respect the right to intellectual property. We respect that all parties have rights. I think the Hon. Member will just have to wait until the action we will be

June 26, 1986
Oral Questions
proposing is introduced to see whether or not it is indeed fair and just at that time.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister might respect the rights of drug companies to make as much money as they want. We respect the rights of pensioners and other Canadians to have low drug prices. That is the difference.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the Deputy Prime Minister who is in charge and ask him the following question. In the give and take involved in all negotiations between Canada and the United States on this matter, why is it that Canadians are doing all the giving and the Americans all the taking? If the Deputy Prime Minister agrees with that, why does he not announce the Government's intention to withdraw this drug Bill which will cost Canadians $200 million more?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: The Deputy Prime Minister does not agree with that, Sir.


EXTERNAL TRADE
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade and concerns the predictable impact of free trade on farmers and workers in the clothing industry. Yesterday, Professor Yvon Proulx of Laval University published a study in which he predicted the complete destabilization of our agricultural economy, if a free trade agreement were signed with the United States. Could the Minister inform the House what measures the Government intends to take to protect Quebec farmers and especially the family farm?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I advise the Hon. Member that indeed we are aware of the report. There is such a study, but we have not as yet seen it. We have not had a chance therefore to examine it, but certainly we will and will be able to comment on it more specifically at that time. However, I can assure him that in any agreement and in any discussion with the United States, we will not sign any agreement which is not good for all Canada, all parts of Canada, and that includes agriculture as well.


FREE TRADE-MEASURES TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT CLOTHING AND TEXTILE WORKERS
Raymond Garneau: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. As I said in my preamble, there were not only farmers but also workers in the clothing industry demonstrating yesterday in Montreal. Could the Minister inform the House, and he may have had time to examine some studies in this area, what measures the Government intends to take to protect workers in the clothing industry who are saying they stand to lose their jobs if a free trade agreement is signed with the United States?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to point out that I was aware textile workers were here yesterday, because I went out and asked them to come in to meet with me, and I discussed their problems with them. We will be announcing a new policy which will assist the industry. We will not suffer the loss of
15,000	workers as occurred from 1981 to 1985 as a result of legislation and policies adopted by that Member's Government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the $100 million the U.S. Congress just voted will mostly go to military aid to the Contras, who, as we all know, are seeking to overthrow the Government of Nicaragua, will the Government, knowing that this is a violation of Article II of the UN charter, publicly denounce it?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the vote taken in the United States yesterday does not change one iota in Canada's policy. As we have said before, Canada's policy differs from that of the United States. We are radically opposed to anyone interfering in any country whatsoever, and this applies to helping the Contras as well as to helping the guerilleros in El Salvador.


TERMS OF UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Minister's reaffirmation of that position, but I asked a further question. Is she fully aware that this contravenes Article II of the UN Charter, and will she publicly state that we will not accept such a contravention of a body to which we belong and wish to uphold?
June 26, 1986


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, as the Government of this country, we feel that the present problems in Central America are economic and social problems. We think that the solution lies in dealing with these economic and social problems and not in giving military aid.


CHALLENGE '86 ALLEGED FUNDING OF P.C. CANADA FUND
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment. We were told this morning that the P.C. Canada Fund, which is the fund-raising arm of the Conservative Party, has been granted funding under the Challenge '86 Employment Program-
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Allmand:: -to hire between 25 and 30 students to do fund raising for the Conservative Party during the summer. Will the Minister confirm this project, and if so, how does she justify this gross misuse of public funds?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will not confirm that project. I will look into it immediately. If that project has been approved, I will see that it is cancelled.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
[Stage Direction]
>
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, will the Minister please examine Challenge '86 Project No. 4839 under the name of the P.C. Canada Fund, which is hiring students at the Sparks Street Student Employment office? Will the Minister do that?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I told the Hon. Member, in case he didn't hear it the first time, that I will do so.


JOB RE-ENTRY PROGRAM-WORK OF STUDENTS AT GAINERS PLANT IN EDMONTON
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Employment. I, too, have just been informed of a problem in her Department where two students from the Minister's Job Re-entry Program in Edmonton are now performing security duties at Peter Pocklington's Gainers Plant in Edmonton.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: This is part of an $84,000 federal government program under Job Re-entry at the Security Officer Career College in that city. Will the Minister now direct her officials to instruct the college for the duration of the strike that at least no student be placed at Gainers for "on the job" training?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this project about which the Hon. Member has asked is a project that is training security personnel.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The hon. gentleman wants to laugh at that. There are 20 unemployed people in this project, four of whom have been placed in the Gainers plant. I want to assure the Hon. Member that this training has been ongoing since last December. These people will graduate shortly and they will then be going into permanent employment.


Ian Deans: There are other places to get training.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am glad to see that they have had the opportunity to achieve the training-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. The Hon. Member for Y orkton-Melville.
Order, please. I take it the Hon. Member's Party does not want to allow the Member to ask a supplementary.


Ian Deans: What did the Speaker say?


John Carnell Crosbie: Listen and stop yelling.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A supplementary question, please.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ORDER REMOVAL OF TRAINERS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister not agree that in effect these people are scabs? Can the Minister explain to the House why she is using federal Government money to support the eighteenth century labour practices of Peter Pocklington in Edmonton? Will she issue a directive and take those people out of the plant now?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, what I can tell the Hon. Member is that I expect unemployed people to have the opportunity to get training-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Scabs.

June 26, 1986
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Hon. Member can call them scabs. I call them unemployed people who have welcomed the opportunity-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. Members of the New Democratic Party surely would allow the Minister to answer a question posed by their own Member. Order, please. The Minister may complete her answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. If Members ask questions, surely it is courteous to allow the answer to be heard. Order, please.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can call unemployed people scabs if he wants to. I do not call them scabs.


Mr. Benjamin:: They are desperate.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: These people are among a group who are getting job experience and training in an institution.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He wants to throw them out of that course. I do not think that unemployed people should be treated in that way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISASTERS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and it concerns the Air-India crash of over a year ago. Will the Solicitor General confirm that within days of the crash Canadian authorities were aware it was the work of terrorists, were pursuing suspects, and that today the suspects are no longer in Canada?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: No, Mr. Speaker. What I can indicate is that a police investigation is under way at the present time and it would not be appropriate to comment further.


REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, can the Solicitor General explain why it has taken so long to lay charges? Can he also indicate why Canada is not having a judicial inquiry of its own into the Air India tragedy to examine the role of the Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP, and External Affairs Department?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I apologize because I missed the last half of the question. I believe the first half of the question related first to the issue of why it has taken so long to lay criminal charges. The answer is that if it is necessary, if criminal charges are to be laid, that there be evidence satisfactory to a court. The police investigation is under way at the present time.
With regard to whether or not there should be a judicial or some other form of inquiry, similar to what there is in India, the Hon. Member might want to put that question to another Minister, such as the Deputy Prime Minister, who would have responsibility. As Solicitor General my responsibility is for the RCMP and for CSIS, and their work is under way.


AIDS-SPREAD OF DISEASE
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Reports coming out of the International Congress on AIDS estimate an alarming escalation in the spread of AIDS, with no cure for the disease being predicted over the next several years. Will the Minister tell the House whether he agrees with the view of the Congress that prevention is now more important than ever?
Will the Minister also advise the House whether he is now willing to provide additional funding for community groups which have proven to be the most effective way of providing information, counselling, and support services for AIDS victims?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, not only do we in Canada and from Health and Welfare concur with a lot of the information coming from the Paris meeting, but there are members from my Department attending and actively participating in that conference. As to the first point in terms of the general global overview, I would say there is general concurrence from our perspective with what is being said.
Second, I want to tell the Hon. Member that when the first three year plan ended with the fiscal year March, 1986, a new five year plan was adopted by this Government and there was substantially greater funding, including money for community works. In fact $39 million has been designated for the next five years.


FUNDING OF TORONTO COMMITTEE
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. He knows that the amount of money provided so far is clearly insufficient.
June 26, 1986

Would the Minister advise the House whether or not he agrees with officials in his Department who told the AIDS committee of Toronto that the AIDS committee could not receive additional moneys because, if it did, it would prove to be an embarrassment. The organization will do brochures with clear sexual information, and the public would not understand why the Government was giving additional money to this type of an organization.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not agree with that in any way shape or form. I do not know who the official is or, if it is an official from my Department, to whom he might have been speaking. The situation is quite the contrary. The view of the Department and the Centre for Diseases Control is that our work is well funded nationally and we are co-operating very fully internationally. All of us are seeking a cure. All of us indicate, and the Paris Conference says this very clearly, that the best protection for people in the high risk groups is for them to protect themselves.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, the Minister of Transport. Most people in Kitchener are delighted with the new Toyota plant to be built in Cambridge. Although it will create hundreds of jobs, for every job created three presently held jobs in parts and assembly plants throughout Ontario and Quebec could be lost if Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda bring in all or most of their parts from the Far East.
When will these Korean and Japanese companies be required to live within, and abide by, the spirit of the Auto Parts Trade Agreement within the Auto Pact?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's support for investment in the automobile industry in Canada, particularly investment from the Pacific Rim countries. Almost $1 billion has been invested in this country, which has created jobs for assembly line and parts workers.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Answer the question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Our objective is to have as many of these jobs as possible. I can assure the Hon. Member that these companies have undertaken to meet Canada Auto Pact status. It is in their interest to do so because in doing so they can expand and broaden the base of their market.
Oral Questions BROADCASTING


TASK FORCE STUDY
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians eagerly await the release of the Caplan-Sauvageau task force report on the Canadian broadcasting industry. Even the Nielsen task force deferred its study on the broadcasting field to Caplan-Sauvageau.
My question is directed to the Minister of Communications. The Minister created this task force to develop public policy for the broadcasting industry. The report has already cost Canadian taxpayers over $2.5 million. Therefore, why is the Minister proceeding with legislation in the broadcasting field before the report of the task force is tabled, studied, or even taken into account?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the report will be released as soon as it has been translated and printed. The Bill was tabled even before the appointment of the Caplan-Sauvageau task force.


REQUEST THAT BILL C-19 BE WITHDRAWN
Sheila Finestone: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I urge the Minister not to waste $2.5 million of the taxpayers' hard-earned money. I ask him to demonstrate his commitment to his Government's consultative process by stopping the Bell Canada Bill here and now, which Bill will destroy our cable and television industry. That Bill should be withdrawn and referred back to committee. The findings of the Caplan-Sauvageau study on the cable and television industry should be studied.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Caplan-Sauvageau report deals with broadcasting issues in Canada, whereas Bill C-19 has to to with the matter of telephone communications concerning Bell Canada.


AIRPORTS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I notified him of it by phone a little while ago.
Is it the Minister's intention to allow the issuing of security passes to personnel brought in from subsidiary companies in Calgary and Gander-which would be of interest to the Minister of Justice-in order to allow for strike-breaking during a strike situation in the month of July at Mirabel and Dorval?

June 26, 1986
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for notifying me by telephone. I understand that my colleague, the Minister of Labour, has appointed a federal conciliator to investigate this issue. As the Hon. Member knows, during that period of time a strike could not take place.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Not till July 15.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It would be premature to respond to the hypothetical situation which the Member has created.


AIRCRAFT REFUELING TENDER PROCESS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, those people are now in place from Calgary and Gander. They are in Montreal ready to strike-break in violation of Quebec law. While the Minister is snubbing Quebec, the law of that province, and Quebec workers, will he call for an investigation of Ogden Allied and all its subsidiaries, including the one in Gander, under the Combines Investigation Act? Will he investigate the tendering process for refueling and avoid any risk of an explosive situation-which I mean literally-during the month of July?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how these people could be in place when there is no strike or lock-out in existence.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They're in Montreal in hotel rooms.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. The House will adjourn tomorrow for the summer recess and the Government has yet to address honourably the matter of Japanese-Canadian redress. The Prime Minister stubbornly continues to refuse to involve himself despite the pledges he made during the election campaign and as Opposition Leader.
Given the Minister's failure to facilitate and encourage a genuine and adequate process, will he assure the House that he will use the summer months to conduct full and meaningful negotiations with the National Association of Japanese Canadians so that when we return in the fall we will have the foundation for a fair and meaningful agreement on this very sensitive issue?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should make up his mind about what he wants. The last time he asked questions he suggested that we were moving too fast on this issue.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Answer the question.


Otto John Jelinek: Now he is suggesting that we are not moving fast enough. In fact the matter is before Cabinet at the present time and being actively considered. The Prime Minister is directly involved. As I have said on a number of occasions in this House, the commitment which the Prime Minister and the Government have made will be kept.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT DECISION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister refuses to fulfil the promise to negotiate. Will he at least promise this House and the community that a response from the Government will not take the form of a unilateral cabinet decision in the middle of summer when the House is not sitting and when the Japanese-Canadian community is most vulnerable from an organizational point of view? Will he at least give that undertaking?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should also know that there has been the widest range of discussions with the Japanese-Canadian community and others. This Member represents a Party which was opposed to any discussions with the Japanese-Canadian community on any redress issue. It boggles the mind to see this Hon. Member constantly getting up in a hypocritical way trying to grandstand on the backs of the Japanese Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the Hon. Member was characterizing a process, but he was coming awfully close to characterizing a Member. He knows that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He said the Member.


Lloyd Axworthy: Apologize.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened very carefully.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. After months of delay why did the Minister one month ago put forward his program for clearing the backlog of 21,000 refugee claimants without having regulations prepared to guide claimants, their lawyers, and most important, the immigration officers, and without yet having hired the new staff which he promised five weeks ago to handle this great new load of
June 26, 1986

applications and examinations? Why has he allowed this mess
to accumulate?
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that there is no mess at all. The hiring of staff is now under way. The office space has been rented and will shortly be opened. The training of those who will undertake this fast track is now under way so that that process can begin as early as September.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, we were promised it would begin in the middle of July. Now we are told September. We do not know when it will happen.


ENTRY OF FALSE CLAIMANTS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Clearly false refugee claimants are entering Canada by the plane load at a rate of nearly one thousand per month. Why has the Minister done nothing to stop this grave disruption of the program he is trying to institute?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that this is a matter of urgent concern for myself and the Government. We appreciate the support of Members on all sides of the House. We are seeking the support of the Portuguese community. We have had dialogue with that Government both here and in Lisbon. We are seeking a solution short of any visa measure. I will be reporting later on that matter.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I am deeply concerned about the potential volatility of the picket line at the Gainers plant in Edmonton. Would the Minister please clarify the role of Labour Canada's safety officers in investigating claims of dangerous work by federally employed meat inspectors and veterinarians?


GRASSHOPPER PLAGUE-COST OF PESTICIDES
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He knows that thousands of farmers in Saskatchewan and Alberta are facing a very serious grasshopper plague, for the third and fourth year in many cases. In view of this desperate situation, is the Minister prepared to make a commitment today to assist these producers by providing 50 per cent of the cost of pesticides needed to handle this infestation?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware and very much concerned about this problem. We continue to monitor the situation in conjunction with our provincial counterparts. I think we should express our appreciation for the interest which the two western provinces have had in this situation in that they have come forward with programs to provide financial assistance to western producers. However, at this point we have not made a decision to participate in a cost-sharing arrangement with respect to the grasshopper control project.


REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the Minister refuses to assist these hard-pressed farmers. He knows this will mean additional payments under the Crop Insurance Program this fall. At the same time farmers will face the loss of their crops. Will he reconsider, hop to it, and make a decision?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, we are not rejecting this outright. We have not made any final decision. If the Hon. Member will check, he will find this Government has been very generous with payments to western Canadian farmers. Grasshopper damage is of course eligible for compensation under the Crop Insurance Program. In addition, we have reached an agreement with our provincial counterparts in western Canada to provide additional coverage for disaster cases.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his interest. Legal officers of the Crown have reviewed the Canada Labour Code and have strong reservations as to the applicability of Part IV of the Canada Labour Code in issues such as violence on picket lines. The safety officer's decision, which had been made earlier, is now under appeal to the PSSRB. We will continue to react to calls pending resolution of this legal issue.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I can remember the Minister of State for Science and Technology being surprised at the announcement that IRAP funds were to be transferred to the space program. Yet he subsequently defended that action on the basis that the NRC had been consulted. If that is true, can the Minister explain why the vice-president in charge of the program says that he was not consulted? Why is there an emergency meeting today

June 26, 1986
Oral Questions
involving members of the board who say that the NRC has been treated as if it did not exist and in violation of the NRC Act?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, it is my information that the Acting President of the NRC has engaged in a conference telephone call with some council members in an effort to dispel some of the misunderstanding and confusion to which the Hon. Member and some others contributed so generously.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, we would like to see somewhat less imprecision about the facts from the Minister. Does he not think that when resignations are threatened, when there is a demand for an emergency meeting in response to concerns expressed by small business about being deprived of needed research funds, that it is about time the Minister took action to restore the funds to IRAP-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, first, no funds have been taken from IRAP. If the Hon. Member is interested in the facts I would be prepared, as I have said to some of his colleagues on an earlier occasion, to convey the facts to him in writing, as I did with the NRC. That would surely clear up his mind as it did those whom I consulted.


FISHERIES
Albert Girard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. About 1,400 people make a direct living from recreational fishing for salmon on the Restigouche River. These people are very worried that if net fishing on that river by the natives continues, they will not have any work in the near future. What has the Minister done and what does he intend to do to prevent this happening?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague as it reflects his concern for the conservation and preservation of Atlantic salmon stocks in the Restigouche River. On hearing of alleged violations of fishing regulations on the part of the Cross Point Micmac Band, I conducted inquiries of my colleague, the Minister in Quebec responsible for the agreement with the Cross Point Micmacs, and also my colleague, the Minister in New Brunswick who is responsible for this fishery. I have been assured there have been no violations of
the food fish entitlement, and we will work to ensure that in future years this is no longer a problem to my hon. colleague.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Before he passes the Gainers buck to the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Labour, I want to tell him that I was at the plant yesterday and I also met with the meat inspectors. I passed along a copy of a letter, which he will have received, in which all the meat inspectors who stayed off the job have petitioned him-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -because they are afraid for their safety and the safety of their families.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Can the Minister tell me why not only has his Department ignored their demands to be guaranteed safe passage or allowed to stay off the job without facing disciplinary action, but why their pay cheques today have been suspended?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any additional information I can supply today that I did not supply yesterday. As we know, the safety officer is on the site. He has to make a determination as to whether or not entry is safe. He has made that determination and that is within his jurisdiction. Under the terms and conditions of the Meat Inspection Act, Agriculture Canada has a legal and moral obligation to place inspectors in the plant during the time it is processing meat. It has a moral obligation, consistent with the Act, to ensure the health and safety of the Canadian public with respect to food products.


SAFETY OF INSPECTORS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Justice. After the Labour Ministry said the site was safe, an inspector-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -had his eyes injured by flying glass. Given that, can the Minister tell this House that he is prepared to state in writing that he will guarantee the safety of those inspectors who, along with their families, are being threatened because they are caught in the middle of a dispute and that Government is protecting Peter Pocklington-


Mr. Speaker:: This is long.
June 26, 1986


Sheila Maureen Copps: -and not its own employees?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the question deserves an answer or not.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Try anyway.


John Carnell Crosbie: However, I will make an effort, on the request of the second Official Opposition Party, and check into the situation. I have no knowledge or report except for the question which the Hon. Member has just asked.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Revenue. Can he explain to the House the role the RCMP has in investigating fraud under the SRTC program? His Deputy Minister told The Globe and Mail that, referring to the files, "We are unable to simply turn it over to the RCMP". Yet that same Deputy Minister stated in committee on June 6 that "We are in touch with the RCMP. There are investigations going on." What is the role of the RCMP?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows very well that the sanctity of the self-assessment system under the Canadian Income Tax Act provides in certain specific instances for the RCMP to co-operate and interact with Revenue Canada. If he wants a more specific answer I suggest, with respect, that he put it down for the Adjournment Debate and we can discuss it more fully. It is not in the interests of the Canadian taxpayer that information be turned over on a completely unrestricted basis to the RCMP.


Mr. Speaker:: A very brief supplementary.


ROLE OFRCMP
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister explain to the House why, a year ago, the Deputy Minister told the Public Accounts Committee that files had been turned over to the RCMP and that the RCMP were involved?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I do not know precisely what it was the Deputy Minister said, but as I indicated to my honourable friend there are definite instances where co-operation is not only desirable, but traditional, between the RCMP and National Revenue. This is quite evident to anyone who follows the system. The RCMP are often utilized as peace officers when investigations
Business of the House
are going on. When the RCMP conduct investigations they can subpoena evidence from National Revenue, but as my colleague knows, it has not been traditional up to this point to supply information on a wholesale basis to the RCMP from National Revenue.


POINT OF ORDER
John Edward Broadbent: Following discussions with other Parties in the House I would ask you to seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions in order in turn to obtain unanimous consent to move a motion without notice, the motion being as follows:
All parties in the House of Commons having strongly opposed military intervention by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in 1979 and, all parties having similarly opposed outside intervention in Nicaragua in favour of a peaceful solution to that region's problems express their disapproval of the decision taken by the United States House of Representatives yesterday to provide funding for military action aimed at the overthrow of the internationally recognized Government of Nicaragua, action which would be in clear violation of article 2 of the United Nations Charter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Seeking unanimous consent.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party presented this motion to me at quarter to three, which is about 15 minutes ago. I indicated at that time that it was not possible for me at this time to give unanimous consent required for him to put that motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, I suspect, wants to say something with regard to the motion. The request of the Chair is to seek whether there is unanimous consent to revert to motions. There not being unanimous consent I cannot accept the request.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the parties, and I think that if you were to seek unanimous consent you would find that there is a disposition to give unanimous consent to the following draft order. That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, when the House reaches Orders of the Day this day it shall immediately proceed to the consideration of Bill C-112 and dispose of all remaining stages of that Bill by 3.45 o'clock p.m., and immediately thereafter the House shall proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill C-90, an Act respecting pension plans, organized

June 26, 1986
Energy Administration Act
and administered for the benefit of persons employed in connection with certain federal works, undertakings and businesses. And, provided that the provisions of Standing Order 13 shall be deemed in force for the purpose of this order, and that the House shall thereupon proceed to consideration of the said Bill at the third reading stage.
Mir. Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion, is there unanimous consent necessary for its introduction available?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried and so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: that Bill C-112, an Act to amend the Energy Administration Act and provide for certain matters in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee.


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the emergency amendments to the Energy Administration Act regarding natural gas pricing.
On October 31, 1985, the federal Government and the oil and gas producing provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan signed the agreement on natural gas markets and prices. The objective is to make an orderly transition to a competitive market for natural gas by November 1, 1986.
Since 1975, the wholesale price for natural gas sold in interprovincial trade has been set by Governments under federal-provincial energy agreements. The federal and provincial Governments are now working hard to amend legislation required to meet the objectives of market sensitive pricing by November 1. Alberta, for example, has prepared extensive amendments to its legislation to ensure that the objective of the agreement is met in the province.
Provincial Governments have also taken steps necessary to facilitate direct sales between producers and consumers, and have undertaken competitive marketing programs during the transition year. In both Ontario and Quebec the provincial regulatory boards have taken major steps to ensure that large consumers can have open access to distribution systems.
The emergency Bill to amend the Energy Administration Act is needed to fulfil the Government of Canada's commitments under the national gas agreement. The Bill will permit the Governor in Council to continue to approve negotiated domestic natural gas prices during this transition period. It will also remove any ambiguity surrounding natural gas pricing arrangements that have already been negotiated. Without these amendments the agreement on natural gas markets and prices, signed on October 31, 1985, could be in jeopardy. With these amendments the policy of negotiated prices for domestic gas prices could be halted. Without negotiated prices western natural gas producers could not effectively compete in the market-place and could lose sales to competing fuels, including imported oil. Loss of sales, particularly in the key industrial market segment, would create economic hardships for the west. Large eastern Canadian gas consumers would be denied access to attractively priced domestic natural gas supplies. To date large petrochemical, manufacturing, mining and forest product companies have negotiated natural gas cost savings in excess of $100 million.
My Minister's Department has received full support for these amendments from other Government Departments and agencies, including the National Energy Board. The industry, along with the producing and consuming provinces, want the ambiguities removed and the regulated process streamlined. These amendments will meet their concerns. This Bill does not introduce any new policy initiatives, but its passage is important to all Canadians.
Since last October Canada's natural gas marketers have been busy negotiating contracts that benefit both the producers and the consumers. When you stop to think of it, who ever heard of a natural gas marketer in Canada before last year. There may have been a few, but there are certainly more people working in the natural gas business today than ever before. You ask why? Governments are getting out of the gas pricing business during the transition year. Producers can now go out and sell their product. The prices for natural gas in Canada are now established in the market-place where they should be. Natural gas is now able to compete with other fuels for market share. By November 1 of this year all natural gas services will be negotiated in the market.
These changes could not have been introduced at a better time. Imagine the position our natural gas industry would be in if it continued to be tied to Government regulated prices at a time when oil prices have fallen. How could natural gas compete in a market where the dual fuel capacity of industrial consumers provides the flexibility to switch to a competing fuel source including imported oil. How could gas consumers benefit from a lower energy cost? Natural gas must be competitive and the federal-provincial agreement signed last year allows this to happen.
This agreement received my full support when it was signed last October. The changes to the Energy Administration Act before the House today, which allows a wide variety of negotiated arrangements, streamlining the regulatory process
June 26, 1986

during this transition year, also have my complete support. I respectfully request the approval of the House for this emergency Bill.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the Parliamentary Secretary in his request for approval on all sides of the House for this emergency Bill. While I certainly agree with that request, I want to say a few words in order to underline the importance of deleting the ambiguities that presently exist in the natural gas marketing network.
Natural gas marketing and distribution is not an easy subject to understand at the best of times. However, in this transition year from October 31, 1985 to November 1, 1986 there are many ambiguities and many questions, not only in the minds of industry but consumers as well. Hopefully, these mysteries will be eased by this legislation, Bill C-112.
On October 31 the Minister promised a new era for consumers and producers which would be brought about by market sensitive pricing. She said that the pricing would, in effect, provide gradual deregulation during the transition period when the Alberta border and Toronto wholesale prices would be frozen at existing levels. Although this is happening, the problem is that it is not working out the way we had hoped.
I believe the National Energy Board has acted very responsibly and made some very good decisions in the best interests of the country. They have unravelled a good deal of the mystery in this transition period and in the natural gas deregulation and marketing problems. The National Energy Board has stated that with respect to TransCanada PipeLines, private contracts between buyers and sellers will have priority. That is important because there are many bulk purchasers of natural gas in central Canada who will benefit from these private contracts and individual contracts between the buyer and seller. TransCanada PipeLines is no longer in the position of having to be the seller, but in this case can be simply the carrier. That is a step in the right direction.
However, the problem still exists for the small consumer such as the homeowner and the small businessman. They cannot get this preferential treatment through the TransCanada PipeLines. They are unable to organize a special agreement between buyer and seller and receive this preferential status with TransCanada PipeLines. While there will be large reductions in the price of natural gas for the large consumer, I am very much concerned that there will not be much in the way of price decreases for the small consumer, if there are any at all. I hope the Government will take this into consideration because it is not long until November 1.
The other feature deals with what I would call the adjacent border price, whereby natural gas can be sold into the United States, but not at a price lower than that available to Canadians in the area where the natural gas crosses the Canada-U.S. border.
Energy Administration Act
Currently, through the regulated system, the National Energy Board can tell us the exact prices in particular areas because it is documented, largely through the TransCanada PipeLines system. However, what will happen when there are private contracts between sellers and purchasers, particularly large purchasers? This information will not be available to the National Energy Board and I am afraid that the NEB will not have the information upon which to base this adjacent border price. There will be some slippage and consumers in Canada will not be assured that they are getting the benefit of the low prices that Americans will receive. This may not be intentional on the part of the Government, but it can happen and we should correct that situation.
In committee, the National Energy Board and the Chairman in particular said that the Board will need new terms of reference prior to November 1, 1986 in order to be able to deal with this new method of selling and marketing natural gas in this country, and in order to ensure that Canadian consumers in central Canada will receive as low a price as American buyers. I hope that the Government will address this question.
Now that Bill C-112 will eliminate these ambiguities, further policies can be brought into effect so that people in this country, particularly consumers in central Canada, will know where they stand and will have the benefit of the lower prices they should be receiving.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, as my Party's energy critic, I want to make a few remarks on this Bill. I support its speedy passage. I accept the Parliamentary Secretary's assertion that this Bill would help an orderly transition toward deregulation of the natural gas market by November 1.
This is a very complicated area. One wonders whether one is reading English when trying to understand this material. However, when one recalls that certain principles are involved, the complications of the natural gas market disappear and what is involved becomes rather clear.
When the Government decided to deregulate the price and marketing of natural gas, it had to deal with many contacts already in existence, including some famous take or pay contracts held by TransCanada PipeLines. The Government had to deal with distribution and the interests of producers, consumers and transporters. It seemed that the Government handed this question to the National Energy Board, for it to attempt to unravel the Gordian knot. As my friend, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) said, the Board did a good job in trying to deal with that issue. I agree with that statement because it is a difficult issue. While I do not believe anyone is completely happy with the decision, that would have been impossible to achieve.
This is a difficult issue because the interests of producers, shippers and distributors are involved. It is worth a lot of money because Canada exports some $4 billion a year in natural gas to the United States. That is about 5 per cent of

June 26, 1986
Energy Administration Act
the American market, which means a lot of money for western Canadian producers.
In my remarks I want to outline some of the issues and principles that should be recognized. The first issue is U.S. exports. Natural gas is a non-renewable resource that is clean burning and can be used in many different ways. The problem is that we will deplete our natural gas resource in Alberta, British Columbia and parts of Saskatchewan and will have to go to the frontiers to look for gas there. Your Honour knows what will happen. The cost will dramatically increase for the consumer. Here in Ontario, where we are right now, where many people heat their homes and cook by natural gas, in an expanding market, we must ensure that we do not export all our cheap, non-renewable natural gas at fire-sale prices because there is an opportunity in the American market and we want to grab that. Producers will always say to regulatory boards like the National Energy Board and the Government,"We want to export more if we can because we need the cash flow and then we will reinvest and we will find more gas", and so on. That is true in some ways, but in other ways, when it is a depleting resource, gas will be found in more and more difficult places. It will cost more to transport and will mean higher prices for consumers.
I am proud that the NDP has taken the same position federally, here in Ontario, in the House of Commons, as it took in Alberta. I will refer to a policy statement by the Leader of the Official Opposition in Your Honour's province of Alberta, by the Hon. Ray Martin, who is a New Democrat. He said:
It should first of all be stressed that New Democrats have never seen the"Brick Warehouse firesale" approach of wholesale exports at the cheapest price possible as any sort of sensible solution to the problems of our natural gas industry. Far better, we have argued, to look at the big picture through a greater emphasis on use of this non-renewable resource here in western Canada, as well as through changes in our pricing and distribution systems which benefit the many small Canadian producers operating here. In this regard, we have advocated gas prorationing, gas banking, encouragement of M-Gas and other plants for production of gasoline from natural gas, natural gas substitution for provincial government vehicle fuel and other measures to enhance markets locally.
I have often thought over the years, if I can digress for a minute, that perhaps the little green buses on which we come to the House that burn the oil, should perhaps have been converted to natural gas, as has been done in many companies in Vancouver and with municipal vehicles. In other words, here is the Leader of the New Democratic Party in Alberta saying in Alberta, "Let us not sell out all our gas right now at fire-sale prices". That is not to say we should not export gas. We must export some gas because we must keep the small producers going and we do have a surplus, but we must be very careful that we do not sell it at fire-sale prices. That is not the situation right at the moment, because there is a gas bubble in the United States. Spot prices in the United States have gone down as low as about $2 a thousand cubic feet, recently. However, we must be careful not to export for a quick buck.
The second principle to be kept in mind is that we must try to receive the best possible prices for the consumers. Access must be given to small producers. Let me explain the consumers' part, first. The Government must continue to follow the principle that we should not be selling Canadian gas to American consumers at prices lower than we sell to Canadians. I know there are problems involving transportation charges, distances, that can be adjusted at the borders and areas adjacent to the United States. Basically, we should keep to that principle and I hope the Government will not abandon it. If it does, it can look to us over here to raise it as a political issue. We must give the small producers access to the pipelines and to the markets. That is what members of the NDP in Alberta were saying when they spoke of pro-rationing and so on. The TransCanada PipeLines had a monopoly, one pipeline going from the West to the East, carrying the gas. Contracts were being made for buying gas, and it was being transported and sold. Gas could be purchased quite cheaply from small producers who were desperate for the money, because Trans-Canada PipeLines had the only access to the pipeline.
As I have advocated in the House over the last few years, we in the NDP feel that the monopoly of TransCanada PipeLines should be broken up or, alternatively, be taken over as a public enterprise. I notice that the National Energy Board did this to some extent in its decision giving producers access to the pipeline. That was a really important step because there cannot be a deregulated, competitive market without there being a deregulated, competitive system.
That is the mistake the Government made in deregulating crude oil. The Government said it would deregulate crude oil under the Western Accord and that it would help consumers and producers. Because there are four or five companies that control most of the transporting, refining and marketing, we ended up having the worst of all possible worlds; that is, consumers paying more than world price. Just look at what Americans pay for gasoline compared to Canadians. Small producers in Alberta are going under because they are selling their oil at the lowest possible price, lower than world price. We do not want to see that with natural gas. We want to see a system where there will be some control over exports and there will be fair prices to consumers. We are worried, with the new deal to which the National Energy Board agreed, that the residential consumer will still not benefit as much as we think possible. Prices should be lower for consumers because the price of oil has come down and the price of natural gas should follow.
I want to say one word about Quebec. Concerning deregulation, we think there would have been a much more positive impact upon Quebec industry and residential consumers had it not been for the Conservative decision last November to cut back funding for new laterals, gas laterals, so that natural gas could be brought into all these Quebec communities. We will be pushing for the federal Government to take further action to develop Quebec and Atlantic markets for gas, both for
June 26, 1986

national energy security reasons and also to provide a market for domestic producers.
[ Translation]
I would much rather have a deal between Alberta producers and Quebec consumers, which is better than a sale or contract between Alberta producers and the Americans. This would also be in the interest of Canadian energy security. We in the New Democratic Party of Canada are in favour of expanded market in the Province of Quebec, and we deplore the fact that the Conservative Government did not promote the extension of the gas pipeline further than Quebec.

Perhaps I can end by telling the Government that we will watch this deregulation in November and we hope it will be much better than what the Government has done in trying to deregulate the price of crude oil under the Western Accord, which we consider right now not to be a success, because we think that the ordinary Canadian consumer has not benefited as much as he or she should, nor has the ordinary small producer in Canada. We hope that a different result can be achieved for natural gas. That is why we are pleased to help this Government today by passing this Bill as an interim measure.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-l 12, an Act to amend the Energy Administration Act and provide for certain matters in relation thereto.
Clauses 1 to 8 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I know that we have but a few moments to speak on third reading of this Bill. I would like to make one point; I cannot really resist making it. I would like to have it on the record.
Energy Administration Act
About 10 years ago there was a royal commission in Canada, the Berger Commission on the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is when you made your first mistake. There's the conflict.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It was to look into-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Tell us about it.


John Horton McDermid: Did they pay you anything?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am getting a hard time, Mr. Speaker, from Members opposite since I used to work for the commission. I remind Hon. Members opposite that the Attorney General of Ontario and the present Minister of Energy of Yukon also worked for the commission.


John Horton McDermid: That says a lot.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There were even some Conservatives who sat on the commission.
What I have to say is that the commission was looking into the advisability of building a large-diameter pipeline to carry natural gas from the Mackenzie Delta, from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, down through Canada to the lower 48 states. The commission received a great deal of criticism from the industry and people around at the time for recommending a 10-year delay, for various reasons, in building the pipeline.
I wish to say for the record that I have now found what the spot price of natural gas is, something to which I referred in my speech on second reading. It is now something in the order of $2.30 per 1,000 cubic feet in the United States. The pipeline would have carried gas at about $8 to $10 per 1,000 cubic feet. One can imagine how many broke companies we would have had in Canada had the pipeline gone ahead.
Not only did the report of the Berger Commission enhance and stimulate the environmental movement in Canada, and not only was it receptive to the growing native movement and the assertion of small business people to get a piece of the action in industrial developments and megaprojects, but it also helped the big oil and gas companies which would have gone broke had they built the pipeline. It will be built some day because we will run out of natural gas eventually in southern Canada. Let us hope that by the time it is built it will be built by consensus and to the benefit of the people who live in the North, as well as to the consumers who live in southern Canada and the businesses who will build it.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks on second reading I did not thank my colleagues in the Opposition for their co-operation in terms of this Bill. I wish to take this opportunity to thank both my colleagues with whom I have spent the last few weeks in going through a couple of very detailed Bills. The co-operation over the last month has been very good. I believe we accomplished a great

June 26, 1986
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
deal. I wish the record to show how much I appreciate the cooperation of the Hon. Members in terms of Bill C-112.
I also might make mention that rumour has it-and it is strictly rumour-that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), may not be involved in the energy end of things much longer. For that reason I want to say that we will miss him if in fact he is removed as the energy critic for his Party. However, we wish him good luck- not a lot but some-in whatever endeavour to which he is assigned.
The amendments before us are important to the gas industry. We appreciate Members of the House giving us the time to get them through today.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-90, an Act respecting pension plans organized and administered for the benefit of persons employed in connection with certain federal works, undertakings and businesses, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on the report stage motions on Bill C-90, an Act respecting pension plans organized and administered for the benefit of persons employed in connection with certain federal works, undertakings and businesses.
Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The first question is on Motion No. 2. Mr. Young moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 8 by striking out lines 40 to 45 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"er's own moneys, and an employer shall
(d)	be deemed to hold the amounts referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) in
trust for members of the pension plan, former employees, and any other
persons entitled to pension benefits or refunds under the plan, and
(e)	be prohibited from withdrawal, "skimming" or removal of any pension
fund surpluses in any manner or for any purpose whatever."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It may be possible that, given that a couple or three Government Members joined us after the vote-although they may want to speak for themselves-if you sought unanimous consent and received it we could allow the vote taken to be applied to the remaining votes with perhaps three or four additions and so save the time of the House.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, we would agree with that proposition, but I would like to mention that some of my colleagues who were not able to be here in time for the first vote would like to be included. The Hon. Members are: The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) and the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).


Mr. Oueilet:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would remind the House that the study committee chaired by one of our colleagues, the so-called McGrath Committee, had recommended electronic voting facilities for the House. This is one of the last times when, to save the time of the House, I give consent to the New Democratic Party House Leader to apply the same vote as the one just held. I hope that in his wisdom the Government House Leader will see to it that we are provided with a much more modern and much faster voting system than the one we have now.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the generosity of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Oueilet). I am not the only one who makes such suggestions. I distinctly recall his own House Leader having made a suggestion not at all unlike this yesterday.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I would want my vote for the subsequent votes to be considered with those of my Party.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). Had I been here on the earlier vote I would have voted with the Government. May I be included as voting in the appropriate manner?
With respect to the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), that suggestion was brought to this House some 25 years ago by a member of the other place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and then the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan).


An Hon. Member:: We could have voted by now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985


Mr. Prud'homme:: I would like to point out to you, Your Honour, that although my colleague, the Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) has named some of the Members who would like to be added, I know that a couple of others would like to be added as well. I would like to ensure that everyone who arrived late will be included, and there are some here.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be added to the distinguished list which our acting House Leader has put forward.


Jacques Guilbault: I want to ensure, Sir, that the name of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) is added to the list.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I had high hopes for you. As we come close to the end of the session, I do not know what will happen over the summer. However, I am in favour of the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Oueilet). If we had electronic voting I would not have been caught in the elevator and prevented from physically attending here. We could all vote in our offices, if we carried it to the extreme.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Instead of taking all this time we could almost have had a second vote and that vote could have counted.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by my colleague, the Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), we had an important meeting of the Nova Scotia group which delayed our arrival. I would like to be counted with the government Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next vote is on Motion No. 8 standing in the name of Mr. Young. Mr. Young moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out line 32 at page 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"reflects reasonably current interest rates levied with respect to ninety day
treasury bills".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
The next vote is on Motion No. 9 standing in the name of Mr. Young. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No.
1.	Mr. Young moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 13 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"ance with section 19 and a Pension Index adjustment calculated in accordance with subsections (1.1) to (1.3).
(1.1)	The Pension Index for any calendar year shall be calculated, in the prescribed manner, as the average for the twelve month period ending October 31 in the preceding year of the Consumer Price Index for each month in that twelve month period.
(1.2)	For any year for which the calculation required by subsection (1.1) yields a Pension Index that is less than the Pension Index for the preceding year, the Pension Index shall be taken to be the Pension Index for the preceding year.
(1.3)	Where at any time the Consumer Price Index is adjusted to reflect a new time basis or a new content basis with a resulting percentage adjustment being made in the figures for that Index, a corresponding percentage adjustment shall be made in all values existing in the Pension Index."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion
lost.
The next vote is on Motion No. 12 standing in the name of Mr. Frith. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 7. Mr. Frith moved:
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-90 be amended in Clause 25 by striking Out lines 5 to 44 at page 30, lines 1 to 50 at page 31 and lines 1 to 35 at page 32 and substituting the following therefor:
"25.(1) In this section, "marriage breakdown" means divorce or separation "separation" means the separation of two persons who are spouses of each other.
(2)	Notwithstanding section 18 and subject to this section, pension benefits or pension benefit credits shall be divided between the member and the member's spouse in accordance with subsections (3) to (8).
(3)	Where a pension benefit is payable to a member under the plan at the time the marriage breakdown occurs,
(a)	a pension benefit, the present value of which is equal to one-half of the present value of so much of the pension benefit payable to the member as is attributable to membership in the plan during the period that the marriage existed before the marriage breakdown, shall be payable to the spouse as of the date of the marriage breakdown; and
(b)	the pension benefit payable to the member shall be reduced accordingly.
(4)	Where the member is entitled to a deferred pension benefit under the plan at the time the marriage breakdown occurs,
(a)	the spouse shall be entitled to a deferred pension benefit, the present value of which is equal to one-half of the present value of so much of the deferred pension benefit to which the member is entitled as is attributable to membership in the plan during the period referred to in paragraph 3(a); and
(b)	any pension benefit that becomes payable to the member under the plan at any time after the marriage breakdown occurs shall be reduced accordingly.
(5)	Where the deferred pension benefit referred to in subsection (4) becomes payable to the member, the spouse's deferred pension benefit shall become payable as a pension benefit in accordance with the terms and conditions of the plan on the later of,
(a)	the day on which the pension benefit becomes payable to the member; and
(b)	the day on which the spouse attains the age at which an employee becomes eligible for an immediate pension benefit under the plan; provided that the spouse is alive on the later of these two days.
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
(6)	Where a member who is entitled to deferred pension benefit referred to in subsection (4) dies before the benefit becomes payable, the spouse's deferred pension benefit shall become payable as a pension benefit in accordance with the terms and conditions of the plan on the later of,
(a)	the day on which the member would have become eligible for an immediate pension benefit under the plan; and
(b)	the day on which the spouse attains the age described in paragraph 5(b), provided that the spouse is alive on the later of these two days.
(7)	Where neither subsection (3) or (4) applies but the member would have been entitled to an immediate pension benefit or a deferred pension benefit if the member's service under the plan had been terminated at the time the marriage breakdown occurred, for the purpose only of making the division pursuant to this section,
(a)	the member shall be deemed to have become entitled to a deferred pension benefit at the time the marriage breakdown occurred by reason of termination of his service under plan;
(b)	the spouse shall be entitled to a deferred pension benefit, the present value of which is equal to one-half of the present value of so much of the deferred pension benefit to which the member is deemed to have become entitled as is attributable to membership in the plan during the period referred to in paragraph 3(a); and
(c)	any pension benefit that becomes payable to the member under the plan at any time after the marriage breakdown occurs shall be reduced accordingly.
(8)	The pension benefit referred to in paragraph 7(b) shall become payable to the spouse as a pension benefit payable in accordance with the terms and conditions of the plan,
(a)	on the later of the two days described in paragraphs 5(a) and (b), where a benefit under the plan becomes payable to the member; or
(b)	on the later of the two days described in paragraphs 6(a) and (b), where the member dies before he or she becomes entitled to an immediate pension benefit,
provided that in each case the spouse is alive on the later of the two days.
(9)	The provisions of section 18 and subsection 25 (3) to (8) are subject to the terms of any order of acourt or an agreement between the member and the member's spouse."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
The next vote is on Motion No. 13 standing in the name of Mr. Young. Mr. Young moved:
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 25 by striking out lines 33 and 34 at page 30 and substituting the following therefor:
"divorce, annulment, separation or the dissolution of a common-law relationship, be divided equally between spouses to reflect the pension credits earned during the period of the marriage or relationship unless the courts or the parties themselves determine otherwise."


Mr.   Frith. Mr. Frith@: June 26, 1986

Motion No. 14
That Bill C-90, be amended by adding immediately after line 5 at page 35 the following:
"26.1 (1) Where a pension benefit or a deferred pension benefit was payable after December 31, 1986, the whole or the portion of the benefit, as the case may be (in this section referred to as the "relevant amount of the benefit"), shall be adjusted in each calendar year, as of a prescribed day and in such manner as is prescribed, in accordance with subsection (2).
(2)	The adjustment shall be such that the amount of the pension benefit or deferred pension benefit for the purposes of the plan on and after the prescribed day is an amount that is not less than the amount of the benefit for the purposes of the plan immediately before that day plus the lesser of,
(a)	60 per cent of the product obtained by multiplying:
(i)	the relevant amount of the benefit by
(ii)	the ratio that the Pension Index for the year bears to the Pension Index for the year immediately preceding that year; and
(b)	8 per cent of the relevant amount of the benefit.
(3)	Any amount that is added to a pension benefit or a deferred pension benefit in any calendar year pursuant to adjustments in that year is deemed for any subsequent calendar year to be attributable to membership in the pension plan after December 32, 1986.
(4)	Where, in relation to any calendar year, a pension benefit becomes payable or the entitlement to a deferred pension benefit arises less than a full year before the prescribed day as of which the benefit is required to be adjusted in that calendar year, the maximum amount that is required to be added to the benefit by way of such adjustment in that calendar year is the maximum amount that would otherwise be required to be so added multiplied by the number of days that the benefit was payable before the prescribed day and divided by the number of days in the calendar year.
(5)	The Pension Index for any calendar year shall be calculated, in the prescribed manner, as the average for the twelve month period ending October 31 in the preceding year of the Consumer Price Index for each month in that twelve month period.
(6)	For any year for which the calculation required by subsection (5) yields a Pension Index that is less than the Pension Index for the preceding year, the Pension Index shall be taken to be the Pension Index for the preceding year.
(7)	Where at any time the Consumer Price Index is adjusted to reflect a new time basis or a new content basis with a resulting percentage adjustment being made in the figures for that Index, a corresponding percentage adjustment shall be made in all values existing in the Pension Index."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
The next vote is on Motion No. 15 standing in the name of Mr. Young. Mr. Young moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 27 by striking out lines 17 to 24 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"a pension plan shall use annuity factors that do not differentiate as to sex."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
The next vote is on Motion No. 16 standing in the name of Mr. Young. Mr. Young moved:
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 28 by striking out line 10 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"death or termination, as the case may be; and
(e) that the collective bargaining agent for the member of a plan may on the agents own initiative,
(i)	examine the documents filed with the Superintendent pursuant to paragraph 10(1) and or (2) or section 12 or any regulations made under paragraph 39(i), at the Canadian head office of the Administrator or at such other place as is agreed to by the administrator and the agent, and
(ii)	order, in writing, a photocopy of any such documents."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
The next vote is on Motion No. 18 standing in the name of Mr. Young. Mr. Young moved:
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-90, be amended in Clause 29 by striking out lines 47 and 48 at page 38 and lines 1 to 9 at page 39 and substituting the following therefor:
"of the employer."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
Members
Gauthier
Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap
Henderson
Hopkins
Hovdebo
Kaplan
Keeper
MacLellan
Malepart
Manly
Marchi
McCurdy
McDonald
(Broadview-
Greenwood)
Mitchell
++NAYS
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nunziata
Nystrom
Orlikow
Ouellet
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Rodriguez
Skelly
Tobin
Turner
(Vancouver Quadra) Waddell Young-47.


Geoff Wilson: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? Pursuant to order made earlier this day, now.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) moved: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
Members
Bernier
Bertrand
Binns
Bissonnette
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to you that the official Opposition will support this Bill at third reading.

June 26, 1986
Farm Debt Review Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried on division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


FARM DEBT REVIEW ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 20, 1986, consideration in Committee of Bill C-l 17, an Act to facilitate financial arrangements between farmers and their creditors-Mr. Wise-Mr. Paproski in the Chair; and on the amendment (Mr. Foster) (p. 14801).
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please. May I ask Members to please take their seats. The House is again in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-l 17, an Act to facilitate financial arrangements betwen farmers and their creditors. When the Committee rose on Friday last Clause 33 of the Bill with an amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) was under consideration. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) had the floor. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Algoma.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which I proposed was to Clause 33. It reads as follows:
Where in the opinion of a review panel, a satisfactory arrangement cannot be reached without injustice or undue delay, it shall report its finding to the Board and the Board may refer the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction to formulate the arrangement that it deems equitable under the circumstances.
I proposed that amendment because under this Bill is that the review board really has no effective means of effecting a negotiated arrangement between farmer and creditor. Even where a bank or other lending institution has changed the
arrangement or done something markedly unjust to the producer, the review panel has no power to take action. The amendment is not proposed to provide an automatic court review. It simply provides that where there is an injustice or undue delay, the panel can recommend that to the board and the board may refer it to a court of competent jurisdiction.
The concern expressed by agricultural producers across this country is that under the Bill the way it is now drafted a creditor can petition the farmer into a review. Mind you, he has to have the permission of the farmer. However, can you imagine the situation where a chartered bank has called on the review board to undertake a review of the farmer's debts and the farmer refused? He really cannot refuse. In the review itself he is sworn to secrecy, as are the panelists and the creditors. Pressure is brought to bear. The banks or other creditors can sit on their hands for up to 120 days if they can persuade the board to extend the time. Then the whole exercise is over. There is no review by Parliament or anyone else of how the system is working.
If we do not take this action we are saying to the farmers concerned, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has estimated there are 8,000 of them and there may be more, that even where the bank is doing something improper or unjust, the panel will have no power to recommend court or other action. In fact, it is worse than that. They cannot even talk about it outside of the hearing.
This procedure is essential to the proper functioning of the review panel. I have talked with the chairman of the Grey-Bruce pilot project. He spent about five or six months on this, along with a half a dozen farmers and other people knowledgeable and concerned about the crisis. In his opinion there was no way this process would work unless there was a means by which a matter could be referred to a court of competent jurisdiction. In fact, if this amendment is not adopted by the Minister I believe the whole system will stall. We will have thousands of applications to review boards, the farmer will make representations to the creditor in order to reach an arrangement, and it will simply be a case of the review board jaw-boning or arm-twisting. I do not know about you, Mr. Chairman, but I have not had much luck jaw-boning or armtwisting any bankers I know. I do not think farmers facing this situation will have much more luck either.
The other thing that is developing is that other provinces have enacted legislation. For example, in Saskatchewan a farmer goes before a debt review board and the option is there to refer the matter to a court if no agreement can be reached. Clearly the Premier of that province, who views the situation so seriously that he took on the responsibility of being Minister of Agriculture, made it clear in a press statement a week or so ago that if this legislation is not made stronger he will not use it. He will maintain the existing legislation. The same thing is happening in Manitoba. They have introduced legislation which will give them the option of a court review.
It is for those reasons I think this amendment is absolutely essential, not only to make these boards effective but also to

June 26, 1986

have a uniform policy under the constitutional authority of the federal Government in regard to bankruptcy. If you look at this legislation in the first paragraph, it deals with the interpretation of an insolvent farmer. The three items referred to are taken directly from the bankruptcy laws of this country. It is under those provisions that this legislation is brought in, although the word "bankruptcy" is not used in the Bill itself.
It is also important that we do not build up a patchwork of legislation. Provincial Governments other than Manitoba and Saskatchewan are going to be under great pressure to do the same thing as those two provinces if we do not make this provision available.
Over the weekend and during the days since this Bill was last before the House I received encouragement and support from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture, the president of the National Farmers' Union, the Women's Group for Farm Survival in eastern Ontario, individual farmers, and people who served on the Grey-Bruce pilot project. There has been a great deal of support. I have a letter from Reverend Howard Brox, the General Secretary of the United Church of Canada, dated June 24, 1986 in which says with regard to Farm Debt Review Boards:
The Division of Mission in Canada requests the legislation either be amended to include an effective enforcing role for the review boards or be referred back to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for strengthening.
The concern of the church is for farm families caught in the midst of this farm crisis and we do not believe that the legislation, as it presently stands, will aid them. In fact, those same farm families may be hurt even more if the legislation is not changed so as to strengthen the power of the farm review boards to enforce their recommendations.
I have stronger evidence that this provision is essential. I have in my hand an article from the London Free Press of last July 11 in which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) himself says that it is essential that this legislation be brought in, that it must be done under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, and he indicated his support for reference to a court.
This amendment which I am proposing is not nearly as strong as that because we are not operating under the Bankruptcy Act itself. Under this Bill this is a stand-alone board, but the amendment does propose that where there is, in the opinion of the review panel, injustice or undue delay about to occur, the matter, with the support of the review board for the province or region, can be referred to a court of competent jurisdiction to formulate the arrangement that it deems equitable under the circumstances.
I know that some groups, like the cattlemen, have argued that having this provision will be harmful to farm credit. I simply refer them and other groups like that to the fact that Saskatchewan has had in place a moratorium for almost a year and a half now. They have had the same provision, really a stronger provision than this, in their legislation where when review panels cannot reach an agreement they can refer it to a court of competent jurisdiction. The credit levels there are no
Farm Debt Review Act
tougher or easier than they are in other regions of the country. Clearly the Manitoba legislation will do the same thing.
I would certainly hope that the Minister will look at this amendment, as he promised to do last Friday, with a view to giving it his support.
There is no doubt that the Minister can, under Section 10, establish regulations or rules outlining the circumstances under which references could be made to a court, or if during the first six months or longer period he feels there should be no references to the court of the operation while the whole system shakes down, that would be the Minister's prerogative.
I think that this amendment is essential so that we have one uniform system across the country without a patchwork of provincial laws applying in various ways and giving unequal justice across the country. I think it is essential that the review panels can proceed to negotiate agreements, and when they come across injustice or improper behaviour by a lending institution and the lending institution is not willing to make it right, and are adamant in that regard, then they can recommend to the review board to refer the matter to a court for their consideration.
I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister would accept this recommendation so that the whole system will be that much more effective, and that we see justice done to the thousands of farmers who are facing serious financial difficulty, or insolvency.
We know that there is going to be perhaps the most dramatic, the most serious restructuring of farm debt in the next two years that we have seen since the 1930s. We know there are thousands of farmers who six or seven years ago had land that was worth $3,000 an acre. It is now worth a thousand dollars an acre. We know that that is common in southwestern Ontario. We know in places like the Peace River where land was worth $800 an acre five or six years ago it is worth $275. We know that certain unscrupulous individuals are waiting until it is down from $275 to $100 an acre to snap it up.
I think it is important that as this massive restructuring of the farm debt takes place we not only do justice to the banks and the lending institutions, but that we do justice to the farmers, especially the young farmers who bought farms in the late 1970s and the farm value per acre drop dramatically and have seen their equity wiped out. They should be given a fair chance to end up operating those farms, that they are not dealt off to the banks or to other lending institutions whose interests are not necessarily in the community itself, but are responding to demands from headquarters in Toronto or some other capital city in our country.
I would hope that the Minister and the members of his caucus would consider this amendment. I put it in good faith believing that there is strong support for it in the country, and believing that it will be a good safety valve for cases where injustice is being done to a farmer. The review panels really want to see action taken to redress those injustices.
14924

June 26, 1986
Farm Debt Review Act


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). He has given a very good speech. He is dealing with a very important subject. I think that those of us who have had any connection with the financial difficulties in the agricultural industry and have communicated with individuals and farm organizations across the country in the last year or year and a half will know that this particular issue has not just been debated in the House of Commons in the last 20 minutes, but rather has been first and foremost in the public forum, particularly in agricultural organizations for the last year or year and a half.
What we are considering here is whether or not to decide- and I know that the Hon. Member has some conditions attached-to extend the power and the authority in legislation to a court or to a review panel to unilaterally write down debt.
I did say and have said many times, perhaps beginning last June and July-maybe even in September-that I thought that perhaps where every effort was made on a voluntary basis by a review panel and that a decision could not be reached then those cases should indeed be referred to a court.
After making that statement I got the message loud and clear from across the country, from all sectors, all regions, indeed from within the membership of the various organizations which actually took a public position asking for such powers, that we should be aware of that. We should not ignore the fact that the provinces will not accept that at this time.
The Hon. Member talks about the need for a uniform program to apply across the country. We are required to do that in order to be consistent with the Constitution and the Charter of Rights. Therefore, if we moved in that direction we would not achieve that, because I believe, with one or two exceptions, that all of the other provinces would reject it. We would not be doing a service there at all.
I do not want to rule out that change in the future because the Hon. Member will know, as will the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre, that we have had some discussion following our last exchange in Committee of the Whole. They know I have accepted some of their amendments, and I believe there are one or two others that I will accept. As well, I will be moving a Government amendment that was really put forward by the Hon. Member for Humbolt-Lake Centre. It refers to the type of review we do.
I firmly believe that there is no question that this is an important issue. However, the proper and appropriate place for careful consideration of this particular issue of extending the power of the court or review panel should be made at the time we review the progress or lack thereof of the review panel and the legislation. That will take place in the appropriate forum, either a legislative committee or standing committee of the House. Given the new powers and authority of the committees, witnesses can appear from across Canada and those committee can deal directly and specifically with that issue. There is no
question that it will be the issue. It has been debated in the past and will continue to be debated, even when the legislation is in place and the review boards are operating. We can have a track record and something to review. I am certain that this would be the more appropriate time to review this particular amendment which the Hon. Member is suggesting.
I think we have lost sight of something here. We have lost sight of the fact that we assume that the success rate flowing to farmers will be higher through a court process. I do not believe that. There is certainly more goodwill within the banking community than there was 20 months ago, but how much there is, I am not sure. I expect that it has greatly improved, but we will know that until these review panels have an opportunity to work. I firmly believe that our success rate will be higher under the voluntary process than through cases being decided by the courts.
I cannot accept this amendment and the Hon. Member knows that from the discussions we have had. However, I do not want to leave the impression that we are throwing it out forever. We do not know what we might have to do in this and other areas to continue our support for the agricultural industry in this country.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few words with respect to this amendment that was proposed by my very distinguished colleague, the Member for Algoma.
As the Minister knows, my colleague is not suggesting that the farmer would be asking the courts to take over. He is suggesting that the board be given that prerogative if and when there is an injustice being committed in the eyes of the board. This board is not appointed by opposition Members of the House, or even by the aggrieved farmer or the banker in question. The board is appointed pursuant to this Bill, which is by Order-in-Council, if I read the Bill properly. This means that the Minister will probably personally choose the people who will sit on that board. I trust that they will be people with good and appropriate judgment and will exercise that judgment in an effective manner.
Therefore, I am at a loss to understand why the Minister does not want to give this alternative, which is not necessarily an option in every case, to a board which he appoints by Order-in-Council. While there are parliamentary reviews of Order-in-Council appointments, it is the Minister who will appoint this board. This board is already given the authority to adjudicate in these matters. Yet the Minister refuses to give the board the privilege, when appropriate and necessary, not to judge it again but to ask the courts to do so, if it feels it is in the best interests of the case. I believe this is basically a friendly amendment which does not really challenge what the Minister is attempting to do. I believe we are striving for the same goals, but I am in some difficulty understanding why the Minister does not want to give this board the power, when deemed appropriate, to refer this kind of matter to a court. It is the job of the court to adjudicate in such matters.
June 26, 1986

The Minister said in his reply to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma, that perhaps there are occasions when courts will not be as effective in dealing with these kinds of matters as the board itself. Surely, when a board believes that the outcome of a case can be enhanced by sending it to the courts, one would think that the same board consisting of competent people would not send a case to court if it felt it was not in the best interests of the case.
I do not understand why the Minister does not want to give his own board the power to refer a particular situation to a court of law. Perhaps he could explain because, with all due respect to the Minister, he has not adequately explained why he does not want to give his own board the power to refer a particular case to a court when it feels it is absolutely necessary or appropriate under the circumstances.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of points on the same issue. Many of the provinces hope that when this Bill is passed and the debt review panel is in place they will not have to implement or develop other legislation that would give the kind of protection to the farmers they hope this Act will provide. It ran out in 1985 and was extended for one year. It runs out again at the end of this year, but the Government has the authority to extend it. Had this particular clause been in place, this referral to courts, I think it might have been able to let it die. It will not be able to do so under the circumstances of this particular Act. I wonder what the Government of Ontario will have to do if, after the Act is passed, it finds that it does not have the kind of teeth that were promised and were to be, it was hoped, part of the Act.
On March 6, 1986, the Minister, in answer to a question by me, promised that the Government would be bringing forth debt review legislation as quickly as possible. When I suggested that it would not have any teeth, he said, "There will be teeth in it. Just wait and see". Now the teeth are what he is pulling out or refusing to put in at this time.
Mr. Chairman, we are not speaking of write-downs in this particular situation. That is not the issue. The Minister, should he let this clause go through to become part of the Act, would still have the authority of writing the regulations to define exactly what the court would review. If he is worried about the problem of write downs, which the banks and some of the financial institutions have indicated, then that could be part of the regulations. However, when there are injustices and when the voluntary agreements are not forthcoming, and the panel has recognized that the voluntary agreement which it intended or tried to impose or put in place is not forthcoming, then it should have the authority to refer that matter to a court of proper jurisdiction and, consequently, give it the opportunity to be settled by a third party or fourth party, as in this case. A second stage will then be available. That is exactly the position that has been taken by a couple of organizations. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture very specifically suggests that the court should be in the process.
Farm Debt Review Act
In reviewing the proposals for changes in the Bankruptcy Act, we have a series of four options suggested for farmers and fishermen. Two of those options indicate need and the suggestion that a court be placed in the structure for a last level of decision-making, for an overview by someone who has not been involved. It suggests that both the borrower and the lender have the authority or the alternative to refer it to the court. In what is being suggested in this amendment, the people who would refer it to the court would be the panel, the group that has been adjudicating it all along. Out of the four options suggested in the changes to the Bankruptcy Act, two include court procedures, and the one recommended by the committee is definitely a court procedure, as well. Therefore, I do not think that we are suggesting that the Minister put in place something that will get a negative reaction from the financial community, but, rather, something which would allow him to know satisfactorily that there is always a place of appeal for the panel if the creditor, or the farmer, sits back and refuses to co-operate. In most cases, I would imagine it would be the creditor, because the farmer would be there because of difficulty.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I hope that we do not spend all of our time dealing with this particular clause, because I know that we can make rapid progress on those remaining, and we must revert back to two or three earlier clauses, on which we have already agreed. I do not know what more I can say on this issue except to say that the message is loud and clear. It is a very important section, a very important issue. It is very sensitive out there. We know what the provincial reaction will be. We know what the majority of individual farmers feel about this and, probably, most of the commodity organizations. Indeed, this amendment has triggered a number of representations to our office. We held a debriefing meeting for the farm leaders yesterday, here in Ottawa. They met the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, myself and others in Vancouver, and most of them took the time to come to me yesterday. Most of them were from western Canada. They said, in fact, that we should proceed on the basis of the way in which we are proceeding here. They are very cautious at this time in extending additional powers. It is true that we could amend it. However, our difficulty here is that, as I am told, we cannot set the terms of reference for the courts under regulation. There is some question as to just how, in what detail, one could even establish the actions of the court in legislation. If one looks at the amendment here, a court of competent jurisdiction is to formulate the arrangement that it deems equitable under the circumstance.
I say to the Hon. Member for Prince Albert that the legislation, in my opinion, particularly with the review process that we are attaching to it, will be as effective as the Saskatchewan legislation. The only input the court would have in Saskatchewan would be that it would have the power not to formulate arrangements but, rather, to delay, as I understand it.

June 26, 1986
Farm Debt Review Act
I ask for co-operation again to see if we cannot set this clause aside and move forward, make progress. We can get this behind us and we can be provided with an opportunity to work, in the next four to six weeks, to get it in place and allow it to operate. We can come back and review the progress at the earliest time that we have something to review. Therefore, I ask Hon. Members' co-operation in moving along with other clauses.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I want to be very brief and make only one or two quick remarks. Like the Minister, I would like the Bill to go through as quickly as possible. The Minister said something to the effect that we were very limited in what we could do, either by regulation or even, in some cases, by legislation, in so far as directions that we could give to the court are concerned. However, I want to remind Members that what we are asking in this clause is not that at all. We do not want to prescribe how the court will adjudicate the case. We only want to prescribe to the board the authority to refer it to the court. I am sure that the court can deal with this afterwards in whatever way it desires. I just wish to establish the difference for the Minister.
OO)
I would also like to offer the Minister a possible further amendment which may satisfy this point. I will put it forward informally for the time being and send a copy of it out in writing to the Minister sometime later. I suggest that after the word "delay" in the third sentence, the following words should be added: "after satisfying the conditions set out in the regulations". It could then set out under what circumstances the board would be able to refer the matter to the court. In other words, the board would have to be satisfied that there has been an injustice or an undue delay, as well as meeting whatever other requirements the Minister puts into regulation. In this way the Minister can make the regulations very tight if he so chooses, giving a small amount of latitude to the board to refer matters to the court. If the board requests that the Minister give it further latitude, because of situations in which it sees that it would require authority, the Minister could then loosen up some of the regulations giving additional power to the board instead of having to come back to the House and ask for a further amendment in order to do just that.
The amendment could be in the form which I have just advocated. Perhaps the Minister's officials could word it in such a way as to ensure that it would do what it is intended to do. In other words, we are trying to give more latitude to the Minister to make it as strict as he likes in order to fulfil that condition, but only so that the board can have that power when required.
I have consulted my colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma with respect to this particular amendment. He is of the view, as am I, that it would further enhance the Bill. It is a watered-down version of his clause, but we believe it is a compromise with which the Minister could live. After all, he is the one who will have the final authority in terms of making
the regulation. He can make it as severe or as loose as he feels is appropriate in order to allow the board to make a reference to the court under whatever conditions are prescribed in the regulations.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I do not know that I have anything more to add in response to the Hon. Member's advice than what I have already put forward. I have the clear sense that the issue is so sensitive that it is impossible for us to move on it at this time. I will tell the Hon. Member that if he wants to give me some latitude and do something for the farmers who will be taking advantage of this legislation, then let us move it along.
I wish to leave with the Hon. Member the message that I am not ruling this matter out forever. I think it is very important. It is also very sensitive and complex. The appropriate time for its consideration would be at the time of the review process. However, I must reject it now for all types of reasons. We will undertake to consider that aspect because, indeed, it will be the main focal point when we do the review.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three brief questions which I wish to ask of the Minister, who has worked with members of both opposition Parties assiduously and effectively to take care of most of the problem areas that we have with the Bill, with the exception of the area dealing with the courts. We heard his arguments in private yesterday, and previously, when we were attempting to redraft clauses of the Bill. I have three short questions which, if answered, would clearly set out the Minister's position.
My understanding is that at this time the Minister does not have the authority of Cabinet to permit this type of a motion. Will the Minister admit that in fact the proposal is consistent with the bankruptcy procedure being proposed by the review committee which studied this area of the law? Is it not in fact the procedure which it recommends we follow, namely, that as a last resort there be a reference to the court?
The Minister seemed to convey in one of his previous responses this afternoon that there is some concern with respect to the way the court authority will be perceived by the provinces. I am not sure I quite understand that position. Will the Minister clarify it? It seems to me that the courts in this country have always been perceived, and I think correctly, as agencies of justice which generally act on behalf of property. Since that is the generally recognized assessment of what the courts do in this country, is the Minister concerned that the courts might rule on the side of the farmer more often than on the side of the banks? Is that the problem?
My third question has to do with provincial jurisdiction. We all know that the provinces still have constitutional authority with respect to property rights and land. My Party has always defended that position. We think that is where property rights ought to remain. Given that the courts are seen as the protectors of property and generally come down on its side, I really cannot understand why the provinces would be opposed to having the board refer certain cases to a court on certain
June 26, 1986

limited occasions. The provinces have jurisdiction over the land, and the courts generally favour the landed. What is the problem in terms of the provinces with respect to this rather minor, although important, amendment which would give the farmer one last attempt to have his case looked at and adjudicated by a court?
In our system of jurisprudence and in our system of Government the court is deemed to be the place where one can go when one feels that an injustice has been done. That is all this motion is concerned with. It is quite clear that it is concerned only with cases where an injustice appears to have been done and the board would then have the authority to refer.
Will the Minister very clearly spell out what the problem is since this recommendation is consistent with the bankruptcy procedure being proposed by the committee which is studying the issue? It is a recommendation that is preferred by the committee. Why is the Minister afraid of letting the matter go to the courts, in light of the fact that the courts generally favour property? What is the problem in terms of the provinces since they are responsible for property? They would simply come out as the winners in terms of this particular amendment.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, in response to the Hon. Member's questions I think there is the real possibility that if we accept this amendment then we will violate the record of decision. Because of the sensitivity involved in this respect every party and every group involved in this lengthy process from start to finish was only interested in clarification of one thing. That one thing was: Is there any legislative authority carried in this legislation which will in any way extend power to the courts or a review panel? When the question was answered negatively everyone was on our side. We went through all the steps in considering this proposal. They were quite complicated since they involve a couple of other Government Departments, and we had very close consultations with our provincial counterparts.
I would now like to move to the matter of the provinces. As Hon. Members know, flowing from the First Ministers' Conference the Prime Minister and the provincial Premiers assigned the Ministers of Agriculture the task of establishing working task forces on four or five subjects. Those task forces have been in motion and have been working hard and diligently on those special areas since January. I met with my provincial counterparts and have talked with them on a daily basis. We met specifically on two occasions, the first time in January and the next in March. As the Hon. Member can appreciate, the time we spent on farm finance occupied probably as much time as the time we spent on all of the other subjects put together.
At the January meeting, I wanted to make it very, very clear. I wanted to explain to my counterparts exactly where we were coming from on this piece of legislation. I wanted no
Farm Debt Review Act
mistake made and wanted to know exactly where they were going to stand. I told them that we would not move to the next item on the agenda until I knew exactly where they were coming from.
Representatives from eight of the provinces told me with no uncertainty that they would accept the route we were going. There was no way that they would have any part of a piece of legislation which extended the power of a write-down to a court or a review panel. The two provincial representatives who said they would accept that with some conditions were from the Province of Manitoba and the Province of Newfoundland. That is the score on that question.
Regarding the advisory recommendations, as Hon. Members will know, Ministers have advisory groups, boards or commissions for a great many purposes and they perform a very useful service. The advisory group to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on the Bankruptcy Act did a very useful job. A very competent individual looked at the question from an agricultural point of view and the group brought forward a recommendation.
Hon. Members will know that as a Government, we have an obligation and responsibility to study those recommendations. If we think certain recommendations are good, we accept them. Sometimes we think that others might be good as well but perhaps the timing is wrong. To answer the question, we have not accepted all of the recommendations.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the Minister of Agriculture talk about the reactions of the various provinces. The day he introduced this legislation a few weeks ago, the Saskatchewan Minister of Agriculture, when asked what he thought of the legislation, indicated that he would be examining it and if he did not find it comprehensive enough, he would stick with his own legislation. Clearly his own legislation is much more comprehensive. Under Saskatchewan law, if a deadlock occurs a review board prepares a recommendation which is sent to the court and must be given more weight than in any other province.
I would ask the Minister to recall that when he met with the Minister of Agriculture for Prince Edward Island, he pointed out to him that the banks have incredible powers and are able to put incredible pressures on farmers. For instance, many people who have worked on review boards have suggested to me that the banks often tell farmers, when their notes are due, that if they want their notes extended, the only way that can be done is by putting them on a floating rate.
There are all kinds of injustices which have become apparent to members of these review panels. Not only will they be powerless to recommend to the review board of the province that the matter be sent to a court but they will be powerless to speak of what is going on outside the panel. There is a double whammy there. A great many farmers are concerned about that.
We know that there is going to be a drastic and almost cataclysmic restructuring of farm debt for at least 8,000 or

June 26, 1986
Farm Debt Review Act
maybe 10,000 farmers or more in the next few years. Yet there is a danger that a farmer can go into the review process but get no satisfaction because the board has no power and cannot do anything when the process is over because that would contravene a clause of this Bill about communicating anything that was said or done within the review panel. It is rather like a star chamber. The farmer goes to the panel, makes his pitch and the banks sit on their hands for 60, 90 or 120 days. Then everyone is sworn to secrecy. Then the Minister's $50-million program for farm adjustment comes in, the farmer is hustled off his farm and the bank gets the farm. The farmer is out of farming probably for the rest of his life.
When the Minister said that he had across-the-board support from all provinces, he may have thought that that is what he had. It certainly does not appear to be the case from what the Minister of Agriculture for Saskatchewan has said and it certainly does not jibe with what the Minister of Agriculture for Prince Edward Island told me.
I would suggest to the Minister that he only turn to the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey who is assisting him this afternoon to ask about what was found out in the Bruce-Grey pilot project. Those people found out that the banks made no decisions and waited out the time. After the review process was over, the banks foreclosed and did not make a very serious attempt to reach an agreement.
This amendment in the way it is drafted is not dealing with a court order or restructuring of debt. All it deals with is cases of injustice or undue delay. I would like to see a banker come before this committee this afternoon to say that he wants to be able to be unjust to a farmer who has fallen on hard times and does not want the board to have the right to refer that to a court of justice for the formulation of an arrangement that it deems equitable under the circumstances. It seems to me that there are very few bankers who are hard hearted enough to put that proposition before the committee this afternoon.
The Minister indicated that he agreed to the amendment to Clause 38 or Clause 39 provided that the entire question is referred to a committee of the House. I assume it would be the Agriculture Committee or a subcommittee of that committee. If that committee is to be struck and established next January, it might review the situation and find that this kind of amendment or something equivalent to it might be appropriate. Would the Minister give an undertaking to the House that he will seek support for such an amendment and bring it before the House, assuming that the committee that will review this Act makes such a recommendation? The Minister has already spoken several times about the idea of the review that is being proposed. I wonder if he would be willing to do that, because clearly farm organizations have been asking for this kind of legislation for some time.
Four or five years ago, I believe, the Minister served on a committee of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and legislation much stronger than this was before the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee of the House in June 1984. Legislation much stronger but similar in nature to this
legislation was put before that committee two years ago. It is little wonder, since the Minister promised this legislation last July 10, that everyone was amazed that he did not get around to bringing the legislation before the House until mid-June.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union, the wheat pools, and so on support the amendment which I have put forward. Could the Minister indicate whether he would be prepared to bring in an appropriate amendment, if it is recommended by the standing committee when it reviews the legislation next January or at the beginning of next year?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I want to set the record straight. I indicated that I met with my provincial counterparts in January and March. I said that two provinces would accept mandatory write-downs. Since that time there has been a change in the Government of P.E.I.


Maurice Brydon Foster: A change for the better.


John Wise: In fact, I think it has some good sense as far as its approach to review legislation is concerned. It recently set up a review panel with no legal power.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Absolutely no power at all.


John Wise: That is correct. The new Government of P.E.I. is just as aware of the situation. It demonstrates understanding, appreciation, and the caution which must be exercised at this time when dealing with the issue.
The Hon. Member asked me to give a commitment now. It would be irresponsible for me to do so, not having the track record of the review boards and not having the advice of the standing committee. Who knows? More than likely the Hon. Member will be a member of the committee. I am sure he would want the committee to have the opportunity to hear witnesses. I would be anxious to receive his recommendations at that time, which I think is the only appropriate time.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Chairman, the Minister keeps suggesting that he will have the track record of the review boards before us. Unfortunately, the recommendations which might force us to make a change in the Act will have gone down the drain as far as farmers are concerned. They will not have had an extra chance.
We suggest that the Minister should include this clause now so that farmers would be given some protection rather than wait for more examples of disaster. I realize that how disasters happen might result in changes. However, farmers will not be given a second chance. In effect, the Government is condemning the first group of people who appear before these panels to being examples of how the legislation should be changed. I think we should include something to safeguard against that.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, in his comments a couple of minutes ago, the Minister suggested that the people with
June 26, 1986

whom he discussed the matter wanted to be sure that review boards had absolutely no powers with regard to restructuring debt. If there are to be absolutely no powers with regard to restructuring debt, how does the Minister expect the whole system to function? Clearly that was the problem with the Grey-Bruce pilot project. It dealt with some 25 or 26 applications out of a total of approximately 90. Another problem was that the bankers sat on their hands. The FCC would not restructure their debt. The whole system stalled. Members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and other representatives worked very hard, but there was no power of persuasion. In this piece of legislation there are no powers of persuasion. I believe that in Saskatchewan they have the power to refer the matter to a court and to recommend loan guarantees; they have some tools with which to work.
I would be interested in knowing just how the Minister expects the system to work since he said that he does not want any powers for the review panels. Obviously we are dealing with thousands of farmers. The value of their properties has dropped by as much as a third or two-thirds. There will be a drastic restructuring of debt. How does the Minister see the boards having the power to carry out this restructuring of debt when they do not have any more power than that of the Grey-Bruce pilot project and less power than that of the Saskatchewan review panels?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I do not know why anyone would want to be so pessimistic or so negative. We have talked about the process for a long time. The provinces want to move in this direction. Farm organizations want to move in this direction. The majority of farmers want to move in this direction. We know that write-downs are going on all across the country. The problem is that it is happening in St. Thomas but not in Aylmer, which is some 12 miles away. There are many inequities. It is happening in one region and not in the other; it is happening in one province and not in the other. It is a very inequitable situation. We want to put some fairness and equity into the system across the country so that regardless of where farmers live, farm, or operate, and regardless of what banks they do business with, at least there are review panels and review boards to assist on their behalf.
I have confidence in the people who will be appointed to these boards. I am encouraged by the reaction of the banking community. We cannot shut them out. We cannot throw stones at them. We need them; we need the banks. To be safe, 75 per cent of farmers are not in a financial situation to use this. The Hon. Member should not think that they are not watching us right now. Their continued success relies very heavily on access to credit from conventional lending institutions.
The other people who are watching us very closely are those farmers who are reaching retirement. It is normal for a farmer to sell his farm and take back a mortgage. That is all he has; it is his pension plan. If we extend the power of a court to write down, those farmers will sell the property but they will do so without taking back mortgages and risking their pension plans.
Farm Debt Review Act


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, the Minister knows how the system works. Anyone who appears before or serves on a panel will be sworn to secrecy. That is in the Act. What happens when panel members become aware of an injustice, for example, where a bank has deliberately switched a farmer from a flat interest rate to a floating one and charged it for three years or four years? Everyone is sworn to secrecy, so how can such an injustice be redressed? The board is sworn to secrecy, as are farmers. How does the Minister see an injustice being handled? How does the farmer get assistance or redress if the review panel cannot refer the matter to the review board and to a proper court of justice?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, the best way I can answer the Hon. Member's first question is for him to give me an example. My understanding is that this would not happen, you just cannot do it. Second, the farmer is not sworn to secrecy, creditors are not sworn to secrecy. It is only the panel members who are.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that Clause 36(1) states:
Except as authorized by subsection (2), no person shall knowingly communicate or knowingly allow to be communited to any person any information obtained from a farmer or from any creditor of a farmer under this Act or knowingly allow any person to inspect or have access to any such information.
It is my information that members of the panel are sworn to secrecy. They cannot blow the whistle, so to speak, on a lending institution which has taken part in an improper or an unjust Act against the farmer.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Steve Eugene Paproski: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Steve Eugene Paproski: In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment (Mr. Foster) negatived: Yeas, 6; nays, 27.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
On Clause 34-General
John Wise: Mr. Chairman, we have amendments to put forward that flow from our discussion earlier. With respect to Clause 34-and I believe Hon. Members have copies and I understand the Table has copies as well-I move:
That Clause 34 of Bill C-l 17 be amended:

June 26, 1986
Farm Debt Review Act
(a)	by striking out lines 26 to 28 on page 9 and substituting the following:
"34.(1) notwithstanding any other provision of this Act where a farmer makes an application to a Board under Section 21 but does not enter into"
(b)	by striking out line 35 on page 9 and substituting the following:
"made unless, before making the new application, the farmer obtains the written consent of the Board"
(c)	by striking out lines 36 to 38 on page 9 and substituting the following:
"(2) notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where a farmer makes an application to a Board under Section 21 and enters into an"
(d)	by striking out line 44 on page 9 and lines 1 to 3 on page 10 and substituting the following:
"after the termination of the arrangement unless, before making the new application, the farmer obtains the written consent of the Board"
We have Clause 34(1) and (2), and then subclause (3) would come out, Mr. Chairman. We are amending both so that the farmer will have the right to apply for a second review panel anytime and he shall be given the second review as long as the board gives written consent. With no consent, the farmer must wait for a two year period, from the date of the application where no arrangement was reached or from the termination of the arrangement if an arrangement was reached. Previously the way it read was that the farmer had to wait for two years no matter whether or not an arrangement was reached.
We have also amended both subclauses (1) and (2) of Clause 34 to eliminate any references to applications made under Clause 16, which has to do with farmers in financial difficulty. As a result, any farmer who has applied under Clause 16 can automatically re-apply under Clause 16 or under Clause 21 at any time. As a result, we have eliminated the need for subclause (3) of Clause 34.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I would appreciate it if the Hon. Minister would give me a copy of the amendments please. I do not seem to have them here at the table.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. It is simpler than the one which perhaps I had given to the Chair earlier last week. It is very important that the opportunity of the farmer returning for the assistance of the review panel not be foreclosed as the present amendment provides. It seems to me that under the first provision the farmer would have to have an improved financial situation. In subclause (2) if his financial situation were much worse due to some other event, he would be able to approach the review panel for assistance in formulating a new arrangement.
Could the Minister indicate whether it is the Department's plan to provide other rules under Clause 10 as to what the circumstances under which the farmer would be able to apply, or is it just a case of a simple appeal to the board for the opportunity to have a new panel struck and to have the situation reviewed? Would there be circumstances provided under the rule-making powers which the Minister has, and under what circumstances would the board be able to apply for further assistance from a review panel?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I would think there would be a pretty wide scope if the financial condition changed rapidly one way or the other. You may have some natural disaster that may occur which could necessitate the re-application. I think it is pretty broad. We would be dealing with that under the terms of reference of the role and mandate of the responsibility of the review board. It would not be written, I understand, in a regulation. I would think it would be written in such a way as to respond in a common sense, logical way which would deem that the farmer was eligible for the application.
Amendment (Mr. Wise) agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 38 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 39-Coming into Force


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, we are proposing an amendment to Clause 39. There are a couple of other clauses to be added, but before proceeding we must move this amendment on Clause 39. It was really advanced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre. As a result of the amendment the entire Act will be proclaimed at once rather than different sections at different times. I therefore move:
That Clause 39 of Bill C-117 be amended by striking out lines 33 and 34 on page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"39. This Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed".


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to confirm what the Minister said. The three Parties agreed to this because in the original Bill the Act could be proclaimed in pieces. Since the accord reached between the three Parties was dependent upon all of the sections being proclaimed at once, this seemed to be the way to handle the matter. We are in agreement with the amendment.


Maurice Brydon Foster: We in this quarter agree as well. It is essential that the entire Act be proclaimed at once. Any amendments which have been made could easily be over-ruled if the whole Act was not proclaimed at once.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I still have a little difficulty understanding why we have to do this in the way in which we have to do it. We are creating a new Clause 39 and a new Clause 40 which will result in the old Section 39 becoming Section 41. This section allows for the annual review of the activities of the Board three months after the termination of each calendar year. The review will result in a report being tabled before the committee reponsible for agriculture. Consultations have been held. I therefore move:
(a) by adding, immediately after line 32 on page 10, the following clause:
"39.(1) The Minister shall, within three months after the termination of each calendar year or, if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first 15 days next thereafter that either House of Parliament is sitting, lay before
Amendment (Mr. Wise) agreed to.
That Bill C-l 17 be amended
June 26, 1986

Parliament an annual report on the activities of the Boards established pursuant to section 4.
(2) The report laid before Parliament pursuant to subsection (1) stands permanently referred to such committee of Parliament as is established to review matters related to agriculture."
(b) by renumbering the subsequent clause accordingly.
Amendment (Mr. Wise) agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 40-


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, with this amendment we are adding a new Clause 40 at the request of the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre. This causes us no difficulty at all. It allows for the effectiveness of the Act to be reviewed by the parliamentary committee responsible for agriculture and to recommend to Parliament any changes to the Act it deems necessary at the end of December, 1986.1 therefore move:
That Bill C-l 17 be amended by adding, immediately after line 32 on page 10, the following clause:
"40. Such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose shall, at the end of the calendar year in which this Act comes into force, undertake a review of the overall effectiveness of this Act and shall, within such time as the House may authorize, submit a report to Parliament thereon including a statement of any changes the committee would recommend."
(b) by renumbering the subsequent clause accordingly.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Does what used to be Clause 39 become Clause 41, which will be the last clause of the Bill? Am I correct in understanding that?


Steve Eugene Paproski: The answer to that is yes.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I think this clause is essential. As I said in debate earlier this afternoon, many farm oraniza-tions feel that they have not had adequate input into this legislation because they did not have an opportunity to make presentations to the standing committee. This amendment will provide for the Act to be put before the House at the end of this calendar year and will allow for recommendations to come forward at that time from the national agricultural organizations. It is essential that it be included in the Act in order to get a complete view of the situation at that time, especially in light of the seriousness of the situation. I want to indicate my support for this amendment.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member for Algoma correctly pointed out that it was necessary to have a review process since the impending suspension of the sitting has made it impossible to hear from the banks, farm organizations and others who might be affected by the legislation. As well, there is very little authority in this Bill as written to encourage a settlement between the Parties. We thought it was absolutely vital to have a review process like that in the Act so that all Parties would be on their best behaviour, knowing that their attitude and actions would be reviewed within a few months. On the basis of that review, perhaps stronger legislation might
Farm Debt Review Act
be proposed. We think this might provide some moral authority to remind both the lender and others involved in the process that their actions will be reviewed and the results or lack thereof will be considered and new legislation may be proposed as a result.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we can get a commitment from the Minister that the Act will come into force in 1986 and that it would be his intention to have the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. The clause does not make it clear. It says "any committee so designated". As I read this, it would take a House order to refer it to the committee. It also says that it comes into force in the calendar year in which the Act comes into force. I assume that it is going to be 1986, but I want a commitment from the Minister that that is when it will happen.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, the short answer is yes, 1986. I do not know whether I can say it would be the Standing Committee on Agriculture or not, but obviously that seems to be the appropriate standing committee.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I have to confess to having been party to the vagueness of the wording. We had preferred to name the Standing Committee on Agriculture, but with the changes to the Standing Orders and the committees we were not certain that there would still be such a committee as of the end of the year. To be careful, we simply made it vague. We assumed that if there is such a committee it will be referred to that committee and we hope the Minister and the House Leaders would take that into account if in fact we still have standing committees in January of 1987.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, you will recall that on Friday we stood four clauses, those being Clauses 17, 18, 19 and 20. I think we are now in a position, are we not, to go back and deal with them? We are removing Clause 17, which would allow creditors to apply for a panel where the farmer had failed to pay a debt. As a result of that, we have removed Clause 18(2) which obligated the board to seek the consent of the farmer concerned before a panel would be set up. As a result, Clause 18(3) becomes Clause 18(2) and the new Clause 18(2) eliminates any reference to Clause 17. Clause 19 and Clause 20 would then remain.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I proposed this last Friday when we were in Committee of the Whole. I think a Bill like this, which is designed to assist farmers in their worst financial crisis in 50 years, could involve a very intimidating situation if the farmer were to receive suddenly a note from his friendly farm debt review board that his chartered bank had just moved to have him reviewed. At the same time he would have to give his consent under the existing clauses in the Bill. Yet what choice does he have? With this clause removed, had we succeeded in getting an amendment so that where an injustice was done to a farmer the matter could be referred to a court, we could have been pretty sure that this whole procedure would not become one to silence farmers and quietly hustle them off their land. I

June 26, 1986
Farm Debt Review Act
am not sure that we have achieved that by not accepting the amendment this afternoon, but I think that removing this clause at least removes the possibility of the farmer being hustled into a debt review situation by his friendly banker. I appreciate the Minister's action in removing this clause. It will make the Bill stronger and the farmer concerned will be able to go through the process without being forced into it by a bank.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Before we carry on I would like to ask: Shall Clause 40 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On Clauses: 17-Application and 18-Appointment of review panels
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words at this time to point out to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) the complications which his Bill entails concerning the administration of the Quebec Farm Credit Bureau. Contrary to what happens in the other provinces, the Quebec FCB is by far the biggest lender when compared with the federal Farm Credit Corporation. When we examine the financial statistics for 1984-85 and 1985-86 with respect to the number of cases of long-term, mid-term and short-term loans, Quebec's Farm Credit Bureau-


Steve Eugene Paproski: I regret-

It being six o'clock, it is my duty to rise and report progress.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I think the Hon. Member has only a couple of points to make. I am sure that if the Minister were to seek unanimous consent to continue for another five minutes or so we could perhaps finish consideration of the clauses.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I must seek consent of the House.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there consent of the House not to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in Committee of Bill C-117, an Act to facilitate financial arrangements between farmers and their creditors-Mr. Paproski in the chair.
On Clause 17-Idem
On Clause 18-Appointment of review panels
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Chairman, I was pointing out that the way the Bill is drafted it might create major problems concerning the administration of public funds in Quebec.
I pointed out that in 1984-85 the Farm Credit Bureau had dealt with close to 9,500 applications for long- and mid-term loans, whereas the federal Farm Credit Corporation made fewer than 100 loans. A few more loans were made at the federal level in 1985-86, but most such loans came from the Quebec Farm Credit Bureau.
Given the way the review panels are established under the legislation, to a certain extent an organization created by the federal Government will administer public funds allocated by another Parliament. In other words a farm loan made-indeed since the legislation covers ... Clause 3 states that:
This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.
This means that people sitting on the review panel-I am sure the Minister will appoint qualified people-will have to make decisions concerning funds allocated by another Parliament where various organizations must report to the Quebec National Assembly.
I wanted to go on record and point out the difficulties involved with respect to the administration and the way public funds are administered, and the responsibilities given to each level of government. The situation in Quebec is particular in the sense that the Farm Credit Bureau has a role to play, much like the federal Farm Credit Corporation.
I think the Minister should have provided that when review panels are set up for loans made by an agency of a provincial government or a provincial legislative assembly, that on these review panels provided in the clauses we are now adopting or debating, with amendments, we have representatives duly appointed by the people and the administrative bodies that are responsible for administering these funds.
When the provisions of this legislation are put in effect, we can expect a considerable rise in the cost of Government administration, especially for the Office du credit agricole, because in some cases they will have to postpone carrying out their mandate for as many as 90 or 120 days, and this will result in a considerable loss of interest and high administration costs.
I would like to ask the Minister whether he has considered these problems and whether he would be able to inform the House-I realize he really wants this Bill to be passed. I also
June 26, 1986

Farm Debt Review Act
realize that it is important for Canadians across the country and that we must find a solution to this problem. However, could the Minister perhaps inform the House and give it the assurance that the study that will be carried out, pursuant to the clause we adopted earlier, which will be an argument in favour of revising certain clauses of the Bill-that we will have a chance to put the membership of these panels on a broader basis and that the Quebec Legislative Assembly will be responsible for appointing at least some of the members of the review boards, since these are public funds approved by another parliament?
And second, could the Minister give the House the assurance that, together with his Quebec counterpart and Quebec officials, he will look into the possibility of signing a federal-provincial agreement to deal with this problem? It is a problem which I think is very important, since in Quebec, most farm loans, whether long, medium or short term, are not granted by the federal authorities but by a provincial agency which is called the Office du credit agricole. I wonder whether the Minister could answer these questions?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the Hon. Member's comments and observations regarding being very, very cautious about putting into law something here in the House of Commons that would unilaterally decree on the duly elected provincial legislature of any province. I suggest that the Hon. Member talk with his colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma.


Raymond Garneau: I did talk to him.


John Wise: When I was responding to question after question after question about what the provincial reaction would be, the province said no. It is fine, go along with what you suggest to us, but do not extend the power of a court or a review board to unilaterally write down debt. That is why.


Raymond Garneau: That is not what I am asking.


John Wise: Just a minute. Quebec is not paying the cost of the review panels. Ontario is not carrying the cost of that, the federal Government is. We are carrying that.
I do not know if the Member was here throughout the day or last Friday, but if we have a ten-man panel, I have invited our provincial colleagues to submit three names to us. That is a reasonable number to expect from a provincial Government. In addition, I said last Friday that there was an open invitation to all Members of this House to supply us with a list of names of those who would serve on review panels and also on review boards.
If the province does not want to participate as a creditor in a write down, like any other creditor, then there is no legal obligation to do so. I want to tell you that they are very, very sensitive about that.


Raymond Garneau: The Minister failed to grasp what I meant. What I am trying to say is that the funds involved where the Office du credit agricole is concerned are not private funds. These are funds that were approved by a Parliament that happens to be the Parliament of Quebec, but it could just as well have been the Parliament of Ontario, if there is one in Ontario, but I know that is how things are done in Quebec. These funds are managed, and the Office du credit agricole must report to the National Assembly, just as here we have parliamentary committees that meet and are supposed to report back to the House. In this particular case, a body that approves funds at the provincial level would be subject to control by a federal system, without there being any participation involved. As far as I know, there has been no federal-provincial agreement on the subject, at least for... I don't know about the other provinces, but I am referring to Quebec.
I was not referring to the cost of the system itself but to the cost that would be incurred by the Office du credit agricole in complying with this request. And suppose we take, I don't know ... How many are there? Maybe 10 per cent, 5 per cent or 8 per cent of these loans. If a 100 or 125 cases are submitted for review, obviously some very high costs will be incurred, not only by the Financial institutions, in the case of private institutions that's one thing, but in the case of public institutions, there are certain regulations, and these costs, I don't know how to assess them, but if we say 5 per cent or 10 per cent, this is going to mean an enormous amount in terms of lost interest. And also in terms of additional staff requirements.
I am rather surprised that without prior federal-provincial agreement this Bill should be introduced not only to impose additional costs to the Quebec Farm Credit Bureau and to the National Assembly, but also to create a problem with respect to responsibility for expenditures by a legislative assembly which approved them and the federal Parliament which adopts legislation and tells a group which it has created: You have the mandate. This is not legally binding, of course, but it still amounts to strong pressure.
I have a question for the Minister, for I realize that we cannot expect at this stage-the Bill is to be adopted in the next few minutes-to have the file re-opened with a view to securing a federal-provincial agreement. But I did suggest and ask him to hold discussions with his colleague or with Quebec Credit agricole authorities so see what kind of problems will be created by the administration of this Act and perhaps make the appropriate changes in the future.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, we have had close and continuing consultations with provincial counterparts in the past on this and other matters. We will continue to do so, particularly at the wish of the Hon. Member.

June 26, 1986
Adjournment Motion


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
John Wise: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in. Motion agreed to.


John Wise: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.



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 Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson)- Finance-Transfer of family farms-Tax inquiry; The Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault)- National Revenue-Control of charitable organizations; The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand)-Challenge'86-Funding of social service projects, (b) Request that priority be given to socially useful employment.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there might be unanimous consent that we proceed immediately to third reading on Bill C-128. This would proceed quickly and we would deal with the balance of the stages of the Bill before the House in order that it can pass at all stages.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Just for clarification, the Hon. Member is referring to Bill C-128?


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood my colleague opposite to suggest that we deal with all stages of Bill C-128 before proceeding to Private Members' Hour. That is acceptable to us. I want to indicate to those who have Private Members' business that we will be very brief, a matter of minutes, in dealing with Bill C-128.


Mr. Speyer:: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that my speech will last less than one minute.


Mr. Attewell:: Mr. Speaker, could I just have an indication from the New Democratic Party about how long their spokesperson will take?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that our spokesperson will be relatively brief, probably seconds.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to proceed through all stages of Bill C-128?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


JUDGES ACT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-128, An Act to amend the Judges Act and other Acts in relation to judicial matters, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the Chair.
On Clause 1
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Chairman, I will use Clause 1 to make a brief statement, indicating that this is really a housekeeping Bill. We are providing for the unification of courts in a number of provinces, following the example of provinces like Quebec, which have long since taken this progressive step.
I only want to indicate that I hope that now that my own Province of Ontario has a progressive Government, we will shortly see the Province of Ontario apply for a similar unification of its courts.
The other matters referred to in the legislation speak for themselves and I can say on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that we support the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.
June 26, 1986


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to members of all Parties on the subject of reverting, by unanimous consent, to the tabling of committee reports, to permit me, as co-chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, to present our seventh report in both official languages.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For above see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE BUDGET ADVISABILITY OF REDUCING NATIONAL DEBT
Bill Attewell: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to require the government to present an annual budget in which total annual outlays do not exceed total annual receipts and such total receipts will exclude those derived from borrowing and total outlays will exclude those for interest costs on the national debt and for repayment of the debt principal.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is really quite an honour to speak tonight on this Private Member's Motion of mine, M-86. It was first placed on the Order Paper on December 20, 1985. In the few minutes allotted to me, I want to speak briefly of the background and gravity of this problem, of Canada's record in terms of deficits, the ever increasing national debt of this country, of our Government's achievements so far to turn the situation around and what some other countries are doing, for instance, the United States of America, and then summarize my thoughts and views on the subject. I think we must all attach extreme gravity to the situation. Indeed, we must come to realistic grips with this ever-widening gap of spending compared to what we have been taking in.
I have had numerous discussions with my constituents in Don Valley East and, almost to a person, they are supportive of this type of resolution. Let me just make a few points, because the problem is not unique to Canada. I think it is accurate to say that all levels of government have overspent. Taxpayers are simply fed up and frustrated with the track record, if I could put it that way, of a number of politicians around this world in terms of the lack of prudent thinking and lack of restraint in the spending of their precious tax dollars.
National Debt
For longer than most voters and most western democracies can remember, one of life's certainties has been the reckless spending by so many governments. Government spending has been increasing for too long as a percentage of Gross National Product. In 1960, for instance, only two countries belonging to the OECD had spending in excess of one-third of their Gross National Product. However, 25 years later, in 1985, 23 out of 24 countries in that organization were spending in excess of one-third of their GNP. In fact, the average was 45 per cent, and it varied from 31 per cent in Switzerland to 64 per cent in Sweden.
Let us examine Canada's record in that respect, and I will return to the last year in which we could boast of a surplus, the year 1969-70, when a surplus of $331 million was recorded. Let me just highlight the fact that the total national debt at that time was slightly under $18 billion. In 1971-72, we went through the $1 billion annual deficit figure, hitting $1.5 billion. In 1975-76, we went through the $5 billion figure, hitting $5.7 billion. In 1977-78, we soared through the $10 billion annual deficit level, and by that time our national debt had climbed to $48.3 billion. In 1982-83, we hit $27.6 billion. In 1983-84, we went through the $30 billion level at $32.4 billion. In 1984-85, a projection was some $38.2 billion, which would have been the case if, indeed, the Government had not changed hands and the Conservative Government had not taken some extreme action which I will recapitulate in a few moments.
It is interesting to point out that if one follows that track record of excessive spending well beyond our means for over a decade, one finds there is a correlation between that and the drop of our Canadian dollar. When that overspending started a decade or so ago, our dollar was something like $1.05 versus the U.S. dollar, and it has slid, year by year, to a level now of some 72 cents. The interest cost now totals some $24 billion or $25 billion a year to service the massive national debt of some $220 billion or $230 billion. That interest cost now, on an annual basis, amounts to $1,024 for every man, woman and child in this country of Canada.
Our spending, as a percentage of GNP, was some 16.6 per cent in 1974-75, at the start of our real problem, and it soared to 45 per cent in 1984-85. Had we let the status quo remain intact, and had this spending pattern continued, we project it would have reached an alarming level of 63 per cent of GNP by 1990-91; but, indeed, the Government has taken several major initiatives to try to turn the situation around.
In November of 1984, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made a very comprehensive economic statement of what was to happen over the next few years, and some savings of $4 billion were identified at that time. The Budget in May of 1985 was another landmark in the direction of fiscal restraint, and it was followed by the Budget of February 26, 1986, when again, the annual deficit was forecast to decrease below the $30 billion level. Discretionary spending was decreased to under 3 per cent. Then, of course, another major initiative came to the reporting stage just a few months ago. I refer to the Nielsen



June 26, 1986
National Debt
task force. I believe some 989 projects of the Government were reviewed in great detail by a number of private sector people and others. Many people, including myself, are expecting great savings of taxpayers' dollars when the individual committees consider the various options and recommendations within the group.
Let me summarize. By now, most people have heard of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Bill in the United States. It was signed into law by President Reagan on December 12, 1985. It is calling for a balanced Budget by 1991. There are some exceptions, but it is basically now taking it out of the politicians' hands because of the pattern that we have seen, because of the lack of discipline that has been enjoyed, and it is putting it in the hands of a mechanism which triggers cuts to be made in defence and other areas if these predescribed levels of spending are not met.
I do believe what our Government has achieved since September, 1984, is of real significance, but it is a mammoth task. Concerning almost every issue we touch, one witnesses kicking and screaming and objections from the other side of the House. This has been the case whether involving transfer payments that we were proposing to increase from $65 billion to $90 billion over the next few years, or involving other areas, because society is so organized these days in terms of constituency groups. Therefore, it is difficult indeed to cut back. I happen to think, as much as I regret saying it, that we need that type of mechanism in this country, literally taking a fair amount of the decision out of the politicians' hands and putting it into legislation. If we just think back into our own lives, and through reading history, we realize that one of the paramount virtues voters expected of their parliamentarians was prudent, careful, conscious, deliberate action in terms of the spending of those precious tax dollars.
I do not think we can be proud in this country, thanks largely to the record that was set up by the previous Government, of what has happened. It is now too large to turn around in a discretionary way. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to vote "yes" when this particular motion comes to that vote. I am honoured that this particular motion is the first Private Members' Motion under parliamentary reform to be chosen for voting. In other words, it will receive up to five hours of debate. It is certainly worthy of that type of earnest debate so that Canadians can become more aware of the real gravity of the situation and why, indeed, it needs legislative action to turn it around and to brighten that outlook and future for Canadians so that we will have some manoeuvrability involving much-needed social programs, whether in health care or education.
We owe it not only to our children but to our grandchildren to turn this around in a meaningful way. I predict that if we can do this, it will be one of the most difficult but rewarding tasks we undertake, not only of the last 25 years but of the last century. It is of that gravity.
I hope to be speaking to this Bill again. However, if it does come to a votable situation shortly, I hope that all Members will join with me in voting in favour of having it referred to a committee where it will receive extensive deliberation. Several weeks ago I visited Senator Gramm in his office in Washington. He is an economist who worked on the details of his Bill, in conjunction with his other colleagues, for over four years. I know that in a few hours we will not be able to put together in this House, or in committee, anything of that nature, because it is a very complex situation. However, we should not let the complexity of it stand in the way of solving this most serious problem.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to rise tonight to add my views to the debate on this interesting issue. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for my hon. friend who has introduced this motion. However, I suspect this is where we depart on some philosophical differences.
It is appropriate to remind Hon. Members that there was really only one Government in Canada that for many years balanced its books. It was a Government which felt that running a fiscally-responsible Government was appropriate. While it inherited a mess left by past Liberal Governments, it said: "We think it is useful that after we care for the needs of the people in our province and provide the necessary support and stimulus to the sectors of the economy that we attempt to balance our books". That Government did that year after year and, in a sense, decade after decade. I refer to the Government of Tommy Douglas of the Province of Saskatchewan, a CCF and New Democratic Government. I say that it was the only Government in Canada that for years and years was debt-free.
I wish to place that on the record so that we can understand the partisan importance of this particular motion.
I also wish to remind my hon. friend that the biggest proponent of this particular initiative is President Reagan. We do not necessarily want to accept what the President says. However, more important, we do not want to see what he does. If we were to add up all of the deficits in the United States over the last 200 years, including the deficit which came out of the Civil War, the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, and back to the Depression, we would see that the deficit of President Reagan in his eight years of administration will mount up to twice the accumulated United States deficit over the last 200 years. So when this individual says that he is concerned about the deficit and plans to take action against it, his actions betray exactly the opposite behaviour.
The motion of my colleague reflects a view of Government in which people see Government as something based on the same principles as the Chrysler Corporation. Their point of view is that Government ought to be run as a corporation is run, with success or failure being determined on the basis of quarterly balance sheets. In other words this motion says that if a Government can balance its books, then it is a good Government. In my estimation, that really misses the point.
June 26, 1986

Government is not a private profit-maximizing institution. In fact, it has the responsibility to maintain general economic and socially favourable conditions in a country. In many cases a Government has the duty to intervene in the economy if such an initiative will encourage economic growth and prosperity.
This is a very hard lesson for Canada and other countries to learn. It was born out of the experiences of the Great Depression. At that time the traditional laissez-faire economics which prevailed suggested that when there was an economic downturn, government spending should be cut back. At that time it was thought that the duty of Government was to reduce its spending to match the reduced revenues which come in during difficult economic times. We saw that as the Depression persisted, unemployment rose and economic and social conditions worsened.
It was in 1936 that John Maynard Keynes wrote his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. In it he proposed that left to itself, the market economy would settle into permanent recession or depression. He proposed that the State pick up the slack and run a deficit where necessary to inject the needed purchasing power into the economy. President Roosevelt of the United States listened carefully to what Keynes had to say. In a sense Roosevelt followed many of Keynes' theories in terms of his initiatives and the economy of the United States started to turn around. The country of Sweden listened to Mr. Keynes and applied many of his theories prior to those written in 1936. As a result the depression in Sweden was relatively minimal. The conditions in that country were not as oppressive as they were in most other western industrialized nations.
The biggest Keynesian experiment was World War II when the Government had to borrow massively to finance the war effort. Consequently, the economy boomed and unemployment fell dramatically. The question I would put to my hon. friend is this. Would he have advocated in such circumstances that the Government not borrow to invest in the productive capacity to win the war in this case?
The post World War II era shows us that successive Governments have used short-term deficit spending to combat periodic bouts of unemployment and depressed economic conditions. However, in 1975 the government began experiencing consistent budget deficits. Why was this? I suggest that since 1975 the economy grew more slowly. As a result, more payments were required in the form of unemployment insurance and welfare. Of course, fewer revenues came into the federal government coffers as a result of taxes paid that would reflect a strong economy when exactly the reverse was happening. There were difficult economic times which resulted in fewer taxes.
As a result, at this time the federal Government introduced a wide-ranging set of tax expenditures. I call them tax loopholes for generalized descriptive purposes. In 1983 Mr. Lalonde said in his Budget: "The increased federal deficit over the second half of the 1970s was not due to runaway expenditure growth. It was due in large part to a succession of tax cuts
National Debt
introduced in response to weak economic activity". On a number of occasions the Economic Council of Canada has confirmed this eroding tax base and, consequently, fewer and fewer dollars come in as a result.
In my closing comments I wish to say that we are not suggesting that deficits are good. We are not suggesting that the present state of affairs in this country is not something about which to be very concerned. We have to be careful that we do not move ahead blindly, not recognizing the responsibility that we have as parliamentarians. The Government must accept the responsibility that when times are tough an investment might be required. After all, any good businessman knows that to make money one has to invest money.
In order to have a strong economy, we may have to invest a certain number of dollars in the development of transportation systems, ports, in assisting small business and farmers to get into new ventures and so on. In other words, there is a time for the Government to invest in a way that would result in economic prosperity and growth. Consequently, additional revenues through personal, sales, excise and corporate tax could be raised as a result to pay for that growth.


John Barry Turner: Let the private sector do it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My hon. friend says that we should let the private sector do it. In many cases I would quite frankly say, yes, let the private sector do it. However, the private sector often calls on us to build new ports, to assist in shipbuilding, to assist farmers and to assist small business. I can go on and on. That is what we do all the time in this House. We do what we can in our own way to assist the various sectors of the economy to enable them to get out, to grow and to expand.


David Orlikow: How much did it cost to build a railway to the coal mines?


Nelson Andrew Riis: My hon. friend mentions the building of the railway to the coal mines in western Canada. That is a good example of public expenditures used to provide an environment in which certain elements of the private sector could get on and do their jobs.
In summary, I have three quick points to make. We often hear that the deficit has resulted in inflation. We have seen inflation decrease and decrease over the last number of years. It has gone to the lowest it has been in many years, yet the deficit remains at these excessively high levels. There does not seem to be that correlation that we have been told exists.
We are also told that deficits result in high interest rates as there is a crowding out in the money markets. Governor Bouey himself said many times at Finance Committee meetings that in his opinion, the deficit of Canada was not crowding out money on the money market to force up interest rates. We

June 26, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
know who sets interest rates in Canada. We match the rates in the United States as a result of Bank of Canada policy.
Last, it is suggested that deficits often result in a real interest burden. I would like to suggest that in the last few years, real interest rates have in fact been a problem. As a matter of fact, real interest rates traditionally run at about 2 per cent but in the last number of years, as Hon. Members know, they have been running at 5 per cent and 6 per cent.


John Barry Turner: That's too high.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Indeed it is too high. I would remind my colleagues that if they wish to look at an example of a political jurisdiction that has met the needs of its constituents at the same time as it balanced its budgets for decades, they should look at the Province of Saskatchewan under the leadership of
T.	C. Douglas who was a Member of the then CCF and now New Democratic Party. If we are looking for models, may I suggest that Hon. Members look at the economic history of that part of Canada. They will see what a real Government concerned with real fiscal responsibility is able to accomplish.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion standing in the name of Mr. Attewell. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will suspend the sitting until 7 p.m. when we will resume with government business.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 6.45 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED At 7 p.m. the House resumed.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Beatty that Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, be read the third time and passed.
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order. I understand the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) intends to speak to this piece of legislation but she has a very important and pressing engagement this evening. I would be pleased to set aside my opportunity, allowing the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood to make her submissions. I will then continue with my remarks if I have the unanimous consent of the House.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. In that the Hon. Member spoke for three hours the other night, I would think possibly he would agree to the passage of this Bill this evening if we agree to the Hon. Member having the floor. I think we require the permission of the Hon. Member to have third reading this evening.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If I understand correctly, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) is agreeable to giving the floor to the Hon. Member for Broadview

Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) realizing that to be recognized again he will need the unanimous consent of the House.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve the right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that the Member wishes unanimous consent now to have the floor after the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood has spoken?


John V. Nunziata: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, that violates the rules of the House of Commons. I have always considered myself to be a fair person. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) spoke for three hours the other night. Therefore, I think it is only fair that he can have the floor after the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) has spoken provided the Bill has third reading this evening.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that argument stands. Members here are free to speak and this is the place to speak. Whether the Member spoke for three hours or did not speak is irrelevant to this discussion. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood has an important engagement. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) out of generosity proposes to step aside allowing the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood to make her speech. He will then resume his remarks. I cannot see any difficulty with that, Mr. Speaker.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think after consideration of the matter that the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) makes sense. I think you would find a disposition for the Hon. Member to give precedence to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) to speak first. At such time as she has completed making her contribution to the Bill we would be prepared to return to the Hon. Member for York South-
June 26, 1986

Weston. I think if you seek unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, you will find it is there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) to yield the floor to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) following which the Hon. Member for York South-Weston will be recognized?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Hon. Members opposite and the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) for giving me an opportunity to speak on this important subject of gating. I want to begin in a more general way by looking at how we Canadians have the problem with which we are faced. We have to look at the question of gating within the context of security we seek for society.
People often forget that in Canada we are extremely fortunate because we do not have a high crime rate and we do not have a high rate of violent crime. We do, however, have a very high rate of punishment. We send a large number of people to prison compared to other countries, far more than western European countries and we send them to prison for very long periods of time. Part of this, I suspect, is the influence of television. Canadians think we have far more of a crime problem than we actually do and think we have far more violent crime than we actually do. People see so much in fictitious situations on television which is largely American television. It is perhaps an exaggeration for American society but it is even more of an exaggeration for our society. We have this context of fear with which people approach the subject.
We have people saying we need these new tough measures. They are not new tough measures. They are very old measures, measures of repression that we have got away from and instituted a rule of law which is better. Yet people think we need these extremely severe measures to deal with our crime problem, exaggerating the nature of that crime problem and the extent of violence in our own society. A number of extremely important organizations and experts on the subject have intervened and have given us the benefit of their advice. I would like to begin with the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies.
The Elizabeth Fry Society is well known for its work in the field of dealing with prisoners and for making recommendations to Government as to the design of a safe system for society and a humane system, one that achieves a reasonable balance. I happen to be a member of the Canadian Elizabeth Fry Society. I cannot say I am an active member but I support its work whole-heartedly. I want to quote from the brief it prepared to intervene on Bill C-67. It is strongly opposed to these measures:
"The measures proposed in Bill C-67 to protect society, however, are far too sweeping, offend principles of fundamental justice, and provide no assurance that violence will be reduced. The measures do not address the roots of the problem of
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
violence but rather, at best, are likely to more than delay future violence by a few prisoners, while unreasonably unjustly extending the loss of liberty of many.
That is a fundamental criticism of this Bill. It will result in some people remaining in prison for a longer period of time. However, not indefinitely. Let us not be under any illusion that this will lock up dangerous people, that the key will be turned and they will never get out again. Most prisoners are eventually released into society. This means people will be released after many years, not necessarily in any more fit state to be returned to society and not necessarily prisoners who might cause further violence.
There are no assurances this Bill will make any one Canadian any safer than we are without this legislation.
Let me turn to another criticism voiced by the Elizabeth Fry Societies:
Bill C-67 would give new powers to the Parole Board to place a detention order on certain prisoners until warrant expiry, or until the order is lifted. These powers will effectively change the role of the Parole Board to a detaining body, which we normally leave to courts which ensure due process, from that of a releasing body.
That is one of the fundamental objections which the NDP has to this Bill. It is giving powers to the Parole Board that ought properly to be exercised by a court of law with all of the protections for the accused in a court of law, a procedure that we have developed over the years. The next criticism reads:
The fact that the Parole Board would be able to use this detaining power in relation to anticipated rather than actual behaviour, based on criteria contained in Regulations which are themselves broad and which can be amended without parliamentary scrutiny, make the provision particularly offensive to existing traditions of due process within the Canadian criminal justice system. It is likely that the new provision will also be found to contravene Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That is a very serious objection that has been raised, the possibility that the courts of our country, up to the Supreme Court of Canada, would find this legislation to be contrary to the Charter of Rights. There is a substantial reason for them so doing. The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies is supportive in principle of the proposal that all prisoners be reviewed for conditional release by the date of day parole eligibility, as a way of accelerating the release of prisoners who do not pose a threat to society. I heartily endorse that recommendation as well. We are sending too many people to prison, people who are not risks to Canadian society. We keep them there at enormous expense. We do not provide more security for Canadians, but it costs taxpayers a great deal of money. The association's recommendation is a very eminently sensible one.
Also the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies has a number of objections to the proposed detention order. They relate to the arbitrary, illogical, and broad list of schedule offences to be used to identify prisoners who will automatically be considered for a detention order. The list is broad, and that is reason for the objection. Also they relate to the power to extend loss of liberty on the basis of a belief about future behaviour, predictions about which are not much better

June 26, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
than guesswork, rather than a court adjudicated criminal conviction.
This is one of the most serious objections to the legislation. This would mean people would spend time in prison, not on the basis of what they have done, which we agree is grounds for detaining people, but on the basis of a guess in terms of what they might do in the future. This is fundamentally contrary to our criminal justice system which has evolved over the years. That system includes a protection against this kind of abuse of power. This is a backward step. It is returning to abuses which we like to think we got away from.
Another objection relates to the absence of due process in the manner in which the review and decision will be made, such as lack of prior full disclosure of information to the prisoners, and inclusion of substantive matters in regulation rather than in law. Clearly there will not be full disclosure to prisoners. Of course there is a possibility that they will be detained on matters which are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny and can be changed without Parliament having anything to say about it. In fact they are very broad and very vague. This is entirely contrary to our notions of justice. People should be in prison only if they have violated a specific offence. Another specific objection relates to the erosion of the earned remission program and the principles upon which it is based.
What has happened is that we have very long sentences in Canada. In fact, they are becoming longer. One of the reasons sentences are so long is the provision for earned remission called "good time off'. Judges know that there is a possibility or a very likely probability that a prisoner will get this time off or a good proportion of it. Of course it is a carrot to the prisoner to be well behaved in prison because of the fear of loss of this good time. It is clearly an incentive to good behaviour. Judges know that prisoners will likely be getting out a substantial period before the end of the sentence ordered. As a result they make the sentence longer, expecting that a normal prisoner will have earned at least a substantial amount of that time off, if not all of it. Therefore, penalties are adjusted accordingly.
We have had this process, and we have seen sentences becoming longer. Here we have a provision which will keep people in prison for the period judges expected they would otherwise be out and gave them a longer sentence than would have been considered appropriate under the circumstances of the case.
Also the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies opposed the "one-chance" mandatory supervision provision whereby revoked prisoners who were originally convicted of a schedule offence, or one of the listed offences, would not be released again until the expiry of their warrant, thus losing existing and future remission. This means that these people will not have an incentive to good behaviour in that period. It also means making an extremely important decision at one point in time when the person might change subsequently. I think it suggests something very nasty about human nature. It suggests that we cannot have hope that people will change or
reform. Surely our society is based upon an understanding that people change and grow. That possibility should be allowed for. Instead what we have is the "one-chance" provision. If that chance is missed, no matter how much a person changes nor what experiences the person may have, he or she has missed it. It seems as if that is extremely arbitrary and reflects a very nasty understanding of human nature.
According to the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, this appears to be a further sweeping, arbitrary, unfair measure, particularly given that it would be applied against prisoners revoked whether for the commission of a criminal offence or for a technical reason. We must understand that persons could lose their time under mandatory supervision, not because they committed a crime but because they violated some rule. This is blatantly unjust and cannot be supported, given the wide range of behaviour which could be involved. It could be a fairly trivial matter which caused the breach. It need not have been a serious matter.
Mandatory supervision has become a scapegoat for the crime problem in Canada. By focusing on an ever-restrictive mandatory supervision program, we continue to avoid the key questions which must be addressed if violent or dangerous crime is to be effectively combated. Human and financial resources must be directed toward relieving those conditions which create or contribute to the development of violent or dangerous people. That is the only way in which we will achieve any kind of security in society. It is not by longer and longer sentences for people who will eventually be released when their sentences come up. Very few people actually die of old age in prison; most people are eventually released. The way in which to achieve security is to attack violent and dangerous behaviour. For example, we have the need for stronger measures to deal with pornography and the need to get at the root of conditions which encourage violent behaviour.
These are the constructive things we can do. We are not helpless in the face of violent crime. There are many things which Parliament can do. There are many things which we as a society can do. However, they must be constructive things which get to the heart of the problem. We should not simply fool around with it to give an impression to the public that we care about security and that we are trying to do something in that regard, when in fact we are not, when in fact we will just build more prisons and lock up more people for longer periods of time. That will not solve the problem.
As well, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies called for the abolition of mandatory supervision in the past because it believed that it undermined the purpose of earned remission and because supervision could only be effective if it was voluntary. It does not support this type of piecemeal, arbitrary demolition. The association wants a better system, not the backward step which the Bill before us proposes.
Over all we would hope that Parliament would not proceed with this legislative package because it cannot be expected to provide a genuine increase in the long-term safety of Canadian
June 26, 1986

society and will only exacerbate the misconceptions and problems which it purports to address. That is what is so very fundamentally wrong with the piece of legislation before us.
I have quoted fairly extensively from the excellent brief of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. I should like to add that the John Howard Society also made quite important and quite useful submissions on the same matter. The board of the John Howard Society of Kingston felt that it was important to offer its support to the accelerated release of low-risk inmates. It certainly felt that Canada incarcerated far too many people and for far too long. It also indicated that removing people from the community did little to improve their ability to function in the community. It supported efforts to provide real alternatives to incarceration.
This is what the people who know the most about the subject are telling us. They are telling us not to move in that direction. They are telling us to empty prisons of low-risk people and non-violent offenders. Also they are telling us to attack the real roots of the problem. Many experts have made the statement that these measures will not protect society. Underlying these measures is the presumption that we can predict who is likely to be dangerous. However, social science research and the experiences of the National Parole Board to date indicate that the ability to predict dangerousness is nonexistent. I am afraid that is all too true. Hundreds and hundreds of studies have shown that psychiatrists cannot predict, judges cannot predict, and Parole Boards cannot predict. I might add that a person's conduct in an institution is not an indication of what he will do after release. We have people who violate the rules and lose their good time, but that is not an indication they are bad risks afterwards. Conditions inside a prison and outside are very different. We set up the system using criteria from inside a prison to prevent people who are not necessarily the worst risks at all from getting out. We do not know who the worst risks are. I think it is fraudulent for Parliament to pass a Bill purporting to say that we will keep the high risk persons in prison, have experts decide whether or not they should be released, and as a result provide security. Experts cannot make those predictions. Psychologists have been trying for more than 100 years to make these kind of predictions and have not been able to do it successfully.
It is also important to ask ourselves whether keeping a "dangerous person" in prison until his warrant expiry date will even begin to deal with the problem of crime and violence. In the time between mandatory supervision and the warrant expiry date will that person become any less dangerous, whatever that means? What we can say for certain is that we will keep people in jail for longer periods of time, and that will contribute to the overcrowding problem and create further hostile feelings among the prisoners about the system. Clearly that is not what we want. We have overcrowded prisons already. The staff who have to deal with them already have enough problems on their hands. This is just another problem because it removes one of the incentives to good behaviour.
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
Neither will it provide us with any security afterwards. The John Howard Society suggests it will likely increase violence in prisons. It suggests that we look at the history of mandatory supervision and remission. Prior to 1971 there was no mandatory supervision. Prisoners were released as a result of remission with no form of supervision. Remission has been a part of the system for nearly 100 years. It has been a method of giving an incentive to people to behave in prison. It has served that function. Here we risk losing that.
The Canadian Council on Social Development has made interventions. Its proposals are constructive. It cares about the security of Canadians. It comes up with a list of recommendations for action, projects in the family, the community and the school. It wants to see implementation of family violence intervention programs, improved child care services, respitory care programs for single parents when they are not available, special programs to counteract the negative effects of family violence, positive parenting programs, community programs. All kinds of methods are at our disposal which will reduce the root causes of violence. They will work positively towards creating a more secure society.
In conclusion I simply want to say that this legislation is a fraud. It cannot do what it purports to do. It is falsely based and we have to go back to square one. We have to go back to positive measures to deal with violence and we should not be offering this illusion that more prisons and keeping people in them longer will provide anyone with any greater measure of security.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to continue my submissions on Bill C-67. I would first like to thank the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) for her submissions. I listened very carefully to what she had to say and I must admit that I concur almost completely.
I would like to comment briefly on the history of this Bill and how the Government is dealing with it. Here we are at 7.25 p.m. on the day before the House adjourns for the summer. We have been sitting around on this legislation for over a year. I spoke on it last Wednesday evening. One would have thought, given the pronouncements of the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) over the last year, that he would bring this Bill back for debate the following day. When he spoke on Wednesday evening he indicated it was an important piece of legislation and that it was absolutely essential that it be passed as quickly as possible. Why then did he not bring it back on Thursday morning? The Government decided instead to go to other legislation, notwithstanding the pronouncements regarding the importance of this legislation.
The Bill deals with the concept of mandatory supervision. The guts of the Bill concern giving authority to the National Parole Board to decide whether or not an inmate should remain incarcerated until his or her warrant expiry. I indicated last Wednesday that the Official Opposition is generally supportive of the thrust of the legislation. In fact, the previous

June 26, 1986

Parole and Penitentiary Acts
Liberal Government introduced a Bill similar in nature. However, we do have a number of concerns, the major one being who should have the discretion to decide whether or not a detention order should be issued concerning a particular inmate. Under the present legislation, an inmate, after serving two-thirds of his or her sentence, is entitled to be released if he or she has been of good behaviour. Inmates can also be released on day parole after serving one-sixth of their sentence. The inmate would be released in the morning and return to the institution at night. The National Parole Board must conclude that the inmate is not a threat to society and that he or she is deserving of release on a daily basis.
An inmate is also entitled to apply for full parole after serving one-third of his or her sentence, and the same considerations apply when the National Parole Board is deciding whether or not to release an inmate after he has served one-third of his or her sentence.
There are those who are incarcerated in penitentiaries who are not released on day parole and who are not released on full parole, at least at the earliest eligibility date. There are those who are refused parole at first instance, but at some subsequent time re-apply for parole and are granted parole. There are those, however, who are not granted parole at all. These are inmates who, the National Parole Board decides, are a threat to society, or who have not conducted themselves in an appropriate fashion while incarcerated. They are forced, under the present legislation, to serve two-thirds of their sentence. After serving two-thirds of their sentence the inmate is released on condition. There are conditions attached to mandatory supervision, such as that the inmate might be required to remain in a particular community, or might not be permitted to associate with certain individuals or groups of individuals. The inmate might be required to report to the police or some other correctional authority on a weekly or daily basis.
It is important to note that under mandatory supervision once an inmate is released after serving two-thirds of the sentence there is a period of supervision. There is a period within which the authorities can exercise some form of control over the inmate. It is important that there be a period of time within which the necessary authorities can try to assist the inmate in rehabilitating himself or herself to assist the inmate in trying, once again, to lead a law-abiding life.
You can understand how important it is that there be a period of supervision, especially when an inmate has served a lengthy period of time. Let us take for example an inmate who has served 12 years in a penitentiary, who has been refused day parole, who has been refused full parole, and who is released on mandatory supervision. For 12 years this particular individual has been behind bars, has not had the opportunity to carry on a life that is law abiding, does not have the opportunity to do day-to-day things that we often take for granted. These might include such things as going to the corner grocery
store and purchasing some goods or groceries and making change, for example. If you serve 12 years in a federal penitentiary, it is a different world out there when you go out and try to assimilate back into society.
Mandatory supervision is a way of trying to assist individuals, of keeping an eye on inmates who are released by way of conditions. This particular concept of mandatory supervision was introduced in 1970. Now we have had 16 years of experience with regard to mandatory supervision, and while the whole concept is well intentioned and was considered to be a tremendous step in the right direction in terms of correctional philosophy and practices, we have found over the last 16 years that there are, indeed, problems associated with regard to mandatory supervision.
Many of the problems are perceived. Society generally is concerned about the release of inmates, and there have been a number of celebrated cases which have received considerable publicity, causing the public to call into question the area of mandatory supervision. Not only did the public question mandatory supervision, but they also started to question parole, not necessarily understanding the distinction between the release of inmates on mandatory supervision and the release of inmates on parole.
So, in effect, any of the shortcomings associated with mandatory supervision in a certain respect tainted the otherwise more successful parole system that exists in Canada.
We have had a number of cases over the last number of years that have caused considerable concern in the community. The Clifford Olson case, if I am correct, was one such case where the individual was released on mandatory supervision. There was a case about a year and a half ago where an individual, after serving a lengthy period of time in a federal penitentiary, was released on mandatory supervision and while out in society on mandatory supervision that particular individual committed a number of other murders. There was a great deal of concern in the community, so it was felt that the concept of mandatory supervision, as we know it, had to be amended in order to give the authorities-and I use that term loosely-more discretion to decide whether or not an inmate should be released.
Last Wednesday I referred to a discussion paper entitled "Mandatory Supervision", which was a report of the committee on mandatory supervision dated March 9, 1981. The Solicitor General of the time decided that it was important for his Department to study the whole concept of mandatory supervision.
It is a rather extensive report, and I commend it to Hon. Members opposite who have an interest in this whole area. I notice there are a number of Members opposite who are keenly interested in this particular debate. I know that at committee a great number of Members expressed an interest in this particular area. It begins with an introduction and a summary of mandatory supervision. It goes into the terms of reference which initiated this particular study. It speaks generally of the

*


June 26, 1986

study itself. It reaches certain conclusions to which I would like to refer a little later on. The report was published under the authority of the Hon. Bob Kaplan, former Solicitor General of Canada. The authors also looked into the history and objectives of mandatory supervision. They looked at the origins of mandatory supervision, the implementation of mandatory supervision, and the history of the legislative changes over the last 30 or 40 years or so. They made an in depth examination of the objectives of the MS program. They also compiled a number of statistics, which are very essential in considering this whole area. I would like to refer to those statistics, if I might, at this point in time.
They compared the difference between mandatory supervision and parole over a five-year period, in January of 1975 to December, 1979. At page 18 of this particular report they indicate the number of parole and mandatory supervision releases in 1973, 1974 and 1975.
The House will recall that last Wednesday the Solicitor General introduced third reading of Bill C-67. He indicated at the time that this particular legislation with regard to detention orders would only apply to a handful of inmates in federal penitentiaries. I believe the figure he used was approximately 100.
In order to keep the discussion in context, I think it is important to understand that we are only dealing here with approximately 100 individuals on an annual basis.
In 1973, there were 1,780 inmates who were released on mandatory supervision. In 1974, that number went up to 2,382, and in 1975, to 2,431. It is important to compare the number of releases on mandatory supervision with the number of releases on parole, and we are speaking of full parole. As I indicated, in 1973, there were 1,780 inmates released on mandatory supervision, compared with 1,191 who were released on parole. The comparative figures for 1974 are 2,382 released on mandatory supervision, and 1,359 released on parole. In 1975, 2,431 inmates were released on mandatory supervision, compared with 1,264 who were released on parole.
This tells us a number of things but, unfortunately, we do not have up to date statistics with regard to this particular matter. First, in that three year period, the number of inmates released on mandatory supervision increased on an annual basis from 1,780 to 2,382 to 2,431. On the other hand, the number of those released on full parole went up from 1,191 to 1,359, and back down to 1,264. Obviously, fewer inmates are released on full parole than are released on mandatory supervision.
Let us return to the figures for 1973. There were 1,780 released, of when 234 inmates had their mandatory supervision revoked without committing a new offence. In other words, they somehow breached a condition of mandatory supervision and for that reason 234 of the 1,780 were brought back into penitentiary because of a revocation without committing a new
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
offence. That amounts to 13.1 per cent who were brought back.
Of the 1,780 inmates released, 445 of those inmates, or 25 per cent, had their mandatory supervision revoked with a new offence. This means that while free on mandatory supervision, they committed a new offence contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada and were reincarcerated.
Of the 1,780 who were released in 1973, exactly 1,100 inmates, or 61.8 per cent, completed their mandatory supervision successfully. In 1973, a full 61.8 per cent completed the supervision period successfully and up until the time of the warrant expiry.
Let us examine the figures for 1974. There were 251 inmates who had their mandatory supervision revoked for breaching conditions that were attached to mandatory supervision. That represents 10.5 per cent. Six hundred and sixteen, or 25.9 per cent had their mandatory supervision revoked because of the commission of a new offence. There were 1,506 of the 2,382 who successfully completed their supervision.
In 1975, of the 2,431 inmates who were released on mandatory supervision, 329, or 13.5 per cent, had their mandatory supervision revoked without committing a new offence. Six hundred and twenty-three, or 25.6 per cent, had their mandatory supervision revoked for committing a new offence. One thousand four hundred and seventy-seven inmates, or 60.8 per cent, successfully completed their period of supervision.
It is interesting to note from these very limited statistics that over the course of this three year period, the figure with respect to those who successfully completed their period of mandatory supervision remained somewhat constant-from 61.8 per cent, to 63.2 per cent, to 60.8 per cent. I suggest that if we had more complete statistics, that particular experience would have continued since 1975, over the course of the last 11 years. There will always be about 60 per cent to 65 per cent of inmates who are released on mandatory supervision who successfully complete their period of supervision.


George Albert Proud: That will save us a lot of money.


John V. Nunziata: My colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), points out that that must save a lot of money. He is quite correct and perhaps I can divert from this subject for a moment to speak about the costs involved in incarcerating individuals in federal penitentiaries.
As all Hon. Members are aware, it costs in excess of $40,000 to incarcerate a federal inmate on an annual basis. That figure is increasing every year for each individual who is in a federal penitentiary.
The House will know that there are approximately 11,000 inmates in federal penitentiaries across Canada. That does not include those individuals who are incarcerated in provincial institutions for which, of course, the costs for incarceration are similar.

June 26, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
As I pointed out the other day, those individuals who commit criminal offences and are sentenced to a period of incarceration in excess of two years are sentenced to serve their time in federal penitentiaries, while those individuals who are given a sentence of less than two years serve their time in provincial institutions. Regardless of where an inmate serves his or her period of incarceration, there is a tremendous cost to society. Not only does it cost $40,000 to incarcerate an individual in a federal penitentiary, I am advised that it also costs in excess of $100,000 to build one new prison cell. Furthermore, that does not include costs of support services associated with running federal penitentiaries.
As Your Honour knows, a number of months ago the Nielsen task force made a number of recommendations regarding various federal Government programs. The task force examined close to 1,000 different federal programs. One area studied in particular was that of prisons and reformatories. The task force recommended and concluded that there should be a moratorium on all future construction of prisons in Canada and that there should in fact be a concerted effort on behalf of the federal Government to try to reduce the prison population. I would like to make some further submissions on that matter later.
The bottom line, to answer my friend, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis, is that it is extremely costly to keep inmates incarcerated and to run federal and provincial institutions in Canada so, where possible, it is important to try to reduce the prison population, not only to reduce costs to the taxpayers of Canada, but to assist in trying to rehabilitate certain people who are sentenced to federal prisons.
It is quite clear, given the over-abundance of evidence, that Canada has a higher rate of incarceration than most western democracies; but, as I pointed out when I was last speaking to this legislation, Canada also has one of the safest societies anywhere in the world. I suppose there will be those who argue that if the cost of a safe society is a higher rate of incarceration, then it is a cost that we should bear as taxpayers and as a society. However, I would submit that just because we incarcerate more individuals in Canada does not necessarily mean that the crime rate will drop.
I would like to return for a moment to the discussion paper and the statistics with regard to the release of individuals on mandatory supervision. It is important to compare the statistics of those released on mandatory supervision and those released on full parole. I was indicating that while approximately 60 per cent to 65 per cent of inmates released on mandatory supervision successfully complete their periods of supervision, we should compare that percentage with those on parole. You might ask, Mr. Speaker, and it would be a good question, "What is the percentage of individuals who are released on full parole who successfully complete their period of parole?"
I notice that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has been listening very attentively to my submissions. I believe he was also here the other night to listen to my submissions. I am sure he would be interested to know that in 1973, 68.5 per cent of those inmates released on full parole successfully completed their period of parole. In other words, while out on parole, their parole was not revoked, either for committing a new offence or for breaching a condition of release. In the same period, 61.8 per cent or 62 per cent of those on mandatory supervision successfully completed their period of supervision. So, the difference is not that great, mandatory supervision versus parole.
Let me make my case a little stronger and let me delve a little deeper into these statistics which are extremely enlightening, I found. Once again, I commend them to Hon. Members opposite. In 1974, of the 1,359 inmates released on full parole, the parole of 9.2 per cent was revoked for a breach of condition. The parole of 16.5 per cent was revoked after committing a new offence, and 69.6 per cent successfully completed their period of parole.
For 1975, the statistics are similar in nature. The parole of
11.1	per cent was revoked without a new offence having been committed. The parole of 14.3 per cent was revoked after a new offence having been committed, and 65.6 per cent successfully completed their period of parole.
What do these statistics tell? They tell a number of things. First, with respect to the number of people who successfully complete mandatory supervision, the figure is constant. With regard to those who successfully complete parole, once again, the figures are somewhat constant. However, what is important is that the figures for full parole are not that different from the figures for mandatory supervision. So, then, why do people argue, for example, that parole is far more successful than mandatory supervision if there is a similar percentage of those who are released on parole or mandatory supervision and successfully complete their period?
Some astute Hon. Members opposite might point out, if they took the time to study these statistics, that those who are released on mandatory supervision, of course, are not under supervision for as long a period of time as those who are released on parole. It only makes sense that they are not, because those who are released on mandatory supervision serve, at the very most, one-third of their sentence in the community, because they have been refused parole up until the two-thirds mark of their sentence. As well, there are many who are released on parole who serve a full two-thirds out in the community, having served only one-third of their sentence in the institution. Therefore, it could be argued that it is more difficult to successfully complete parole than it is to successfully complete mandatory supervision. However, before so arguing, it would be important to study some other important statistics that I believe tell the tale. If Hon. Members opposite want to turn to page 19 of the discussion paper, and perhaps I can just hold on a moment until all Hon. Members opposite turn to page 19-
June 26, 1986


George Albert Proud: I'm sure the Minister will.


John V. Nunziata: I think it is important that they refer to page 19 as I am referring to the statistics. I notice that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) is referring to page 19 of The Toronto Star.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Halifax Herald.


John V. Nunziata: I am asking him to turn to page 19 of the discussion paper regarding mandatory supervision. Obviously, page 19 of The Toronto Star is more interesting to the Minister than this particular legislation; and, as he is the Minister of Justice, if I can divert for a moment, he should take a very keen interest in this legislation rather than reading The Toronto Star. ?
We all know that The Toronto Star is an extremely important publication of the Conservative Party. We appreciate the journalistic abilities of those who write for that paper. Notwithstanding the fine quality of that particular newspaper, which has the largest circulation of any newspaper in Canada, tonight is the night to focus on Bill C-67. If the Minister of Justice does not have a copy of the discussion paper from which I am reading, then perhaps a page could pick up a copy and deliver it to the Minister. If the Minister of Justice would like me to suspend my remarks until he is in receipt of a copy of the discussion paper, then I would be pleased to comply.


An Hon. Member:: Go ahead, sit down.


John V. Nunziata: Obviously, the Minister of Justice is not interested. However, I notice that all the Liberal Members in the House-


J. Michael Forrestall: All three of them!


John V. Nunziata: -are referring to it. I commend it to my colleagues for a thorough discussion with regard to this particular legislation. I note that the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), who is sitting by my side, is taking notes with regard to this legislation. She is doing that because she would like to explain to her constituents who had the good sense to elect her the ramifications of Bill C-67 when she returns to her constituency this summer. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Hon. Member for her support.
I would now like to return to the discussion paper. I refer Hon. Members to page 9, in particular the table numbered five. It is a table which sets out offences committed by federal inmates while on mandatory supervision and on parole. It refers to those released from January, 1975, to December, 1979, and readmitted with a new conviction as of June, 1980. To compile this information, the researchers looked at all the individuals who were released on mandatory supervision and those who were released on parole between Janaury, 1975 and December, 1979. They put together a chart to illustrate the reasons for these particular inmates being readmitted. It is
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
important to note that we are dealing only with those readmitted after having committed a new offence.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal asks me if I am talking about recidivism. That is precisely to what this chart refers. It refers to those who are recidivists, those who have committed a crime after having served a period of incarceration in an institution. These are very important statistics. The table sets out offence types. With respect to crimes against the person, nine individuals after having been released on parole committed murder. This is compared to 31 who committed murder after having been released on mandatory supervision. Looking at these statistics, one could almost conclude that parole is far more successful than mandatory supervision. The Parole Board can say: "We were right and we are right. We can predict violent behaviour because only nine of those individuals released on parole committed murder while 31 released on mandatory supervision committed murder".
We cannot simply rely on the straight numbers. In this case it is important to look at the percentage of the total. As I indicated earlier, we know that fewer individuals are released on parole than are released on mandatory supervision. The nine murders represent 1.3 per cent of the total of inmates released on parole while the 31 murders represent 1.2 per cent of the inmates released on mandatory supervision.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wish you would make the point you are trying to make.


Sheila Finestone: Why don't you listen!


J. Michael Forrestall: I am listening and I have read it.


John V. Nunziata: The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) asks what is the point I am trying to make.


J. Michael Forrestall: You are trying to waste time, that is what you are doing.


John V. Nunziata: I would ask the Hon. Member to be patient. I would ask him to give me an opportunity to develop my argument.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am sitting here patiently waiting for it.


John V. Nunziata: The Hon. Member should continue to sit. He should continue to be patient. He will be rewarded for his patience. As my mother often tells me: "You will be rewarded if you are patient. Your time will come. Patience, my son".
Let us now turn to the subject of manslaughter. Of those released on mandatory supervision, some 21 committed manslaughter, or .8 per cent. Of those released on parole some nine committed murder, or 1.3 per cent. Between the two numbers there is a difference of .5 per cent. If we combine the figures for murder and manslaughter, we will find that 18 individuals who were released on parole committed a form of homicide, either murder or manslaughter. Some 52 homicides

June 26, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
were committed by individuals released on mandatory supervision.
I would just like to go down the list with regard to the other offences against the person and try to compare those statistics with regard to those released on parole and those released on mandatory supervision. There were no convictions for attempted murder for those released on parole. However, there were 11 convictions for those released on mandatory supervision, or .4 per cent. There were 10 convictions for rape for those released on parole and 25 for those released on mandatory supervision. There were four sexual assaults in the first category versus 23 in the second. There were 17 other forms of assault in the first category versus 153 in the other. There were six kidnappings versus 15. There were 127 robberies committed by those on parole and 394 committed by those on mandatory supervision.
With regard to convictions for robbery, of those released on parole that figure represents 18 per cent of the total whereas only 15 per cent of the total inmates released on mandatory supervision committed robbery. In fact, more individuals released on parole were convicted of robbery than individuals released on mandatory supervision.
The statistics are similar with regard to crimes against property. There were 192 convictions of break and enter of those out on parole versus 737 of those out on mandatory supervision. Even though the figure is higher, it only represents 28 per cent versus 27 per cent.
The bottom line of this particular chart is that there is not that much difference on a percentage basis between crimes committed by those released on mandatory supervision and crimes committed by those released on parole. However, the absolute numbers are important.
Among those released on mandatory supervision, there were 52 homicides. The question we must then ask is if Bill C-67 was in effect between 1975 and December 1979, could we have saved any of those 52 lives? I suspect that we could have. If the authorities had the discretion to keep incarcerated inmates that were believed to continue to pose a threat to society, those inmates who committed the 52 homicides might not have had the opportunity to do so. Perhaps they would have remained incarcerated. Sooner or later, however, those inmates who committed those crimes would have to be released even if this legislation were in effect. That particular fact seems to have escaped the Solicitor General.
When the Solicitor General made his submissions on this Bill, he seemed to suggest that the Bill would somehow ensure the protection of society from those inmates who would be released and would commit more crimes. At no point in time did the Solicitor General express a concern or opinion with respect to what would happen to those individuals after they were released. There was not even a recognition of the fact
that sooner or later, these inmates would have to be released into society.
If we are to keep inmates incarcerated to warrant expiry, until they have served their complete sentences, do we not think that these particular inmates will be that much angrier with society and that much more vindictive? What guarantees do we have that society will be safer just because these inmates were kept incarcerated for a longer period of time? The unfortunate reality is that we cannot provide that guarantee. However, I suppose the guarantee we as parliamentarians can provide is that at least for a further period of time, be it two years, five years or six years, a particular inmate will be kept incarcerated and will not have the opportunity to commit a new crime.
It seems to me that in many respects, we are simply prolonging the inevitable. Sooner or later, these inmates will be released into society. It seems to me that we as a society should concentrate our collective efforts on trying to rehabilitate those incarcerated in institutions to try to ensure that they do not become recidivists, commit another crime and be readmitted to institutions.
How do we rehabilitate these people? I feel that more effort could be spent on that. For hundreds of years, penologists have studied the treatment of offenders and the prevention of crime but they have not been able to eradicate crime from society. I would submit, though, that tremendous steps have been taken in the correctional area over the last 25 or 50 years and indeed, because of the efforts of society, the rate of recidivism has in fact been reduced.
As I indicated at second reading stage, in committee and on a number of occasions already, this legislation is a step in the right direction as far as the Opposition is concerned. I know that the New Democratic Party as represented by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) opposes this legislation in a very definite way. In fact, I believe members of the New Democratic Party intend to vote against this legislation.
I would like to indicate why we believe this legislation is a step in the right direction. We recognize that there is a problem. We have seen the statistics and we have seen what happens when inmates are released on mandatory supervision. Our inevitable conclusion is that there is a problem and that problem must be addressed. The former Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), recognized the problem a number of years ago and introduced legislation designed to deal with it.
It is clear that we simply cannot release into society inmates who pose a clear threat to society. We as Parliamentarians have an obligation to ensure that legislation is in place to somehow keep incarcerated those who pose a clear threat to society. I would submit, though, that those individuals are few in number and represent a small percentage of the total number of inmates in federal institutions.
June 26, 1986

The legislation gives the National Parole Board the power to order detention until warrant expiry of any inmate who meets the criteria set out in the legislation itself. As I indicated at some length on June 18, we in the Liberal Party believe very strongly that that power or discretion ought to be properly exercised by a court of law. We do not believe that the National Parole Board, given its collective wisdom, experience, and expertise in this particular area, should be in a position to deprive an individual of his or her liberty. We do not believe that the National Parole Board should do it because it is not a court of law. Only a court should deprive an individual of his or her liberty. We also believe that procedural safeguards exist when a court of law is making that determination. We can be assured that the process will in fact be followed if a court of law makes the decision.
We all know that the National Parole Board, during the course of the Conservative mandate, seems to have been rendered the happy hunting ground for Tory hacks, flacks, and Party supporters. The sister-in-law of the Secretary of State for Exernal Affairs (Mr. Clark) was appointed to the National Parole Board. Other prominent Conservatives have also been appointed to that board. I am not calling into question, at least not at this point in time, the abilities of the individuals who have been appointed to the National Parole Board. However, the fact remains that as far as the public is concerned, there might be a perception that it is pure and blatant patronage when individuals are appointed to the board.
Bill C-67 increases the number of people who can sit on the board. The point I am making is that although these people gain a considerable amount of expertise while sitting on the board, they should not be put in a position where they have to decide whether or not an inmate should be kept incarcerated.
As I indicated a few moments ago, the Bill will allow the National Parole Board to issue detention orders. It is true that the legislation provides that that particular order is reviewable after a year's time. Once again, an inmate can apply to be released after a year. Notwithstanding that the inmate is allowed a review after a year, we still firmly believe that it is a decision which ought to be made by the courts.
We have another concern with regard to the nature of the discretion. Criteria are established by the legislation and indeed are set out in it. The National Parole Board does not have a blanket, carte blanche discretion to decide which inmates should not be released on mandatory supervision. Certain criteria are enunciated in the legislation, and the National Parole Board, the deciding body, must refer to those criteria.
An inmate could be identified as posing a high risk to public safety if he or she meets the criteria set out in the Parole Act. The first criterion in the legislation refers to whether the current offence for which the offender was convicted resulted in serious personal harm such as loss of life or major physical or psychological damage. At first instance the National Parole
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
Board must look at those inmates who are presently incarcerated and are about to be released on mandatory supervision. It will be specifically looking at those who were convicted of offences which resulted in serious personal harm such as loss of life or major physical or psychological damage. There is a Schedule attached to Bill C-67 which outlines the offences.
For example, if an inmate is serving time for committing manslaughter, the National Parole Board will decide whether or not a detention order should issue. Manslaughter is one of the offences listed in the Schedule attached to the Bill. I should like to point out very briefly the offences to which the National Parole Board must refer in order to determine which inmates should be kept incarcerated. It will look at all inmates convicted of causing injury with intent, a breach of Section 83 of the Criminal Code, the use of a firearm during the commission of an offence, pointing a firearm, a prison breach, manslaughter, attempted murder, assault causing bodily harm, overcoming resistence, assault, assault with a weapon, causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, unlawfully causing bodily harm, assaulting a police officer, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery, arson-setting fire to another substance-setting fire by negligence, and conspiracy to commit murder.
If an inmate is serving a period of incarceration for having committed one of these crimes, then he or she satisfies the first criterion laid out in the legislation. Once those particular inmates are identified, the National Parole Board must decide whether reasonable grounds exist to conclude that the person is likely to commit, prior to the expiry of his or her sentence, a violent crime which will result in harm.
As I pointed out the last time we discussed this Bill, one cannot predict with any degree of certainty whether an individual is likely to commit a violent crime which will result in harm. That simply cannot be done. At committee the experts told us that it was near impossible to predict violent behaviour with any degree of certainty. That is not to suggest that we should not at least try. In order to ensure that society is protected, it is important for authorities, to the best of their ability, to predict or decide whether a person is likely to commit a violent crime that will result in harm. If an inmate is serving a person of incarceration for having committed a crime enumerated in the Schedule, and the National Parole Board decides that reasonable grounds exist to conclude that the person is likely to commit a crime, then a detention order will issue. This means that the inmate will not automatically be released on mandatory supervision.
There is a further provision in the Bill which caused us some concern. Of course we indicated our concerns at committee. With regard to the discretion given to the Commissioner of Corrections in the sense that even if an inmate does not meet the first criteria, that is the inmate has not been incarcerated for a crime that is enumerated in the Schedule, the Commissioner of Corrections, as long as he has reasonable grounds to believe an inmate is likely to commit, prior to the expirty of

June 26, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
sentence, a violent crime that will result in violent harm, he may refer the case to the Chairman of the National Parole Board for a detention hearing. This legislation is giving a lot of power to the Commissioner of Corrections. If someone is serving a period of incarceration for, let us say, a crime against property, break and enter, and there are reasonable grounds to believe-whatever that means, that is a pretty loose standard-as long as the Commissioner believes or has reasonable grounds to believe that an inmate might be violent if released, he may refer the case to the Chairman of the National Parole Board for a detention hearing.
We do not believe that the Commissioner of Corrections should have that discretion. We believe the criteria with regard to the type of crime an inmate has committed should be restricted to those inmates who are serving time for having committed crimes against the person. As you know, inmates who do not meet the criteria as I have indicated that are outlined in Clause 2 of the Bill, but are not judged to pose a high risk and are released on mandatory supervision, will not be entitled to a remission again if that first release is revoked by the Parole Board.
I spoke at some length on this issue last day. It is referred to as "one shot mandatory supervision". This provision in the Bill will effectively allow inmates only one chance for release. In other words, if the inmate is released and breaches a condition of mandatory supervision, then that inmate will not be able to earn remission after the inmate is reincarcerated.
I know the hour is late and Hon. Members are anxious to do whatever they plan to do after they leave the hallowed halls of Parliament. I have spoken at some length on Bill C-67, and so I now intend to conclude my remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: I notice Hon. Members opposite are applauding. I know they are not applauding because I am about to conclude my remarks, they are applauding because of the content of my submissions. I know over the course of the last four hours that I have been able to convince Hon. Members opposite and, in particular, the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the legislation is imperfect. I know he has been on the phone to the Solicitor General, trying to persuade the Solicitor General to bring in a few amendments that will accommodate the concerns of Her Majesty's Loyal and Official Opposition, the concerns of the Elizabeth Fry and the John Howard Societies. One of my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) said that Members opposite are truly appreciative of my submissions. I would like to thank him.
Seriously speaking, Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to obstruct this legislation. We have not in any way obstructed
the passage of it. We were anxious when this Bill was introduced in June, 1985 to deal with it. We expedited second reading debate. The legislation was referred to committee. The Official Opposition was very responsible and constructive at committee, suggesting some very worth-while points. We listened attentively to all the individuals and groups who appeared before the committee and we expedited passage through committee.
This Bill was reported out of committee over five months ago. The Government and the Solicitor General have sat on this legislation since that time. Then they have unmitigated audacity to tell the House of Commons, with a few precious hours remaining in this session of Parliament before the summer break that the legislation is important, urgent and ought to be passed immediately.
I would like to say through you to the Solicitor General and the Government opposite, Mr. Speaker, that the Official Opposition resents very much the way the Government is operating. The Government has had ample opportunity to bring this Bill forward over the last five months but has refused to do so. It then turned around and has attempted to blame the Opposition for delaying the legislation.
Be that as it may, the legislation is a step in the right direction. We intend to support it. Of course, we cannot give any guarantees as to what the Senate might do with this Bill. The Senate has expressed its opinion on a number of occasions by way of several reports that have been passed on to the House. The Senate will deal with the Bill when it is referred there.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak to this Bill. I know you have given me ample opportunity to speak to the very serious concerns of Bill C-67. I have tried during the course of my submissions to point out the flaws in the Bill. There are several. Groups and organizations have also pointed out the problems.
I note that my time is almost up because I have been given the signal by my Whip that it is time to conclude. I have tried to satisfy concerns on all sides of the House but it has not always been easy. I have appreciated the opportunity to speak and I look forward to speaking to Bill C-68, which I understand the Government will be introducing immediately following third reading of this Bill.


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.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
June 26, 1986


John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Criminal Code be read the third time and passed.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the passage of this Bill. In fact, we want to pass it very quickly this evening. I would, however, like to give this explanation.
Bill C-68 addresses concerns of a more technical nature than Bill C-67. It, nonetheless, contains important changes to the conditional release statutes which are long overdue. The last significant amendments to the Parole Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act were made in 1977. Oversights were made at that time and concerns have arisen since which require amendments to clarify, consolidate and correct the statutes. The amendments in this Bill are intended to clarify the calculation and administration of sentences as well as to facilitate the operation of the National Parole Board, the Correctional Service of Canada and provincial correctional departments. I trust that the House will see fit to pass this Bill very quickly.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-68. As the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, Bill C-68 is complementary to Bill C-67. It is technical in nature. It is an Act to amend the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Criminal Code. On behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal and Official Opposition I would like to indicate that the Liberal Party intends to fully support the Government with regard to Bill C-68. It is a companion Bill to Bill C-67 and we do not have any serious objections to it. Our legal experts have examined this Bill in minute detail. We believe that the Bill should be passed by Parliament as quickly as possible. Therefore, I do not intend to make any further submissions with regard to Bill C-68.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize that my hon. colleague has arrived so I can sit down. At times it is like a hockey game. The coach tells the player to get on to the ice and drag the puck because we are leading. For the last hour my coach has been telling me to drag the puck. Blame it on J.R. Therefore, you will understand that I may not have been as coherent as I otherwise would have been. Given the opportunity, I can be very succinct in my remarks.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my Whip who is, without question, the best Whip in the House. He is a friend and colleague and we all appreciate his efforts over the last 20 months. I would like to take this opportunity as well to wish
Adjournment Debate
each and every Member in the House a happy and safe summer holiday.


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.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. We have agreed that since we have now received third reading of Bills C-67 and C-68 we will proceed immediately to the Adjournment Debate. I think that you will find unanimous consent for that motion.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: After meaningful deliberations on all sides of the House, we agree with that.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm that is my understanding of the agreement that was reached.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period on May 27 I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) if he would consider amending the provisions of the Income Tax Act to make available the tax free intergenerational roll-over of farm land to those Canadians who have farmed almost all their lives but who, through illness or advancing age, are not now actively farming. I wish to utilize this opportunity to expand on the question because the legislation is complex and because there appears to be confusion between the definition of land qualifying for the lifetime $500,000 capital gains exemption and the definition of lands qualifying for the intergenerational roll-over.
The problem in each instance relates to the capital gains tax which was instituted in 1972 and has since been viewed with less than enthusiasm by the farm community. Farm land was valued as at valuation day, December 31, 1971, and carried this value as an adjusted cost base for calculation of future gains. It also happened that farm land values escalated very rapidly through the 1970s and, although values are now dropping owing to discouraging world commodity prices, there remains today the potential for considerable capital gain to arise in the event of some dispositions.

June 26, 1986
Adjournment Debate
The outrage of the farm community to capital gain was sufficiently strong that modifications were made to the Act on several occasions. In 1973 provision was made for a tax free roll-over between parent and child so that in the traditional family farm situation the parent could elect to transfer title to his land to a child at the parents adjusted cost base without tax provided the land was, at the time of the transaction, being used by either parent or any child in the business of farming.
The requirement that the particular land be used in the business of farming at the time of the transaction has caused considerable problems. This requirement led to the widespread usage of custom work contracts. Through the custom work contracts the traditional lease situation was converted into a contractual arrangement on paper so that the elderly or retired owner of land was still able to satisfy Revenue Canada that he or she was using the land in the business of farming. This was done by demonstrating through the custom work contract that the owner still made certain management decisions relating to the land, held a current delivery permit book, received the proceeds of the crop, wrote cheques for various custom work operations and generally assumed some degree of risk.
Meanwhile, however, those unfortunate people who were unaware of the subtleties of the law and simply leased their land to neighbours, either for crop share or cash, and then in good faith proceeded to transfer their titles to their children, found themselves subject to capital gains tax. Land owners in similar circumstances who died were deemed to have disposed of their land at fair market value at the date of death and their estates were, in turn, subject to capital gains.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the enactment of the immediate $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption for farmers was welcomed by all concerned with agriculture. The capital gains exemption is available to those who are either actively farming the particular land at the date of the deal or who have farmed that land for any five years. This is obviously quite a wide definition which accommodates those Canadians who may have farmed most of their lives but who are retired or inactive at the time of the disposition or who, on death, became subject to the deemed disposition provisions.
The problem today is that so much publicity and attention has been given to the lifetime capital gains exemption that many Canadians believe the intergenerational roll-over between parent and child is likewise to be available on the same conditions. That is, where land is being farmed by transferor at the date of the deal or for any five years during which the land was owned by him. In fact that is not so. The tax free roll-over is available only where either parent or a child is actively farming the land. If neither is involved, the roll-over does not apply even though the transferor may have farmed the particular land most or all of his life.
With respect, I believe the definition of land eligible for the intergenerational roll-over should be expanded so as to be the same as the definition of land qualifying for the lifetime
capital gains exemption. This could be done by applying the definition of "qualifying farm property" prescribed under Section 110.6(1) of the Income Tax Act to Section 70 and Section 73 which govern the transfer of farm property by parent to child either inter vivos or on death. In other words, add the five-year usage clause to the roll-over criteria.
Some say this is not an important or pressing matter because the lifetime capital gains exemption is still available to those who might unwittingly find themselves ineligible for the intergenerational roll-over. Therefore, it is only those Canadians with in excess of $500,000 capital gains who would be affected. Unfortunately, the tentacles of the alternative minimum tax enter into the picture. While it is true that in almost all situations any tax paid under those provisions would be recovered as a credit against future tax payable, nonetheless there has to be payment up front and future recovery over a period of years. Furthermore, I am advised that the AMT payable by a deceased's estate on a deemed disposition can only offset tax paid during the previous three years.
Clearly there are some additional complications for those who have not had proper advice. However, the fact remains that there is no logical reason for the distinction, and the difference in the definitions of land qualifying. Those in the know can still structure their affairs through phoney custom work contracts and artificial contrivances. Why put them to the trouble? Why not put all farmers on the same footing? Why should it matter one iota whether the land is custom farmed or rented for crop sharing or cash? Why not simplify the Act by standardizing the definition, thereby removing an irritating impediment to effective farm state planning and management?
I see my time is almost up. I thank you for this opportunity to elaborate on this problem. I again urge the Minister to consider amending the provisions of the Income Tax Act to make available the tax free roll-over to those Canadians who have farmed for a considerable part of their lives, but who, through illness or advancing age, find that they are not now actively farming and therefore not eligible.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) who asked whether the rules concerning the intergenerational roll-over of farm land could be applied to something which has already been used by the taxpayer in the operation of the farm but which, for one reason or another, was not used immediately before the roll-over.
As the Hon. Member pointed out, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced that the lifetime $500,000 capital gains tax exemption would be immediately available to farmers, a special provision was made concerning farm lands which were not in use at that time, provided they had been used during at least five years in the past.
June 26, 1986

However the inter-generational roll-over of farm land differs from the capital gains tax exemption in several respects. First, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption is available to all Canadians, whereas the special provision for farmers does nothing more than speed up the process.
Therefore the distinction between active and inactive farm land does not matter much because the roll-over is restricted to two successive generations and applies only to farmers.
The purposes of these two measures are also quite different. The capital gains tax exemption is meant as a reward for individuals who have made successful investments and an incentive to make more investments.
On the other hand, the roll-over provisions apply not only to capital gains but also to depreciation and gains from eligible real estate, the idea being to encourage active farm land rollover from one generation to the next. This objective is achieved by deferring taxes which would otherwise be payable with respect to the roll-over and which might reduce the assets and compromise the profitability of the operation. In this way, cashflow problems in connection with tax payable on intergenerational roll-over of farmland are avoided.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) agrees to a certain extent with the specific example given by the Hon. Member, referring to taxpayers who have stopped operating their farm due to illness or advancing age. It is difficult to make a distinction between these and other cases where the owner of the land was not farming.
In view of these considerations and especially the fact that up to one-half million dollars in capital gain per person would be tax-extempt in any case, I don't think it would be desirable, for the time being, to broaden the application of provisions governing the inter-generational roll-over of eligible farm property.
Nervertheless, as the Hon. Member is well aware, this Government is very much interested in ensuring that the Canadian family farm remains viable, as demonstrated by the many measures we took previously in this area.
Mr. Speaker, it was with this principle in mind that the Minister of Finance said on May 27 of this year that he would take another look at the proposal. I would therefore urge the Hon. Member to continue his positive contribution towards the development of a satisfactory system for the inter-generational roll-over of farm property.


NATIONAL REVENUE-CONTROL OF CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, on June 17 I put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Valcourt). I asked what Revenue Canada is doing to ensure that public confidence is maintained in the charity sector in view of the creation by the Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus
Adjournment Debate
of philanthropic advisory services. The BBB apparently saw the need for such a watch-dog service to protect consumers by providing information on which charities meet their standards. The Bureau commented that Revenue Canada does an inadequate job of policing Canada's 50,000 plus registered charities. Both the Consumers' Association of Canada and the umbrella National Voluntary Organization, on the other hand, are aware of the role played by Revenue Canada, and that public awareness of this audit and monitoring role may be misunderstood as Revenue Canada can only advise that audits are carried out and all complaints are treated seriously and followed up. Confidentiality provisions preclude dissemination of information concerning an audit action on a particular charity.
The charities are critical of the means by which the BBB plans to attack perceived abuse by a very small number of registered charities and those entities that hold themselves out as registered. It is evident that the public should be fully informed of the extent of the audit and monitoring role played by Revenue Canada in this area. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to discuss this with the Minister to ensure that Revenue Canada not only perform this vital function, but also that the public is informed as to the nature and extent of this function.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to mention that volunteer organizations would like to receive more tangible recognition that would act as an incentive to further develop and renew their work in the community. In fact, the organizations are complaining today about "burn-out" among their members.
Mr. Speaker, I have asked for a special committee to be set up to make an in-depth study of the role of volunteers in Canada and to report to the Minister of Finance and the Department of the Secretary of State with recommendations on the best way for this Government to encourage more Canadian men and women to get more involved.
Mr. Speaker, our population is aging, and it will not be long before we need more room to house the elderly. The State will no longer be able to provide. We will need, as a society, the involvement of volunteers in our communities. Mr. Speaker, I think we should look at what other countries do for their volunteers.
In the United States, for instance, since we are in the middle of free trade talks, Mr. Bruce Davies, a tax adviser for the U. S. Congress Ways and Means Committee, told me that the United States now has a tax incentive for volunteer work, which means that all personal expenses in connection with a volunteer program or job may be deducted as a direct contribution from one's income tax. For instance, they can deduct 12 cents a mile for trips made to provide volunteer services and they can also deduct the cost of uniforms purchased by a service organization. Just think, Mr. Speaker, how little things like that could help out Canadian voluteers continue their work in their community.

June 26, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Speaker, there is also an organization in the United States that is called Action, and President Reagan hopes that it will be an incentive to companies and individuals to provide a public service on a volunteer basis instead of letting the Government do it.
Before I finish, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I was just at a meeting with some women who told us about their problems in connection with the financing of women's groups. These are all volunteers who every day try to help women that are less fortunate that they are. Mr. Speaker, in my riding a centre for women in need was recently set up, and I must say that without volunteer help, these women would never be able to receive a service that is extremely important, especially in remote areas like mine. I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that this Government will find a way to encourage more volunteeers to get involved and help their less-fortunate fellow citizens. I hope that the concerns raised by the Quebec Trade Practices Commission will receive a logical response, and I am very happy to have been able to take part in the adjournment debate this evening. Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may take this opportunity to urge you to look around this summer in your riding at what is happening to volunteer work and when you come back in September perhaps you and I could support a request to the Minister for tax incentives for our organizations.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain the role of Revenue Canada Taxation concerning the registration and control of charitable organizations.
In applying for registration, an applicant has to provide information that is sufficiently clear and detailed for departmental officials to determine whether the organization is, in fact, charitable at law, and whether the Income Tax Act's operational requirements for registered charities will be satisfied.
Great care is taken in reviewing applications. Where they feel it is necessary, officials of the Department will request further information and, where appropriate, encourage representatives of the applicant organization to meet with them.

Registration acceptance or refusal must not be considered as a judgment on the value of the activities and goals of the organization or of the motives of the individuals involved. The legislation only allows the department to make sure that the benefits offered to charitable organizations registered under the Income Tax Act are available only to those organizations which intend to operate in accordance with the rules established under tax legislation and common law.

After an organization has registered, it is required by law to file each year an information return containing a confidential accounting of its entire operations during the last year. A percentage of these information returns are reviewed and, where appropriate, further inquiries are made. This is the same as the review process that applies to regular tax returns.
Every charitable organization must provide annually a public information return containing financial information. Copies of these returns are made available to the public on request. This procedure does not preclude interested parties from also obtaining information directly from the charity itself or from provincial regulatory bodies.
Every year the Department carries out a number of audits and investigations on the basis of information on its files or supplied by the public. The departmental reviews that are made of certain charities include examination of some of the following matters; amount of receipted donations spent on charitable activities to ensure that the dispersement quota as required by income tax legislation is being met; adherence to filing and public disclosure requirements; a review of charitable activities to ensure that the legal definition of charity is still being met; a review of political activities to ensure that they are incidental and ancillary to the organization's charitable activities, and a review of receipting policies and procedures.
A number of refinements in administration have been put in place in the last year, after consultation with the voluntary sector. These include new and clearer explanations of how to register a charity, as well as new and simpler annual reporting requirements.
The Department is satisfied that the overwhelming majority of charitable organizations carry out their admirable work fully within the law. However, all complaints are treated seriously and, if warranted, are acted upon.
If a charitable organization is found to be overstepping the boundaries of charities, or is in breach of the technical rules contained in the Income Tax Act, the Department makes every effort to encourage it to correct the situation.
The ultimate step of revoking an organization's registration is, we have found, seldom necessary. In fact, only 18 charities have had their registered status revoked for cause in the past 12 years, whereas some 1,200 organizations are deregistered annually for administrative and other reasons.


CHALLENGE '86-FUNDING OF SOCIAL SERVICE PROJECTS. (B) REQUEST THAT PRIORITY BE GIVEN TO SOCIALLY USEFUL EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren AUmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on May 26 I put a question to the Minister for summer employment. While I believe her official title is Minister for Youth, since she has no other responsibility
June 26, 1986
[Stage Direction]
but summer employment, I suggest it is more accurate to call her the Minister for summer employment.
In any event, on May 26 I put the question to her with respect to the funding of Challenge '86, the summer employment program of the Government. On that day, a coalition of community groups from across the country met with her and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), to protest the fact that funding for a large number of community groups in this country for summer employment projects had been cut or had been eliminated altogether.
For example, in Montreal, the Association for Retarded Children, which has been funded in past years for approximately 30 people to take care of retarded children at summer camp, had been cut back to five or six. As a result, a large number of retarded children will not be going to camp.
There were other community groups that had also been cut. These include groups helping senior citizens, community groups helping disadvantaged youth, as well as community groups working on environmental projects. An important project in my riding was one which helped young people with drug problems. That was cut back altogether, with no funding at all.
There are two reasons why so many of these groups were left without funding or were seriously cut back. One is the cut in total funding for the summer employment program by $19 million over last year. In 1985, Challenge 85 had a budget of $205 million. For 1986, the budget is $188 million.
If that is not bad enough, in addition to this cut in funds, the Government also introduced a quota system. I call it a quota system because that is what it really is. It is a quota system which allocated a greater percentage of that money to the private business sector. The Government used these public funds to assist private business with their summer employment programs. Of course, this left the community groups, who have no other source of funding except governments and charitable organizations, short of money.
I asked the Minister to reconsider these quotas and cuts and restore the program to the way it was so that these worth-while groups could get funding. She made no reply, except to suggest in her answer that I was totally opposed to students getting jobs in the summer. That is ridiculous. Of course, I am for students getting jobs. I want them to have meaningful employment and, at the same time, I want that employment to provide useful social work in the community.
Despite her suggestions to the contrary, I would admit that there are some good jobs being funded under the present program. Of course, when the Government spends $188 million some good jobs will obviously be funded. That is not the point of my criticism or the criticism of the groups which came to see the Minister that day. The point is that the Government cut back and put in place a priority which gave more money to the private sector which, I maintain, it did not need.
Adjournment Debate
In the past, the criteria for summer employment projects was to provide some socially useful services. That is no longer the criteria. Therefore, we now have summer employment projects where people are cutting grass on golf courses, piling boxes on shelves, serving ice cream and other such things. These are worth-while, but public funds should not be given in order that they be accomplished. People will sell ice-cream in the summertime, anyway; people will cut their grass in the summertime, anyway, and they will pay people to do it.
If we consider the pattern of funding of this program over the last few years, we will see that in 1984, under the Summer Employment Program, $126.4 million went to the community sector. In 1985, the amount to the community sector went down to $116.8 million. This year, under the SEED program, which is part of Challenge '86, it has gone down to $82.55 million. Furthermore, if we consider the pattern as to how the average grant works out, we will see that in 1985 the average grant for community organizations was $15,600 and in 1986 it is down to $8,800. The average number of work weeks funded under the Challenge 85 program for community groups was 66.5 weeks, and in 1986 it is down to 36.2 weeks.
These criticisms that I bring to the House, contrary to what the Minister says, are not my own criticisms. She tries to pretend that these are the criticisms of people in the Opposition and that we are criticizing simply to be negative. I have seen editorial after editorial and have received letters from group after group making these criticisms, and I make them on their behalf.
My allotted time has just about finished. I will sit down. I had expected that the Minister, who is only a junior Minister, would have been here to answer my criticism; but, no, we will probably receive an answer from some Parliamentary Secretary who is not even familiar with the dossier but who will read a set piece prepared by some bureaucrat in the Department of Employment and then sit down without even understanding what he is reading to me. Our only hope in these debates is that we can reach beyond this Parliament and touch the people outside, sensitizing them so they know what is really going on in this country with respect to summer employment and other job-creation programs.
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne), I would like to give the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) a more specific answer to the question he raised last May 26. The quality of elements in the new job planning, Challenge '86, is designed to create jobs which will give students practical work experience and training which will ease their transition from school to the labour market. In that respect, the private sector plays a leading role since in any event it will hire graduating students seeking permanent jobs.

June 26, 1986
Adjournment Debate

Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with this dossier. I am aware of the good work that Challenge '86 has done in my own riding. It does not make sense to rely only upon the non-private sector to assist in providing the employment, training and experience young people need. The private sector is the engine of our impressive economic recovery, and the Government wants to encourage economic renewal by training our young people to enter this dynamic new labour market rather than allowing them to be left behind.
The summer programs of the previous Government relied upon the non-private sector to meet the employment needs of young people; but Challenge '86 puts the employment needs of young people first. However, the Government is not discriminating against the non-private sector through the Challenge '86 program. Under Challenge '86, students will work for organizations concerned with alcohol abuse, battered women and the mentally retarded, and will also support community recreational activities and child-care services. In fact, some 64.9 per cent of the funds are still being provided to the non-private sector, as compared with 35.1 per cent for the private sector. However, many of the jobs provided by the nonprivate sector not only promote community services but also
offer training and work experience that will benefit students when they eventually seek permanent employment. That fact is a key to the success of our summer programming. All applications are assessed equally, whether they are from the private or non-private sectors, and are judged on the basis of the quality of the training and work experience that they provide and how they enhance the career prospects of students.
Challenge '86 calls upon the private and non-private sectors to propose jobs which will help students make the school-to-work transition, jobs that will provide real employment experiences and training in areas that are related to what they are taking in school and therefore benefit their future entry into the exciting labour market of the 1980s.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A 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).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.18 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, June 27, 1986