1987-06-30

Mr. Speaker:: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on June 15 by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) concerning a petition he had hoped to present on child care.
The petitioners were calling upon Parliament to provide the provinces and territories with the immediate short-term funding to expand non-profit child care.
The Clerk of Petitions advised the Hon. Member that his petition was out of order because it entailed public expenditures.

Let me say at once that the advice given to the Hon. Member by the Clerk of Petitions was totally supported by long-standing precedents. Citation 685(3) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states:
The House will refuse to receive any petition that directly asks for a grant of money out of the public revenues unless such grant has first been recommended by the Crown.
This citation is substantiated by all previous editions of Beauchesne in even greater detail, and also in all four editions of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure.
In addition, we have numerous precedents on the record in the form of Speakers' rulings, dating back to May 7, 1868.
There was one case, on May 19, 1947, where the Speaker allowed a petition praying for an increase in old age pensions, but this was because the Governor General's recommendation had already been signified to a Bill having the same objective.
An important ruling of June 7, 1972, emphasized that the Chair was obliged to ensure that petitions conform to "the historic practices and usages of the House". The Speaker added, and I quote:
At many times the House has shown itself willing to waive its rules, however strict, to allow the introduction or the passage of a measure it desires, but it has consistently refused to do the same with petitions.
Like so many of our practices, this is one we inherited from the British Parliament. It has been governed by a Standing Order of the British House of Commons since 1713, and the financial initiative of the Crown was rooted in parliamentary procedure long before then.
We must, however, remember that at one time all legislation originated with a petition, and the practice of originating expenditure by means of a petition accompanied by a Royal Recommendation was not an unusual occurrence in the British Parliament.
On page 794 of Erskine May's Twentieth Edition, it is indicated that "the regular use of petitions for initiating expenditures has lapsed", and the British House of Commons now has a Standing Order which prevents the reception of petitions proposing public expenditures in all circumstances.
It is interesting to note, however, that until 1963, a petition from the British Museum for a grant in aid was presented annually by the Home Secretary, who signified the Royal Recommendation.
Faced with such a weight of precedent, the Chair feels unable to reverse a long-standing practice, about which there is no doubt whatsoever. However, I have great sympathy for the argument made by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), an argument which, as Hon. Members will recall, was fully supported by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis).
The right to petition Parliament is fundamental to our parliamentary system, and it is not unreasonable to assume that the remedy, in many a situation, could only be found through the expenditure of public funds. A petitioner is entitled to petition for relief in a burdensome situation, so that a mere change in wording could well render a petition in order which might otherwise be out of order. A petition praying for the enactment of a measure which would provide the relief being sought might avoid the restriction imposed by our practice.

Personally, I think that a petition does not fall into the same category as Bills, and that if it seeks to change the current practice, however deeply anchored in history it may be, the House ought to consider this procedure. This is the kind of question which the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure might very well entertain, and I intend to draw the attention of the committee chairman to my ruling.

June 30, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Fulton

I would say to the Eton. Member for Churchill and the Eton. Parliamentary Secretary that this is certainly a matter in respect of which the Chair can say, despite the deep and long history, which makes it very unwise for the Chair to unilaterally change the practice, the House should consider the practice again; and if the Elouse wishes to make changes, it is perhaps time to consider doing so.
I thank both Hon. Members for their interventions.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Ordinarily the Chair does not like to proceed with a ruling if the Hon. Member who has raised the matter is not in the Chamber. However, I hope the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and other Hon. Members will forgive me doing so this morning because it is the last day before the summer adjournment.
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised yesterday by the Hon. Member for Skeena. He gave a most lucid account of a sequence of events that took place in the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry, a sequence of events which resulted in the failure to implement a resolution adopted by the committee.
The Hon. Member claimed that the departmental inaction he described impeded him in the fulfilment of his duties and therefore infringed his privileges. Hon. Members will remember that in that case there was a unanimous committee decision to ask a number of government departments to form a committee to proceed to consider and do certain things which the committee wished them to do. As at the date on the application of the question of privilege yesterday, no action had been taken by the departments mentioned to fulfil the unanimous motion of the committee.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis), while arguing that the Hon. Member for Skeena did not have a valid question of privilege, nevertheless expressed his sympathy with his colleague's frustration. The Chair can also sympathize with Hon. Members who in trying to get things done find themselves frustrated by the bureaucratic process. We must, however, recognize that the bureaucracy also has its point of view and when it fails to act there may sometimes be good reasons for it.
However, this is not a matter for the Chair to judge. The Chair can only address the claim of privilege. The practice and precedents in a case of this kind are very clear. The Chair cannot deal with a matter arising from the proceedings of a committee unless the committee makes a formal report to the
House, except, I suppose, in some very exceptional circumstances to which I have alluded at another time.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council referred to Citation 76 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition and to various rulings of the Chair which support the well established principles concerning privilege in relation to committee proceedings. I myself gave a ruling on December 16, 1986, which was consistent with the practice I have indicated. I must therefore rule that the complaint raised by the Hon. Member for Skeena does not fall within the limits of privilege, but this need not deter the Hon. Member from pursuing it by other means.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-2499, 332-2500, 332-2586, 332-2589 and 332-2630.



STATUTES OF CANADA


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a copy of the Government's proposals to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms, and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada.
There have been consultations and 1 believe that if Your Honour seeks unanimous consent to refer this draft Bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General you will find that such consent exists.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has made a proposal and indicated that there is consent.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a copy of the Bill. I have had a quick look through it and 1 agree, on behalf of the Official Opposition, with the procedure proposed by the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill.


Mr. Murphy:: It is okay.
June 30, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(10), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board to the Governments of the United States and Canada for the period October 1, 1985, to September 30, 1986.


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 84(1) I have the honour to lay upon the Table copies of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(2), I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of the said motion.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the interim report of the Official Parliamentary Delegation of the Canadian section of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group which attended the twenty-eighth annual meeting of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group in Vancouver, B.C., from June 4, 1987, to June 8, 1987.


PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF CANADA-FRANCE INTERPARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association on the
Committee Reports
twentieth meeting held in France, between May 30 and June 7, 1987.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the eighth and ninth reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
The eighth report deals with Volume I, Sections 2 and 3 of the 1986 Public Accounts of Canada and, in particular, the reservations of the Auditor General concerning the borrowings of Crown corporations and the consolidation of assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenditures of Crown corporations. The committee has requested a government response to the recommendations in paragraphs 7 and 15 of the report.
In its ninth report the committee notes that it has been examining the radar modernization project of the Department of Transport and will continue to do so. However, the committee wishes to state its concerns with the inadequacies in the requirements definition process, the benefit-cost studies, and the impact of the cost control process of the Treasury Board Secretariat.


COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE-SEVENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture on the appointment by Order in Council of Jocelyne Bourgon as a member of the National Film Board. The committee is of the opinion that the appointee has the qualifications, skills and abilities to perform the duties of the position for which she has been selected.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION-SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion dealing with the Industrial and Regional Development Program of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the committee requests that the Government table a comprehensive response within 150 days.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

June 30, 1987
Introduction of Bills


FARM IMPROVEMENT AND MARKETING COOPERATIVES LOANS ACT
Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-78, an Act to increase the availability of loans for the purpose of the improvement and development of farms and the processing, distribution or marketing of farm products by co-operative associations, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find that there is consent for Bill C-78 to be read a second time later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there consent that Bill C-78 be read a second time later this day?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-79, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts in relation thereto.


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.


CUSTOMS ACT
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: for leave to introduce Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Customs 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? [English]


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is consent for the Bill to be read a second time later this day.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I take it that consent will be sought later this day but that consent is not given now to second reading of that Bill.


Philip Derek Lewis: Consent to proceed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the Hon. Member is seeking consent. We are not giving consent now.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) assist the Chair? I take it that what he is saying is that there is consent now to proceed to second reading of the Bill later this day, but not necessarily consent then to proceed at that time any further. Is that what the Hon. Member is implying?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, Mr. Speaker. I see my House Leader in the House right now. I will defer to him. What I was saying to you, Mr. Speaker, is that if consent was sought later this day we may give it.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) could assist the Chair.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I had to leave the House for a few minutes. I believe that we are dealing with Bill S-11?


Philip Derek Lewis: And a companion Bill.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, and the companion Bill. I believe we had discussed dealing with them together. I am sorry I had to step out of the House when this was being presented. I think what you have in mind is consistent with our discussions.


Mr. Speaker:: The proposition of the Parliamentary Secretary is agreed upon by the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 30, 1987


STATUTE LAW (FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS) AMENDMENT ACT, 1987 MEASURE TO ENACT
Thomas Hockin: for leave to introduce Bill C-81, an Act to amend certain Acts relating to financial institutions (No. 2).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: for leave to introduce Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CRIMINAL CODE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: for leave to introduce Bill C-263, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (contempt of court).


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?
Motions


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the law of contempt of court in Canada is in very bad disrepair. I am moving an amendment to the Criminal Code to try to improve it.
I am influenced very much by legislation brought to the Order Paper by the former Government which has not become law. I am thinking also of a decision recently in Toronto involving Harry Kopypo who was found guilty of contempt of court and had a serious penalty imposed upon him but was not allowed in his own defence to prove that the allegations he was making were true. I am not making the point that the allegations were true. I think Canadians were surprised to find that in that type of a situation the truth was irrelevant and not something that could be pleaded by an accused. This amendment, which I commend to the House, I hope will become law during this Parliament.


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

Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I believe that you would find that there is consent for two motions to be put and dealt with. The first motion is as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be
empowered to travel to Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina and Winnipeg from
September 20 to September 25, 1987;
to Quebec City, Fredericton, Charlottetown, Halifax and St. John's
(Newfoundland) from September 27 to September 30, 1987;
to Mont Ste-Marie (Quebec) on October 13, 14 and 15, 1987, for the
purpose of drafting its report to the House;
and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
June 30, 1987
7826_____________________________________
Motions

Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, the second motion is as follows:
That, the Chairman, the Vice Chairman and the necessary staff of the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Quebec
City, Quebec, from July 5 to 9, 1987, to attend the 9th Annual Meeting of the
Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
v *	*

Robert Phillip Kaplan: That the fifth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and
Other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on March 20, be
concurred in.
He said: Madam Speaker, 1 rise today to seek the concurrence of the House in the fifth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments which was tabled in the House on March 20, 1987. At the outset, I should mention that my co-chairman, Senator Nathan Nurgitz, already moved and secured the concurrence of the other place in this report on May 6, 1987.
This report, which was unanimously adopted by members of all Parties on the committee, deals with the by-laws made by Indian band councils pursuant to the Indian Act. As Hon. Members will know, this Act delegates important law-making powers to band councils. The by-laws made by those band councils typically cover a wide range of matters of local Government on the reserves from property zoning to the sale of intoxicants. The by-laws affect all those who reside or do business on reserves in their every-day lives and occupations.
If Hon. Members would turn to Appendix "A" of the report which is before the House, they would find a list of the lawmaking powers which Parliament has delegated to band councils. By-laws made pursuant to those powers are subject to review and scrutiny by our committee in accordance with Section 26 of the Statutory Instruments Act.
From 1982 to 1985, our committee reviewed each bylaw made by band councils. We found that a great number of these by-laws did not conform to the scrutiny criteria which we had been using with the approval of both Houses. Unfortunately, we also encountered difficulties in pursuing the problems which were identified. The reasons behind these difficulties are detailed to a greater extent in the correspondence which my colleagues and I exchanged with the responsible Minister. That correspondence can be found in Appendix "B" to the report.
On the basis of its experience, the joint committee came to conclude that its review of by-laws made under the Indian Act served, and I quote from our report: "a limited practical purpose at best and may not even be entirely appropriate when one considers that these by-laws are made by band councils whose members are democratically chosen by the people they represent".
On this basis, the joint committee decided that it would not review band council by-laws on an individual basis in future and that it should submit this decision to both Houses. We felt it important to draw this to the special attention of the Houses and to ask that they concur in the committee's decision to limit in this way the manner in which it will discharge its responsibilities under Section 26 of the Statutory Instruments Act. As stated in our report, committee members believe that this approach respects the fact that these legislative decisions are those of democratically elected representatives.
The report also recommends that the Statutory Instruments Act be amended so as to exempt band council by-laws from the examination, registration and publication requirements of the Act. The requirements which otherwise apply to the regulations made under the federal legislation are of little practical value in the case of by-laws made under the Indian Act. In fact, most of the by-laws made by band councils have now been exempted from those requirements through Order in Council. We are recommending that those exemptions be formalized by Parliament.
In our system of Government, it is expected that administrative authorities who exercise law-making power, whether it be Ministers or band councils, will exercise those powers in accordance with regulatory control mechanisms designed to ensure that the resulting laws are fair, reasonable and authorized by law. As I mentioned earlier, the joint committee's experience with by-laws made under the Indian Act has shown that there are substantial problems with the manner in which those powers are sometimes exercised by band councils.
The Indian Act does contain some regulatory control mechanisms which are intended to avoid this. For example, a number of by-laws are currently subject to disallowance by the Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. McKnight). We have found, however, that there are serious problems not only with some of the band council by-laws but also with the existing regulatory
June 30, 1987

control mechanisms. In this respect, the report lists a number of suggestions which are designed to improve the law.
Two specific amendments to the Indian Act have been recommended. First, we recommended that the Act be amended to guarantee the right of those living on reserves to adequate notice of new by-laws and the right to have access to those by-laws. Second, your committee believes that the Act should prohibit convictions for breach of a by-law unless it is shown that reasonable steps have been taken to bring the law to the attention of the person who is charged.
As for the existing power of disallowance of the Minister under the Indian Act and the more general question of adequate regulatory control mechanisms, the committee received assurances from the responsible Minister that his Department was preparing a disallowance policy and a review of the jurisdictional scope and administrative treatment of by-laws. We recommend that these documents be referred to the appropriate committees of the Houses for study.
In the last few days, I myself have spoken with officials of the Minister of Indian Affairs. I hope there will be a response to the statement I am making now along the lines I have suggested.
Finally, in the course of the preparation of the fifth report, it came to the attention of the committee that about 100 by-laws made under Section 85(1) of the Act had not been registered as required by law. These are penal by-laws which prohibit or regulate the sale or consumption of intoxicants on reserves. Legally the consequence of not having registered these by-laws is that no person may be convicted of violating those prohibitions. This rule of law was set down by Parliament in Section 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act.
Notwithstanding this rule, the committee was informed that a number of Canadians have been convicted for violating some of these by-laws in using intoxicants on reserves. You will agree, as I am sure all Members will, that these unlawful convictions of Canadian citizens are a matter of grave concern so far as the rule of law is concerned. Because of this the committee has recommended that the Government take all necessary remedial measures vis-a-vis those individuals who have been unlawfully convicted. The particular recommendations of the committee in this regard will be found in our report.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that this report represents the consensus of all members of the joint committee representing all Parties in this place. This committee has a long and well-established tradition of doing its work in a completely non-partisan fashion and the report I have tabled and on which I am moving concurrence reflects this tradition. The recommendations we have put before you are reasonable and noncontentious. They are designed to improve the law and the processes under which native people govern themselves. The report, as I mentioned at the beginning of my intervention, has
Motions
already been concurred in unanimously in the other place and I ask for similar support from Members of this House.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, in responding to the Hon. Member, I want to say that I followed the committee's work as it relates to Indian and northern affairs. I watched the proceedings closely.
The report of the joint committee outlines their concerns with the manner in which the Government deals with by-laws enacted by band councils pursuant to various provisions of the Indian Act. The concerns of the joint committee focus on the need to ensure that band by-laws are fair, reasonable and valid, and that they comply with or are properly exempted from provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act.
Particular concern was noted with problems related to convictions under the intoxicants by-laws passed pursuant to Section 85(1) of the Indian Act. In the last fiscal year 1986-87 some 68 band councils passed 99 by-laws. Of those, 74 dealt with general topics, five with financial matters, and 20 with intoxicants. In total the department recorded over 2,200 bylaws passed by band councils under the terms of the current Act.
There is particular interest on the part of the Government in the powers of Indian bands to enact by-laws as these powers are consistent with the Government's strong commitment to advance and promote Indian self-government. As part of the over-all review by the department of the functions of the Lands, Revenues and Trust sector of the department, a comprehensive review is being carried out on the by-law making process. The review is being conducted by the office of the Comptroller General and results are expected in another year. It is anticipated that the review will come forward with recommendations for improvement of the by-law making process in areas within and outside the purview of the report.
The report also calls into question the validity of band enactments and the processing of same. In addition, it emphasizes the need to ensure that if the requirement to comply with the Statutory Instruments Act was removed, steps would be taken to ensure that persons affected by the by-laws were given notice of such by-laws and that convictions under by-laws were subject to proof of such notice.
As joint chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, the Hon. Member certainly recognizes the complexities raised in this report. The department is in the process of reviewing the report in consultation with other concerned departments. In accordance with the committee's request a comprehensive response to the report will be tabled in this House within the required time frame.
For reasons I have just identified, including the fact that the Government is in the process of preparing a full and complete response, and as provided for in the Standing Orders, I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.

June 30, 1987
Committee Reports


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


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and 1 think you will find there is unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from committees for the presentation of a report.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


RESEARCH, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PRESENTATION OF THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, as chairman of the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology I have the honour to present in both official languages the third report, to which, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the committee requests a comprehensive response.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I should like once again to table 11 petitions concerning the Maison d'Amitie, a home for women and children in distress. In view of the fact that the House will be adjourning later this evening without any concrete action being taken by this Government for the Maison d'Amitie or other homes which will have to close once again due to the lack of money, I ask the Government once again to allow the Maison d'Amitie to maintain its rent at the nominal fee of $1 until the implementation of a national policy which would effectively solve the problems met by a million women and children victims of family violence.
The petitioners, Madam Speaker, humbly state that according to a report made public by the Canadian Advisory Committee on the Status of Women one woman out of eight is subjected to psychological, economic, sexual or verbal violence by her spouse. At a time when the Government should act instead of cracking down, the National Capital Commission
intends to raise by more than $3,000 a month the rent for the Maison d'Amitie, the only francophone non-profit organization in the area for women and children in distress.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), stated recently in the House that the problem of battered women is one of the most serious social and legal challenges facing us today; therefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the National Capital Commission to reverse its decision to raise the rent and to continue, as in the past, charging the symbolic sum of one dollar.


Mr. Ricardo Lopez (Chateauguay):: Madam Speaker, I should like to present to the House a petition signed by some 1,000 residents of my constituency of Chateauguay. Those residents are asking the Parliament of Canada to grant a child care allowance for homemakers. Indeed, they are asking a small allowance which will not increase the burden of taxpayers but will be reallocated from subsidies to child care centres and from the program to promote the status of women.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition signed by a number of residents of Toronto concerning the low-level flight training of pilots of NATO countries at the NATO Forces Base in Goose Bay, Labrador.
The petitioners are concerned that this program disrupts the way of life of many of the native people there and that better employment could be found for those native people in their traditional activities or in modern ones such as tourism and mining. They also point out that this activity is a provocative and aggressive war-fighting action which tends to endanger world peace.
Therefore, they petition Parliament to ensure that all low-level flight training at Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base will cease and that negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base there will cease.
This brings to more than 1,170 the number of people who have petitioned Parliament on this matter.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I also have a petition from a number of residents of Toronto with regard to the matter of refugees who have been coming to Canada seeking safety from persecution and finding that our system has been overloaded, broken down, and subject to intolerable delays. They therefore recommend that Parliament adopt the
June 30, 1987

proposal put forward by the all-Party Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration and supported by such national groups as the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Bar Association and other groups.
They ask that Parliament enact legislation which will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings by the claimant in Canada, and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim.
This brings to more than 1,650 the number of petitions received on this subject.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I have a petition from people in many parts of Canada concerned that the Government's Bill C-55 would threaten Canada's traditional commitment of assistance to refugees because it sets out measures designed to keep most refugee claimants out of the country as opposed to ensuring that genuine refugee claimants are given protection.
Therefore, they petition Parliament to ensure that Bill C-55 will be withdrawn and that a new Bill will be brought in embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugees before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to these hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact.
This brings to more than 820 the number of petitions received on this subject.
Program	Actual 85/86
Social Development	1053.2
Education	83.6
Band Government	181.7
Community Infrastructure	50.3
Economic Development	56.9
Lands & Membership	241.7
Capital	70.0
Total	1737.4
Questions on the Order Paper QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 84, 85 and 144.


Mr. King: 1.	For the fiscal years 1985-86 and 1986-87 to date, did the Westbank Indian Band receive funds from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, if so, for each year, by program, in what amounts?
2.	For the fiscal year 1986-87 to date, have funds been agreed upon which remain unpaid and, if so, by program, in what amounts?
3.	If the difference for any program between funds received in 1985-86 and funds received plus those yet to be received in 1986-87 is greater than 10 per cent, what is the reason for the difference?
4.	Have new contribution agreements been signed by the Westbank Indian Band during the 1986-87 fiscal year to date, and, if so (a) what are they (b) which of these replace previous agreements?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. In fiscal years 1985/86 and 1986/87 the Westbank Indian Band did receive funds from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows (SOOO's):
Paid to	To be paid	Total	Per CentFeb. 28/87	86/87	86/87	Change1036.4	_	1036.4	(2%)75.7	18.0	93.7	12%167.0	17.0	184.0	1%45.0	3.0	48.0	(5%)67.9	-	67.9	19%98.1	-	98.1	(59.4%)129.4	17.6	147.0	110%1619.5	55.6	1675.1	2.	$55.6 to be paid, see breakdown by program in above table.3.	Reason for difference of funding in any program between 1985/86 and 1986/87 exceeding 10 per cent is as follows:Program	Per Cent Difference	ReasonEducation	12%	Increase in the number of post-secondary students due to Bill C-3Economic Development	19%	Project specific funding greater in 86/87Lands & Membership	(59.4%)	173.7 funding from H.Q. for land management not allocated in 86/87; alsoCapital	110%	Sec. 53 and 60 authority granted in 85/86 so start up funding provided in 85/86 not provided in 86/87. Project specific funding greater in 1986/87.
June 30, 1987
Starred Questions
4.	Annually, new Contribution Agreements are signed by the Westbank Indian Band and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to flow funds for all of the various programs of the Department for which the band is eligible. This was done in 1986/87 for the Westbank Indian Band and similarly for all bands in the B.C. region.
The agreements do not replace previous agreements as such, but do include any funding commitments which may span across two fiscal years (e.g., a Capital Project).
The Contribution Agreements signed during 1986/87 are as follows:
Local Services Contribution Arrangement (for all Operations and Maintenance programs).
Capital Housing	60.0
Capital Infrastructure	87.0
Economic Development	67.9


Miss Nicholson (Trinity): 1.	Has the Government contributed to the operation of the International Tin Council since the Council's default on its debt in March, 1986, and if so, in what amount?
2.	Has the Government been made party to any legal action arising out of the default of the ITC and, if so, how much (a) has been expended by the Government for legal advice (b) does the Government expect to spend?
3.	(a) Has the Government taken any action to bring to an end the default of the ITC (b) does it propose any such action that would limit the Government's legal liability to persons who have suffered loss and damage from the default?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Yes. In 1986-87, the Canadian contribution was f47,817 (approximately $95,000).
2.	(a) Yes. In 1986-87, f200,899 (approximately $402,000).
(b) The future amount for legal advice is impossible to estimate as it will depend on the evolution of the litigation before the courts.
3.	(a) Canada has assisted the ITC in its efforts to find a solution.
(b) No, Canada is not responsible for the debts of the ITC.


Mr. Minaker: From November 1, 1984, to April 1, 1987, were any Canadians in Mexico (a) killed as victims of criminal actions (b) assaulted or had other criminal offences committed against their persons or property and, if so, (i) how many (ii) in each case, what was the name of the town or city where the act occurred and were criminal charges laid?


Charles Joseph Clark: The following Canadians were killed or injured in Mexico, as a result of criminal actions, since November 1, 1984. To our knowledge criminal charges have been laid only in the case of Mr. Placide Dodier.
Killed or assaulted	Place	DateDanna Mart Fujikawa - murdered	Guadalajara	January 25, 1985Tamara Fujikawa - assaulted	Guadalajara	January 25,1985James Stobbard - mugged:	Mazatlan	September 9, 1985officials claimed he was hit by a bus	Paul de Luca - shot and killed	Reynosa	February 6, 1986Danny Douglas Clark - shot and	Puerto Vallarta	March 17, 1986killed	Ham Boehni - killed in hit and	Ciudad Jurez	April 15, 1986run accident	Placide Dodier - shot and killed	Matamoros	April 28, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 141.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. *141-Miss Nicholson (Trinity):
1.	Is the Government being sued as a result of the failures of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank and, if so, what individuals or other bodies have instigated legal action, and on what grounds?
2.	Has the Government sought legal advice and taken legal action and, if so (a) who is advising the Government or acting on its behalf (b) what amount has been expended for this purpose (c) are further expenditures contemplated or anticipated and, if so, to what extent?
Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, the answer is as follows:
(1) The Government is presently involved directly or indirectly in three suits as a result of the failures of the Canadian Commercial Bank (CCB) and the Northland Bank. The first two suits are in relation to the Financial Institutions Depositors Compensation Act, S.C. 1984-85 c.51 whereby the Nova Scotia Savings & Loan Company and the Saskatchewan Co-op are suing the Government. The issue of these suits is whether or not the promissory notes that each institution held from the CCB are deposits within the meaning of the Act and therefore whether or not the Government owes them compensation under the Act. The other legal action was initiated by the Bank of Montreal against Her Majesty in respect of the March 1985 Participation Agreement. The Bank of Montreal essentially alleges negligence on the part of the Government in respect of the information made available to the bank prior to participating in the Participation Agreement.
June 30, 1987

(2) The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation (CDIC), on behalf of the Government, initially sought some advice from the law firm of Tory, Tory, DesLauriers and Binnington in respect of the Nova Scotia Savings & Loan and Saskatchewan Co-op actions. However, that action is now being handled by the Department of Justice. The fees paid to Tory, Tory, DesLauriers and Binnington were $300 and no further expenditures to non-government agencies in respect of the pursuance of those suits are anticipated.
With respect to the Bank of Montreal suit, both the Department of Justice and the law firm of Campbell, Godfrey and Lewtas are acting on behalf of the Government, with the Department of Justice acting as solicitor in the matter. The law firm of Campbell, Godfrey and Lewtas has been retained because of its familiarity with the circumstances surrounding the CCB situation and the demands made upon the Department of Justice. Therefore, a combination of personnel from the Department of Justice and Campbell, Godfrey and Lewtas represents the most efficient use of personnel in these circumstances.
The expenditures thus far have been $1,186.66 in respect of payments to Campbell, Godfrey and Lewtas and it is difficult to predict at this point in time whether further expenditures will be made.
Madam Speaker, I would ask that all the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to a motion moved on June 10, 1987, as reported on page 6963 of Hansard. The motion was adopted by the House. It was as follows:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she
will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Cape Breton Development
Corporation's five-year plan.
I pointed out in a previous intervention on June 17, 1987, that that was not what was produced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis). At that time he tabled in the House only a summary of the Cape Breton Development Corporation's plan. I made it very clear in a previous intervention that I was requesting the full plan as that is what I believe the motion requests.
At the time of my earlier intervention I was told by the Parliamentary Secretary that he would look into this matter
Financial Institutions
and give me an answer. I think June 30 would be an appropriate day for me to get an answer on this.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend and I are engaged in a question of semantics. The Government did in fact table the summary of the Cape Breton Development Corporation's corporate plan. There are certain things in the over-all specific plan which are confidences of the Privy Council. It is custom that only summaries of corporate plans of Crown corporations be tabled and made public. I think you will find, Madam Speaker, that the Government has complied with the statute in this case.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the motion is quite clear. It speaks of "a copy of the Cape Breton Development Corporation's five-year plan". There is no reference whatsoever to the words "summary", "executive summary" or any other condensation of that plan.
Recognizing the amount of business that has to be done by the House today, I would like to give notice of a point of order and would like to have a ruling at some time in the future on what the motion which was passed by this House requires of the Government. I submit that the motion is quite clear and does require the tabling of the entire five-year plan. I ask for a response from the Chair, perhaps in early September.


PETITIONS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I thank Hon. Members for giving me this opportunity to present a petition on behalf of residents of Port Coquitlam, Langley and Surrey which says, in part, that all human beings are deserving of legal protection from unjust attacks upon their lives and that the present law regarding abortion does not provide such protection, wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code so that unborn human beings are protected by law from abortion.
The petition has been duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Thomas Hockin: that Bill C-56, an Act to amend certain Acts relating to

June 30, 1987
Financial Institutions
financial institutions, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
OO)
Thomas Hockin: that Bill C-56, an Act to amend certain Acts relating to financial institutions, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to speak briefly on third reading of Bill C-56, an Act to amend certain Acts relating to financial institutions.
The Bill contains an important new provision to permit federal financial institutions to own securities dealers. We are all aware that financial institutions are eager to take up the challenge offered by the opportunity to become more involved in the securities industry, and I expect this development to greatly strengthen the capitalization of Canadian securities dealers. The power to own a securities dealer will also be available to foreign-owned federal financial institutions operating in Canada. Although entry is not guaranteed and, in considering applicants, we will look at the extent to which Canadian institutions have access to the home jurisdiction of the applicant, the Bill makes it possible for foreign-owned federal financial institutions to operate in Canada.
The Bill will also strengthen supervisory powers. Specifically, it will give the Superintendent of Financial Institutions the power to issue cease and desist orders to institutions engaging in unsafe or unsound business practices, as well as the power to revalue real estate assets or assets secured by real estate, for the purposes of determining compliance with solvency tests. Regulatory standards applicable to insurance companies are also being strengthened.
I would also note that the clauses which were in Bill C-56 pertaining to ministerial approval of changes in ownership of financial institutions have been withdrawn, but they have been introduced as a separate Bill this morning.
This decision was taken for two reasons which I would like to make clear at this time. First, I was aware of the fact that the industry and parliamentarians wanted more time to consider the share transfer approval provisions. Introduction of the provisions in a second Bill provides that opportunity.
The second reason is that I was acutely aware of the importance, both domestically and internationally, of moving forward with the other provisions of this Bill without delay.
I hope Hon. Members of the House share my views on the need for rapid implementation of these measures. The financial deregulation which is very much in the news today is
made possible in large measure by this Bill. I would urge the House to give Bill C-56 third reading as expeditiously as possible.


Aideen Nicholson: Madam Speaker, when I spoke during second reading of Bill C-56, I mentioned that my Party had agreed to a short debate at that stage so that the Bill could go quickly into committee. At that time we had been given to understand two things: First, that it was necessary to move quickly because Bill C-56 contains the measures complementing the Ontario Government's initiative to open up ownership of its securities industries set to take effect today, June 30; second, we were given to understand that there were no surprises in this Bill. Apart from the securities proposals, it contains measures carried forward from Bills and draft legislation first introduced as long ago as 19 months and amended slightly.
On that basis we agreed to a brief debate on Bill C-56 at second reading. However, I pointed out in my speech of May 29 that the Government has fallen into a disagreeable habit of dragging its heels on introducing legislation, then attempting to have it rushed through the House and through committee with assurances that everything will be all right if the Opposition just agreed to pass it.
As responsible opposition Members, we readily co-operate to expedite legislation in cases of urgency when it is clearly in the national interest to do so. But all too often, since the present Government came to power, the House has been presented with legislation requiring careful examination and considered debate, and we have been asked to deal with it quickly, without the opportunity to judge for ourselves that the Government's assurances have any validity.
The Bill to put together the bail-out package for the Canadian Commercial Bank is a prime example. We were asked to give that quick passage on the basis of government assurances which we later found to be absolutely worthless. The Government did not have the facts or did not choose to tell the House.
Given that history, it is perhaps not surprising that when Bill C-56 was examined in committee it became clear that there was more to it than met the eye. I refer to the measure which has now been lifted from the Bill, giving the Minister power to review and block transfers of share ownership of financial institutions.
This was not a new proposal. As I said in my speech at second reading, the proposal for a process of ministerial review was in two earlier Bills which were never passed, and in draft legislation before that. However, the proposal as it appeared in Bill C-56 was greatly changed and had a reach far beyond anything we could have anticipated.
Prior to Bill C-56, the proposal had been for a process of ministerial approval, or veto, of share transactions that would result in control of a financial institution or an increase of shares in a financial institution exceeding 10 per cent. The
June 30, 1987

amended version, which appeared in the now deleted Clauses 10, 44, and 51 of Bill C-56, went far beyond the notion of control and resulted in a requirement for ministerial approval in any situation where a person or associated group acquires more than 10 per cent of a financial institution or increases its holding to more than 10 per cent of any class of shares in a financial institution. The seemingly innocuous amendment- this portion of the Bill which had been played down by the Minister and his officials-in fact introduced a new and quite extraordinary breadth to the measure. It prematurely raised important public policy issues that should not be rushed through in what we had been given to understand was a housekeeping or mechanism Bill.
The Bill set at 10 per cent the threshold at which share transactions would be subject to ministerial approval, but the broad definition of "associated persons", as it applies to the transfer of ownership proposals, would have meant that transactions would become subject to review in companies that had only a marginal connection with the financial institution.
The committee heard some graphic examples of hypothetical share transactions that would be subject to review under former Clause 10 because somewhere in the corporate family tree was a federally-regulated financial institution.
There are two problems with this: First, what the Bill attempted to do; and second, the manner in which it was attempted.
That one small change in the predecessor Bill, which became Bill C-56, would have so amplified the ministerial review process as to enable full implementation of the Government's policy, as described in its December, 1986, discussion paper pertaining to the participation of commercial enterprises in the ownership of financial institutions.
The commercial links policy is something I expected, as I believe most Members of this House expected, to see in the draft Bill which is to appear later this summer and which is supposed to contain all the major public policy proposals, including the Government's over-all policy on ownership of financial institutions. The Government has said it intends to release a draft Bill, hear public response on its major reform proposals and then come back with a Bill in the fall.
However, what appears to have happened with Bill C-56 is a subversion of that process whereby something which should have been in the upcoming major piece of draft legislation was instead craftily insinuated into Bill C-56, which we were told was a "no surprises" Bill that had to be passed quickly to allow the securities deregulation to proceed on June 30, today.
I have maintained from the outset that the Government would have done better to table all its reform legislation at once so that the various proposals could be examined in context. Indeed, the Minister, in appearing before the finance committee on Bill C-42 and Bill C-56, said they need to be
Financial Institutions
placed in the context of the upcoming third legislative package which we have not yet seen. The fact that the Minister and his department are not apparently well enough organized to provide us with that context is no justification for this attempt to bring in by the back door an important policy proposal which deserves more examination and debate than we have been able to accord it under the rushed conditions imposed by the Government.
Essentially, that is why the members of the finance committee were not willing to approve the Bill as it was and why they insisted on the removal of three clauses. I am pleased that the Minister finally agreed to that removal. As it is now, Bill C-56 more closely matches the description given by the Minister in one of his appearances before the finance committee.
Bill C-42, which has already been passed, realigns the structure of the supervisory system and the deposit insurance system. Bill C-56 primarily sets out new powers for the Minister and the chief regulator within this new system.
I will not go into great detail about these new powers and provisions to which I referred in my speech at second reading. They include the power for the regulator to issue cease and desist orders against institutions carrying on unsafe business practices and the power for the regulator to get independent valuation of real estate assets held by financial institutions. The Bill also raises the financial standards of federally-regulated insurance companies and clarifies the conditions under which a mutual life insurance company is deemed to be a Canadian company. These are proposals we regard as sound and necessary and we do not oppose them.
The measures I have just mentioned are those which give Bill C-56 the character of a "mechanism" Bill. The one remaining exception to that, now that Clauses 10, 41, and 55 have been removed, are the measures allowing federally-regulated financial institutions to own securities dealers.
I raised a number of concerns about this at second reading of this Bill and, based on what the finance committee heard from witnesses who commented on these proposals, and on more recent events in the industry, it seems that we have here yet another situation where the Government is being overtaken by events. Having waited so long without acting, it is now moving ahead in a way that raises a lot of questions about how much thought has gone into its course of action.
For example, late last week the Government approved by Order in Council a share transaction, the effect of which will be to give the large New York based investment house of Goldman Sachs and Co. a Canadian subsidiary. This has been done through a provision of the Bank Act. Although Goldman Sachs and Co. is an investment house, it is deemed to be a "foreign bank" because it happens to own a merchant bank incorporated and carrying on business in the United Kingdom. Since the parent company is considered a foreign bank, it

June 30, 1987
Financial Institutions
could go ahead and buy out all the shares of the new corporation, Goldman Sachs Canada Ltd. without having to go through Investment Canada.
In this roundabout but perfectly legal way, a large international investment dealer has arranged direct access to the Canadian market. Of course, the plan hinges on the passage of Bill C-56. All this manoeuvring is explained in a regulatory impact analysis statement which is attached to, but not part of the Order in Council. The impact statement says that undertakings have been provided by Goldman Sachs and Co. in respect of this arrangement and it directs further inquiries to the Office of the Inspector General of Banks. However, from inquiry at that office it seems the undertakings will not be made public.
1 wonder how long the Government thinks it can continue in this furtive fashion? I understand that yet another Order in Council on a similar basis will be passed today. How long does the Government think it can continue to make these cosy, private deals, its private undertakings which are not made public without having the other companies raise the issue and demand disclosure?
Foreign firms are now lining up to participate in the Canadian securities industry, yet there is no clear policy in place with regard to ownership of Canadian financial institutions. We have just seen an attempt to bootleg into C-56 a very far-reaching ownership proposal without any warning or public debate. It did not succeed, but what we have left is a proposal which originated not with the Government of Canada but with a provincial Government, and which will allow banks, including foreign-owned Schedule B banks, trust companies and insurance companies to establish their own securities subsidiaries or to acquire 100 per cent ownership of an existing Canadian securities dealer as of today, June 30. Foreign firms will be allowed to participate as well. They are to be held to a maximum of 50 per cent ownership in the first year, rising to 100 per cent as of June 30, 1988.
I understand the Investment Dealers Association of Canada has 50 new applications for membership, more than half of them from large international security firms. According to Bill C-56, foreign firms must have ministerial approval to enter the Canadian securities industry, but the Bill does not set out any criteria under which approval would be granted or denied. Given the magnitude of the changes in store, it seems not only logical but imperative that there should be some criteria and that they should be set out in the legislation.
We are on the threshold of major change, starting today, June 30, with the opening up of the Ontario securities industry to new domestic and foreign participants. In the United Kingdom, the experience was called "the big bang". Whatever we call it here, it is certain that after today we will be seeing new activity and new levels of competition in the industry.
The question I have to ask is this. Is the Government ready for it? I have said there is no government policy regarding ownership of financial institutions. Neither do we see any
criteria or guidelines to determine which foreign institutions will be permitted entry to the Canadian industry.
At this point only one province is affected but all provinces have securities industries which are provincially-regulated. At this point, when we are taking a first step onto the world stage to compete with international firms, it is appropriate to ask if the Government is giving any thought to the establishment of a national securities regulator, not to replace the Provincial Securities Commission but to speak for Canada outside her borders and to regulate the international calibre of competition we will have in our domestic markets.
The Minister did not seem very receptive to the idea when it was raised in committee. He said he did not want to alienate the provinces by putting the idea forward prematurely. But that is surely an untenable argument given that the provinces are now up in arms about the federal-provincial agreement with Ontario which was negotiated without consultation with them and which they feel the Minister would like to apply across the board. I understand that on June 11 nine provinces reached an interprovincial securities agreement which is their response to the Ottawa-Ontario agreement.
It seems to me that this is not a time for the Minister to back off. Canada is the only industrialized country in the world without a national securities regulator. It is not a new idea by any means, but I am inclined to think that it is an idea whose time has come, of course, after careful negotiation with the provinces.
Another concern which relates to the criteria for foreign firms and the possible functions of a national securities commission is that of access for Canadian institutions which want to do business outside Canada. This is also something that I raised in my speech at second reading. A number of witnesses who appeared before the finance committee and the Senate banking committee mentioned it as well. Some were of the view that reciprocity should be made a criterion for approval, or a condition for foreign companies to enter the Canadian market. Others thought that the next best thing would be for Canadian firms to be accorded national treatment. For example, a Canadian bank in Britain would be on the same footing as a British bank.
This is a matter of some importance, even urgency, because in Bill C-56 the Government may already be setting up situations that will put Canadian firms at a competitive disadvantage. For example, this Bill will allow foreign-owned Schedule B banks to own up to 100 per cent of a Canadian securities dealer in Ontario-50 per cent today and 100 per cent one year from now. Some American banks may well receive approval to do so. However, there is no legislative provision in the U.S. for Canadian banks engaging in securities activities under Canadian law to do the same thing in the U.S. Thus the American bank has the broader power.
June 30, 1987

The Minister says that Canadian access to overseas markets will be a factor in his considering applications from foreign firms. I would have preferred a firmer statement of what the Government is doing now and what its intentions are in the future.
There are great changes in the offing. There are opportunities and potential benefits for Canada in moving to liberalize our securities markets. But in order to maximize those benefits for Canadians the Government must demonstrate that it has the capacity, the ability and the drive to manage change fairly and effectively.
To date, there has not been much evidence of this. The reform process has moved in fits and starts, buffeted by outside events and repeatedly dropped to the bottom of the Government's agenda. Nevertheless, I still have hope that the draft Bill, the final piece of legislation, will indeed be released in the next couple of weeks and that we may proceed to consider it early in the next session.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-56 now before us on third reading is the second part of the financial package of three Bills which deal with financial institutions and which members of my Party have agreed with the Minister to allow to go through before we rise for the summer. The deadline is, of course, June 30, because of the actions of the Province of Ontario.
A major provision of the Bill is to allow banks and other financial institutions, including co-ops and credit unions, to own securities dealers. I find this interesting and disturbing. One can see that the investment industry in Canada, having elected one of its number to be Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), will in fact disappear as an independently Canadian-owned entity in a matter of days, if not perhaps in a matter of a few weeks or a few months.
Today's news is that 35 per cent of Wood Gundy has been sold, or has been agreed to be sold, to the First National Bank of Chicago. The Minister may want to inform the Flouse at some point whether or not this sale has been approved by the Government since this takeover surely has to have some form of federal approval. However, I am sure that the partners in Wood Gundy are rubbing their hands in glee because for 35 per cent of the company they have received something in the order of five times book value. Therefore they have been extremely lucratively paid for giving up effective control of the company. Once 1988 rolls by, I am sure the First National Bank will move on to take full control.
What is interesting and of concern is that there has been no breath of objection from the Government, despite the fact that a Canadian bank would not be in a position to take control of a major securities dealer in the United States. The banking legislation in the United States prohibits that. Not only does it prohibit such a move, it inhibits a Canadian bank which has a securities subsidiary in Canada from operating and doing banking operations in the United States.
Financial Institutions
The Minister said that some form of reciprocity would be involved. But it is not clear to me that that is being applied in any serious way whatsoever.
The Bill as we have it before us provides new powers to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. These are powers which, with hindsight, would have been very helpful. We are closing the stable door after the horse has fled in connection with the demise of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank.
The Superintendent, who takes over from the Inspector of Banks, will have the power to issue cease and desist orders, to impose new values for real estate assets, that is, to force an institution to revalue its real estate assets, or to reassess the values, or to revalue them directly. These are useful powers. They involve a continuation of regulation at a fairly intense level.
My Party has raised some concerns over the degree to which the oversight is being exercised almost entirely by the regulator and the limit of degree to which there is any outside influence in terms of public scrutiny that will allow the public, in the form of depositors, investors, and borrowers, to reach a judgment themselves about the financial stability of institutions with which they do business. Nonetheless, these powers are acceptable.
The area which caused controversy in committee was with respect to Clause 10 and related clauses that dealt with the commercial link policy of the Government. The Government's December 18 White Paper indicates that the Government has decided that commercial links to financial institutions are wrong under any circumstances. That is not quite it. They are actually wrong under any circumstances, to the extent that new commercial links are to be forged, but existing commercial links which allow Imasco and Power Financial and groups such as that to have the major stake in financial institutions are protected. Those are grandfathered. The only restriction is that 35 per cent of the control of financial institutions will be required to be widely held rather than being handled in one hand, in the hand of one commercial group. But 65 per cent can remain in the hands of a particular group. That is simply inadequate as far as New Democrats are concerned.
We are concerned that the Government's policies are being released in dribs and drabs and that we do not yet know exactly what the Government has in mind in terms of its ownership policy. We have the White Paper which we have indicated is inadequate. It has been criticized in many quarters. The Government has not indicated whether it is shying away from it or not.
What it has done, or what it did propose, was a series of measures that were slipped in through the back door, as my friend, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), pointed out just a few minutes ago. The first version was extremely offensive. It meant that by judging that commercial links exist at any time there was a more than 10 per cent shareholding going into associated companies, as well as

June 30, 1987
Financial Institutions
upstream and downstream, and that the web of ministerial control over what one assumes would be relatively normal business activity would be so widespread as to be ludicrous.
The people from Power Financial pointed out that their subsidiary, Consolidated Bathurst, was engaged in a joint venture with the Government of China for a pulp mill in eastern British Columbia. Since the Minister's power of oversight would have stretched to any associated company and any of its activities, that would have meant that the Minister would, theoretically, have had some oversight function on that project, and the Government of China would not have been able to pursue the creation of a new steel mill, the opening of some kind of new financial institution in China, without the approval of the Minister of Finance of Canada.
1 presume that that approval would not have been sought. It would be ludicrous to expect a sovereign Government to have to come, cap in hand, to Canada in respect of something which it was doing within its own country.
But, this would also have been the case with all of the commercial investments which are controlled through the investment fund of the Quebec Pension Plan. It would have possibly been the case with the Government of France because of its interrelationships with certain commercial and financial operations here in Canada.
The Minister does not listen very well. He failed to be sensitive to the concerns of the members of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. Even when it is the New Democrats that are saying that a particular measure seems to be unworkable when applied to the business community, I think that any Minister of Finance should hold back and say, "Look, this isn't just a new realism coming from New Democrats; something must be really wrong with this."
Instead, the Minister rolled back and came back with a 50 per cent rule. But that, at the same time, would have been oppressive because it was still not clear how it was going to be applied. It also applied, if I recall correctly, to any increase in shareholdings over the 10 per cent level-and that did not seem to make sense. The only good thing about it was that the intrusion into associated companies had been sharply cut back.
I would be concerned that the Minister might in fact, having exercised his right of review, accept certain takeovers of financial institutions which I would have found objectionable, speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party.
On the one hand, we did not know what the Minister was going to do with this power; the power was unnecessarily intrusive. Finally, the Minister accepted the reality of the situation, which was that this Bill would not be available in time for the "Big Bang" in Ontario if Clause 10 and the related clauses were not withdrawn. The Minister tried to dress up his withdrawal, but in fact that is what actually occurred.
On this particular question, I should like to point out that the Government's present policy, which grandfathers existing commercial interests, is, I believe, shortsighted, unrealistic and impractical with respect to the future establishment of new financial institutions.
A financial institution, even a small one, needs a substantial amount of capital. That capital, if it is not to come from existing companies, has either to be raised in the market or to come from wealthy individuals. The Minister's view has been that those wealthy individuals, or any shareholders with more than a minimum shareholding, have to have no commercial links at all. For a small institution, it seems to me that that may well be very difficult.
That is the dilemma the Government has got itself into. It is not prepared to be tough and to insist that large financial institutions must be widely held and cannot be controlled by any one interest, be it commercial or non-commercial. The Government, on the one hand, therefore, permits the concentration of ownership for large institutions but, at the same time, inhibits the creation of new financial institutions.
Since some financial institutions are going to disappear, through adverse business circumstances, through merger, through acquisition, there has to be, I would assume, a supply of new financial institutions to take their place. The Government's view seemed to be that those financial institutions should mainly come from the foreign-controlled sector. A godparent for a new financial institution would be permitted if it were a foreign company, even if it had commercial links outside of Canada. The Government was only looking at commercial links within Canada-a position which seemed to me, at best, contradictory and rather strange.
I should like also, Madam Speaker, to raise the concerns of New Democrats-and these are concerns that I have enunciated at some length during previous debate on this Bill and on Bill C-42-that while the Government is concerned about commercial links, it is, on the other hand, open, without a great deal of thought, to permitting financial institutions to own securities dealers. These securities dealers will doubtless engage in promoting stocks, in underwriting, and in giving investment advice, and that kind of thing.
Even though the Government says there will be all kinds of Chinese walls, as they are called-and we should get a different term for that-even though there is a segregation of the different activities, nonetheless there will be people working for the same enterprise, some of whom will be promoting different bond issues or share issues, or recommending the acquisition of different shares, at the same time as others working within the same corporate group, within the same bank or financial institution, will be lending, reviewing the credit worthiness, or in certain cases calling on a particular enterprise, a borrower, to shore up its equity, to get its ratios better, to do an issue, or something like that, because they are getting into a risky kind of situation.
June 30, 1987

The insurance companies have assured us that the way that they deal with this problem is, quite simply, by not allowing conflicts of interest to take place. Therefore, they do not allow companies to which they lend money to also do business in terms of having insurance coverage with the same insurance company.
The corollary for the banks would be that if a bank is involved in lending to a particular company, its securities subsidiary should not be involved in underwriting, in promoting the shares, or in any other way dealing with the securities of that particular company. That, it seems to me, is a true Chinese wall. But, a situation wherein one group of employees is meant not to know what another group of employees is doing, is, it seems to me, weak and subject to abuse.
Suppose, for example, that Dome Petroleum was going through its current travail at a time when the banks had the authority to do underwriting through securities subsidiaries. In that circumstance, would a bank not have some temptation to have its securities subsidiary engage in underwriting because the bank was feeling hopelessly exposed because of the lending that it had made to Dome, realizing that that lending was in fact not prudent? That is the kind of conflict of interest with which the Minister has not yet dealt.
I recognize that the Bill which has been tabled today by the Minister with respect to the ownership of financial institutions allows retroactivity; but these other questions have in fact not yet been addressed.
I wish to comment on a couple of other issues which concern me in this whole area of the financial package. One is the question of the deregulation of financial dealings internationally and the reaction we are seeing here in Canada.
Canada is one of the G-7-but only just; we are one of the seven largest industrial countries, but only just. We have an active and efficient capital market-more active and more efficient than a number of the other major western European countries. As well, we have a banking system which also is quite efficient compared, let us say, to the American system, where it is much harder to clear cheques and to make the payments system work.
In our securities industry, however, we have 10 securities authorities. Now we have 11, because the Superintendent of Financial Institutions has taken on certain responsibilities.
The Minister and the Government have entered into some agreements with Ontario which have provoked, quite rightly, concern and upset in the other provinces, which feel that the federal Government deals only with Ontario and does not realize that there are other securities bodies across the country. However, when we deal internationally we will be talking with the authorities of other countries, not with one voice but with 10 or 11 voices. That is a very serious concern.
Financial Institutions
It is my view that in addition we impose unnecessary restrictions and problems on Canadian corporations and companies which must have securities vetted, reviewed, and approved, not by only one securities agency but by many, at the very least by the Ontario Securities Commission and probably by the Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia securities commissions. Theoretically they could require the approval of new securities by 10 agencies across the country. That kind of situation occurs in certain areas of the United States as well. It is not defensible there, and it is not defensible here.
I believe that a national securities agency should be a priority of the Government of Canada. I also believe that such a securities agency should in fact be able to provide-and there must be some co-operation with the provinces-one-stop approval of new securities issues and underwritings for companies which consider themselves to be national, or for companies which expect that their securities will be traded not only in Canada but also in other countries.
I have no objection to there continuing to be securities regulation at the provincial level so that if a company in British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, or northern Ontario wishes to have its securities traded only in one jurisdiction, or possibly in a couple, it needs to meet only the requirements of the particular jurisdiction, not what might be more stringent requirements of a national securities body. However, I would expect that Bell Canada, Northern Telecom, Imperial Oil, and other such organizations would generally get their securities approved at the national level, and I think that is how it should be.
This is not a move of excessive centralization. As the Hon. Member for Trinity pointed out, every other major country has a national securities agency, and Canada is very much out of step in not having one. We need to look at it very seriously.
I am concerned as well in terms of the interests of regulators and of investors. Why is it that Canadian investors, financial journalists, of which I used to be one, and the public at large can learn more about many companies by going to the Securities and Exchange Commission and looking at the K-10 documents, the file documents which are issued on a regular basis, than they can get from our securities commissions and other agencies in Canada? I think that is ludicrous. The standard of disclosure is not adequate in Canada. It could be made more adequate, particularly for national companies, if we had a national securities agency.
The whole question of how federal and provincial supervision will work in a deregulated environment is still not adequately addressed. I would cite with concern the inadequacy of the federal and Ontario supervision which preceded the collapse of Greymac, Seaway, and Crown Trust in Ontario. It was a situation where the two levels of Government were saying, "After you, Alphonse" and effectively letting those agencies go by the board.

June 30, 1987
Financial Institutions
I should like to conclude by saying that one major area not addressed in the whole financial package is not that of the interests of large investors, deposit-making institutions, and so on, but the interests of ordinary Canadians-small businesses, farmers, and people who simply must deal with banks. I hear complaints all the time from my constituents. They ask, how come when I put a cheque in the bank because I just got paid I cannot get out any money for five days and, in the meantime, I have to pay my rent and the rent cheque bounced? How come when I get a welfare cheque I cannot get that welfare cheque honoured quickly and when I go to the bank they look at me and treat me like dirt? Why is it when I am running a small business that my business is harassed by my local bank manager and I have no means of redress, and at the same time the banks make all those loans to Brazil which are worth only 75 cents on the dollar, if that? They make those huge amounts of loans abroad but they are not prepared to help small businesses establish themselves in Canada.
I have heard people say that they have businesses, that they employ 25 people in a restaurant, that they have seven people working in a small manufacturing concern, or that they opened a store which provides a lot of employment in a particular community, and they ask why they are being harassed. Whereas, if they were Conrad Black and needed 5500,000 to make some fancy financial deal, which would probably be financed with their tax dollars because of some tax dodge, they would have no problem, and would only have to make a couple of telephone calls to set up the necessary financing.
Many people who are active in the economic life of the country are very right to perceive that there is something severely wrong in terms of who gets what out of the banking system and out of the financial system.
I took pains to look at whether or not there was some redress for people with these concerns. I discovered that the Inspector General of Banks, who is now the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, now has an ombudsman in his office. However, this operation is so obscure that when I raised the need for such an ombudsman function in the office, the official, Michael Mackenzie, said that he did not know it existed. We found out that it existed, but it could only be brought into play on a kind of moral basis after the business, the farmer, or the depositor concerned had appealed to the very last level within a bank.
In other words, if they are going down the drain, if their business is being driven to the wall, if their loan is being called, if the mortgage on their house which they had to give as security is being cashed in, if their wife and kids-and this has happened-are being forced out of the family home because of the action of the banks involved, they must launch an appeal with the bank president who will basically tell them to get lost. They will not even know about that, because they are too busy trying to rescue what they can from the particular situation. Then they go to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and say "Can you do something", and he will say, "We may have an office, I am not even aware of it".
When the Government of Canada makes policies on behalf of banking and financial institutions, it should look not only at the needs of a handful of Titans on Bay Street, or a handful of large corporate conglomerates which are being given grandfathered status, at the same time as the competition that might dethrone them from their commanding heights is being inhibited, it should look also at the needs of ranchers in Alberta, wheat farmers in Saskatchewan, small business people in Manitoba, fishermen in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, people trying to set up small industries in northern Ontario, depositors and ordinary consumers in Ottawa, welfare recipients in Toronto, and people like that.
The test of a financial system is not whether it aids big business, the forces of a capitalist society in a capitalist economy, but whether it also aids and serves the needs for ordinary people from coast to coast. I am not satisfied that that is the case now. I am certainly not satisfied that the Government understands that part of its mandate, or that part of the reason people kicked out the Liberals and put in this gang was precisely because they wanted that kind of sense from the Government of Canada.
I see that my time is up, but 1 should like to refer to the Party which you, Madam Speaker, have the honour to represent.
The Party you have the honour to represent has dropped so low in the polls because it has served the interests of corporate Canadians on Saint-Jacques and Bay and reflected those of small business people, farmers and average Canadians.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Madam
Speaker, I do not intend, nor does my Party, to hold up the adoption of this Bill on third reading. I have a few comments to make, because I think this is a very important piece of legislation that contains a number of provisions that will have some very long-term consequences for this country's economy and especially for the financial sector.
Last night or rather this morning, at 1 a.m., I was delighted with the results of the vote on capital punishment. Today, however, I confess I do not feel the same elation upon seeing that Bill C-56 will receive the approval of this House on third reading, considering the Government's majority.
Madam Speaker, June 30, 1987, is a day that will go down in the history of the financial sector in Canada, but as I see it, there is a very negative side and an extremely dangerous one for Canadian sovereignty.
I am very disappointed that an issue as important as this one has not received the attention it deserves in this House. It was the Government's decision to finish the debate on capital punishment at any cost before the House adjourns today. This means that today, in order to avoid administrative chaos in the
June 30, 1987

financial sector, we have to pass Bill C-56, to swallow it, much as one would swallow a bitter pill.
Madam Speaker, Bill C-56 has a number of aspects with which I totally disagree. My colleague from Trinity pointed this out, we said so on second reading and we said so in committee. I wonder how many Conservative Members in this Elouse are aware of the impact Bill C-56 will have on financial institutions and Canadian sovereignty in this respect.
My colleague from Trinity referred to the expression used in Great Britain when their institutions were deregulated. I am referring to the Big Bang. On day X, the whole financial sector was deregulated so that financial institutions could engage in any field of activity, ownership was practically free of controls, and so forth.
Comparing the Canadian situation with that in Great Britain is of course like comparing an elephant with a mouse. That is because the situation in this country with respect to financial institutions and especially investment and securities dealers is quite different, and our position is different as well.
Elowever, I say to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Elockin) that his policy is ill-conceived and inappropriate, given the state of development of our financial institutions. He is acting hastily and he is acting in such a way as to complicate the administration of financial institutions. He is in fact selling part of the Canadian control of our financial institutions to foreign interests.
Since it came to power, this Government has preferred to ignore the issue of Canadian sovereignty and the fact that it is important for a country to control the major components of its economic, financial and social levers.
June 30 opens the door to the purchase by foreign-owned companies of any securities dealers, and it also creates chaos as far as the regulation and monitoring of securities-related activities are concerned.
Last night on the news we heard that 30 per cent of our biggest securities firm had just been sold to foreign interests. My colleague referred to the Goldman Sachs transaction. Everybody knows that the big investment and securities dealers, Nesbitt Thomson, Burns Fry, Levesque Beaubien, Geoffrion Leclerc-that all these firms or least most of them have already received offers or are negotiating either with the major banks or with foreign firms to sell an interest in their firms.
Madam Speaker, no wonder this should happen. In case the Minister is discouraged, I will not unduly hold up his Bill, but at least he will let me draw the attention of Conservative Members to what the Government is doing.
I wish we had more time to raise this issue and ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to hold a free vote in the House. 1 maintain that if all Hon. Members had a clear explanation about Bill C-56 it would be rejected, something like in the case of capital punishment.
Financial Institutions
This Government has forsaken Canadian sovereignty in all sectors, and today we are witnessing a repeat performance in the field of financial institutions.
Madam Speaker, last evening I listened to the Investment Dealers Association of Canada President explain that one of Japan's brokerage firms-Nomura, among the best in the business-has more capital than all Canadian financial institutions put together. Can you imagine, before breakfast Nomura could buy all our investment dealers before breakfast without affecting its cash flow to the extent that a phone call to the president would be warranted. That is the kind of situation Bill C-56 will create in the investment brokerage business.
Our institutions have been built over the years by successive generations, and they have made a name for themselves in North America and throughout the world, but now they might be swallowed whole by the likes of Nomura, Solomon Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Shearson Lehman, and certain German firms. Not only are we going to relinquish the ownership of a financing tool of Canadian companies which could act independently with respect to borrowers and lenders, but we are now going to have a system where the major Canadian or foreign banks, which at the same time are bondholders or buyers of preferred or ordinary shares, will float their own issues through a brokerage firm they own.
We have been told that there is a kind of wall separating the various financial institutions. I do not want to question the good faith of the players in this field, but you would have to be very naive to think that such a condition will not create problems, especially in an economy as restricted as this country's.
I have mentioned large firms such as Japan's Nomura, but there are also many other corporations in that country which have a large capital and which can provide competition. Japan has a population of over 100 million inhabitants. It has a strong economy. The same is true for the United States. There can be large accumulations of capital in some financial institutions.
However, in Canada, with a population of 25 million people distributed from sea to sea, a financial concentration creates apparent or real monopolies, which means that there is no real competition in many regions of this country. If you go to small Quebec towns, you may find the Caisse Populaire and the National Bank, and even the National Bank may be closing down some of its branches to move to the larger regional cities. In towns with a population between 3,000 and 6,000, there is virtually no competition. Does anyone believe that the merger or addition of large institutions will bring more competition to these regions? This will certainly not happen under the provisions of Bill C-56, which allows financial institutions to acquire 100 per cent of ownership in securities brokerage firms.

June 30, 1987
Financial Institutions
Not only are the regulations not ready yet, and there has been a federal-provincial conference on the monitoring and control of financial institutions, especially as far as securities brokers are concerned, but we shall now have two types of regulations. When a Canadian bank decides to open a securities brokerage service as part of its operations, this will come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance.
If the same institution decides to own or purchase a subsidiary corporation, this will come under provincial jurisdiction. As though this was not sufficiently complicated, there will now be a conflict with Ontario and the other Canadian provinces about how these financial institutions will be regulated.
The provisions contained in Sections 2, 12 and so on, which allow insurance, loan and trust companies to the purchase securities brokerage firms, have been put together without any negotiation with other countries. No reciprocity agreement has been negotiated with the United States.
The Minister of International Trade (Miss Carney) and Ambassador Reisman are now negotiating with the United States. There has yet been no agreement in these free trade negotiations; nevertheless, the Minister of State for Finance has already introduced Bill C-56 which will allow any American firm to purchase such Canadian firms as Nesbitt Thomson, Burns Fry and Dominion Securities. As there is no reciprocity, if a Canadian bank purchases control of a firm such as Nesbitt Thomson or Wood Gundy with operations in the United States, the bank will have to cease its operations in the United States because the Steagall Act, which is still in force in the United States and not about to be amended, prohibits the banks from having investment operations in the United States at the same time as regular banking operations.
No reciprocity has been negotiated and the whole Canadian market is made wide open to the United States. Moreover, the market is open to non-banking financial institutions. Of course, if an insurance company buys the control of Wood Gundy, that has no impact on the activities in the United States. But if the Royal Bank buys it, the Royal Bank has to stop operating in the United States. There is no reciprocity between banks, and we will allow that two Canadian corporations, either a bank, an insurance corporation, a trust company, a loans company be treated differently if they bought the control of stock brokers.
That kind of policy makes no sense, Madam Speaker. I said so to the Minister in committee, and I will repeat it once more for conscience sake, and I wish all Conservative Members in this House could know the real impact of that legislation. The Minister is impatient because I am taking my few minutes. But it will not be said that as a Member in this House and as one who worked in financial institutions 1 will let Bill C-56 pass without at least calling the attention of Canadians and Hon. Members on a legislation that makes no sense. And if you could only see, Madam Speaker, the kind of powers this legislation is giving the Minister, or at least the kind of powers he sought to have! Financial institutions in Canada, and
fortunately the work done by my colleague for Trinity and a few others convinced the Minister at least to withdraw Clauses 10, 41, 52 on business ownership.
Financial institutions in Canada, had the Minister of State for Finance have his way, would have been regulated from the office of the Minister of State for Finance. So much for a Conservative Government which supposedly supports private enterprise. He would have been bigger than a czar, because he wanted control over any transactions by firms in the United States or China involving shares of a company because more than 10 per cent of the shares of that company was owned by the Caisse de depots et placement or the Canadian National Pension Fund.
I don't know who in the Department of Finance does the planning or drafts legislation concerning financial institutions, but I never saw such irresponsibility both as to form and substance. And I tell the Minister of State for Finance that the impact of the Bill that will pass on division, in order to save time-we oppose the legislation because of the clauses I pointed to-will have significant impact on business concentration, business regulation and on Canada's political sovereignty and its ability to give a direction to its financial institutions, because in an area as important as stock brokerage, we are moving fast to 100 per cent foreign ownership, and I oppose that trend in the legislation. I would like to tell Members in this House that the impact of the Bill is far-reaching, it appears negative to me, it seems to be contrary to Canada's long term interests and the independence of our financial institutions. They suggest that kind of deregulation will allow our corporations to expand, but the expansion will not occur in our corporations, Madam Speaker, it will happen, in the foreign corporations that will be taking us over. When Nomura will buy a controlling interest in a major corporation, when Shearson Lehman or Merrill Lynch or somebody else will purchase our major firms, when the new owner of Wood Gundy or Nesbitt Thomson will be Nomura or Shearson Lehman or a top German firm, Madam Speaker, do you think that they are going to move their decision making centres from Germany, Japan, New York or London to Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver? We will become subsidiaries of these financial institutions, and instead of developing in the area of brokerage or financial mediation, Canada will become subservient to foreign countries. 1 just cannot accept that. I want to say so at least once before the Conservative majority seriously jeopardizes the independence and sovereignty of our country.


Mr. Kindy:: Madam Speaker, I have listened to the speech made by the financial critic of the Liberal Party. I think he raised a number of points which are certainly very interesting. The fact is, however, that although he says that this Bill has neither head nor tail, he will allow the House to adopt it, for it goes without saying that it will adopt it today. I have a question for him: If he objects so much to Canada being sold to the Japanese, the Americans or the Hong Kong people, how
June 30, 1987

can he let the House adopt this Bill without discussing it further?


Raymond Garneau: Madam Speaker, you have here the example of an Hon. Member who is going to vote for the Bill without knowing what is in it. Because if we did not allow the House to adopt this Bill today, in view of the decisions which have already been made by this Government, the resulting chaos might be even worse, because there have already been commitments made by some corporations, and there has been all this publicity initiated by this Government that the Bang would start on June 30, and there would be no legislation. As there are now only 40 of us in the Opposition, even if we held a debate for three days or four nights, this Bill would be adopted just the same because the Conservatives are going to vote blindly for this Bill and the only thing we could do as the Opposition would be to add to the chaos that the Minister himself will be creating. It is therefore a matter of responsibility. If there had been only a couple of seats between us and the governing Party, I would certainly have started this debate and tried to convince two or three Conservative Members to vote against this Bill. But we have to accept the fact that although we may have all the right arguments, there are simply not enough of us. I do not want to create a greater chaos than the one which will exist beginning at midnight tonight.


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

Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you would find that on the next Bill to be dealt with, Bill C-69, there would be unanimous consent for the reference to be to Committee of the Whole House rather than to a legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there such unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Hockin: that Bill C-69, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff and the Duties Relief Act, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Madam Speaker, I have a few comments on the Bill and it should not take too long.
The Bill provides for four categories of tariff changes. The first involves those changes undertaken to reflect the changing needs of the private sector. An example is the duty-free entry being accorded mobile veterinarian clinics. These clinics are basically pick-up trucks with a box on the back outfitted for
Customs Tariff and the Duties Relief Act
veterinary purposes. They are not made in Canada and the Government received representations in favour of duty-free entry from the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and numerous individual veterinarians, including I might add the five Members of this House who are also veterinarians. Removing the duty on the clinics will enable veterinarians to better serve their clientele.

The second type of tariff amendments contained in this Bill, Madam Speaker, are those which implement the recommendations of the Tariff Board phase II report on tariff items concerning goods made and not made in Canada. These recommendations concerning the measures we are adopting in that respect result from a commitment made by Canada at the Tokyo Round of the series of multilateral trade negotiations.

For years one of the significant features of the customs tariff has been the determination of rate of duty based on whether or not the goods are made in Canada. Generally imported goods which are also made in Canada attract a higher rate of duty. However, our trading partners objected to this approach because of the uncertainty created for their exporters. Determination of whether goods were deemed to be made in Canada was an administrative decision made by Customs, and the status of goods can change with little notice. They argued for identifying the goods that were determined to be made and not made in Canada. Therefore, in return for freer access for some of our exports to major markets, Canada agreed to undertake a review of its "made-not made" tariff items. The matter was referred to the tariff board for study and public comment, and its reports and recommendations were issued in two phases. Most of the tariff board recommendations have been implemented by previous legislation. The tariff changes encompassed by this Bill complete the outstanding statutory changes required as a result of our Tokyo Round commitments.
The Bill also contains items related to certain aspects of the tariff component of the Government's response to the U.S. action on cedar shakes and shingles. I am certain Hon. Members will readily recall that in response to the U.S. imposition of a 35 per cent tariff on Canadian exports of cedar shakes and shingles we imposed higher rates of duty on a range of goods, originating principally in the U.S., through the introduction of a notice of a Ways and Means motion in the House last June. We also acted to tighten controls on the export of cedar logs and bolts, and these actions were not taken lightly. We needed to send a strong message to the U.S. about its protectionist acts and we had to guard against the loss of Canadian jobs, and this we accomplished.
The action taken by the Government totally achieved its purpose. The restrictions on the exports of cedar logs and bolts protected the competitiveness of the Canadian industry while

June 30, 1987
Customs Tariff and the Duties Relief Act
the tariff measures demonstrated that protectionist action on the part of the U.S. cannot be undertaken without cost to it.
However, I am also certain that Hon. Members will recall that in his Budget Speech of February 18 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced that, having made the point to the U.S. about protectionist action, the tariff component of the Government's response was being withdrawn. He announced effective February 19 the previous rates of duty in effect immediately prior to June 6, 1986, would be restored.
Since the legislation to enact the motion of last June has not been considered by Parliament, this Bill amends the customs tariff to give effect to higher rates of duty on certain items commencing June 9, 1986. It also restores effective February 19 the rates of duty that were in place prior to June 6 of last year.

Finally, Madam Speaker, this Bill includes a number of major technical amendments to the Customs Tariff and the Duties Relief Act. Among other things, it is aimed at achieving conformity between the French and English versions of these acts.

I might also add for the benefit of Hon. Members that two of the technical changes to the customs tariff are being made to reflect recommendations received by the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
In conclusion, the amendments contained in this Bill to the "made-not made" tariff items, and to some of the items involved in Canada's response to the American action on cedar shakes and shingles, give effect to important trade policy decisions. The Bill also responds to the evolving needs of Canadian manufacturers in the business community, as well as to recommendations of the joint committee. As such the Bill deserves the support and timely consideration of all Hon. Members.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Madam Speaker, I want to follow the example set by the Hon. Minister in offering short and succinct comments on this legislation. If 1 was a member of the Conservative Government I would want to keep my comments as short as possible because this Bill is the end result of what can only be called the great shakes and shingles retreat. That is one of the more ignominious chapters for our Government which has set new standards of ignominy over the past two and a half years.
You will recall there was a time when this House was reverberating with the brave words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as to how the Government was going to retaliate with force and effectiveness against the unconscionable actions of the U.S. in imposing a 35 per cent tariff on our shakes and shingles industry. He had Americans trembling in their shoes with expectation. Then came the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) with his bold announcement that the Government was going to impose new tariffs on tea-bags, Christmas trees and, of course, books.
That raised a question about what there is in the Conservative mind that does not want people to have fun. The Government now has a tax on watching television. It has put a new tax on talking to your grandmother by long-distance. Of course this all began with the tax on books. I could understand it if it was some insidious conspiracy designed to broaden illiteracy in Canada. I presume the Government feels that the less people know about what is going on, the less critical of the Government they will be.
However, if you can believe it, it was employed because the Minister of Finance's logic is that you can retaliate against a totally unfair, stupid and irrelevant action by the President of the U.S. by putting a tariff on books and thereby substantially increasing costs for Canadian book publishers. In fact it put that industry in jeopardy.
That was one of the more bizarre episodes of this blueprint we have watched unfolding. There is a kind of masochism in the mind of the Minister of Finance that if we only flagellate ourselves by putting tariffs on books or cable television or taco chips somehow Canadians will be cleansed. They will somehow feel better for having to pay more for some of life's small pleasures. It is a kind of puritan orgiastic cleansing.
We can only be thankful this morning that once again the Government has had to correct itself. Once again it is retreating, covering up, and overcoming what was a very clearly stupid mistake. Of course we will support it because we said right from the start that retaliation made no sense. We can only conclude that the Minister of Finance suffers from a certain time lag because it took him six or eight months to come to the same conclusion.
Before returning to my seat I want to say that there is a lesson to be learned here. It is one that is not often expressed in this House. Tariffs can be a good thing. Tariffs can be a very useful instrument of economic policy. They can be a very important part of industrial economic policy if used in an enlightened, imaginative and managed way. While constantly beating their breasts the Conservative Members say that they are trying to achieve a tariff-free zone between Canada and the United States.
We saw the deplorable performance of the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) last week as she tried to defend the indefensible, saying that the Government was somehow going to maintain the safeguards in the Auto Pact while eliminating the tariff, never drawing the logical conclusion that if there are no tariffs there are no safeguards. Somehow that small formula escaped the mind of our Minister for International Trade. I can understand why. As we know, she and the chief American negotiator are not on speaking
June 30, 1987

terms. It may, therefore, be more difficult to communicate on these matters.
This is true as well in the field of agriculture, for example. One of the few areas of stability in the present agricultural crisis with regard to grain is the supply management or marketing boards. The Canadian Wheat Board has had a two-price wheat system. In the Okanagan in the interior of British Columbia there have been seasonal quotas on imported vegetables and fruit. Similarly, there have been certain tariff preferences on wine and other products. This is necessary because those are vital Canadian industries which must be protected against a flow of cheap commodities from other countries being dumped into Canada.
One of the great vacuums in the trade policy of the present, short-lived Government is its total misunderstanding of the use of the tariff system. That is why there is failure in our trade policy. There is no orchestration or integration of the various aspects of market and tariff development to give a sense of coherence to enhancement and stimulation of Canadian industries, the growth of which we want to encourage.
With particular reference to this Bill, with regard to computer parts we forget that in the Tokyo Round we paid for free access of our softwood lumber products to the United States by giving the Americans preferential tariffs, which amounted to virtually no tariff on computer parts. When we negotiated the Tokyo Round we put a price on the table which we thought was reasonable and we paid that price. Then the United States slapped a countervailing duty of 15 per cent on us.
Rather than standing up to the Americans and saying that we have paid the price by giving them free access to computer parts, which is a multibillion dollar industry, again in the perverse logic which only Tories understand, we put a tax on ourselves. Once again we forego the utility of using our tariff system as a clear part of our trade policy, as the previous Government did in negotiating the Tokyo Round by lowering tariffs on computers in order to get access for softwood lumber. That was forgotten.
The problem may be that for Conservative cabinet Ministers history began on September 4, 1984. They pay no attention to anything that happened before then.
I take this opportunity to serve notice that we decry the lack of a coherent trade policy and the fact that we have Bills such as this. One moment the Minister of Finance moves a Ways and Means motion to put tariffs on tea-bags, Christmas trees and books. The next minute he takes it off with no apparent trade-off in between. What did we get from the Americans as a result of this? What possible trade-off was there? What value was received? The only value received which we can see is that finally, after much pressure, Canadians were allowed to read books without an increased cost. However, we then conceded on softwood lumber as we conceded on patent Bills and are now conceding on investment.
Customs Tariff and the Duties Relief Act
I believe Canadians are concluding that the imbroglio between the Minister for International Trade and the chief U.S. negotiator is only symptomatic of a much broader confusion, lack of purpose, and lack of coherence in establishing an effective and proper trade policy. I do not know if the Minister of Finance is going to elope with the Minister for International Trade, but I wish they would get together and start working out something in common so that Canadians will know that a trade policy will have some meaning and purpose to it.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, I, too, wish to say a few words on Bill C-69, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff and the Duties Relief Act. It is no wonder that in the dying hours of the last day before summer recess the Government brings in something which it does not want to have fully debated or fully exposed in this House. The Government is in retreat with its tail between its legs, and the less said about this Bill the better it will be for the Government.
As the Minister pointed out, one of the measures in this Bill is to rescind the steps the Government took in response to the American step of slapping a 35 per cent tariff on Canadian cedar shakes and shingles. We remember when that major unilateral action was taken by the United States. It shocked and outraged Canadians and the Government had to do something. At that time the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stood up in this House and with great gusto announced that Canada was not going to take it, that we were going to do something in return, that we were going to teach the Americans that they just cannot treat us this way.
Then the Government acted. It slapped a tariff on books, it slapped a tariff on tea-bags, and it slapped a tariff on Christmas trees. In fact, the Government hit itself and then hit itself and then hit itself again. As the spokesperson for the Liberal Party pointed out, there was a masochistic tendency in what the Government did. The tariff on books hurt Canadians more than it hurt the Americans. The tariff on Christmas trees had the potential of hurting Canadians more than it hurt Americans because we ship a lot more trees south than are shipped north and if we slap a tariff on American Christmas trees the Americans will slap one on Canadian Christmas trees. The products of hundreds of small operators close to the border would have been at a disadvantage on the American market.
Through Bill C-69 the Government is lamely admitting that the actions it took back then were counter-productive and were hurting Canadians and Canadian industry. Today the Government has its tail between its legs and is introducing this legislation which quietly withdraws the measures it took earlier.
Of course, the situation has not changed with respect to the American tariff on cedar shakes and shingles. If the story were

June 30, 1987
Small Businesses Loans Act
not so sad, it would be amusing. The Government is like the mouse that came out and did not even roar.
This situation is also frightening because it is an indication of the Government's attitude when dealing with trade issues and disputes. It is obvious that the Government did not have a coherent strategy to effectively deal with these unilateral actions originating in the United States. It is obvious that the Government was scrambling to find some way to counteract the American imposition of a tariff on cedar shakes and shingles. The fact that it imposed a tariff on Christmas trees, books and tea-bags is an indication that it chose anything in a desperate act to show that it was taking action. The Government's measures were not a result of a coherent policy that had been thought through, or the result of a plan that was meant to maximize the effect on the United States and minimize the adverse effects on Canadians.


Thomas Hockin: It worked.


Simon Leendert de Jong: The Hon. Minister says that it worked. It frightens me when a Minister of the Crown states that it worked because the Americans have not withdrawn their tariff while we are withdrawing our counter measures. How can the Government claim that it worked?
If those in charge of negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States believe that this measure has worked, I am frightened for the future well being of this country. If the best they can do to counter the American action on cedar shakes and shingles is to slap a tariff on books, Christmas trees and teabags, which later had to be withdrawn, then heaven help us when they draw up a free trade agreement.
All Parties have agreed to have one Member speak to Bill C-69 and not roast the Government too thoroughly over this legislation. We have agreed to allow the Government to proceed with this Bill, with its tail between its leg, in order to retract the most inappropriate action it took earlier. Hopefully the Government will have learned a lesson.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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, by unanimous consent, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Hon. Bernard Valcourt (For the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion) moved: that Bill C-63, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you will find that there is unanimous consent to have the Bill proceed to the Committee of the Whole rather than a Legislative Committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Indeed, Madam Speaker, there has been consultation and we agree.


Mr. Manly:: Agreed.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the House today on Bill C-63.
The purpose of this important Bill is to amend and improve the Small Businesses Loans Act, which has already produced good results, by expanding its scope to make fishermen eligible for the loans guaranteed under the Act.
If we look at the number of loans granted so far, we find that this Act has been extremely useful. Since the program was introduced in 1961 and until March 31, 1986, 210,533 small business loans were approved for a total value of $5.1 billion.
During the 1985-86 financial year, 23,593 loans totalling a little under $738 million were approved, while the average loan was worth $31,273.
The loans may have various configurations, depending on the recipients, who may be manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, service companies, building contractors, transit companies or telecommunications firms.
Companies and individuals are eligible to borrow for purchase of land, renovation of their premises or construction of new facilities, or for the purchase, installation or modernization of equipment. In many cases, these have been new entrepreneurs, just starting out.
Guaranteed loans under this legislation also help existing businesses to modernize, to expand and mature into larger and more profitable operations. This means more jobs for Canadian workers and growth for our economy. We in this Government see the private sector as the engine of economic growth. At the same time, we have an important role to play. It us up
June 30, 1987

to us to provide the necessary start-up incentives and appropriate support for the development of business.

Madam Speaker, the small business sector is essential to the Canadian economy. It is a fact that small businesses create 70 per cent of the new jobs in this country, and in certain regions even 100 per cent, while according to the latest estimates, small businesses employ more than three million Canadian workers.
Canada has over 760,000 small businesses, which are responsible for most of the creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship that exist in this country. Much of our advanced technology is developed by these same small businesses.
The Government wants to promote this spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation and help new or existing small businesses to prosper. The Government has made a commitment to Canadian entrepreneurs and it intends to keep it.

The promotion of entrepreneurship requires first and foremost a favourable economic climate. We have delivered on that with lower interest rates, greater employment and a continuing low rate of inflation. In addition, the two budgets presented by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), contain many incentives for the small business sector and created a better environment for business. Increased investment in small and medium-sized businesses has been encouraged through specific initiatives.

Last month, we implemented an action plan to reduce the red tape burden imposed by the federal Government on small businesses. In addition, the Minister of Finance tabled a White Paper on Tax Reform on June 18 which will be of great benefit to Canadian small businesses.
The new taxation system provides incentives for all Canadians since it will be fairer and will include lower rates, but the rate for small businesses on the first $200,000 of income has been lowered to 12 per cent and is 16 points lower than the rate for general corporations, which has been brought down to 28 per cent. The tax reform proposals provide even greater incentives for small businesses, whose contribution is essential for job creation and economic growth.

The amendments proposed in this Bill are changes designed to streamline the regulations, make the Act more flexible for entrepreneurs and, in the long run, encourage banks and other lending institutions to make wider use of the program in order to help more small businesses grow.

The other major change will extend to fishermen the benefits of the Small Businesses Loans Act. From now on, Madam Speaker, Canadian fishermen will have access to a sounder program of guaranteed loans which will establish a
Small Businesses Loans Act
better balance between their credit needs and the requirements of commercial loan institutions.
Thanks to the Small Businesses Loans Act, our fishermen will be able to obtain loans at the same low interest rates which were available to them under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, that is to say, the prime rate plus 1 per cent. They will be able to use them not only to purchase boats and equipment, but also to purchase pieces of land, something they were not authorized to do under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
This Bill recognizes the important role fishermen play as an integral part of the small business industry in Canada:
Clearly the Federal Government did not make this decision without previously seeking the advice of the provinces it is likely to affect most, namely the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and British Columbia. Of course, it has also held consultations with commercial credit loan establishments.
The various parties have welcomed this Bill. At its meeting held in St. John's on April the 12th, the Atlantic Regional Council raised no objection to the option it had been presented with, nor did the Pacific Advisory Regional Council, at its meeting of June 15, 1987.
Madam Speaker, the purpose of these amendments is to increase the amounts made available to fishermen. Under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, the Loan Guarantee Program had a budget of some $30 million, while the relevant program under the Small Businesses Loans Act has a budget of $2.5 billion. This amount will be shared among a larger number of potential borrowers, but it is nevertheless much greater than the one made available to fishermen before.

The amendments contained in Bill C-63 will benefit all small businesses when it comes time for them to borrow money. They will be helpful to fishermen just as they will be beneficial to the store-owner, the fabric maker or someone involved in a service business. For all these people, the program will continue to provide a dependable and stable source of guaranteed credit. It will give them the financing they need to make the most of their opportunities.

That is, therefore, the reason why I recommend this Bill to all my hon. colleagues in the House.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, I want to make some comments on Bill C-63, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, at second reading.
Of course, this Bill weighs very heavily on what happens to fishermen. Most of the Bill pertains to removing fishermen from the Fishermen's Loans Improvement Act and putting them under small business. I believe it is another installment of the Government's strategy to squeeze every last dollar out of the fishermen of this country.

June 30, 1987
Small Businesses Loans Act
We have seen a progression of these things since September, 1984. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the Official Opposition, the Government has gone out of its way to penalize our fishermen, especially those who are most vulnerable, and I speak here of the inshore fishermen.
I want to briefly review part of the record of the Government since 1984. Right off the bat, in November, 1984, the Government wanted to eliminate or, in the Government's jargon, "privatize" the Vessel Insurance Program. This is a program which has been in effect and has helped fishermen for many years. Those of us in the Opposition, especially my colleague, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), fought that move very hard. It was because of the efforts of Members of the Opposition and Members who support and represent fishermen, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, the Eastern Fishermen's Federation and the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association, who all expressed dissatisfaction with the Government's intention to cancel the Fishing Vessel Insurance Program, that the Government has stalled that intent, and in the last few months we have not heard too much about the insurance program. However, one thing the fishermen have noticed, and have brought to my attention and I am sure to the attention of my colleagues who represent the fishing ridings, is that the premiums under the Fishermen's Insurance Program has gone up to the point where it is almost as cheap to go to a private insurance company and get insurance there.
Once again, while the Government, at least to this point in time, has not eliminated the program, it is allowing the premiums to rise to a point where it is very doubtful that fishermen will be able to afford these premiums. They are getting very expensive.
In February, 1986, the Government and the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) slashed the Fishing Vessel Assistance Program, better known as the vessel subsidy program. This is a program which was in place to help fishermen either purchase new vessels or upgrade the quality of their existing ones. It is a program that recognizes that fishermen sometimes have a lot of problems setting aside enough savings for a large investment. Some Conservative Members may argue that provincial loan boards already provide enough assistance to fishermen. However, it should be noted that not all provinces have such loan boards. For instance, B.C. is a province that relies totally on federal initiatives in this respect.
I would now like to turn to some of the actions of the Minister of Fisheries and the Government, actions which they have taken over the last year and one-half to two years. For instance, the former Deputy Minister of Fisheries, Dr. Art May, was relieved of his duties. He was a Deputy Minister who knew the fishing industry. He knew the science of the fisheries and good fisheries management principles. Obviously, that was not in the Government's interests so it changed the Deputy, moving him to one side. It appointed someone who looked at the fishery with a view to cost benefit analysis,
someone who, in my opinion, has no understanding whatsoever about what small fishing communities have to go through and how they are so reliant upon the fishery and the fact that sometimes the fishery has to be helped out by Government in order just to keep those communities alive.
The Minister then took steps to help large companies. I refer specifically to the Bayshore tuna deal that had been rejected by the Minister's own Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Advisory Committee. However, the Minister gave a quota of 401 to Bayshore Limited which it then sold to Japanese vessels. My understanding is that the Minister has asked for proposals for more such ventures.
To make matters even worse, there was the Canada-France agreement on quotas and boundaries. I am sure that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate, will have a great deal to say on this issue since it affects him so greatly. Of course, it affects all Atlantic Members of Parliament, not to mention the fishermen of Atlantic Canada. However, my colleague from Gander-Twillingate certainly dug into this issue and kept it to the forefront over the last three or four months.
In order to get France to sit down to discuss the possibility of sending the St. Pierre and Miquelon boundary dispute to international arbitration, Canada agreed to give France certain quotas, including future quotas of northern cod. Of course, the deal was hatched in the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The Minister of Fisheries was not even consulted before the deal was signed. The Province of Newfoundland and Premier Peckford were completely ignored in the final negotiation.
As an afterthought the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), the regional Minister for Newfoundland, who was originally ignored but who was able to kick up a fuss, based on the prodding of other Members of Parliament from Newfoundland who shamed him into acting, went to the Prime Minister to say that we have to show at least some presence in terms of dealing with the fishery in Atlantic Canada. The Minister, of course, forced the Prime Minister to sign a letter which would make him the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
That was not good enough. The Minister of Transport decided that we were into a heck of a mess here and something had to be done about it. So he made a video featuring himself, including a great cameo appearance by the other Minister of Fisheries. Afterwards, the Province of Newfoundland was covered with pamphlets which went into every home. On March 5 the Minister of Transport told CBC radio that his propaganda project would cost only $40,000. However, newspaper reports indicate that the video and pamphlet cost Canadian taxpayers about $200,000. We now know that the Minister of Transport does not like his job very much. We also know he would rather be the Minister of Finance, but I am afraid he has ruined his chances with the splurge on these videos. Of course, he came in five times over the expected budget.
June 30, 1987

This is typical of the Government's hypocrisy. While cutting back on fishermen, the Government and its Ministers spend freely on their self-promotion. To add insult to injury, the other Minister of Fisheries had to pick up half the cost of the public campaign of the Minister of Transport. We seem to have many ministers of fisheries in this House. We often think, will the real Minister of Fisheries and Oceans please stand up?
Under this Bill the Fishermen's Insurance Loan Program is being taken out of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and given over to small business under the auspices of a new Minister who has no control whatsoever over management of the fishery. A fisherman who now gets into trouble because of climatic conditions, or poor fishing seasons, or whatever, will not be able to go to his own Minister, the Minister who should be responsible for him. This Bill is the final nail in the coffin for fishermen as it relates to their Department of Fisheries and their Minister.
In looking at some research I did with respect to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, in 1980, I found out what the present Minister of Fisheries, who was then a critic of fisheries, said at that time. He said that he would like to offer some observations on Bill C-28, which was the Bill to extend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. He then said:
Of course my criticism is always positive. We think that the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act has been a relatively successful program. It is the kind of program that puts the burden of initiative upon the fishermen themselves. We commend the proposal in this legislation which will increase the ceiling in terms of individual loans. It will extend the repayment period from 10 to 15 years, and it will create a ceiling on loans over the next three-year period of $250 million.
The Bill which is before us does the opposite. This Bill ignores the ceiling for individual fishermen. It reduces the ceiling from $150,000 to $100,000. Something less than 10 per cent of fishermen have loans over $100,000. However, I must point out to the Government and to the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Valcourt) that with the growing costs of fishing enterprises, boats, gear, and so on, these costs are increasing annually. One cannot set up much of a fishing enterprise even as an inshore fisherman for under $150,000. Of course, the term of repayment has been brought down from 15 years, which was the case under FILA, to 10 years.
Once we go into Committee of the Whole on this Bill, it is my intention to ask the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt) to accept an amendment that will reinstate the ceiling of $150,000 for loans. Given that there is a cap of $2.5 billion for small businesses, I am sure that this amendment would not cause any problems. I feel confident that the Minister could accept that amendment. It would in fact be an improvement to the Bill. Also, I would ask that he accept an amendment extending the term from 10 years, as it is under the Small Businesses Loans Act, to the 15 years that was available under FILA.
Small Businesses Loans Act
Those two amendments would go a long way toward making this Bill more acceptable to those of us in the Opposition, particularly those of us who represent fishing communities.
My criticism of the way in which the Government is treating fishermen goes further. I have already mentioned some of the programs that have been cut, slashed. One of the main programs on which this Government has backed off in terms of financing is the Small Craft Harbours Program.
I know the Hon. Minister had occasion recently to visit Val Comeau and during that visit the fishermen gave him a very hard time-and rightfully so. There is not nearly enough money in the Small Craft Harbours Program. This year, the funding amounts to $47 million.
The Fisheries and Oceans Committee, for the last three years, has been asking this Government to put much more funding into small craft harbours. My colleague from the New Democratic Party who sits on that committee will know exactly what I am talking about. There was unanimous agreement on the part of the Fisheries and Oceans Committee that much more money is required for small craft harbours.
The Deputy Minister of Fisheries told the committee that if there was no more funding that there would be 150 wharfs and harbours closed in this country, 13 of which would be in my own Province of Prince Edward Island.
That is a sad commentary on this Government and how it is behaving toward the fishermen of this country.
I go back again to the Canada-France agreement, in which we have almost every Department of Government involved but for the Department of Fisheries. It is the Department of Fisheries that should be representing the views of the fishermen of this country in respect of that agreement. In External Affairs, the left hand never knows what the right hand is doing. The Minister, who should be responsible for dealing with fishermen and the concerns of fishermen, the one who should be standing up for the fishermen of this country, has let that slip out of his hands.
An article in one of today's newspapers makes the point that we are witnessing the disintegration of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Since the coming into power of this Government, the Department of Fisheries has been downgraded to the point of being almost a branch Department.
Yes, the Minister does have a car, and he does have a driver; but very little else. This Minister of Fisheries is not standing up in Cabinet for the rights of the fishermen of this country.
On the West Coast, we have the issue of Kemano, where they are talking once again about lowering water levels. Once again, the Minister is not standing up for the fishermen on the West Coast.

June 30, 1987
Small Businesses Loans Act
We are left with a lot of frustration, not only with the Minister and with Bill C-63, but with the way in which the Department is falling behind. It is one Department that should be front and centre. With a little bit of support from this Government, the fisheries industry could generate thousands of new jobs.
Every time the Americans threaten us with another tariff, this Government, being as weak-kneed as it is, simply removes another program-and in this case, it is a program that has been beneficial to fishermen.
To repeat, the two main issues in respect of this Bill are, first of all, that it reduces the ceiling for loans to fishermen from $150,000 to $100,000, and second, that the term of the loan is reduced from 15 years to 10 years.
It is our hope that the Minister will be able to accept the two amendments proposed, thus taking us back to the situation under FILA.
The proposed legislation carries with it yet another burden for fisheries, that being a new registration fee, a fee that is set at 1 per cent of the fishermen's guaranteed loan. Fishermen will have to pay this fee up front. For a fisherman facing emergency repairs, the fee would take scarce money out of his pocket.
Apparently, the revenues derived from this fee will go toward administrative costs. That is what the Government tells us. But fishermen, like other citizens, already pay taxes to the Government.
There is an interesting wrinkle to this. With the 1 per cent fee, the $18.8 million in loans under FILA in 1985-86 would have resulted in revenues of $188,000. The Nielsen task force found that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans spent only $97,000 on administering the FILA program. Therefore, the new user fee will pay for the old program, twice over.
Once again, we have a situation that is blatantly unfair to our taxpaying fishermen.
This Government, with its sweeping majority, is going in the direction of user fees. It wants cost recovery on everything.
It is not right that this type of fee should be charged to our fishermen.
The Minister, in his remarks, said he was pleased to bring fishermen into the Small Businesses Loans Act, and he went on to praise the Act on the basis that it does have a larger cap over-all. But it is a step backwards for fishermen. I want that to be clear on the record.
It is my hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendments, which I shall have delivered to him. I told his Parliamentary Secretary last evening that I would have these amendments here this morning. Once the Bill is referred to Committee of the Whole, it is my hope that those amendments can be dealt with, and adopted.
The other problem I have with this Bill is the timing, with the Bill having been brought in on the last sitting day before we break for the summer. This Bill should have gone to the appropriate legislative committee for detailed study. But we in the Opposition are caught. We know that there are people out there who are depending upon loans. We know that. We know that they need this legislation before the summer.
I guess half a loaf of bread is better than no bread. The Government knew that FILA was to terminate on June 30, and it brought in Bill C-63 for second and third reading at this late hour. We hope the amendments will be accepted and that we can go along with part of it. However, I give the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, wherever he is, fair warning not to try to do it again on the last day before a summer recess.
We have no alternative today. If it is not approved, Canadian fishermen will have to wait until the House reconvened in the fall to obtain loans.
It is not a good piece of legislation and we oppose it. However, we know that time is of the essence. The Government is not playing a fair game with our fishermen by bringing legislation, which requires improvement, into the House on the day before we recess. Certainly fishermen will remember and understand the dilemma faced by all of us on the opposition benches.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks on Bill C-63, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.
I am sure Canadian fishermen are already very aware of where they stand with the Government. They are aware that it pays very little attention to their needs, cuts back on their programs, and squeezes them for every possible nickel.
They have seen the underfunding of different fisheries programs. Small craft harbours had to beg for funds. They finally received a $100 million allocation, which I am sure the Minister will use where it will do the most good for the Conservative Party but perhaps not the most good for fishermen and their communities. They have seen increases in licence fees and in wharfage fees. They have also seen an underfunded Salmonid Enhancement Program.
Now, on the final day of June when the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act expires, the Government brings in a piece of legislation which it wants passed immediately, otherwise the entire loans program for fishermen disappears.
The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act was first brought in in 1955. Over the last 32 years, some 18,198 loans have been made under the program, to a total of over $246 million. There has been a number of claims where fishermen have been unable to make their payments, some 611 claims totalling $13
June 30, 1987

million. Also there has been a number of extensions of the program over that period of time. The last one took place in December, 1986, and the Conservative Government is allowing to lapse a program which was designed specifically to provide funding for fisheries improvements, a program which was specifically for fishermen and their communities.
Often the program was improperly or inadequately funded, but at least it was their program. They knew the amount of funding available to them and how to obtain it. Now it is being assumed under a much larger program and there is no certainty in terms of how much of the funding will go to fisheries improvements.
Some fishermen have expressed a concern that under the Act they will be designated as small businessmen. Some of them question the implications in terms of unemployment insurance if the Government once again decided that it wanted to change the system. We know that Canadian fishermen waged a fight to keep the Government from cutting back their unemployment insurance. Some of them are now concerned about being designated as small businessmen for the purpose of obtaining loans and whether it will mean that they will also be designated as small businesses in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
There is much concern that the new program will not meet the needs of fishermen, and we will not have the time to examine it at any length in committee. It is being pushed through at the last minute.
The Minister has known for over a year that the program would lapse and that a new one was needed. The Bill was only tabled on June 8. There is no time for changes, which reflects the very low priority which the Government gives to fisheries. We are expected to push it through all stages on the very last day before the summer recess. As the previous speaker mentioned, we have very little choice but to agree, because some kind of loan program is necessary even though the program provided in Bill C-63 is inadequate and inferior to the previous one.
As I said, the previous program was not properly funded. On December 15, 1986 the House, in a method similar to the one being used today, passed a six-month extension to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, and by January 15 the $30 million which had been provided was gone; all the money was gone in a month. This is a clear indication of inadequate funding. No money is available for fishermen who want to plan for improvements in their operations. They were told to be patient. They were told to wait. They were told to go to the end of the line. They were told that the Government would get around to them eventually. Now, on the last day of June, the Government is finally getting around to the fishermen. We are spending just a few minutes to rush through this piece of legislation, because if we do not do so there will be no program in place for them.
We see very clearly in the Nielsen task force the direction in which the Government wanted to go in terms of the Fisheries
Small Businesses Loans Act
Improvement Loans Act. It wanted to get rid of it. In part the task force indicated;
-the Government should consider termination. The major thrust of the study team's recommendations is for less federal government intervention in response to true market forces. To the extent that financial assistance is required by fishermen, this can be obtained from provincial loans boards or financial institutions. The determination of whether assistance should be based on sound economic business considerations.
The Government felt that the process could be taken care of by what it calls true market forces. I am not exactly sure what it means by that. However, if we leave our basic industries to what the Government considers to be true market forces, there will be no basic industries left and unemployment rates will be even more unacceptable than they are now.
The task force suggested that the Government should look at provincial loans boards or at financial institutions. The difficulty in obtaining loans was the reason the program was created in the first place. To suggest that it was not needed is completely wide off the mark.
I should like to sketch briefly the differences between the two programs-the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act which expires today, and the amendments which will cover fisheries improvements under the Small Businesses Loans Act. Admittedly there is a great increase in the total amount of money available under the program. However, how much of it will be directly available to fishermen? There is absolutely no guarantee. There is no statement in that regard. There is no mechanism of which I am aware that will monitor how much of the money goes to fishermen. We would like to see some guarantee of at least the amount of money that was available to fishermen under the old program. Again we note that while the fishermen's program has been rolled into the larger program, there has been no increase in funding for the new program. We wonder how more people are supposed to share the same amount of money from the same old pot.
The maximum amount of money that was available to fishermen for borrowing under the old program was $150,000. Under the new program, that amount has been reduced to $100,000. This is a decrease at a time when we all know the cost of everything is going up. Why the decrease, Mr. Speaker? Why is the Government saying to fishermen that there is only two-thirds as much money available to borrow as under the old program? At least 3 per cent of the loans under the old Fisheries Improvement Loans Act were over $100,000. Nothing above $100,000 will be available now. Why is the Government producing a program that is less satisfactory at a time of rising costs? Perhaps the Minister can answer that question.
Again, the maximum loan under the old program would cover 100 per cent of the proposed investment. Today it covers only 80 per cent of the proposed investment. Again we have a poorer program.

June 30, 1987
Small Businesses Loans Act
Fishermen faced with costs for getting their equipment ready for a season or for repairs often have difficulty coming up with the 20 per cent that has to be put up front before they can get a loan under the new program. Why is the Government bringing in a program that is less satisfactory for the needs of the fishermen than the old program?
The repayment period under the old program was 15 years. Under the new program it has been cut to 10 years. We all know that fishermen often have to deal with cycles that sometimes last more than one or two years. Often there are several bad years and if the fishermen have to have all their payments squeezed into a 10 year period it can be very difficult. Why was the maximum payment cut from 15 years to 10 years? The Government is not primarily concerned with the needs of the fishermen, but it must have some other agenda with which it is dealing.
The government guarantee of this loan program drops from 100 per cent to 85 per cent. On top of all of that, there is now a registration fee, a fancy term for a user fee, of 1 per cent. This money has to be up-front, so that the cost of the program is an additional 1 per cent. There is less money available to individual fishermen for loans. There is a shorter repayment period. The Government guarantee has dropped from 100 per cent to 85 per cent. Loans can only cover 80 per cent of the proposed investment.
In every single way, Mr. Speaker, this is a poorer program than the old one. Why is the Government changing it? Why was the Government not prepared to bring in a properly funded program for fisheries improvements? Why is the Government trying to suggest to Canadians that somehow it is dealing with the needs of fishermen by incorporating them under the Small Businesses Loans Act.
This program does not meet their needs anywhere near in the same manner as the old one. The Government is cutting back and is indicating the very low status it gives to fishermen. It is very obvious that the program is not an improvement. We will let the Bill go through because today is the last day. Unless this program goes through there will be nothing available, and it is better than nothing.
We are not happy with the low priority which the Government gives to fisheries. We are not happy with the way in which the Government has abused the rights of fishermen by taking away a decent program and giving them one that does not meet their needs.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Government has decided to close down completely the federal Department of Fisheries and to get out of the area of matters that deal with fishermen in other areas. I do not know why, and I am sure no Member of this Elouse can tell me why we have had since 1945 a guaranteed loan program for farmers, and since 1955 a guaranteed loan program for fishermen. All of a sudden in 1987, the Government of Canada decides to discontinue completely the guaranteed loans
program for fishermen but is keeping the guaranteed loans programs for farmers. We have yet to see the Bill. I understand the farmers' Bill will be presented some time today. I imagine we will see a fee built into it whereby the farmers will have to pay something back to the Government of Canada for the privilege of getting a guarantee at the banks, but it still does not answer the question: Why pull out of the program designed for fishermen?
It is an interesting question. The budget for the Department of Fisheries, as our fisheries critic from Prince Edward Island has pointed out, has deteriorated substantially. It is reduced more than any other budget of the Government of Canada.
You have, Madam Speaker, a Bill before this Chamber today that is a real slap in the face to the fishermen of Canada. You have a Bill here that says that no longer will there be a guaranteed loans program specifically aimed at fishermen. The Government of Canada found itself in quite a spot in that all of the guarantees for loans out across Canada had been used up, that is, the quotas to the banks. The fishermen were left with phone calls from the banks saying, "Look, your loan is no longer guaranteed because the Government of Canada-this Tory Government of Canada-says that we have gone over our limits and now we must demand payment in full tomorrow, says the letter from the law firms in British Columbia, from the law firms in Nova Scotia, from the law firms in Prince Edward Island, from the law firms in Quebec, from the law firms in Newfoundland and Labrador to the fishermen". It is, "payment in full immediately or we will seize your property, your house, your car and everything else".
The Government of Canada decided not to extend the guarantee on the loans. That was a conscious decision made by the new Tory Government elected in 1984 because it was going to leave fishermen out in the cold and not provide them with that extra bit of guarantee because times were bad. This Bill says the word "fisheries" will be excluded under the definition of business enterprise under the Small Businesses Loans Act. The only reason fishermen could not get loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act before was that the word "fisheries" was covered under the Fisheries Improvement Loans program.
A person can go to Avco or Household Finance or anywhere like that and he does not have to put down a fee to get a loan, although he does have to pay an incredible interest rate. However, no one is telling that person that he will only be loaned 85 per cent of the money and he will have to pay 1 per cent of the loan up front to the Government of Canada for the privilege of walking over the doorstep to get a loan.
This piece of paper before us today is not worth anything to the fishermen of Canada. It is a reflection of the attitude of the Government of Canada toward fishermen. The Government tells Fishermen that it is moving away from all responsibility for fishermen. This has been displayed in every single action the Government has taken.
June 30, 1987

Today on the East Coast of Canada, the French fishing fleet is overfishing as much as it wants and the Canadian Government is scared to death to even board those boats. It is afraid, it is shaking in its shoes. The Government will board a Canadian boat if a fisherman is overfishing, but it will not board a French boat. If the French flag is up, beware, do not go close to that boat. If the American flag is up, beware, do not go close to that boat. Perhaps the Government might board a Spanish boat because Spanish boats proceed only at about eight or 10 knots, but it will certainly board Canadian boats.
For example, on Friday night the Government closed the quota on capelin, the small fish that are primarily sold to the Japanese market. Fishermen throughout eastern Canada are outraged today because there is capelin, in the water, there are buyers who want to buy the capelin but the fishermen are not allowed to catch it. Why? Because the Government says that fishermen are only allowed to catch 15,000 metric tonnes of capelin this year because it thinks that this is all the market can bear.
It is funny, but the Government forgot one thing. It forgot that it gave the Russians 17,000 metric tonnes of capelin and the Russian boats off the East Coast of Canada are able to catch as much capelin as they want right up to December 31.


George Roland Henderson: We're saving it for them.


George Baker: We are saving it for the poor Russians. There are even Russian boats that are willing to come into Canadian harbours on the East Coast to buy capelin from the fishermen, but the Russians can catch the capelin because they have a quota of 17,000 metric tonnes. The Canadian fishermen are not allowed to catch capelin to sell to the Russians because their quota of 15,000 metric tonnes is all caught.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) was in eastern Canada for the last three days. I think he showed up in Ottawa last evening. I understand that he is trying to address the problem. Certainly, though, there appears to be a total lack of communication. If there is any reason for what the federal Government did about capelin, then that has not been communicated properly to the fishermen of eastern Canada. I do not know how that action can be explained, but there must be some reasoning behind it somewhere. Capelin is considered to be an under-utilized species. If it is under-utilized, the Government will give some to the Russians, some to the EEC and some to this nation and that nation. But here are the Canadians with their quota cut off.
That is the attitude of the Government of Canada toward fishermen. It took the Fisheries Improvement Loans Program that gave loans to fishermen who were trying to make a living, trying to get by day to day, trying to feed their families, and cut it off, the only loan program for fishermen. The Government will not even allow government guarantees on loans but if the fisherman pays a fee, the Government will give a guarantee on 80 per cent to 85 per cent of the loan at the big bank. That is incredible. It is an absolute joke.
Small Businesses Loans Act
An Hon. Member has just handed me a note saying that the farm Bill which will be introduced has a user fee attached to it. That Bill will be introduced in the Chamber very shortly. Under that Bill, $5.5 billion is in circulation. There are only a couple of farmers in my riding, but there is $5.5 billion in circulation and the Government is now saying that it will make farmers pay a fee in order to get guarantees. The Small Businesses Loans Act collected in this past financial year $7.5 million from that fee in order to pay some of its expenses. Imagine the fees the Government will now collect from the farmers of Canada under a Bill that will be introduced in this Chamber in a few moments.
What is the default rate on farm loans? Of the $5.5 billion that is in circulation, the Government has had to pay less than $15 million on defaults. If what the hon. gentleman just passed to me is right, the Government will make a windfall profit on every loan it guarantees to the farmers of Canada after the Bill is introduced this afternoon. I would advise Hon. Members who are interested in loans to farmers-and I know, Madam Speaker, that we are dealing with loans to fishermen-that I doubt I would let that go through without a lot of debate.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader has worked this out right to the second. He brings in the Bill on the last day of sitting, a Tuesday after everyone sat in this Chamber practically all night and everyone is tired and sleepy. He brings in the Bill at the last minute and says: "Well, this happens to be the last day of the month and if you don't pass the Bill, there ain't going to be no more loans for fishermen or farmers or anybody else".
One could ask why he did not bring this Bill before the House sooner. He brought a lot of nonsense into the Chamber before. Farmers and fishermen will now ask their Members of Parliament how they allowed the Government to make them pay money out of their own pockets for loans.
Imagine going into the bank and saying: "I would like to get a loan," and the bank manager saying: "Well, in order for me to lend you some money, you have to give me some money '. That is the law passed by the Parliament of Canada on the last day of June, 1987. The farmer will look at the bank manager and say: "You're crazy. If I had money to give you, I wouldn't be coming in here to get a loan". The bank manager will say: "Well, you had better write to your Member of Parliament because he passed the Bill".
I do not know what is going on here. I imagine it is an extension of the user-pay policies of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), but there is something radically wrong with the Government of Canada. There is something radically wrong with us. I do not know, maybe you could make a ruling. We cannot sit tomorrow. We have to conclude our proceedings today. Perhaps the Chair can figure out some way to communicate to all our farmers and fishermen the fact that the House did not appreciate what the Government and its House Leader have done with these two Bills.

June 30, 1987
Small Businesses Loans Act
I leave Hon. Members with this suggestion. I would certainly not pass either one of these Bills with just a flick of the wrist. I would consider an extended debate on each one of these clauses.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to comment on Bill C-63. I share some of the concerns expressed by my friends and colleagues today. It is unfortunate that we have only a few minutes on the last sitting day to discuss an issue as important as small business in Canada.
The purpose of the Bill is to cover the fishing industry under the Small Businesses Loans Act and replace the Fisheries Improvement Loans Program. As has been expressed by previous speakers, this is a wrong-headed approach to the problem fishermen face in raising capital for vessel and other equipment acquisition and improvement. The improvement loan program has been quite suitable over the years. I suppose these changes reflect government philosophy, which is to make it more difficult for people to acquire capital. The philosophy is that if you have the money, you can participate in resource extraction. If you do not, even though you may have years of experience in the industry, you cannot participate. It is interesting that at the same time the Government is providing this borrowing mechanism for the fishing industry, it is creating a situation which is leading to chaos. Fishermen will have great difficulty in making an adequate living, much less repaying existing loans. Some of those difficulties were mentioned by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowi-chan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), as well as other members in the Official Opposition.
Some years ago we had a royal commission studying the West Coast fishery headed by Peter Pearse. That commission developed a plan which would have removed most fishermen from the industry. It would have given the fishery to a limited number of wealthy individuals. The plan put forward by the commission indicated that the fishing industry was chaotic. Too many boats were chasing too few fish. Limited access was the idea. Of course that makes it hard to make a living. I think that over the years the people involved hoped the Conservative Government would make a commitment that the Liberals never would make, that the Pearse plan would be stopped. That has not happened. Instead we see an acceleration, which is driving small fishermen out of the business and weakening the coastal communities concerned because they are being cut off from the industry.
It is interesting to note where the Government has taken this industry. First we have the development of plans which work against fishermen. On the West Coast the Minister instituted a new consultative body called the Pacific Region Advisory Committee. That replaced the previous ministerial advisory committee. It has now become a political mechanism. If you support the right political Party, you can give advice to the Minister. Instead of representing the people who fish off the
West Coast of Canada on a proportionate basis, you have a committee composed of a few wise persons. I use the term "wise" advisedly. In some quarters a wise Conservative might be viewed as a contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, this committee is highly politicized and does not represent those who fish off the West Coast. It certainly does not represent them with any weight.
The unfortunate part of all this is that there will be little if any consistency in the advice the committee gives to the Minister to develop fishing plans. Neither will there be continuity. After the next election the Conservative Government will no longer exist and another committee will replace the present one. We will then lose any kind of continuity, something that is absolutely critical when you are dealing with fishing cycles of up to four years and conservation cycles of up to 20 years. The industry is being made more unstable at the advisory level.
In addition, when local and regional advisory committees are appointed they make recommendations to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Instead of following the advice of those who have the knowledge and experience, people who have done this for generations, the Department chooses to ignore the advice and impose its own decisions. Those decisions are often politically motivated, and I will give one example.
There is a sports fishing corridor in Rivers Inlet. That corridor was opposed by the Central Coast Regional Advisory Committee. Yet the Minister chose to go ahead. Unfortunately, that sets a precedent for other coastal areas and that is a bad precedent contrary to the advice given. The whole business of planning and operations in the fishing industry has been dislocated, to say the least, by the Government.
The next problem in the industry is the whole business of allocation. It is a very serious matter. I understand the Minister stood up before the British Columbia Wildlife Federation and indicated he was prepared to turn two species of salmon over to the sports fishing group, the cohoe and the Chinook. That is completely unacceptable. Traditionally the spring and cohoe salmon have been fished by both sports fishermen and commercial fishermen and native people. There is no doubt that with proper management and proper enhancement those species can be available for all. Any Minister who decides to court favour with one small group of commercially oriented sports fishermen is in serious political trouble. Such a view of allocation based on political affiliation and on a small group making a loud noise will lead to serious political consequences.
With regard to small craft harbours, fishermen who make small business loans are being bashed into the ground through additional costs and impairments in the fishing industry. How can you make your payments on a loan if you cannot fish? The Government is talking about developing a landing tax. Peter Pearse proposed that in order to get rid of small fishermen you
June 30, 1987

simply increase the landing tax to the point where marginal fishermen can no longer stay in the industry. You simply charge them more and more to moor their vessels. You do not provide adequate harbours in order that people can moor their vessels and repair them near their homes.
In short, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister are creating enormous problems for people in the fishing industry by causing them to travel great distances to store their vessels and have them repaired. Right now moorage fees, the condition of harbours, the user costs associated and the inadequacy of them on the coast of British Columbia are becoming a major problem.
In places like Port Hardy, Campbell River, Saltery Bay and the Comox Harbour area in my own riding there is a definite need for harbour upgrading and improved parking and service facilities, which would be a major enhancement to the local economy and the fishing community.
There must be infrastructure development for fishermen. There is need for cold storage plants and processing plants in communities in order to develop a focus for those communities. A great deal of concern has been expressed about the aquaculture industry on the coast of British Columbia. That industry needs infrastructure in the form of small craft harbours to load and unload material. It needs cold storage areas and processing plants to prepare for trans-shipment of the material.
The same thing is required by the commercial fleet. A major storage plant in the community of Port Hardy for the storage of herring, halibut and salmon would mean that a small community which is undergoing major traumatic experiences of a single industry town could benefit through an enormous increase in fish storage and fish processing capacity as well as a substantial increase in employment. Many other areas along the coast of British Columbia would benefit from cold storage facilities.
With regard to the Salmonid Enhancement Program, there was an announcement recently by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) that the Government would continue to fund this program on the coast of British Columbia at an extremely modest and inadequate level. There is tremendous potential for the enhancement of salmon on the coast of British Columbia. The present stocks, which were developed through hatcheries and the development of incubation systems and spawning channels, are a major achievement of previous Governments. The stocks are being maintained at a certain level per year.
However, the Conservatives are now talking about privatizing those facilities. They are talking about using those facilities as suppliers for the aquaculture industry in certain areas. They are talking about funding them from landing taxes. The Government of Canada is attempting to evade its responsibility to ensure that the resource of wild stock salmon, which has been an economic boon to the West Coast of Canada and, indeed, all of Canada for many years, is maintained and improved. More money is needed.
Small Businesses Loans Act
Several years ago the Government decided to put $5 million into job creation on the coast of British Columbia under a MILAP program. That program encouraged a number of projects under the Salmonid Enhancement Program which have been very successful. They received funding for a couple of years and developed their projects. After the projects began to run they were suddenly cut off. Due more to the efforts of dedicated individuals than any policy of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it has managed to squeeze out some funding to provide small amounts of assistance here and there.
However, the Minister has not recognized that those projects contribute substantially to the wealth of the West Coast of Canada and that of Canada as a whole and are worthy of government support. Under the MILAP program projects were developed on the northern end of Vancouver Island in Port Hardy, around the Oyster River, at Quadra Island and at Gold River. They were given seed money to develop and then were cut adrift.
Those stocks have become important. They serve the commercial fishery and the communities in which fishermen live, which, in turn, serve all businesses in those communities. It is critical that that continue for the continued development of salmonid enhancement.
Another issue is that of resource inventory studies. What is the point of investing a lot of money in salmonid enhancement projects if you are going to allow logging in critical areas which will destroy the streams and wild rearing areas? The Rivers Inlet and Owikeno Lake areas definitely need an integrated resource management study and a course of action planned in co-operation with the federal Departments of Fisheries and Oceans and the Environment and the provincial government agencies.
The herring industry on the West Coast is in a critical condition as well. Representatives from the industry as well as fishing groups recently appeared before the Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. They pointed out that the multiple licence system is a serious problem which has put many people out of work. It has harmed many communities and tends to decentralize the control of fishing companies. A small number of fishermen benefit from a major and wealthy resource. Multiple licences and the area licensing scheme have compounded that problem.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans must have a registry of those who have the right to fish herring. From that registry a rational transfer system must be developed which would prevent the company from grabbing control of it and prevents the Department of Fisheries and Oceans from implementing the Pearse regime which would throw most of the people involved in that industry out of work and place that entire resource in the hands of a few wealthy individuals who may not be Fishermen.

June 30, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being two o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, once again CN has struck in Cape Breton. It has abandoned another three jobs, put other workers on preretirement leave, and has said that these jobs it has abandoned are not necessary.
When one questions the Government it says that CN is making the decision and, as a Crown corporation, must be right that the jobs are excess. However, that is not the case.
CN is deliberately misrepresenting the situation in Cape Breton and the Government is supporting it. Two labourers and a clerk will be laid off. One of the labourers is 50 years of age, with 24 years of experience and seniority in his particular bargaining unit. This Crown corporation is getting rid of people who, at this particular time, need funds for their mortgages and families. Yet this is allowed to continue time after time.
When will the Government begin realizing that the people in this country are important and that Crown corporations owe these people at least the right to have security in the community in which they have spent so much of their lives?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, early this morning in a free vote Members of Parliament voted against the reinstatement of capital punishment by a count of 148 to 127. Parliament has spoken. However, the majority of Canadians-certainly the majority of the constituents in my riding of Edmonton East-ask for capital punishment. What now, Mr. Speaker? Life must go on.
People are asking for protection. People are asking for justice and for fairness in the judicial system. Violent crimes should no longer be the norm, the law should work in favour of law-abiding citizens, not the criminal.
It is imperative that we turn our attention to the reform of the penal system. We must devote all of our energies to
ensuring that Canadians are provided a safe living environment and that the parole system is reassessed, that a life sentence means just that, and murderers are not permitted back on the streets to kill again.



EXTERNAL AID


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Canada Day tomorrow, we think of features of Canadian life most of us take for granted. These include things such as safe drinking water, customary in Canada, but the exception in the Third World.
Michael Lubbock is an 81-year-old Canadian who wants to change this. Through his non-profit organization, Watercan, Lubbock crusades to bring clean water to the Third World.
Contaminated water is the cause of many diseases, including diarrhea which is the number one child killer. Lubbock began raising money for Watercan by asking municipalities to send out with their water bill an informative brochure and appeal for funds. Mayor John Savage of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, adopted the idea. By last April, Dartmouth residents had donated more than $5,000 to Watercan. Given this success, CIDA provided Lubbock with $50,000 in operating funds and agreed to match future contributions two for one.
The first development agency to tackle projects funded through Watercan will be CUSO in Zambia, Ghana, and Nigeria.
I commend Michael Lubbock for his initiative, and Mayor John Savage of Dartmouth for his vision and action. I hope other communities in Canada will follow their lead so that people everywhere can enjoy clean water.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, those who are against the restoration of capital punishment celebrated a great victory yesterday. Unfortunately nothing has been done to allay the apprehension of all those who wanted measures to reduce crime, all those who wanted convicted murderers to be really punished.
Mr. Speaker, I would now urge all Hon. Members who voted against the reinstatement of the death penalty to bring pressure to bear on this Government so that as soon as the session resumes in September it will introduce legislation to
June 30, 1987

improve the penal system, make sure that the rules governing parole are stricter, as suggested by the previous speaker, protect the lives of Canadians, and set up a better societal integration procedure with respect to paroled inmates.
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we will continue the fight to improve the quality of life for all Canadian men and women.
Real democracy existed at its origin, where everyone went to the assembly. This evolved to where the people elected representatives to carry their views to the powers that be. The trend in Canada is getting further away from real democracy and closer to totalitarian views. I deplore this trend and my only consolation is that the people will have the final say when they cast their ballots. The people know best.




Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, today's statements have a common thrust. Last evening we voted on a very important issue. I am pleased we were able to settle the question, for the workload of the House will be somewhat lighter. Hopefully we will now be able to tackle the real issue, criminal matters. A number of my colleagues dealt with this topic during the capital punishment debate. We have to fill the gaps in our system with respect to indictment proceedings, sentences, or the administration of our parole system.
Many problems are still unsolved concerning these flaws and as the elected representatives of the Canadian people we must ensure that our country remains a good place in which to live. So we still have a lot of work to do and I hope we will come to grips with these problems as soon as we return in September.
Finally, a happy holiday to everybody and particularly to you, Mr. Speaker, for you have been doing an outstanding job since your election. Happy holidays!



DEMOCRACY


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, totalitarian philosophy is based on the Government knowing best about everything and thus telling the people what is good for them. Democracy is the very reverse, wherein the Government endeavours to the best of its ability to find out what the people want and then reflects the thinking of the people in its administration and legislation.
I have no use for totalitarians, whether they be fascists, communists, socialists or anything else. This group believes that once they are elected they are suddenly given extra brains and super powers. In a democracy it is the very reverse, or should be, where the members of the Government seek the views of the people they represent and reflect those views in the administration.



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in response to my questions in the House yesterday, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) stated that the Government would not be willing to intervene or investigate interest charges during the early 1980s when many farmers signed bank notes at fixed interest rates and were charged floating rates amounting to huge interest overcharges.
The Minister has a report from the Inspector General of Banks which he will not make public. However, he says that the non-intervention decision is based on three court cases which ruled against the overcharges.
I want to point out that I discovered which cases the Inspector General and the Minister are using as their basis for reports. They all involve interest charges well in advance of the changes to the Bank Act in 1980, and are therefore totally irrelevant.
Since that time the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled in the Wilford case, and recently ruled in the Smeltzer Farms versus Royal Bank case, on the side of the farmers, saying that the banks had indeed overcharged these people. In the Smeltzer case it has even refused to permit a bankruptcy procedure by the bank because it had acted improperly.



CRITERIA DEFINING ISOLATED POST

Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the regulations clarifying the criteria for isolated posts in Canada, in terms of the Treasury Board Directive on Isolated Posts (1977), are being reviewed this year. The authorities of the municipalities concerned, the unions and workers in our remote regions in Canada must make every possible effort to ensure that the same criteria are maintained, especially those for social isolation, and I am thinking of the particular case of the municipality of Joutel in Abitibi.

June 30, 1987
We all know that the new system for providing tax relief for northern residents, which has been in effect since January 1, 1987, has been very well received by all workers. The new provisions are fair and reasonable.
Mr. Speaker, it is my duty, speaking on behalf of the unions, companies and all other parties concerned, to intervene in order to obtain a fair deal for workers in northern Quebec and all Canada's isolated areas.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the policies of Canada Post are becoming more ridiculous by the day. For instance, in Summerside, Prince Edward Island, only one home owner, the Simpson family at 380 Brophy Avenue, does not receive door-to-door mail delivery. Yet each day a letter carrier walks by and delivers mail to a nearby apartment building. On April 14 I wrote to the Minister responsible for Canada Post but all I received in response was a form letter. He did not even bother to investigate.
Canadians from coast to coast are fed up with the policies of the Conservative Government which are forcing Canada Post to cut back postal services to our taxpaying citizens. I quote from a resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Federation of Prince Edward Island Municipalities:
The new delivery policies are discriminatory as new subdivisions will not receive the same benefits as an already established subdivision.
I urge the Minister to review the Simpson case and give that family what they deserve, good postal service.



TRIBUTE TO STAFF AND PAGES

Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, each year at this time, as Members of Parliament begin to think of summer recess and a break from the daily business of the House, it is essential that we pay tribute to those people who have faithfully and efficiently assisted this House in carrying out its tasks over the past year.
On behalf of all my hon. colleagues I would like to take this opportunity to thank the messengers, the Commons postal staff, the cafeteria staff, the restaurant staff, the committee staff, and all the other House of Commons staff for making our jobs so much easier.
I would also like to pass on my warmhearted thanks to the 42 pages who have clearly demonstrated their commitment and dedication to hard work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Paul Ravis: While attending university full time, these young men and women cheerfully and enthusiastically serve the Members of the House. As this term quickly comes to an end, these 42 pages will continue to follow a road that has already pointed to a future of leadership and achievement. I wish them good luck in their future endeavours.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) introduced the new Canadian Environment Protection Act. I would like today to express my concern that some of the headlines concerning the Bill may cause Canadians to take too much comfort in the actions of the Minister. I see headlines such as: "Tough New Environment Act". The fact is that except for the emphasis on fines, if we take a good look at the Bill we see it is not a very tough Bill after all.
When we look at the fact that there is so much ministerial discretion involved, so much devolution of powers to the provinces with respect to how the Act will be enforced and administered, when we consider the persistent exclusion of important areas of concern such as pesticides and radioactive substances, when we consider the failure to include an environmental Bill of Rights or to give individual Canadians a standing in the courts with respect to environmental concerns, when we consider all those things it becomes clear that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is not the comprehensive piece of environmental protection legislation the Minister of the Environment has been promising.
Therefore, I ask Canadians who are concerned about the environment to look at the fine print and not take too much comfort from what has happened so far.



NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, if we were asked to define the socialist Members of this House, I think we could say this is a group where each member has his own very narrow, very limited, very marginal and very eccentric ideas on one particular subject.
June 30, 1987

The fact that these people can be in the Elouse of Commons of Canada is the price Canadians have to pay for living in a democracy.
If the socialists want to get beyond the stage of undisciplined snivellers, their party will have to take positions that are more in line with the background and philosophy of life of all Canadians.
Meanwhile, we would like to know when and how the socialist Leader will comment on what was said by the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) about Canada's defence, without overlooking the positions taken by the Members for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) and Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), and his Party's resolutions on NATO and NORAD. I may refer to the resolutions passed at the March, 1987, Convention, Resolution B.4.3-B.1.1. paragraphs (8) and (9).
Instead of camping out in Quebec this summer, the socialist Leader should put his house in order and discipline his troops.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the environment protection Bill introduced in the House by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) on Friday looks good on paper as far as it deals with new chemicals. However, no matter how well written, it cannot stop pollution without monitoring and enforcement.
To implement the Bill the Government has allocated only $37 million over five years to be split between three departments, the Department of the Environment, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Justice. This $37 million is further divided between assessment of new chemicals, administration of the Act, and enforcement.
In addition, in 1987 the Department of the Environment has already lost 106 person-years and the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare has lost 22 person-years. In the face of these facts, how can the Government ensure effective enforcement?
How can the Government impose $1 million a day fines without the means to enforce the law? To be convincing, the Minister must make adequate funds available for enforcement if this Bill is really going to protect the environment and Canadians.
Oral Questions CANADA LABOUR CODE



MATERNITY BENEFIT PROVISIONS

Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is always a rush in the House at the end of June to pass legislation. As a result, quite often we do make mistakes in the passage of legislation and such an occurrence took place in 1984 when we made changes to Part III of the Labour Code. At that time we tried to guarantee that women who were on maternity leave, who would normally be receiving benefits paid by their employer, would continue to receive those benefits. Since then we have had a decision rendered in a case with regard to Bell Canada where the opposite has been decided.
Since Labour Canada promised the women of this country they would continue to receive paid benefits while they were on maternity leave, I call upon the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) to keep that promise and to act quickly to ensure a legislative change is made.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, some of us are going on vacation, others are going on the war-path. I am going on the war-path in the riding of Hamilton Mountain to make sure that Elizabeth Phinney is the next Member of Parliament. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, who is not going to be invited to participate in the Conservative war-path. I have here a copy of a brochure from the Conservative candidate on Hamilton Mountain. Surprisingly, the only Prime Minister he mentions is the former Prime Minister, the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark).
I looked through the brochure and could not find a picture of the current Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I could not find a mention of the current Prime Minister. There is not a single picture. No wonder the Prime Minister is not welcome on Hamilton Mountain. If he comes there he is going to be a liability and he will make sure by his presence that Elizabeth Phinney is the next Member of Parliament for Hamilton Mountain.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as we adjourn, hopefully, for the summer, I am sure

June 30, 1987
Oral Questions
all Members would want me to echo what an Hon. Member has just expressed, namely, our gratitude to the pages for all their dedicated work during the session. We wish them well in their careers. I extend the same to all Members of the Chamber on both sides of the House.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the escalating public feud between his Minister for International Trade and the chief trade negotiator, Simon Reisman. In a somewhat garbled metaphor given to the Vancouver Sun, the Minister accused Mr. Reisman of going too far in seeking the biggest deal he can. Mr. Reisman, in his characteristically subdued fashion, has responded to the Minister by admitting that there have been tense moments between himself and his Minister.
The Prime Minister said yesterday of this dispute: "There are, and there should be, differences of opinion on different aspects of the file". I submit to the Prime Minister that on a file of this magnitude, and of this high level of government service, a mandate so critical for the future of Canada, there is no room for this kind of public feuding between the two senior officials in charge of the dossier. Why has the Prime Minister not settled this public dispute? If the negotiations are in such disarray right at the top of Canada's team, why does he not call the whole thing off and regroup?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend is of course quite right when he refers to the complexity of these negotiations. This is an enormous burden and a great challenge for the negotiator, even one of the tremendous talents of Ambassador Simon Reisman, aided, supported and guided as he is by a tremendous Minister, the Minister for International Trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Both of these very devoted Canadians carry great responsibilities in a very complex and difficult area, made no less easy every day by constant sniping and attacks from members of the Opposition who seem to believe that they are favouring the American rather than the Canadian position in this matter. That has added to the burdens of both people principally responsible.
They would both be less than human if, in a matter of this complexity and this seriousness, from time to time there were not modest differences of opinion on given aspects of the file. But I can tell my right hon. friend-I can assure him and reassure him-that apart from the obvious competence with which the matter has been handled great harmony prevails.


John Napier Turner: I bet, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that the Prime Minister use his celebrated negotiating skills, first to introduce the Minister to Mr. Reisman once again, and then bring them together.
[ Translation]


REPORTS TO PREMIERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Mr. Reisman indicated that at the First Ministers' Conference, the provincial premiers, would, in his own words, receive "a fairly complete report" of the negotiations, but not necessarily on the details of the negotiations or on items such as a draft agreement.
Will the Prime Minister ensure that the provincial Premiers receive a report on the issues, a full report, and when does he intend to give Members the same information that U.S. Congressmen and Senators receive from their negotiators on a regular basis?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what kind of information is passed on to U.S. Congressmen, but I can inform you that meetings with their negotiators are less frequent than the meetings held by Ambassador Reisman with the Minister and their colleagues at the provincial level, as has already been pointed out by each of the premiers.
In almost every case, the information received is complete, and there is a high degree of satisfaction with the way negotiations are proceeding, especially in terms of the involvement of the provinces.
As for the meeting with the premiers, I can give my friend the assurance that the premiers will receive a full report on all negotiations.


POSITION OF UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I hope that is true. I submit to the Prime Minister that the Members of the House deserve a report as well, at least to bring us up to speed with respect to being able to assess these negotiations in a fashion similar to that of the leading members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives who are receiving reports from their negotiator. We are completely in the dark. The Prime Minister wonders from time to time why he gets the reaction he does-it because we are not able to evaluate what is going on.
Last week the Prime Minister said and admitted that he had received a letter-


Charles Joseph Clark: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: We are hearing from the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead. We will get to him in a minute.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: As Joe Louis once said of Billy Conn, he can run but he can't hide.
June 30, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that members of the public who are watching this will not know what has been going on. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it was a late night.
The Prime Minister refused to reveal the contents of a letter from the President of the United States in which the President expressed his refusal to agree to a compulsory trade dispute mechanism. Has the Prime Minister now replied to the President making it clear to him that any trade proposal which does not contain a compulsory trade dispute mechanism and meaningful restriction on the unilateral right of the United States to countervail will not be fair, will not be free and will not be acceptable to Canadians?
If the President has not agreed will the Prime Minister instruct his Minister for International Trade and his chief negotiator to call off the negotiations immediately?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jimmy Coutts wrote recently in The Toronto Star that the Liberal Party has, among other things, no position on trade. That is being made very amply clear. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition seems determined to sabotage these talks one way or the other.
I tell the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that in our judgment these talks are vital for the creation of jobs in Canada. A comprehensive trade agreement with the United States is a very important instrument of economic progress.
We have been negotiating with the United States at all levels, and I think we are making considerable progress. Whether we will be able to conclude an agreement, as I have always indicated, I do not know. This is a serious matter. There are very serious difficulties to overcome. My right hon. friend has indicated one of them.
From the beginning I have expressed the view that for a free trade document to contain an instrument that would allow the triggering of unilateral reprisals against one of the signatories is self-defeating. I have expressed that view repeatedly. It seems to me fundamentally inconsistent to seek, on the one hand, a liberalized document of trade, and on the other to allow that document to contain instruments that vitiate that very notion.
Indeed, I have responded to the President of the United States. I have very clearly conveyed to him the point of view of the Government of Canada, first, when he was here in Canada, then in Washington, and most recently in Venice.
As 1 have indicated to my right hon. friend time and time again, and I will do it one final time today, the Government of
Oral Questions
Canada has undertaken very difficult and, as Premier Bour-rassa has said, risky negotiations which are indispensable for the future of Canada. We are ready to take the risk to see if we can get a good deal for Canada. If we can, we will bring it forward for the consideration of the House. It will create the kinds of jobs that Canadians truly need.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S VIEWS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister questions arising out of his remarks. He has referred to the devoted public servants, the Minister for International Trade and the chief negotiator.
I would like to quote to the Prime Minister comments they have made recently. The Minister for International Trade said of the chief negotiator: "He is going nuts". The chief negotiator replied back that he thinks he might elope with the Minister for International Trade, which is probably full proof of the original assertion of the Minister.
The fact of the matter is we have two very clear differences between the Minister and the chief negotiator about the mandate for the trade agreement. Has the Prime Minister called these two chief officials together and asked them to get on the same track, to have the same mandate and the same approach toward negotiation?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the quote that the Hon. Member has selectively read to the House. I can only add to that that in terms of the selective quotes to which he refers I was expressing my empathy for the Ambassador-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: He has gone nuts, that is right.


Pat Carney: I was pointing out that the Ambassador's job is different from that of the Cabinet, and that he is operating in conditions different from those which existed in the past, because this Government has the greatest consultative mechanism any Government has ever brought forward for any negotiations of this kind.
I pointed out that the Ambassador must not only deal with Cabinet, but with the provinces, with the business sector, and with our consultative mechanism. This advice goes into his office within 24 hours, and naturally, this puts a lot of pressure on him when he has to negotiate within a limited time.
I think it is useful for the House to know that these are the most different negotiations-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 30, 1987
Oral Questions


Pat Carney: -in the sense that we have such a huge consultative mechanism, a mechanism that puts enormous pressure on the Cabinet and on the Ambassador and his colleagues.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, after listening to that reply, I, too, have sympathy for the chief negotiator. I think they both need a rest, Mr. Speaker.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: If I may, I should like to ask a further question of the Prime Minister.
He said, in response to the Leader of the Opposition, that he believes that it is absolutely essential that there be a major change in the trade remedy laws of the United States as part of any liberalized free trade agreement, and that he has indicated that kind of concern to the President on several occasions. I believe he has said that he has even written back to the President.
If, as part of the negotiations, the President replies and says that the United States is not prepared to make a major alteration and give Canada exemption to the trade remedy laws, is the Prime Minister prepared to pull away from those negotiations, recognizing that it would be a bad deal for Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is a very hypothetical question and, of course, it shall go unanswered. I can tell my hon. friend, however, that indeed it seems inconsistent to me, on the one hand, to profess a desire to seek a comprehensive free trade arrangement and also, if it were the case, to express the view that there should be retained the capacity for triggering unilateral reprisals against your trading partner with whom you would propose to sign the agreement.
To me it would have the effect, or could, depending, I suppose, on the approach and the wording, of vitiating the very notion of a free trade arrangement itself. And so we would want to examine all of this very carefully, as we are doing. It is part and parcel of a very complex negotiation which, notwithstanding some of the difficulties, is moving along quite well.


DOME PETROLEUM CORPORATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Energy. There are three things happening today. First of all, the proposed takeover of Dome Petroleum by Amoco will be settled one way or the other today. Since none of the major creditors has agreed to it, that is almost certain to be a negative.
Secondly, the rescheduling of the debt for Dome by its major creditors terminates today, which will set in place, perhaps, a very unfortunate financial happening within a matter of weeks; and third, the Parliament of Canada will recess for the summer without the Government of Canada having taken any leadership to provide a solution to the Dome problem.
Given the earlier two events, that is, the termination of the rescheduling of the debt arrangement and the almost certain announcement that the Amoco deal has not been agreed upon, what is the current state of affairs affecting thousands of jobs, particularly in western Canada?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me draw the Hon. Member's attention to the fact that the negotiations between Dome and its bankers have been ongoing, I think, for something like five or six years. These deadlines have come and gone. It is part of the over-all negotiations.
I think, though, the Hon. Member should feel comforted by the fact that the international price of oil is up. That has put Dome in a healthier position. It has put it in a position where it is able to maintain better relations with its banks, thereby avoiding some of the problems to which the Hon. Member has just referred.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows that that soporific nonsense isn't a solution to the very serious problems of Dome and all of the thousands of jobs that are directly involved.
I would like to ask him-


An Hon. Member:: What arrogance.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Since a CP wire story this morning has the Minister of Energy saying, about the Dome situation, that he is tired of Canadians seeing it as some kind of sporting event, and according to the Minister of Energy the Government has "a fundamental interest and responsibility in this", my question to the Minister is this. When is the Government going to live up to its responsibility, get the major players involved, including the chartered banks, including the management of Dome, to come in here, into Ottawa, and get a Canadian solution to this Canadian problem, before there is a disaster?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada does have a responsibility, and that is to respond to offers such as the one that Amoco has made for Dome to ensure that the conditions of the offer are consistent with the objectives of Investment Canada.
The Minister of Energy has stated quite clearly the list of those areas of Investment Canada that we are interested in as a Government, to ensure that any deal that is made will be for the benefit of all Canadians.
June 30, 1987


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTERVENE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since billions of dollars are involved in this deal, since there are some 50 million-plus acres of some of the richest, in potential, lands in western Canada are at stake, since there is a short and long-run Canadian interest at stake, will the Minister now give us assurance that immediately-and I mean within a matter of days, not weeks-the Government of Canada will sit down with Petro-Canada, with the other major players involved, and develop a Canadian solution, before Dome goes completely under?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I presume that the Elon. Member, when he makes that suggestion, is going to tell us exactly where Petro-Canada is going to get the $5 billion or $6 billion that would be required to do that.


John Edward Broadbent: Hopper has already told you where he can get the money, and you know it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Is the Hon. Member saying that we should raise the deficit by $5 billion or $6 billion, thus leading to a substantial increase in inflation? Is he going to take the approach that the previous Government took, and slap a five cent or ten cent tax on the price of a gallon of gas in order to allow Petro-Canada to buy it?


An Hon. Member:: Raise the price of gas.


An Hon. Member:: What are you doing?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Or would he raise taxes? Would he raise taxes to-


John Edward Broadbent: It is your responsibility. What are you doing?


Mr. Riis:: There are thousands of jobs in western Canada at stake. What are you doing?


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance is right, the Government does have a responsibility, and it is about time that the Government lived up to its responsibility with respect to Dome Petroleum and the proposed takeover by Amoco Canada.
The problem is, after tonight, this company, Dome Petroleum, could go into bankruptcy, and thousands of jobs could be lost; and we may not be able to have other bidders come into the picture until the end of March of 1988.
In the meantime the whole question is left up in the air. What the Government is actually doing is forcing this company into bankruptcy.
Is that the Government's responsibility? Is that what the Government sees as its duty to the Canadian public-
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: -giving away the resources, and getting nothing in return for them?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


An Hon. Member:: How did it get into this position in the first place?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not going to be fooled by the outrageous rhetoric of that Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Where was that Hon. Member back in 1980, when the Government that he was supporting took the action that put Dome Petroleum on the skids and put it in the position that it has found itself in for the past five years, hanging on by its fingernails because of the policies that were brought in as a result of the National Energy Program.


An Hon. Member:: Supported by the NDP.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member would do just as well to sit on his hands and not say a word, because he has a sad history with the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Government is completely ignoring its responsibility to the Canadian public. It is refusing to move to ensure that other bids are brought in for the purchase of Dome Petroleum. Is the Government saying-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will have noticed that the Chair made some indication to the Minister that there is a limit on answers, and I would also want the Hon. Member to put his question succinctly.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Is the Government saying that it refuses to do anything, that it will not intervene in any way to safeguard the future of Dome Petroleum for the Canadian public and the resources which Dome Petroleum has in Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked whether we will take our responsibilities. Yes, we will take our responsibilities.
We have said that our responsibilities under the Investment Canada Act are to ensure that a deal, if it is concluded with Amoco, will be consistent with the requirements of Investment Canada, that is, that the deal will be of net benefit to Canada. That is the responsibility we are taking as a Government.

June 30, 1987
Oral Questions


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. When Members of Parliament reconvened on January 19, at the beginning of this session of Parliament, we were informed of the Oerlikon affair which lead to the Bissonnette investigation. Then we had the Gravel investigation, the Stevens investigation, the Place Vincent Massey investigation, the Peloquin investigation, and a number of others. Today we learn of the Progressive Conservative fund kickback investigation.
My question to the Prime Minister is simply this. When is this going to stop? When is it that we will see a Government that gets away from this messy way of doing business so that we are not doing investigations, and gets on with governing the country as it should be governed?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister of External Relations):: Presumably, Mr. Speaker, my colleague is referring to last night's television news report. 1 should like to tell him that last fall when I was made aware of possible allegations I immediately asked my Department officials to get in touch with the RCMP, and the investigation is now under way.
Mr. Speaker, I might add that if my colleague carefully listened to or read the news report he would know that these allegations have to do with what may have been a deal between two individuals and simply do not involve the Government or CIDA.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we have heard it time and time again. We have had investigation after investigation. The news reports say that this situation in terms of making payments goes on with contract after contract.


GOVERNMENT INTEGRITY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. The people of Canada are sick and tired of investigation after investigation after investigation. They want this nonsense to stop.
When will the Prime Minister do something to start building integrity in the Government and bring this nonsense to a close?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I might remind my colleague that I said on several occasions that the CIDA contract selection process is quite open and very clear. Last winter I had the opportunity to issue a brochure which was sent to all my colleagues and all businessmen to provide a clear explanation about the contract selection process, and I would urge my colleague to come to
CIDA and see for himself why I am so proud of the way contracts are awarded, Mr. Speaker.


QUERY CONCERNING PRIME MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF ALLEGATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the same topic, the one reported in the media of a 5 per cent kickback scheme, part of which is to go the Conservative Party as compensation for receiving government contracts.
When was the Prime Minister made aware of the case reported on national television last night? What specific measures did he order his Ministers to undertake to ensure this kind of activity is cleaned up and does not recur in his already tarnished Government?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that the RCMP are investigating. Perhaps he ought to wait before passing judgments.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is not the system which is at fault, but the people involved.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. On May 26, 1986, in reply to a question I had asked in the House about the 5 per cent kickbacks, we were told that there was no such system and that the Government would not investigate. In view of the new facts which have now come to light, is the Prime Minister willing to request a public inquiry on the contracting policy of his Government and the allegations of kickbacks for the Conservative Party? Will there be a public inquiry, yes or no?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat that the contracting process of CIDA is very open and very clear. Since the Hon. Member does not seem to be aware of this, I invite him to come and check at CIDA how contracts are awarded. This is done very honestly and the firms which deserve contracts get them.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who ran for office on the basis of his reputation as a labour negotiator. The Prime
June 30, 1987

Minister will know that the appointment of a mediator in the postal dispute brought the hope of a settlement. Right on the heels of that we had the firing of 40 letter carriers which has clouded the negotiations.
Will the Prime Minister tell the Elouse whether he considers this action to be the result of stupidity, incompetence, or deliberate sabotage of the negotiations?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this action of suspension, I believe, and not dismissal of employees, was undertaken by Canada Post. The Government was not involved in the decision. I understand that it is in keeping with the spirit and terms of the contract which has now lapsed.
A commitment was made in writing by Canada Post to the unions that while the contract is no longer in place it will abide by the spirit. It is abiding by the spirit in this instance. Apparently there is a time limit between the action and the response of discipline, and the Post Office, I am told, had to act within that time period.


Cyril Keeper: Surely the withdrawal of the strike-breakers was an attempt to create a climate conducive to negotiations and the firing of 40 letter carriers destroys that climate.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR CORPORATION'S ACTIONS
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister face up to this issue and tell the House whether he feels the Minister responsible for the Post Office, who is his appointee, or the President of the Post Office, who is also his appointee, is responsible for this destructive action, or is it he himself who is responsible for this two-faced approach to the negotiations at the Post Office?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in the first question the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out that a mediator is now working with both parties trying to bring about a negotiated settlement, for which I hope he, along with everyone else in the House, would wish.
It does no good whatsoever to the process to have issues from the bargaining table raised in the House in a prejudicial, inaccurate fashion. I wish the Hon. Member would give Mr. Kelly and the negotiators an opportunity to reach a settlement and would not keep muddying the waters.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. We
Oral Questions
had a very unfortunate incident in the Alberta legislature recently. A francophone Member was denied the right to speak in French in the Legislature of Alberta. A Committee of the Legislature was asked to look into the matter and told Mr. Leo Piquette, Alberta M.P.P., to apologize for using French, his official language. I want to ask the Prime Minister what he intends to do to help francophones across Canada and especially francophones outside Quebec, in the provinces, to obtain recognition of their right to use the official language of their choice where and when they please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are going to work together with the Federation des francophones hors Quebec and the provincial Governments, and with language minorities wherever they happen to be, to promote their rights at all times. These are some of the realities that led to the substantial amendments to the Official Languages Act that were tabled last week. I think my hon. friend who has always been most vigilant about the official languages question will basically approve what the Government has done. In fact, our purpose is to create a climate more conducive to having this very important reality accepted everywhere in Canada, the reality of the Official Languages Act and all the consequences thereof.


RIGHT TO USE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES EVERYWHERE IN CANADA-OPPORTUNITY TO PUT PRESSURE ON ALBERTA
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, considering the insult-and it is an insult-to all francophones in this country, considering the threats Mr. Leo Piquette received, which went so far as to restrict his right to speak and even mentioned the possibility of imprisonment, fines and possible expulsion from the Legislature, and considering the intent of the Meech Lake Accord, the Official Languages Act and the latest version tabled last week, which provides that the Secretary of State has an obligation to urge the provinces to promote, assist and protect, I want to ask the Prime Minister: Is he prepared to call the Premier of the province, to put pressure on his Alberta cousins and friends, so they will finally understand, once and for all, that French and English are the official languages of this country-


Jean-Claude Malépart: No way he has to apologize!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -and that Canadians have a right to use both languages and that it is unthinkable that a francophone should suffer any restrictions in Alberta, any more than an anglophone would in Quebec? And I ask the Prime Minister to take action.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I personally find it unacceptable that a Canadian should be asked to apologize for using one of the official languages. The spirit of the Meech Lake Accord makes the broad assumption that the people and the leaders of this country will act with generosity and openness of mind with respect to the implementation of all linguistic measures. Members of this House know perfectly well that these may be

June 30, 1987
Oral Questions
difficult questions and that it takes a great deal of leadership to build a country in terms of the realities we all accept.
Personally, I would ask, as Prime Minister and, I assume, speaking on behalf of all Members of this House, I would ask the Members of the Alberta Legislative Assembly, which, if I am not mistaken, has Conservative, NDP and Liberal Members, to intervene, to join in the same spirit of generosity and openness of mind in seeking an honourable solution to this thorny issue and especially, to do so with full consideration for the interests of minorities, because as far as we are concerned, minorities are to be protected and respected. I think this is entirely normal and in line with our most fundamental values.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question and, I would hope, congratulations are for the Prime Minister. It appears that the unanimous voice of Parliament has been heard out west. British Columbia, as I understand it, has accepted the $106 million federal offer to designate South Moresby as a national park reserve. There are two added conditions, which I wish to put to the Prime Minister, both of which I think are achievable.
One, the B.C. Government wants the federal Government to open a Parks Canada Pacific region office in Vancouver, which I think is reasonable and needed; second, that the federal Government hold discussions with British Columbia on a ferry subsidy for British Columbia.
Will the Prime Minister accept this settlement in general since essentially the main components are those given in writing by the Deputy Prime Minister to Premier Vander Zalm two weeks ago?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member announced the settlement 1 was wondering whether he had had a call that I had not had.
While there has been a lot of work done-and we have been making some progress-there has been no settlement. I spoke with the Premier of British Columbia today. We hope to continue to make progress but the matter has not been resolved. There are outstanding issues with which we are attempting to deal. We have made progress in some substantial way but much remains to be done. I think the original comment by my hon. friend was perhaps premature.


PRESS CONFERENCE HELD BY BRITISH COLUMBIA PREMIER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, just prior to Question Period I received a call from a senior federal
government official who advised me that the Premier, as is often the case in British Columbia, had held a press conference regarding this matter, that he has accepted the $106 million federal offer and the only other two conditions which B.C. wishes to have met are totally achievable and reasonable.
Will the Prime Minister address himself to those in the House? Is he prepared, which I understand Parks Canada is, to open a Pacific region office in Vancouver, and hold discussions with B.C. regarding ferry and transportation matters in the Province of British Columbia?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, not being a British Columbian I did not know that successful negotiation depended upon catching the Premier's scrums. We have been in close touch-


John Edward Broadbent: It does.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It does?


Ms. Mitchell:: You have got it, brother.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is probably why he has been so successful.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have had very good dealings with the Government of British Columbia. This is a very important national issue which has been treated as such by the Government of British Columbia and by the Government of Canada. We have made, as my hon. friend knows, some substantial progress. There remains some obstacles which we hope to overcome. We are pursuing this vigorously very much in the national interest. As I indicated, I had another conversation with the Premier just about an hour or an hour and a half ago, and no doubt we will talk again.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. It concerns the status of Bill C-33, an Act to amend the Public Service, Armed Forces, RCMP and Supplementary Retirement Benefits Acts which Bill was first read in the House in December, 1986. It is certainly an important issue in the national capital region and I am sure throughout all ridings in the country.
Since I have had many representations from individuals and unions on this important matter, will the Government move forward early in the fall with the Bill as it now exists, or does the Government intend to make any changes to the Bill?
June 30, 1987


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. colleague, and for that matter his constituents and all affected employees, that we intend to move early in the fall with the Bill in its present form.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the annual report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee tabled in the House yesterday.
The report confirms that hostile foreign spies have infiltrated some voluntary organizations in Canada and that these organizations are receiving substantial funding from hostile foreign Governments. Will the Prime Minister indicate which Canadian organizations have been infiltrated and which organizations are receiving funding from hostile foreign Governments? Will the Prime Minister not agree that innocent Canadians belonging to these organizations have a right to know and, indeed, all Canadians have a right to know?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what report the hon. gentleman was reading, but it certainly was not in the report with which I am familiar.
I can tell the hon. gentleman, as I told the House quite clearly yesterday, that the only activities carried on by CSIS are carried on within its mandate as given to it under Section 2 of the Act. If the Member has any evidence that CSIS is not acting within its mandate under Section 2 of the Act, I would ask him to give me some evidence of it.


REQUEST FOR IDENTIFICATION OF VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Minister has not read the report. The evidence is at page 30 of the report. I will quote it for the Solicitor General.


Mr. Marchi:: Go slowly.


John V. Nunziata: "We have learned in CSIS briefings that hostile foreign intelligence services have, indeed, infiltrated some organizations and that substantial funding from foreign sources has been detected".
The Solicitor General has just displayed his abysmal ignorance and irresponsibility with regard to his particular Ministry. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he will immediately indicate to Canadians which voluntary organizations in Canada have been infiltrated by hostile foreign spies.
Oral Questions
Will he not agree that Canadians have a right to know which organizations have been infiltrated by these hostile Governments?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, we have before us the annual report of SIRC which renders a valuable service, and that is the purpose of that organization. We are investigating any allegations. As I told the Hon. Member, a review team has been set up to look into these allegations to see whether or not they are correct and to recommend procedures that will clear up any concerns that may have been raised in the SIRC report.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Printing firms in Saskatchewan, throughout the west, and indeed in the Maritimes have been concerned about the amount of federal government printing business performed in their regions. Can the Minister tell the House if any progress is being made in that regard?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am persuaded that the Minister of Supply and Services deserves the collective applause of all Members of the House for her attempts to regionalize printing and other procurement practices. In this regard, she has requested and indeed required that all Members' monthly booklets be printed and distributed in the regions. I am happy to report to the Hon. Member that Mid-West Litho was the high tenderer on a contract to do a great deal of printing in the west-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stewart Donald McInnes: -and it is expected that $10 million worth of printing will be moved to the regions this year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Canadians are outraged, first that an American sailor who allegedly raped a Victoria woman avoided apprehension by boarding his ship, and second, that both Canadian and U.S. military officials said yesterday that if the crime had been more serious, such as murder, the suspect would have been

June 30, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)
handed over to Canadian authorities. Does the Minister share the view that alleged rape is not a serious enough crime to force apprehension of a suspected rapist?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I of course do not share that view nor, I imagine, do the people the Hon. Member presumes to quote. The facts of the situation are that, in accordance with the strict interpretation of international law, the U.S. naval commander involved took back on board ship the alleged perpetrator of this act. That is in strict accordance with law. It is not, however, the normal practice.
The recourse open to us would be to trigger extradition proceedings. That can only be done in response to a request by the Government of the Province of British Columbia. If we receive such a request, we will act upon it.


PROTECTION OF CANADIAN CITIZENS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the Minister's response and his prompt action. As he knows, rape is a criminal offence in Canada.
I wonder what action the Minister would take immediately with the British Columbia Government to ensure that other visiting sailors are not above Canadian law and that our citizens are protected under our laws.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we will make the necessary contacts with the British Columbia Government and, in addition to that, we will remind American naval commanders and commanders of other vessels that might dock in Canadian ports of the usual practice, which was not followed in the case to which the Hon. Member makes reference.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East has one question and then we will have to close Question Period.


INDUSTRY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the potential loss of 1,300 jobs at a Firestone plant in Hamilton that only four short years ago received $13.5 million in federal funding. Three weeks ago the Minister said he was on top of the dossier. He will no doubt be aware that, as of this moment, management at Firestone is preparing to have some of its machinery taken out of the Hamilton plant and shipped off to Des Moines, Iowa.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to move immediately to force Firestone to cease any attempt to remove any equipment from that plant until we have had a chance to do an assessment of just how much of that machinery comes from
the federal Government's $13.5 million, or is his promise that the dossier is being looked after just more idle talk like the Moncton shops promise he made to the workers in Moncton?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion I will take that question as notice. Perhaps with her connections with the Liberal Government in Ontario, the Hon. Member may want to make representations there as well. I think in fairness that there is a certain responsibility for this matter that could be levelled on its shoulders as well.


TRIBUTE TO PAGE STAFF
Mr. Speaker:: Because we are quickly approaching the customary time of summer adjournment, I am sure all Hon. Members will wish to join me in an expression which has already been made in this Chamber, an expression of appreciation to all staff members of the House for their exceptional efforts on our behalf during the past parliamentary year.
Our sincere thanks must go to the Parliamentary Pages for their attention to our immediate needs within the Chamber. I think all Hon. Members would agree that the young people appointed to serve us as Pages have consistently shown themselves to be worthy representatives of Canadian youth of whom we have so very many reasons to be proud.

Speaking on behalf of all Members, I bid them goodbye and wish them every success with their studies and in their future careers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I should also add that the usual reception will take place in Room 16 commencing at five o'clock and the Pages, of course, are very welcome. Hon. Members will have a chance to meet with them once again, and I thank Hon. Members.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Before we move on to other matters, which I know the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) wishes to do, I do want to rule on a question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) and it will take just a few minutes.
June 30, 1987



I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on Friday, June 19, by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques. The basis of the Hon. Member's complaint is his assertion that misleading information was provided to the House concerning the government's White Paper on Tax Reform.

The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had stated quite clearly that the White Paper was not a Budget, and that statement was several times reiterated. However, on June 17, the day before the tabling of the White Paper, the Minister said:
It is quite clear that a Ways and Means motion will be tabled tomorrow evening.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in answer to a question asked on June 18, confirmed that the White Paper was not a Budget. The Prime Minister's exact words were:
It sets forth the general thrust of government thinking, but it is not a Budget in the sense that it does not, per se, take effect the very same day pursuant to a Ways and Means Motion.

The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques pointed out that the White Paper was indeed accompanied by Ways and Means Motion implementing a number of tax changes.

There is no doubt that the White Paper sets out a very extensive plan of tax reform. Although it is yet to be implemented by a Budget presented in the form of the annual financial statement to which we are accustomed, the White Paper, as I said in a previous ruling, has important budgetary implications. It was, as the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques noted, accompanied by a Ways and Means motion. However, that motion was not designed to implement the full content of the White Paper. The motion was limited in its effect and 1 would point out that Ways and Means motions are regularly tabled throughout the session. They are not restricted to the presentation of a Budget.
For this reason I do not think we can regard the tabling of a Ways and Means motion as in any way extraordinary simply because it coincided with the Minister's statement and presentation of the White Paper.

It was argued in the course of the discussion that, because of the budgetary implications of the White Paper, it should have been treated as a Budget statement and therefore be subject to a six day debate. The rights of Members, it was argued, have been infringed because they have been denied the debating opportunities normally associated with a Budget. This in itself
Privilege-Mr. Fulton
is not a question of privilege but rather a point of order. However, it is clear that in the view of the Government, the White Paper is a set of proposals as distinct from a Budget. There was no intention of presenting a Budget and therefore under our rules, the claim to a six day debate could not be sustained. However, this would not rule out the possibility of an extended debate through negotiation by the House Leaders.

To return to the question of privilege, the Chair, while appreciating the concern expressed, cannot find any grounds to justify according the complaint precedence over other business. If some Hon. Members feel they were misled, they have avenues available to them to pursue their complaints. I would emphasize that it is possible to be misled without being deliberately misled. As Hon. Members know, if there were any suggestion of dishonest motivation, which in this case there was not, the only course would be to give notice of a substantive motion setting out the accusation in precise terms. The fact is that we are faced with a political issue on which views are deeply divided. This is not an unusual situation in this House and, unless any action were taken to infringe our right of free debate and free expression, we are not dealing with a matter involving privilege.
To conclude, I think it is fair for the Chair to observe that if one considers the two statements made there is some basis for Hon. Members to feel perhaps that the situation was not as clear as they might otherwise have wished it to be. I thank the Hon. Member and others for their interventions.


ALLEGED ACCOSTMENT BY MINISTER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I raise a very serious question of privilege. When 1 attempted to leave the Chamber less than two minutes ago I was physically accosted by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and called a liar. I expect both an apology for the physical accostment and the use of that word.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has raised a very serious allegation. I might begin by asking the Hon. Member if this alleged incident was in or out of the Chamber.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, one of the Pages gave me a phone message and I went and picked up line two. I was just hanging up the phone when the Minister came up behind me, called me a liar, and then grabbed me. He is lucky I didn't loosen his teeth.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I guess the first thing 1 should note is that it is the last day of the session. I also note that the Hon. Minister has come into the Chamber. Perhaps he could adequately and satisfactorily resolve the problem by making a statement.

June 30, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead)


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to respond to the concern raised by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). I would begin by indicating that I would not be one to physically accost another Hon. Member, certainly not a fellow Member from British Columbia, and one who could probably do a pretty fine job on me if I were even to attempt to do something.


Mr. Oberle:: I don't know about that.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Second, I did not call the Hon. Member a liar. What I referred to the Hon. Member was my concern over a statement he is alleged to have made in British Columbia. To quote from a Canadian Press story datelined Terrace, British Columbia, it reads:
New Democrat Jim Fulton said Thursday in his home riding that "Siddon has initialled a tentative agreement with the Aluminium Company of Canada regarding water flows in the Nechako River in northwestern British Columbia." He went on to say, "The deal will allow Alcan to release only half the amount of water that fisheries department scientists calculate is needed to ensure the survival of salmon stocks in the river."
Furthermore, in a statement in this House last Thursday the Hon. Member for Skeena said, and I am quoting from page 7601 of Hansard:
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) has now sold out to Alcan with a private deal on water flows at only one-half of what his own scientists filed in court as the minimum required.
I categorically say to this House that there has been no agreement signed with Alcan regarding the Nechako water flows or the river diversion project. There are discussions under way of which the Hon. Member was apprised in a full briefing yesterday. No document has been initialled. In that respect, if he stands up in this House and alleges there has, then I could say he is misleading this House.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to put my seat on the line that in the lobby the Minister called me a liar, and he had bloody well better withdraw it.


Benno Friesen: Oh, wonderful!


Some Hon. Members:: Grandstanding!


Mr. Speaker:: We are faced with an allegation by an Hon. Member that another Hon. Member has called him a liar outside the Chamber, as well as there being some physical altercation. There seems to be disagreement between the Hon. Member and the Hon. Minister as to what took place. There is certainly a disagreement between them with respect to another matter. Whatever was said was not said in the Chamber and the Chair did not hear it. Neither did other Hon. Members. Whatever happened, happened outside the Chamber and was not seen by the Chair or by other Hon. Members.
I invite both the Minister and the Hon. Member, who are both well and favourably known to the Chair as fellow British Columbia Members of Parliament, to retire perhaps to one or the other of the lobbies-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: -and perhaps settle their differences, ensuring that in whatever way they do so they stay out of the Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINT OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) prefaced important questions to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) with a rendition of events in my Province of Alberta which may not have been correct. As I understood it, he suggested that a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta had been censured by that assembly for using French in the Legislature. My understanding is that the censure had to do with a failure to uphold the authority of the Chair. I think that is a material difference about which the House and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, who has now taken his seat, would want to take note.
[Translation\
The Prime Minister responded to a question of principle. He clearly indicated the attitude of our Government with respect to the official languages, as well as our commitment and determination to promote the expansion of the official languages. As a Member from Alberta, I have been in a position to see for myself that my Alberta colleagues here in this House and the great majority of my fellow citizens in Alberta share this attitude of the Prime Minister.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I consider that the Minister is raising a point of debate, but since he took the floor I should like to point out to the House that the work done by the Member for Ottawa-Vanier in this case is based on reports and letters to the Speaker of the Alberta Legislative Assembly, to Mr. Piquette of Alberta, to an impressive number of people, associations and representatives of such various interest groups as the Federation des francophones hors Quebec, Alliance Quebec, and other groups.
I accept the remark of the Member, namely that when MLA Leo Piquette spoke French in the Chamber he was called to order by the Speaker who said: In English, please. Then Leo Piquette had to comply. The matter was referred to a parliamentary committee on procedure and Standing Orders. The committee demanded that Mr. Piquette apologize. And that is where the matter stands today.
Reports in yesterday's Le Devoir, La Presse and other newspapers indicate that it was Mr. Piquette who said yesterday, in answer to a question, that he was 80 per cent
June 30, 1987

uncertain as to whether he would apologize for having used his mother tongue in the Chamber. I happen to know that sanctions which may be used against Mr. Piquette range from a fine to imprisonment, and even the suspension of his parliamentary privileges. And this is due to the fact that the Speaker intervened and directed a parliamentary committee to review the whole question of official languages in Alberta.
I am not passing judgment on the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. I am seeking the assistance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) with respect to the application of a basic principle, and the Prime Minister, being one of those who has been generous and understanding over the years, will surely agree with me that the right to speak French or English anywhere in this country is a basic right of all Canadians. I would suggest that a Member of a Legislative Assembly-in Ontario, in Quebec, in Alberta, or elsewhere-has the right to speak in his mother tongue without being harassed by his colleagues.
So, Mr. Speaker, I fail to see what the point of order which was raised is all about, but if we are to debate the issue I would be prepared to share my notes with the Minister and tell him why I raised this question in the House today. It is a matter of national interest, it is a question which concerns minorities and which happens to be the subject of a parliamentary initiative on the part of the Government which introduced a very important bill last week, a measure which, at first blush,
I am very pleased to support.
There is no doubt that Mr. Piquette's rights were encroached upon, I believe they were. So it becomes a point of debate as to whether his rights were encroached upon, and I think so. Must he apologize? I do not think so.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Lion. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) for their remarks. I know that they are completely at one in terms of the general principle. The Right Hon. Secretary of State was clearly rising to indicate that the facts were complex and that perhaps not all the facts had been brought forward in the questioning earlier of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I thank both the Minister and the Hon. Member for their interventions.



PERMANENT AND PROVISIONAL STANDING ORDERS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with the House Leaders opposite and I think you
Motions
would find a disposition of the House to accept a proposal which would amend the Standing Orders and have the effect of establishing a Standing Committee for the Disabled and the Handicapped. I think this is something all Hon. Members would welcome.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The proposal is as follows:
That Standing Order 89(2) be amended by inserting after the line "(d) Consumer and Corporate Affairs" the line:
"(e) Disabled and Handicapped"
and that all subsequent lines be relettered accordingly.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express the appreciation of the Liberal caucus that this move has been made to establish a permanent committee on the disabled and the handicapped. I commend the Government for this move. In addition, that particular committee has always displayed a very fine spirit of nonpartisanship. I want also to commend you, Mr. Speaker, for the outstanding leadership you have given in this field in terms of making the House of Commons a more accessible and fairer place for the disabled and the handicapped to enjoy and participate in.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Eglinton- Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille).


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the remarks of the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) and express my appreciation and that of my caucus to the House Leaders of all Parties in the House for agreeing to establish the Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped as a permanent committee of the House.
This was the unanimous request of the committee as well as of disabled individuals and organizations representing them who have appeared before this committee over the years.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to express my appreciation and that of the committee for the full support that you have given to the committee and to the issues with which that committee deals.


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my appreciation to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and my colleagues in the other two Parties with regard to this move. Indeed, it is a milestone in the awareness in this country of handicapped and disabled people. Those in the field understand fully that in the next five to seven years there will be a revolution with regard to the way in which handicapped and disabled people will be able to gain

June 30, 1987
Message from the Senate
access to and participate in our society. The standing committee will be a major vehicle through which those changes will be mirrored. I, therefore, want to thank the Elouse for its participation in this issue.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Elon. Minister. Under the circumstances, perhaps the Chair can observe for the record that all Hon. Members join in the general sense that that which we have just heard with regard to the handicapped is indicative that Hon. Members in this place are seriously working toward the resolution of these problems and a better life for these of our fellow Canadians. It is of significance that this matter has obtained the unanimous support of all Members of this place.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills, without amendment: Bill C-15, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act; Bill C-21, an Act to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Competition Act, to repeal the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1979 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof; Bill C-42, an Act respecting financial institutions and the deposit insurance system; and Bill C-66, an Act to establish the Veterans Appeal Board and to amend other Acts in relation thereto.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Private Members' Business
June 29, 1987-Consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-259, an Act to extend the terms of a patent relating to a certain food additive.
Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This proposal requires the unanimous consent of the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary who introduced the Bill can give us some
explanation as to the public interest in the Bill. A spokesperson for the Consumers' Association of Canada expressed concern over the legislation, and then a spokesman for the manufacturers of soft drinks indicated the same thing, and a spokesman for the Canadian Food Manufacturers Association, Mr. Don Jarvis, took a similar position. Mr. Speaker, I wonder, if, before giving unanimous consent, the Hon. Member could possibly explain how the public interest was protected in the Bill.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern in terms of trying to seek clarification. I would not be opposed to a very short, succinct, two-minute clarification as to what the intent might be, but I check for your guidance as to when you will call for unanimous consent for this Bill to be heard in the Chamber. That is the key.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to re-emphasize that we must have unanimous consent. I am preoccupied with this Bill. It concerns Aspartame, a cancer-causing drug, and we are giving an extension for five years to a company, with unanimous consent of the NDP and Liberal Parties. The critic for the NDP, who is the critic on the Patent Act, suddenly lost his principles. I cannot give unanimous consent to that Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The Bill cannot proceed without unanimous consent. I notice a number of Members rising. I take it from what the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) said, that at least at the moment he is not prepared to give unanimous consent. The Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) has indicated the same thing.


David Charles Dingwall: As well as I, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: As well as the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) and others.
However, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) was seeking the floor. I will hear him.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make a short intervention. I am disappointed that things have deteriorated to this extent. I cast the blame right at the desk of the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy).
If he is going to be straightforward with Members of the House, he will know that this originally was a decision made by the coming together of the three political Parties. The best information we had at the time indicated that this was an appropriate initiative to support.
It was in the best spirit of the House that the Conservative Party, Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party worked together. That Member is essentially casting allegations against selective Members. I want to make it very clear that that might not have been the best decision we made collectively in the House, but it was made unanimously and that Member supported it.
June 30, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion has been made that we proceed with this Bill. It cannot be done without consent. I will put the question to the House. Is the House prepared to give unanimous consent to proceeding with this Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: That ends the matter. I do not need to take any more points of order on this particular matter, but I will certainly recognize the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier).


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of the Bill, I approve the comments made by the New Democratic Party, which stated this was a collective Bill in this House. However, the Bill now before the House is not the same that was introduced previously. What we now have before us at this point, the amended Bill, is not the same legislation that passed the other day in this House and that eventually was turned down by the Senate and that came back in amended form.
Mr. Speaker, I am tremendously sorry that the long arm of the Liberal Party in the Senate blocked the bill and sent it back in amended form, it would have been possible to be fair both to the business side and the justice side, but since we cannot have unanimous consent in this House, I must yield to its will.
However, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that people in LaSalle and Ville-Emard will remember for a long time the long arm of the federal Liberal Party in the Senate that blocked job creation in the constituency for people in LaSalle and Ville-Emard. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, we will remember that when the time comes. Happy Confederation Day!


Mr. Speaker:: It may very well be a matter of regret for some Hon. Members that consent could not be obtained. Clearly, however, consent has not been obtained and that is the end of the issue. The Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) is seeking the floor. I will hear the Hon. Member.


Mr. Corbett:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add my voice of concern to the issue that is now before the House. As the House will recall, it was brought before the House just two weeks ago. It was received at first reading on one day, and the second day that it came before the House it passed second and third reading.
I believe substantial concern has been expressed by various Members in the House and, with all due respect to our friends from the NDP, my experience of yesterday shows that they obviously cannot be trusted to favourably put forth a position-


Mr. Speaker:: All that was before the House was a very simple proposition, it is that this particular Bill be allowed to proceed.
Small Businesses Loans Act
For whatever reason, there is not consent. It may be a matter of regret or something else, but that is the end of the issue. I would ask Hon. Members to co-operate in not rising further on that particular matter.
I know that the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) has very strong feelings on the matter. He has expressed himself. I think that is all that the Chamber can deal with at this time.

[ Translation]


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cote (Langelier) that Bill C-63, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to deal with Bill C-63, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.
First of all, I should like to say that we are getting used to seeing this Conservative Government coming up at the very last minute with amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act. Earlier in its mandate, in the Spring of 1985, the former Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt) had introduced a Bill to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act not for the purpose of improving it, but for limiting the possibility of Canadians taking advantage of this legislation to help finance small businesses.
What the Government was proposing at the time was to limit the amount of the guarantee. Previously, we had small businesses loans which were fully guaranteed by the Government but because of the amendment introduced by this Conservative Government in the Spring of 1985, the small businesses loans were guaranteed up to 85 per cent only. Madam Speaker, we indicated at the time that such a measure would reduce loan activities. Statitics now available show that we were right.
If we refer to the last report which the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion published on April 15, 1987, we see that, between April 1 and December 31, 1986, 6,780 loans were granted by chartered banks to small businesses under the Small Businesses Loans Act for a total amount of $557,196,962.
Compared with the same period in 1985, when there had been 18,444 loans totalling $560,133,192, there had been a considerable decrease between 1986 and 1985. This was following the Government's amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act.

June 30, 1987
Small Businesses Loans Act
Today, this Conservative Government is asking us to approve, very quickly as usual, a Bill calling for the merging under the Small Businesses Loans Act of the legislation which used to make it possible for fishermen to obtain loans to improve their equipment and operation.
If we compare both legislations, the old one which is expiring today and the new one which will come into force tomorrow, the $30 million global ceiling will be replaced by a $2.5 billion global ceiling.
But the difference is not that overall ceiling, concerning which the Government even at that point, in 1985, stated: Come now, we are increasing that big ceiling. What does that give us, a higher overall ceiling, when in fact all the other requirements do not allow Canadians to use the benefits in that act, which means less use? And we see immediately that under the previous act, one could have loans up to a maximum of $150,000, but that has now been reduced to $100,000.
We see for instance that the term to repay, which was 15 years, is now reduced to 10 years. And there is, of course, as I said, that famous 85 per cent guarantee, which used to be 100 per cent. Not to mention, of course, as previous speakers emphasized, the 1 per cent that must be paid up front to get those loans. But that is subject, Madam Speaker, to small business loans to the fishing sector declining sharply, more so than in the so-called SMB sectors.
This is why we oppose the legislation, Madam Speaker, and will introduce amendments to correct those gaps. I hope the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism-and this is one of his first opportunities as Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism to take part in the discussion of a Bill he is directly responsible for-will support our amendments, which of course would give us an act that at least will meet in part the needs of Canadians.
I would like to take this opportunity to state that on this side of the House, in the final report our task force on small businesses released this month, we are still expecting the Government report, the report of the task force that was established in 1985.
We are still waiting for the official report, although we were able to obtain a photocopy of this report which was printed in 1986 and which the Government is still refusing to make public.
I should like to say that in this report, it is clearly indicated that the Small Businesses Loans Act was to be amended to provide for a $150,000 ceiling instead of the $100,000 ceiling.
Therefore, in regions such as the Maritimes and British Columbia, as well as such distant Quebec regions as the Gaspe, the guarantee will amount to 100 per cent instead of 85 per cent. It is possible that in urban areas it will be easier, in view of the greater number of financial institutions.
In this report, therefore, we have established ... we suggest the principle of having a guarantee ranging from 85 per cent up to 100 per cent, based on the regions and the needs.
I ask the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, both during this debate and his study in committee, to consider this proposal and amend this Bill to make it more practical for its users.
For the time being, I conclude my remarks on this, but I will certainly have the opportunity to make others both in committee and at the third reading stage.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I want to praise the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt) for his initiative and his dedication to small businesses.
The fact remains that small businesses are the foundation of our industry. The larger corporations are not there to help us.
What surprises me, for instance, is that recently . . .
I would say what astonished me lately is that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) had supported Bill C-259-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Point of order.


Alex Kindy: -and it was a big corporation he was supporting.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I simply want to encourage you, Madam Speaker, to encourage Hon. Members to stick to the topic being discussed. We are debating the extension of the Small Businesses Loans Act. The Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) is going back to a decision the Speaker made a few moments ago. He has to learn the rules of Parliament. 1 would advise him to sit down and open up the Standing Orders and read them. I suspect he is capable of that. I would urge him, if he is going to be a parliamentarian, at least to learn the rules of Parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) is just about ready to join the two propositions together.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that when referring to small businesses which are the backbone of our society, because they create more jobs-that is why I am in empathy with them-and I think the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism is doing an excellent job-but I cannot help mentioning larger corporations which are certainly important but which do not create quite as many jobs as small businesses do.
That is why I referred to the Monsanto Company of St. Louis, Missouri, which, I think, is an international company
June 30, 1987

which is supported by the New Democratic Party. I find this quite surprising.
I wish to conclude on this and congratulate again the Minister.


Mr. Robinson:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member who has just spoken, I am sure inadvertently, is misleading the House with respect to important legislation. That Hon. Member could indeed have spoken or voted against the legislation to which he is now speaking. I suggest that he end his hypocrisy and explain to the House why he is not prepared-


Roland de Corneille: Order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: -to tell the truth on this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question regarding Bill C-251 was settled earlier. We are now discussing Bill C-63.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is as follows: Mr. Valcourt (in the name of Mr. Cote (Langelier)), seconded by Mr. Epp, moves that Bill C-63, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Adopted on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the Chair.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 78, I do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-63, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-63, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.
Clauses 1 and 2 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 3
Small Businesses Loans Act


George Baker: Madam Chairman, can the Minister please explain what the purpose of Clause 3 is?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Chairman, the present wording as stated in paragraph (3)(2)(d) is identical to that shown in Clause 3(1) except for the words "under this Act and guaranteed loans under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act". This amendment will require loans outstanding under FILA to be combined with those outstanding under the SBLA when determining whether a borrower has reached the $100,000 loan limit under the SBLA. That is the purpose of the clause.


George Baker: Madam Chairman, can the Minister tell me whether or not a loan outstanding under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act would be a loan that is guaranteed under the Act? I am asking this question because the banks have gone over their limit for the past several years. Does this Act mean that the loans that were issued that are no longer under federal government guarantee are taken into account under the new Bill?


Bernard Valcourt: The short answer is no, Madam Chairman.


George Baker: Madam Chairman, if the answer is no, then what loans would come under the Act? There are no loans out that are guaranteed after the limit was surpassed by the major lending institutions. In other words, would a fisherman who had a loan out, let us say on the North Shore of Quebec, who has been notified by the banks over the past two or three years since this Government came into power that his loan is no longer guaranteed by the bank because the limit has been reached now have to go back and get some life insurance on the loan because the federal Government no longer guarantees the loan? In other words, is the Minister saying that that is then not taken into account? Why would he take into account something that is guaranteed by the federal Government? There is nothing guaranteed by the federal Government under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act right now. I am asking the Minister what is guaranteed if the limits have been surpassed.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Chairman, I never thought I would have to explain to my learned friend, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate, how this Act operates. When a loan is made under the Small Businesses Loans Act the lender has to meet certain criteria. He has to make a business decision, which any banker must make, whether or not he will make a loan and have it guaranteed under the Act. There is no red tape. There is no bureaucracy here. It is a banker making a decision to lend or not to lend money to a fisherman. If he decides to grant a loan and seeks to have it registered under the Act, then when it is registered the loan is guaranteed.
The question of limit only arises when the cumulative guarantees taken all together reach a certain stage. Right now, for example, under the Small Businesses Loans Act the authority under the Act to give guarantees is $2.5 billion. I do not know exactly but we may be at $1.3 billion right now. So loans out there may be granted and registered up to the limit

June 30, 1987
Small Businesses Loans Act
of $2.5 billion. But those who were turned down by the lender, they were not guaranteed. But those which have been registered and which comply with the regulations and the Act are guaranteed and they cannot be affected by a subsequent reaching of the limit under the Act or the regulation.
I hope that I am clear on this.


George Baker: Under the old Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, which the present legislation will replace, a fisherman could receive a $150,000 loan. Under this legislation he can receive only a $100,000 loan. Does this mean for all fishermen who have, as the Minister puts it, loans under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Program, that now they have reached their limit and they can no longer get a loan under this legislation?
We have the best drafters of legislation probably in the world. It is not the drafters who are at fault. It is the people who fed them the information who are at fault, the policymakers. There is no such thing as somebody who has a guarantee under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. There is no such thing as going in to a bank and getting a guarantee in writing under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. There is no such animal alive in the federal Government. There is no such thing.
The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act covers the banker. If there were a slip of paper that showed that a fisherman had a guarantee under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, then 1 would take all of those fishermen now into court and sue the Government of Canada for not respecting its guarantee. The reason they cannot do that is because the Government of Canada says that it guarantees the banks up to a certain limit of pay-out.
Beyond that, all of the bad loans made by the banks are no longer guaranteed by the federal Government, and the federal Government will no longer make the payments to the bank. The result is that there is no fisherman who has his loan guaranteed under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
How would one know whether a loan was guaranteed under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act? If you go to the banks and ask for the number of loans guaranteed under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, they are unable to tell you. They would not know which loans were guaranteed. If there were two loans, one taken out 10 years ago and one taken out 5 years ago, both in default, whichever loan went into default first would be covered under the guarantee, and only provided the federal Government has not already paid out the full amount under that guarantee. So, there is no one who is guaranteed under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act in respect of any loan at any chartered bank in this country.
How do we tell someone that they qualify for a loan under the Small Businesses Loans Act because the limit under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act has not been reached?
There is no such thing. There is no such thing as a guarantee under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act because one does not know whether it is guaranteed until it goes into default, and it is then only guaranteed if the banks have not already collected from the federal Government the limit it sets on those guarantees. In other words, there is no such thing as a fisheries improvement loan that a fisherman has that is guaranteed by the federal Government. There is simply no such thing.
Each individual bank, under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, has moneys that it can put out by way of loans to fishermen; but if a given bank puts out beyond 10 per cent of the total amount allocated for such loans and there is a default in excess of the limit that it has, then the loans are no longer guaranteed by the federal Government.
When a loan is taken out, the fisherman does not get a sheet of paper saying that his loan is guaranteed by the federal Government. If they had that, I could then say to all of the fishing enterprises in eastern Canada which have received letters saying that their loans are no longer guaranteed that they would have another remedy. These enterprises have simply received letters from the banks saying that the loans that are outstanding are no longer guaranteed because the banks have surpassed the guarantee level.
If I had a sheet of paper setting out that fisherman X has a loan guaranteed under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, I could then sue the federal Government on the basis of that guarantee.


Bernard Valcourt: Sue for what?


George Baker: All of those 1,500 fishing enterprises could sue the federal Government if they had such a piece of paper. If they have in their hands a piece of paper saying that their loans are guaranteed and the bank turns around and demands payment now because they are no longer guaranteed by the federal Government, they could then sue.


Bernard Valcourt: Sue for what? They are the borrowers.


George Baker: The Minister has asked a very interesting question. Perhaps I can explain it to him.


An Hon. Member:: Good luck!


George Baker: In the case of a fisherman who took out a bank loan for the purchase of fishing gear and the fisherman then went into default on that loan, the bank could move in and seize his gear. Because of the bad year in the fishery, the fisherman cannot make the payments. He has no choice but to let the bank take the gear. The bank would then put that gear up for sale, and the proceeds from the sale may only amount to one-third of what it is owed. In that situation, the bank then goes to the federal Government and requests, under the guarantee, the balance of the loan outstanding. In other words, the banks make a claim under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
June 30, 1987

Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that the bank in question is the Royal Bank of Canada. The Fisheries official then requests of the Royal Bank information in relation to the lending period in respect of which the loan was issued and the amount of money that the bank has received under the guarantee in that same lending period.
If the amount received by the bank is under the limit that it has been assigned under the guarantee, the Government of Canada would then issue a cheque to the Royal Bank of Canada for the balance of that loan. However, if the Royal Bank of Canada has gone over the limit established in the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, the federal Government then takes the position that the guarantee no longer applies.
In that circumstance, the Royal Bank is not going to sit back and accept the loss of two-thirds of the loan. It would only do that where it is a default on the part of a lender from another country. The bank, in that circumstance, will then go after the borrower for the balance of the loan. It will turn around and say to the fisherman: "You took out a loan with us which went into default, and we were only able to recover one-third of the amount of the loan from the sale of your gear. Because we have gone over our limit under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, the federal Government refuses to pay us the balance under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act guarantee. As a result, we have to collect the balance from you. Either you pay up in 30 days, or we put an attachment on your property; we put an attachment on your home. We want the money now. We want the cold hard cash."
And the letters go out. In one case, there was a demand for $20,000; in another case, $30,000; in another case, $50,000; and in another case, $60,000. All of these individuals are making payments now as best they can, under whatever arrangements they could make with the chartered banks. All of the chartered banks are now doing this, every blinking single one of which is covered under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. In all, they are collecting from some 1,500 fishing enterprises in eastern Canada. As to how many there are in British Columbia, I do not know. I imagine there are quite a few.
The Government of Canada could have extended the guarantee. In light of the hard times in the fisheries sector over the last three years, it could have decided to extend the guarantee to cover all loans. But no such action was taken. We had a Progressive Conservative Government in power.


An Hon. Member:: Bad news.


George Baker: This Government refused to cover the loans. It took the position that it was no fault of the Government's that the banks had surpassed their limits under the guarantee. So, it chose to do nothing. In fact, it now brings in this Bill, doing away with the entire Fisheries Improvement Loans Program.
I come back to the question: What, for goodness sake, is in this Bill? This Bill says that one can get a loan under the Small Businesses Loans Program if one does not have a
Small Businesses Loans Act
guaranteed loan under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. How does the fisherman know whether or not his loan is guaranteed under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act unless he defaults? The Bank will not tell him whether or not it is guaranteed. The bank itself does not know until he defaults and a claim is made. There is no such thing as a guarantee. What is contained in the clauses of this Bill, Clause 2, Clause 3, makes no sense at all.
How do we, then, arrive at the amount of money? If a gentleman goes into a bank and asks for a $50,000 loan, the bank takes out the Act and says, "Do you have any guaranteed loans under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act?" The fellow says, "I don't know". Then he is asked with which bank he was dealing when he got his gear, whether it was the Bank of Nova Scotia or some other bank, and then he is told to check it out because they do not know.
If nobody knows whether it is guaranteed, if the person does not know whether it is guaranteed until he defaults, and if he does not know whether he will receive his payment until he defaults, how can it be in the Act?
I would like an answer to that very succinct question.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Chairman, I do not know whether I have the time to explain all the details of the Act to the Hon. Member. He seems to believe that the loans made under the Act are not tracked down. When a loan is made it is registered, and when it is registered, it is considered to be a guaranteed loan under the Act. If there is default and if it has met the criteria established by regulation, which the bank has, it will be covered in the case of deficiency.
The Hon. Member seems to think that this is only triggered in the case of default and that there is no tracking beforehand. There is, and this is why, at a given point in time, the Department can tell the banks to stop, that they have reached the limit of guarantee, not of defaults. When we look at the defaults under the Act, we see that there is very little. The Department can inform the bank that the limit of guarantee has been attained. This is because they are being tracked, and that should provide the Hon. Member with his answer.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Chairman, as I indicated to the Minister in second reading, I have a few amendments to propose. Before doing so, I would like to indicate that the old Bill has a 100 per cent guarantee and that under the Small Businesses Loans Act there is an 85 per cent guarantee. Perhaps the Minister could assist me before I put my amendments, because there is no specific paragraph or clause in Bill C-63 which mentions the difference between the 100 per cent guarantee and the 85 per cent guarantee.


Bernard Valcourt: Are we on Clause 3, or can the Hon. Member deal with any section of the Act?

June 30, 1987
Small Businesses Loans Act


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Member's question should relate to Clause 3.


Alfonso Gagliano: Before putting my amendments I would like the Minister to clarify the difference between the 100 per cent guarantee and the 85 per cent guarantee. It cannot be found in Clauses Nos. 3, 4, or 5-anywhere in the Bill. Will fishermen have a loan guarantee of 100 per cent or 85 per cent? That is what I want to know.


Bernard Valcourt: When a Bill before the House intends to modify only certain sections of the Act, only those sections are reflected.
The section about which the Hon. Member is talking is in the Act but it is not one of those which are being amended. I cannot tell him how he should procedurally try to make an amendment in this regard; it is not my job.


Alfonso Gagliano: Then I will move my amendments. I regret that we cannot get more information. This is the type of thing that happens when we pass Bills at the last moment. The difference between a loan guarantee of 100 per cent and one of 85 per cent is very important, especially where fishermen are concerned. However, because of the technical problem, we are unable to present a specific amendment to the portion dealing with the loan guarantee. Hopefully we will have another chance to come back to it.
Therefore I move:
That Bill C-63, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 5 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"one hundred and fifty thousand dollars."
As I mentioned earlier, this is to ensure that the limit of each loan will be $150,000. As the Small Businesses Loans Act now stands it is $100,000, and we propose that it should be $150,000 as was the case before under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I think we should take this opportunity to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act in that regard. The amount of $100,000 was set under the Act in 1980. If we take into consideration only the inflation from 1980 to 1987, it is normal that it should be $150,000.
I hope the Minister will support such an amendment.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Does the Hon. Member have other amendments which he wishes to introduce at this time?


Alfonso Gagliano: Yes, Madam Chairman. I move:
That Bill C-63, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 19 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"knowledge, did not exceed one hundred and fifty"
It is a technical amendment which goes along with the one I proposed before. Also I move:
That Bill C-63, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 24 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"not more than fifteen years after the date of'
This is to comply with the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act so that they have 15 years to repay their loans, since it is a reasonable length of time on a long-term loan. Under the Small Businesses Loans Act it is 10 years, so I have moved that the 15-year term should apply in the case of fisheries.


Steve Eugene Paproski: To facilitate everyone, and with the permission of the Hon. Member, perhaps it would be easier to change the order in which he presented his amendments. Perhaps the first one could be the one striking out line 19 at page 2, followed by the one striking out line 24 at page 2, and finally the one striking out line 5 at page 3. Do I have the agreement of the mover and the seconder to do that?


Alfonso Gagliano: Yes, Madam Chairman. I apologize. The amendments have been passed back and forth between my colleagues and I, and we must have inadvertently changed the order.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Chairman, before we consider the amendments, I would like the Chair to rule on whether they are in order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Chair considers that the amendments are receivable. Mr. Gagliano moved:
That Bill C-63, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 19 at page 2 and
substituting the following therefor:
"knowledge did not exceed one hundred and fifty"
Is the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate.


George Baker: Madam Chairman, I think the original motion is in the name of the official fisheries critic for the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for Egmont.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Chairman, for my clarification, I heard you call the amendment and I heard the noes. Then the Hon. Member rose to speak. I want to know whether the Member is speaking on the amendment that, in my opinion, was just lost or is he speaking on the next amendment?


Steve Eugene Paproski: I did read the first amendment and asked the question before realizing that someone was rising on debate. We are debating the first amendment.


George Baker: Madam Chairman, the Hon. Member will realize that you have to put the question before there can be any debate. Always. The question is put and then debate takes place. There cannot be any debate without the question being put. The Chair was absolutely correct in what the Chair did.
The first amendment, as I was saying, is proposed by the Member from Prince Edward Island, the official critic, the
June 30, 1987

Hon. Member for Egmont. The Member for Saint-Leonard- Anjou proposed the amendment in his place because he is the small business critic for the Official Opposition.
The amendment is very important because it maintains the limits that were present under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Program which is being discontinued by the Government and is being replaced by the Small Businesses Loans Act, which is a loans program for all small businesses in Canada regardless of what they do, whereas the Fisheries Improvement Loans Program was a specific loans program which had a specific responsibility toward fishing enterprises. Under that particular Act, the fishermen will lose their guarantee of up to $150,000 because under this Act the limit is $100,000. That is the main purpose of the motion proposed by the Hon. Member.
The other reason that this amendment is so important is that the guarantee is not as great as it was under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Program. As well, no fee had to be paid under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Program. By replacing one clause and one of the conditions to what they were under the original Fisheries Improvement Loans Program, which this particular Bill replaces, I suppose is trying to correct a wrong that has been dealt the fishermen of Canada by the Government in doing away with its loans program, knowing full well that the Partner Loans Program for farmers will be dealt with in this Chamber in a few moments time. But fishermen are wondering why there is a double standard for primary producers.
From 1945 there was the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act came 10 years later, in 1955. For the past 32 years everybody has operated on an equal footing. The farmers and the fishermen were guaranteed under legislation of the Parliament of Canada that they could walk into a bank and get a loan. Now, only the farmer will be able to walk into a bank and get a loan under the Farm Improvement Loans Program, which is to be dealt with in this Chamber in a few moments time. The fishermen will be left out in the cold. The fishermen will be left out in the boats all by themselves. They wonder why the double standard.
Why did the Government of Canada pick on the fishermen? Why did the Government set the fishermen adrift? Why is the Government dealing with the farmers in just the opposite way by letting them have their own loans program and guarantees? The fishermen of Canada have a right to know why. The Government of Canada gives them no reason. The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism stood in the House and said, "This is what we have to do. We cannot give them $150,000 anymore, just $100,000. We cannot give them 100 per cent guarantees, only 80 per cent to 85 per cent". Now when the fishermen walk into the banks, they have to pay to get a loan. When the fishermen go into a bank now, out of their own pockets they will have to lay down some money for the fee that has to be paid by the bank. The bank will not charge the fee. The bank will pay a fee in order to take
Small Businesses Loans Act
advantage of the loans program to secure 85 per cent of their loan. The bank will see 85 per cent of $100,000 and consider for what type of individual. The banks will consider it a fishing enterprise, and note that fishing enterprises defaulted substantially in the past five years. The banks can say, "We all reached our limits, so why loan fishermen money at such a risk when we can loan money to someone who is not in the primary end of production but somebody who deals in nightclubs, for example? Why should we loan money to fishermen and take such a chance? Besides, fishermen will not have the fee to pay the banks anyway. Fishermen will probably turn to the finance companies.
Fishermen ask, why the double standard. Why is it if this Act will replace the old one that the limit is $100,000 and not $150,000? I know the New Democrats are anxious to have a few words about this atrocious Bill. I know the New Democrats are going to speak up now.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Give them a chance.


George Baker: There is the Member from Nova Scotia who is concerned about his Nova Scotia fishermen. Here they are being discriminated against by the Government of Canada. The Member for Nova Scotia will not take that. He will stand up in a minute and he will criticize the Government of Canada. He will demand what the Hon. Member here proposed a few moments ago, namely, raise the limit to $150,000. The Member from Nova Scotia will stand up and do that because he is not going to take it on behalf of the fishermen of Nova Scotia.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Will you sit down so I might stand up?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: If that is a promise, I think perhaps I should sit down, Madam Chairman.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Chairman, I watched my friend, who is one of the more vibrant persons in the Opposition. I have been most entranced with what he has said and I agree with a lot of what he has said. I am awfully glad he sat down, and I am going to sit down too.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Chairman, it is not often that I get a chance to speak on a fisheries matter. I do not know or claim to know a great deal about the fisheries. I do note that there is a principle being used in this Act that the Government is attempting to implement in the other improvement loans acts, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and I want to say a few words about the principle. I think it is a bad principle on which the Government is embarking with user fees which attempt to pay part of the cost of insuring the loan insurance which the Government provides to the lending institutions.
With the Farm Loans Act, which we will be coming to, the Government is proposing initially to put a half of 1 per cent of the loan into the insurance fund. The same principle is being

June 30, 1987
Small Businesses Loans Act
applied here with the Fisheries Loans Act. For all parliamentarians, whether fishermen, farmers or those responsible for speaking on behalf of fishermen or farmers it is an even larger principle, namely, the principle being enshrined in these acts. It is one of permitting the Minister and the Government of the day, whatever day it might be, to change the particular fee to any level the Government wishes. It is listed nominally at half a point, but the Bill then goes on to explain "Or other rate that the Minister or the Government of the day may determine".
That is not exactly consistent with parliamentary process. The function of Parliament is supposed to be to authorize the Government to levy taxes, but it does not normally levy taxes with an open-ended agreement. It does not meet once a year and say: "Flere is authority to collect whatever taxes you want." There is usually a limit to the amount permitted by the Act. This Bill and the Farm Improvement Loans Bill which will perhaps follow later on today has no such limit on the Minister or the Government. It simply gives them authority to set that particular fee, and that is a form of taxation, I submit. I think it really stretches the practices and usual procedures of Parliament. That was why I wanted to speak on this particular aspect of the loans Bill and to call attention to the same principle which is being attempted to be applied in other loans Acts that may be presented to the House later this day.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Gagliano) negatived: yeas, 12; nays, 22.
[ Translation]


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Madam Chairman, I simply want to point out that Members are going in and out during divisions. Some Members came in during division, which is irregular and contrary to the Standing Orders. I hope this practice will end before the next divisions.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Chairman, it is the same thing on the Opposition side. I saw Members going in and out. They are doing the same thing on the other side.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The question is now on the second amendment. Mr. Gagliano, seconded by Mr. Baker, moved:
That Bill C-63, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 24 at page 2 and
substituting the following therefor:
"not more than 15 years after the date of'.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?


George Baker: Madam Chairman, this motion was originally put by the official critic for the Official Opposition in the name of the Hon. Member for Egmont and then, during
debate on the Bill, was put by the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou, who is the critic for the Small Businesses Loans Act. This amendment attempts to take back one more of the things that were removed by this Bill but were originally in the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, and that is the period of time required for repayment.
The Government has imposed more restrictions on the borrowing of the money. It has imposed a fee upon the borrower and has told the borrower that he will have to fix up with the bank the remaining 15 per cent that the Government cannot guarantee, and then the Government turned around and said that even though he cannot borrow as much money, he has to pay it back in a shorter period of time. That is why the fisheries critic and the small businesses critic of the Official Opposition proposed this particular amendment. They were simply trying to get back a small portion of what the Government removed from the loans program that was designed for fishermen and had been in place for 32 years.
The other instance when this amendment becomes very important is when the amount of the repayment will increase substantially, and this will cause the bank to want payment more quickly during bad seasons. The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act has no such arrangement. In the off-season when the ice was in all around the coastline and fishermen could not get out and could not make payments to the bank under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, there was always a mechanism for the Government of Canada to talk to the banks and make arrangements for fishermen to pay when they could afford to pay during that season. Under the Small Businesses Loans Act, no such arrangement will be made. The fisherman will either have to pay up or he will lose his equipment, his boat or whatever he borrowed money to purchase under the Small Businesses Loans Act.
Unless the Government turns around and says it will guarantee 100 per cent of the loan and it will lengthen the period for repayment, then I believe that fishermen will not be issued any loans by the chartered banks in Canada. This motion would simply give back what the Government is again taking away at a bad time for the fishermen of Canada.
I would say that not one Hon. Member should disagree with this amendment. What earthly reason would someone have to disagree with it? Would it be loyalty to the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House Leader or to the Minister responsible for small businesses? What reason would even the Minister have for turning down this amendment? There is no reason whatsoever. However, I am sure he will now rise to tell us why he is opposed to this amendment. It is his Bill. He should at least tell us why he is opposed to stretching the repayment period from 10 years to the 15 years fishermen were always used to.
I would also expect the standard support from members of the New Democratic Party for this excellent amendment.
June 30, 1987


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Steve Eugene Paproski: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Steve Eugene Paproski: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gagliano) negatived.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We shall now move to the next question. Mr. Gagliano, seconded by Mr. Baker, moved:
That Bill C-63, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 5 at page 3 and
substituting the following therefor:
"one hundred and fifty thousand dollars".


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?


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 please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Steve Eugene Paproski: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Gagliano) negatived.


George Baker: Point of order. I wonder if the Chair can explain why it changed the pattern of voting on this clause.


Steve Eugene Paproski: There were two ways of doing it. The first time I did not call the yeas and nays and count the votes. If Hon. Members had wanted a count 1 certainly would have asked for it. As I was told the amendment was negatived on division a count was not necessary.
Small Businesses Loans Act
Shall Clause 3 now carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Bernard Valcourt: that Bill C-63, as amended, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bernard Valcourt: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


George Baker: Madam
Speaker, this Bill receiving third reading is one of the worst Bills presented to the House of Commons probably in this century.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: It is a black mark against fishermen. I am surprised at certain Members from fishing provinces where hundreds of fishermen thought they had guarantees from the Government. They do not have money to spare. They are not rich people. They do not get a guaranteed income like Members of Parliament do. They do not get a salary cheque every month. They are at the whim of the weather, the fish, international affairs, the French, American and Russian fishing fleets, and the European Economic Community. Now we see the Government of Canada removing the only guaranteed loans program they had. The Government has removed the guarantee and put in a fee. It has created two classes of primary producers. We have just dealt with the Fisheries Improvement Loans Program and told the fishermen of Canada what we are going to do with them, and in a few minutes we are going to deal with the Farm Improvement Loans Program. The fishermen's program is thrown clean out the window.
You will notice that the two programs are almost identical, only one word is different. Yet that one word makes a big difference to the Government. The Government has said it is going to throw one Act out the window and reinstate the other one. The fishermen are going to wonder why.
Does anyone really believe that under this Act the fishermen in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland or P.E.I. are going to get a loan from a bank manager? Why would a bank manager issue a fisherman a loan under this piece of paper here? They will not. There is no 100 per cent guarantee. They are not going to

June 30, 1987
Small Businesses Loans Act
issue the loan anyway because fishermen in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland today by the hundreds have been foreclosed on. They thought they had a guarantee under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Program.
1 must admit the banks are not being fair to the Government. They are telling the fishermen that the Government is at fault. The Government is not at fault. The Government had a limit for the banks and the banks should have known that. Yet now we have the ultimate movement by the Government of Canada to do away with the entire loans program for fishermen, but not the loans program for farmers. That will be reenacted in a few moments in this Chamber.
The fishermen's program is now gone and one wonders why. There is only one conclusion I can come to. Apart from trying to save money, apart from the fact that the Government did not want to extend the guarantee to those poor fishermen who could not meet the demands for payment that they received in letters from big law firms-big law firms-


Mr. Horner:: You said that.


George Baker: Yes, I said it and I will say it a hundred times- from big law firms. They sent out these letters to the poor fishermen and told them to pay up in 30 days or they are going to be taken to court and their property seized. Instead of doing something about that under the program, the Government of Canada throws it out the window and says "We are going to cover fishermen under the Small Businesses Loans Act". That is the purpose of this Bill before us today.
The truth of the matter is that fishing enterprises were always considered under the Small Businesses Loans Act. If you are into aquaculture you get loans under that Act. Fishing enterprises were not covered substantially because of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Program which held that better guarantee from the Government of Canada.
There is no need for this Bill at all, but the Government could not just leave it and say it is going to extend, because both the fishermen and farmers loan programs end today. Today! The Government could not say it was only going to extend the Farm Improvement Loans Program. It could not say that because that would be too blatant, too absolutely atrocious for the fishermen of Canada. No, the Government said that with the conclusion of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act it would officially put them under the Small Businesses Loans Program like any other business in Canada.
Today the fishermen of Canada are wondering why they are being tossed out the window with their loans program. This is only the continuation of long disregard by the Government for the fisheries of Canada. Fishermen of eastern Canada from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland know that foreigners are overfishing and that nobody will do anything about it. They have seen it for years. They know how bad it is now because no one will touch the French fleet. It is off bounds.
A 64-foot 10-and-one-half-inch Nova Scotian longliner was recently arrested for fishing in an area in which a boat has to be 65 feet in order to fish. It was an inch and a half too short. It was dragged into port in St. John's, Newfoundland, from Nova Scotia. The fisherman was fishing off the Grand Banks next to an American skipper. The fisheries officer said that they could not board the American vessel because the Americans are not members of NAFO. It is a Canadian resource but we do not arrest Americans. The Canadian skipper asked why they were arresting him. The fisheries officer said they were arresting him because he fell under their authority.
While the fellow was being dragged into port in St. John's, Newfoundland, he passed some of the French fleet fishing with no licence. The fisheries officer said that they could not touch them because that area was in dispute. The skipper asked why they were catching him if the area was in dispute. The fisheries officer said it was because he is a Canadian-not American, not French, but Canadian.
That is the attitude which prevails. Fishermen will not take it anymore. Last weekend their capelin quota ended at 15,000 tonnes and the Russian quota started at 17,000 tonnes. There are seven fish plants in Newfoundland today saying that they want to buy capelin because they have markets in Japan and Taiwan. The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans said that it is sorry, but the quota was 15,000 tonnes. The fishermen said, "Yes, but you call it an under-utilized species". The federal Fisheries Department said that that is why it was given it to the Russians.
So the Russians can now start their quota at 17,000 tonnes and fish until December 31. The poor fishermen are sitting back, not allowed to catch capelin although they have licences, because the market quota is gone.
Today the Government of Canada has introduced another Act. The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) and the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) will have a few words to say on that farm Bill. We are all anxious to see what is in it. I am sure there must be something bad in it because the Government is introducing it at the last minute. Maybe the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has more influence in Cabinet than has the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), although I doubt that.
After 30 years the fishermen lose their guaranteed loans program. After 42 years the farmers will have theirs renewed and we will see in what form in a few moments. The Bill on which we are about to vote is not good for the fishermen of Canada.


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?
June 30, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent to revert to the introduction of Bills.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.




Donald Frank Mazankowski: for leave to introduce Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that 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.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: that Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Customs Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this legislation. The purpose of this initiative is to enable the Government to improve working conditions in facilities at international bridges and tunnels with priority being given to Windsor, Ontario.
As Hon. Members know, these facilities have become outmoded over the years. Working conditions have deteriorated. It is necessary that the Government take action, if required, to improve working conditions and facilities to modern-day standards.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome this Bill, especially in view of
Windsor-Detroit Tunnel
the interest which has been shown by the City of Windsor to have it passed. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), the Opposition House Leader, has been advocating and working for the advancement of this Bill. We hope the Bill will receive speedy passage through the House this afternoon.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our caucus, and especially on behalf of the Members for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), I would like to express our desire to have this legislation passed. We think it is necessary, not only to protect the right of the City of Windsor to ownership of the tunnel in the future, but also to improve working conditions for the people working there at this time. Many of us have seen television programs showing the deplorable condition and what is happening at this time. It is important that we use the strength of the Canada Labour Code to make sure that there are safe working conditions. If the owners of the tunnel are not willing to do it, the Canadian Government should.


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, by unanimous consent, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
*
* *

Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent) moved: that Bill S-ll, an Act respecting the acquisition, operation and disposal of the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel by the City of Windsor, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The proposed Private Bill cannot be called without unanimous consent.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to send the Bill to Committee of the Whole at this time.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 30, 1987
Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to sponsor Bill S-ll, an Act respecting the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel. I am pleased that the Opposition Parties and the Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) and the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) in particular are allowing this Bill to pass today.
This Bill will allow the City of Windsor to purchase the Canadian half of the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel in 1990. This agreement was signed on April 24, 1928, between the City of Windsor and the company, following a Private Member's Bill of the Parliament of Canada, being Chapter 83 of the Statutes of Canada, 1927, to allow the tunnel to be built.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that our Party also supports this Bill, especially in view of the interest demonstrated by the City of Windsor, which requested that this legislation be passed by Parliament.
Our House Leader, the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), has advocated and worked in favour of this legislation. We hope that it has easy passage through the House this afternoon.


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, by unanimous consent, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

John Wise: that Bill C-78, an Act to increase the availability of loans for the purpose of the improvement and development of farms and the processing, distribution or marketing of farm products by cooperative associations, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I believe there is unanimous consent that the Bill be referred to Committee of the Whole.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-78, an Act to increase the availability of loans for the purpose of the improvement and development of farms and the processing, distribution or marketing of farm products by co-operative associations, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof.
Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-Short title


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, in the interest of conserving time, I will be as brief as possible. However, I think we slipped from second reading into Committee of the Whole perhaps more rapidly than all of us expected.
In all fairness, I might say that immediately after receiving a copy of the Bill this morning, within 15 minutes I had arranged for a full briefing meeting with my two opposition critics and supplied them with all the information that I have.
I feel it would be appropriate for me to point out the changes in Bill C-78. Basically, there are six changes. Number one is a very beneficial change for Canadian farmers in that the borrowing limit has been raised from $100,000 to $250,000. The second significant change in this piece of legislation is that we propose to extend the definition of a "farmer" to include producers who have off-farm employment. I think the benefits of that particular change should be evident to all.
Number three, the other change which will be of benefit to Canadian farmers would be that the Bill would propose a refinancing option. In our consultation with the banking community and with some 40 odd groups in the agri-food industry, the observation was made that it would enhance the legislation if they could consolidate existing farm improvement loans and consolidate debts as well.
The fourth change is another significant change in that it would extend the opportunity for co-operatives. As many Hon. Members will know, there is a lot of processing activity that goes on in the country and also a lot of marketing activity. I think Hon. Members could reflect for only a moment or two within their own regions, within their own constituencies, and probably identify a number of farm co-operatives which could take advantage of this change.
The other change is a small minimal user fee of one half of 1 per cent. It should be noted that this change would mean a
June 30, 1987

charge of $50 per $10,000 loan and there would be a $500 charge for a loan of $100,000. That is a once-in-a-loan-time fee.
The other change I want to note is that we are proposing in the Bill, as a shared risk provision, that the guarantee be to the extent of 95 per cent.
I thought it would be appropriate for me to make these few remarks at this time. I remind Hon. Members that this initiative will better serve the farm community by maintaining the prime plus one interest rate, by adding new financing options, by including producers with off-farm income by more than doubling the borrowing limit and by extending access for farm co-operatives in order to encourage processing and marketing initiatives. No doubt Members opposite will have some questions. I would invite them to make their remarks and pose their questions, and I will do my best to respond in as much detail as possible.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act which are being proposed here today, making it the Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act, are being presented at a time when Canadian agriculture is facing the worst financial difficulties since the 1930s. The Farm Credit Corporation is broke. Legislation should be brought forward to put the Farm Credit Corporation on a sound financial basis. The mandate of the Farm Credit Corporation should be spelled out more clearly, as has been requested by all the Ministers of Agriculture across this country.
The corporation is in a negative equity position of some $120 million. It has arrears of another $355 million. I think the Minister should be giving some kind of commitment this afternoon that he will be addressing all of the problems of the Farm Credit Corporation and not just the Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act which is before the House today. The Minister extended the life of the Farm Improvement Loans Act in December. He said he would be bringing forward a Bill with lots of time for consultation and discussion with the industry. Consultation with the Opposition Parties started this morning at about eleven o'clock. We now have a major Bill, with major implications, before the House and really no indepth consultation except a short briefing this morning.
I think it is important that when the Minister is bringing legislation before the House again that he be forewarned that we want time for consultation. I think there needs to be time for the agricultural community to make representations on legislation of this nature.
This legislation has some good things in it. It increases the limit from $100,000 to $250,000. It gives more guarantees to small lending institutions such as the Caisse Populaire and those smaller institutions. There is coverage, of course, for cooperatives. There is coverage for part-time farmers, although that was de facto allowed before. There are some glaring
Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act
errors or lack of coverage in this Bill. For instance, it does not cover consolidation of operating loans and production loans. There is no help in that regard even though many farmers are facing serious financial difficulties in that respect.
The clause on page 5 of the Bill seems to discourage banks and lending institutions from giving a loan, even though they do have the opportunity of a loan guarantee if they would not normally give a loan to an individual producer. The coverage of the loan by the guarantee of the Government of Canada would only be 95 per cent whereas before it was 100 per cent. This means that banks which will not give these loans unless one is a very good friend of the banker will be that much more discouraged. Either that, or they will have to cover a lesser percentage of the assets which are being guaranteed. So that 95 per cent rather than 100 per cent guarantee will be a further discouragement to banks to give these loans, even though they are at preferred interest rates. That is a major loss or lack of benefit in this Bill.
I think we need to be looking at instruments or mechanisms to force the banks to give these loans if in fact the farmers are going to be able to get them. Surely by the end of the summer, if this legislation passes today, we will have a clear indication.
In Clause 7 we see that the amount of loans which can be given out of $1.5 billion is not increased even though cooperatives will be able to borrow up to $3 million additional money. It may well be that the limit will have to be enlarged in the years ahead if the co-operatives make use of this legislation on a massive scale. Otherwise, the farmers will not have any funds available under the provisions of the legislation to do that.
As I mentioned, there is no provision in the legislation before us today to force banks to give these loans. It is great to have a program of Government guarantees but if banks will not give the loans, it is really not of much use. I think it is important that the Government exercise whatever moral suasion it has, whatever power it has, to ensure that the banks provide these loans to producers.
I have heard of farmers who have gone to banks, told them the legislation is there and asked why they cannot get the loans. The banks give a litany of excuses. They say their quota is all used up or they do not know anything about it. They do their best not to utilize the Farm Improvement Loans Act because they receive only 1 per cent above prime, whereas under the menu of various kinds of farm loans they have available, they probably pick up 2 per cent or 3 per cent above prime. Clearly there is a need for this legislation but there is also a need to ensure that the banks make use of it.
There is no provision in this legislation for a fixed rate of interest. At a time of low inflation it seems to me that we should be trying to secure a fixed rate of interest under this legislation, perhaps for a five-year period, since most of the loans are small loans. The average loan is some $13,000.

June 30, 1987
Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act
The Minister is introducing as well a fee of one-half of 1 per cent or larger, whatever the Government would set by regulation, for the use of these loans. So not only does the farmer pay 1 per cent above prime, he pays one-half of 1 per cent to the Government of Canada as a service fee. It seems that at a time of severe financial crunch we should not be bringing in more user fees of this nature. On a loan of $250,000, the maximum a farmer would be required to pay in terms of a service fee would be $1,250. That is clearly beyond all reason at a time when Canadian agriculture is facing serious financial difficulties. I will certainly want to address this matter when we come to the clause of the Bill which deals with it.
I believe the coverage under the legislation for loans will be set at 80 per cent. The maximum loan a bank will provide for farm loans, that is, for assets, will be 80 per cent compared to 75 per cent for equipment. The present provision is 90 per cent for land, which will be reduced to 80 per cent. The present provision for equipment is 75 per cent, which will be raised to 80 per cent. So there is some improvement. But the amount of a loan that can be provided against assets for land will be reduced by 10 per cent, which is certainly a lessening of the benefit.
The existing legislation runs out today. The Government should have brought in this legislation several weeks ago when proper public hearings could have been held, when farmers could have come before the committee to analyse the issue more thoroughly. However, in spite of its lack of suitable provisions as regards restructuring of working capital and so on, as well as the introduction of the one-half of 1 per cent service fee, I think we would like to see the legislation go forward this afternoon. Without it farmers across the country who want to use farm improvement loans for the next two and a half months when the House is recessed will not have them available.
I have some questions which I would like to put to the Minister. Is the Minister prepared to bring in, by regulation, five-year fixed-rate loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act? This is something which would be extremely beneficial. I would like to know whether the Minister is willing to make that type of commitment today.
I would also like to know when the Minister will bring in legislation to regularize the desperate financial situation in which the Farm Credit Corporation finds itself. It has gone into a negative equity position. It needs restructuring. When will the Minister implement the 9 per cent interest rate which was proposed in the national agriculture strategy by the Ministers of Agriculture and which was approved by the First Ministers last December?
Can the Minister respond to some of the questions which I have asked when he gets to the point at which he will respond to questions on clauses of the Bill?


John Wise: Perhaps I should take this opportunity to respond, Mr. Chairman. The Hon. Member for Algoma has raised questions on two subject areas. One is directly related to the Bill and the other is directly related to the Farm Credit Corporation.
It should come as no surprise to anyone why the financial liability of the Farm Credit Corporation is not as favourable as it once was. I think we have to draw the attention of Members to two of the main reasons for this. One of the main reasons is the fact that the previous Government's cabinet directive to the corporation gave it no choice but to be the lender of last resort. When it was given that mandate, not by choice but by the directive of the previous Government, it assumed some higher risk loans. That is one of the contributing factors.
The other reason is due to the refinancing that was necessary, again, by people who found themselves in some very difficult financial situations when interest rates, again under the previous Government, went from 10 per cent to 24 per cent. That in itself is an added input cost of well over $2 billion. Perhaps that is really as significant or even more significant than the shortfall that we have in grains and oilseeds.
The only measure that the previous Government took in response to the situation was the introduction of the special farm assistance program which assisted some 2,000 clients of the Farm Credit Corporation. However, additional costs were borne by other FCC clients. Since assuming office, we have introduced a special interest rate conversion program which amounts to a $80 million commitment. We have also introduced the shared-risk mortgage, the commodity-based loan and farm debt review legislation. We have also introduced farm debt review boards which are working, and working very well. We have also introduced the Canadian Rural Transition Program.
We have every intention of keeping the Farm Credit Corporation in business. The Hon. Member also mentioned another measure dealing with equity financing. The Hon. Member for Algoma will know, since more than likely he was a participating member of the study conducted by the Standing Committee which made a recommendation to the Government, that we are now dealing with that recommendation. We will have to respond to the House within a certain timeframe with respect to it. So we will be meeting that timeframe and responding, I think quite positively, with respect to other measures that could be taken with respect to equity financing. As the Hon. Member knows, there are other partners involved. We have been working with the provinces, primarily Saskatchewan and Alberta. This subject matter will be further discussed when I meet my provincial counterparts the second week of August in Quebec City.
With respect to the five-year fixed rate, yes, we are favourably inclined to give that matter serious consideration. I suppose that my only personal thoughts would be that if we do deal with it by regulation then that would leave the option
June 30, 1987

open to the farmer. I suppose everyone thinks that he or she might have greater accuracy on crystal ball gazing, but hindsight and history have shown that quite often when one gets into crystal ball gazing one is quite often wrong. Again, I think probably the farmer in consultation with his banking institution might be the best two parties to determine whether or not they enter into an agreement with respect to a fixed-rate interest rate or whether it be on a floating basis.
Are we favourably inclined to looking at a regulation of that kind? The answer is "yes".


Maurice Brydon Foster: I find it interesting that the Minister talks about the five-year fixed rate. I point out to him that even at the bottom of the recession, 1981-82, a time when the inflation rate was 12 per cent, interest rates on FCC loans were running in the 16.75 per cent range. The interest rates today under FCC's long-term loan program are running in the order of 7 per cent. So, actually they are less than they were in the worst of the recession.
I am interested in the Minister's comment with respect to equity financing, and whether the Government will be bringing forward legislation on that or whether it will be done by Order in Council. Exactly how will the Minister be doing the equity financing? Will he be establishing federal farm investment trust legislation and, if so, will he be doing so first thing in September? Given that that was a matter of major concern in the recent study on farm input costs carried out by the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I would ask him to speak to it.
The Minister has been quite critical of the mandate of the Farm Credit Corporation under the previous Liberal Government. This Government has now been in power for three years, and it has not yet changed that mandate. It has undertaken a strategy with the provincial Governments which would see a much broader mandate for the FCC, with long-term interest rates of 9 per cent, as put forward in the agricultural strategy paper, and yet the Minister has declined to say exactly when he will be addressing both the financial problems of the FCC and the matter of the renewed need for a different mandate.
Clearly, the kind of situation we had in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, when land values were rising at 18 per cent a year, is very different from what we have seen over the last two and a half years, when land values across the country have declined by some $17 billion.
It seems to me that it would be very helpful for Canadian farmers if the Minister could indicate exactly when he plans to bring in an outline of the new policy in respect of the Farm Credit Corporation, taking into account the serious fall in commodity prices, as well as the decline in the value of farm lands.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether the Hon. Member is advocating a return to high inflation or not.
Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act
Listening to the first part of his argument, I am almost tempted to believe that that is what he is advocating.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Real interest rates.


John Wise: I ask the Hon. Member to check with any Canadian farmer as to his or her preference between the 198182 interest rate level of 24 per cent and the-


Maurice Brydon Foster: The FCC rate was never at 24 per cent.


John Wise: -and the 1987 interest rate level, which is less than half of the 1981-82 level. I am sure he will get his answer.
We have lowered interest rates six or seven times since coming to office-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Not on FCC loans.


John Wise: I know that there is a call for additional dollars for the Farm Credit Corporation for lending purposes. On the other hand, my hon. friend should know that because of the depreciation that has taken place in land values, as well as the financial difficulties in Canadian agriculture today, less land is changing hands, with the result that the demand for additional dollars for lending purposes by the corporation has been reduced, and reduced significantly.
I draw the Hon. Member's attention to the reduction that took place between 1982 and 1984. He will find that at that point, the demand had diminished from about $400 million or $500 million to about $285 million. That reduction took place at that point. The Government has every intention to continue to support the Farm Credit Corporation. It has every intention to supply the necessary funds required by the corporation to carry out its lending responsibilities.
When we came into office, $1 billion was required to operate the Department and pay the support programs. Since coming into office, some 471 initiatives have been delivered to the farm community, delivering over $6 billion. Even if we compare the last year of the previous Government, $1 billion, this year we will probably pay out $3.5 billion, or perhaps as much as $4 billion. So, we have increased expenditures by 350 per cent, 400 per cent.
If you apply that to your own household budget, your own farm operation, and if you, by necessity, have had to take 300 per cent more dollars and put them into another area, you simply haven't got money for everything. But, there is no question, nor should there be in anyone's mind in the country, that this Government is addressing those problems. The record stands unchallenged and unmatched by any other government in the history of the country. We will be providing the necessary support for the Farm Credit Corporation in order to ensure that it fulfils its responsibilities across the country.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Minister could tell us what justification he has for adding a user fee of what he says is one half of one per cent, but which I point out to him

June 30, 1987
Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act
could be much more. In the way the Bill is worded, there is no limit.
I draw his attention to Clause 12(l)(b) on page 9 of the Bill, where he will see that the fee can be set at one half of one per cent of the amount of the loan, as he described in his opening remarks. Elowever, it goes on to say:
-or such other fee as is prescribed or calculated in the manner prescribed.
The "manner prescribed" is subject to regulation, and we do not see that in this Bill. We do not see any guarantee, so to speak, that the fee could not be 1 per cent, 2 per cent, or even 5 per cent. This constitutes one of these forms of taxation that I referred to in my remarks on the Small Businesses Loans Act.
Parliament is usually quite loath to grant to any Minister or any Government an open-ended type of taxation. Perhaps the Minister could describe, for future legislators, what he sees coming out of this, and put some distinctions to it.
It may be that the matter may have to be referred to committee for later clarification. I do have an amendment which I will be moving, and we can discuss it at the time I move it. I have discussed it with the Minister. My amendment calls for the fee to be limited to one half of one per cent, with that becoming the cap.
I would like to have the Minister's thinking on this, with a view to reassuring those out there who feel that they may find themselves subject, in the future, to a much greater fee than the one half of one per cent, which is the present intention.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, there would be no purpose in my attempting to baffle or mislead my hon. colleague over this particular matter. He knows too much about agriculture. As well, he has taken a special interest in this particular piece of legislation, as has the Member for Algoma.
We have quite honestly and quite legitimately made an effort since assuming office to enter into a reasonable, common sense cost recovery plan. It has been difficult in agriculture, but we have advanced in certain areas in consultation with the industry. We have sat down with them, around the table, and we have done some additional cost recovery in those areas that were in a position to absorb. In other areas-and seed potatoes is an example-that were not in a position to absorb much of the cost recovery, the degree to which we cost recovered the services we provided to the industry was considerably less.
We have an obligation to the nation to do everything we possibly can to reduce the deficit. Even though we have increased expenditures in agriculture by 350 per cent, we still have a responsibility to do what we can in the area of cost recovery.
Yes, there is a cost recovery factor, and I think it is reasonable. I do not know how much smaller it could have been and still have been in keeping with the Government's over-all
commitment to introduce a cost recovery fee. As I indicated before, it is not great but it is new and it is there.
It will be S50 on a $10,000 loan, and it will be $500 on a $100,000 loan. I think that scale or schedule is ample evidence that it is not that heavy. It is a one-term application. Farmers can have the option of either paying the $50 on the $10,000 loan or rolling it into the loan.
I know what the Hon. Member wants. I would like to agree with it. However, Members of the House will realize that it is impossible for me to agree with what he is suggesting and what he is proposing in the amendment. It is no secret-it is public information and public knowledge-that because of the priority we place on agriculture there are some special provisions in the Bill, and the cost recovery fee would be a prime example.
We know that there are some very serious difficulties in the primary sector. We also know that if we apply a cost recovery fee, it could be about two percentage points. We are not doing that. We are looking at the last 40 years, and we think that a cost recovery fee of one-half of one per cent would be a reasonable one.
I know the Hon. Member is signalling a warning. I am getting the message loud and clear. He is telling me that he will be in his place, day in and day out, if there is an adjustment 12 months or 24 months from today or if any future Government decides that it should be adjusted. We will do everything possible to maintain as long as we can the one-half of one per cent cost recovery. We hope that Canadian agriculture will have some better economic times in the near future.
However, I heard the Hon. Member's message loud and clear. It is about the third time I have received it from him today.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I should like to spend a few moments speaking generally about the Bill.
It is a revision of the farm improvement loans provisions which have been available to Canadian farmers for some 42 years. It increases the loan limits from $100,000 to $150,000. It continues to offer loans to farmers at prime plus one per cent. It is now being extended to off-farm income farmers or farmers who receive part of their income off farm. This was probably being done by many lenders, but it will now become legal.
It is now possible to refinance loans under the purview of the Act. It cannot be used to refinance loans which were taken out to purchase fertilizers or fuel. However, if part of the farmer's loan portfolio was for building a fence, repairing a building, or repairing some machinery, he could turn part of the existing loan over into a farm improvement loan and spread it over a five-year to ten-year period.
I welcome the inclusion of co-operative ventures. A group of farmers can now borrow up to $1.5 million. I see this being used for processing operations and ventures of that kind in
June 30, 1987

small communities. Perhaps it is an improvement that it provides capital over five years of $1.5 billion. It is not an increase, but it permits the Act to function without the necessity of returning on an annual or semi-annual basis to Parliament for its funds.
The amount of loan guarantee is being reduced from 100 per cent to 95 per cent. Lenders who find that they have lost money as a result of a loan will only be guaranteed 95 per cent of the loan instead of 100 per cent. It is a shared risk option which I find acceptable in that it will perhaps make the lender a little more conscious of what loans he is providing. However, in these times when lenders are already super cautious, it will add a bit more caution.
What I find objectionable about the Bill is a user fee being imposed on farm loans. Although the Minister explained that one-half of one per cent would be adequate to cover all the losses in the last 42 years, I think it was an unnecessary item to add to the farm scene at this point in time.
What I am most strenuously concerned about-and I will attempt to move an amendment later-is the fact that it leaves a wide open opportunity for the Government to impose user fees at a rate higher than one-half of one per cent. This means that those of us who take our job seriously in Parliament are breaking our own tradition. It is the role of the Parliament of Canada to understand the limits of taxation on Canadians, whether they are farm borrowers, fisher people, or whatever. I submit that this kind of legislation does not live up to parliamentary tradition because there are no limits to the amount of tax the Government can levy under this particular provision. I assume it will be dealt with in time by the appropriate committee which looks at our procedures. However, I regret that a Minister of any Government would submit this kind of legislation without a clearly established cap or limit so that we would not have to continue this constant paperwork and loading up committees unnecessarily. I caution the drafters of Bills, particularly the Government and its Ministers, not to repeat this procedure.
I have another complaint to make while I am on the subject of process. This is the third year agricultural Bills have been presented to us just before the summer recess. This Bill is the ultimate in terms of presenting a Bill just under the wire. The Bill did not even exist until this morning. We did not have the usual time to absorb it.
It is normal for this House to have the Bill come before it the next day. We have allowed it to go through the House very quickly. We have agreed to let the Bill go through all stages even though this particular business of a user fee with no limit is potentially a very contentious kind of thing and we should perhaps have had the advice of witnesses before a committee before permitting it. I flag the issue and hope that the committee on rules and procedures-I know that is not the proper title-will catch it and refer it back to this House along
Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act
with a long list of other procedures and other things to be corrected. Meanwhile, I will attempt to have the House agree to correct this item in a few moments.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On Clause 4-Payment of Lenders' Losses
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, this clause provides that only 95 per cent of the farm asset value will be guaranteed. This means that the bank or lending institution will have to cover 5 per cent.
Could the Minister table all the correspondence that he has received from farm organizations as well as any studies which he has done as to the impact this provision will have on the number of loans which banks will provide? Specifically, I would like to know whether the lending institutions are saying, as I suspect, that in the past the Government has guaranteed the loan 100 per cent. Even with that situation where there is absolutely no risk whatever to the lending institutions, because the Government covered the cost 100 per cent, we had great difficulty in getting the banks to grant these kinds of loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. What correspondence does the Minister have from lending institutions and what studies carried out by the Department does he have which would indicate, as I suspect, that lending institutions will just be that much more reluctant to give farm improvement loans if they are not covered 100 per cent?
Can the Minister table that information and tell us what studies have shown with regard to the availability of a farm improvement loan when the Government is guaranteeing only 95 per cent of the loan as compared to 100 per cent.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I am not so sure just what correspondence it would be reasonable to table. I would prefer to take the Hon. Member's question as notice. We will check with the Department and see if we have in our possession information that will be helpful to the Hon. Member. Certainly it would be available to him. There is no intent on my part whatever of withholding information.
I can recall though in the consultations we have had with some 40 odd agricultural groups that suggestions were made that these were possible changes we would be considering and that they should utilize the opportunity to respond. I cannot recall any farm organization doing that, although no doubt there were some that expressed a concern about this.
It is no secret that the banks would prefer a 100 per cent guarantee. I think what the Hon. Member is really asking is something that perhaps might be on our minds as well, namely, that that will depend on what happens in the future. It will not be, on reflection, on anything that has taken place in the past but a review of what will take place in the future. Then we will review that to see whether or not it has had any effect.

June 30, 1987
Business of the House
I have my doubts whether the provision will have any serious effect on the banks' willingness to participate in the program. I am sure that all Hon. Members of the House, regardless of what side they occupy, would like to see Canada's chartered banks participate to a greater degree in the Farm Improvement Loans Act. We encourage them to participate. Because this Bill has some new provisions, it is expanded, enhanced and its availability will be greatly improved, particularly on the cooperative side. We will be doing a little more advertising than has been done in the past. Hopefully that will overcome any shortfall or any reluctance which the banks might have. But would they prefer 100 per cent? Sure they would, Mr. Speaker.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order with respect to Private Members' Hour. I think it would be appropriate to do it now before we get to the hour of six o'clock.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I will leave the Chair now and report progress.
Progress reported.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, we are making good progress this evening. We still have Bills C-62, C-70, C-83 and C-64, all of which we have had agreement on among the House Leaders and which will be proceeded with this evening. It is my understanding that the Hon. Member who was scheduled to have a Private Members' Hour today has notified the Table that he will be unable to participate. Subsequent to discussions that we have had among the Parties, Mr. Speaker, you will find there is unanimous consent that notwithstanding any other standing order, that the House not now proceed with Private Members' Hour today in order to allow for the continuation of business.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly prepared to agree to dispense with Private Members' Hour. I do want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) a question with respect to Bill C-71, the legislation which would facilitate the prosecution in Canada of war criminals, including those who have evaded justice for many years.
As I understand it, this Bill has the support of all Parties in the House. Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to accept the offer which I know that my House Leader has made on behalf of our caucus, and I believe has been made as well by the House Leader on behalf of the Liberal Party caucus, that we proceed with this legislation through all stages in the House today? We are prepared to move forward on this legislation, to adopt it in the House, to deal with it in Committee of the
Whole and to waive the requirement that it be dealt with in a legislative committee.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to accept that offer so that the long overdue inaction of a succession of governments on this fundamental question of justice can finally be dealt with?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I do anything else, I must cancel the Private Members' Hour. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, very briefly on the point of order, I take it that the Table has done its utmost to try to find a replacement for the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) whose hour it was today. I take it that we will be protecting future Members' use of this hour by exercising all measures and expediency to try to replace those people who cannot for reasons, which can be understood, be here to exercise their rights to use their hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 will take that as given. Private Members' Hour is cancelled by consent. I will now recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis).


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I was choosing my words as carefully as I could when 1 indicated that there was agreement among House Leaders that Bills C-62, C-70, C-83 and C-84 would proceed, time permitting. One would hope that we could expedite matters and get through not only the Bill which is presently in Committee of the Whole House but also those items.
I would tell my hon. friend that I have every intention of proceeding thereafter on things on which we do not have complete agreement and those are Bill S-6, Bill C-51 and Bill C-71 in that order. We have every intention of reaching them. The only constraint I have is time. One will appreciate that we are all trying to co-operate and deal with the items of business as expeditiously as possible. That means sharing the time available among those who wish to participate in the items of legislation to which I have referred.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. On behalf of my Party, I would like to say that we are willing to deal with Bill C-71 this afternoon through all stages, depending upon the mood and the will of members of other Parties. As far as we are concerned, we would like to see this Bill go through and we will co-operate by trying to pass it through all stages this afternoon. I am sure my hon. colleague from York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) would be in agreement with that.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I heard the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party and the Hon. Member from the Liberal Party suggesting that you
June 30, 1987

should pass Bill C-71 in all stages. I have reservations about it and I will not give unanimous consent. I feel that it is an omnibus Bill that deals with the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act and therefore should go to a legislative committee and be studied thoroughly so that it will become a good piece of legislation.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, there have been many consultations among members of all Parties during the day today in the hopes of recognizing the importance of getting that Bill through all stages today and satisfying the concerns expressed by members of the Conservative Party who continue to have reservations about the Bill. I would hope that in the time left to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred before that Bill is called, it might be possible to resolve those concerns so that the agreed procedure to which the Liberal Whip referred could in fact be followed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Exactly. I will hear no more points of order on Bill C-71. If there are negotiations to take place, they should take place not on the floor of the House of Commons but behind the curtains.


FARM IMPROVEMENT AND MARKETING COOPERATIVES LOANS ACT
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-78, an Act to increase the availability of loans for the purpose of the improvement and development of farms and the processing, distribution or marketing of farm products by co-operative associations, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof-Mr. Wise-Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: We were on Clause 4.
On Clause 4- Payment of lenders' losses


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, the point I was trying to make with the Minister is simply that the banks want a 100 per cent guarantee but our concern is that if they only have a 95 per cent guarantee, these loans will not be made available. I would have assumed that the Department would have done some kind of assessment on that and that is what I am asking for. I hope that he would be able to provide us with exactly what his officials are advising him about these farm improvement loans not being available.
The second point I want to raise deals with paragraph (h) of Clause 4(3). As I read it, this is a new section which suggests that the lender should exercise the same care and prudence in granting and administering the loan as he exercises in granting and administering, in the ordinary course of his business, loans in respect of which this Act does not apply. Does that mean that the bank will only make loans available if they would
Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act
provide a loan without the guarantee? If that is the case, people who cannot get loans directly from the bank because of their financial situations would not be offered loans by the banks under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. That suggests to me a real barrier.
Perhaps the Minister's officials could advise him if that clause will mean that loans will only be made available under the Farm Improvement Loans Act when a bank would normally provide a loan under its own auspices and take 100 per cent of the risk itself. It seems to me that that is quite a new idea and I wonder what the impact of it will be.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, first, my officials indicate that they really do not have any quantitative assessment of what the impact will be of 100 per cent versus 95 per cent. Second, they also advise me that after consultation, they do not think that this will be detrimental.
This is not a new provision. It was in the old Act. It is simply a change in the wording of Clause 4(3)(h) which has been strengthened to clarify that lenders are to exercise the same care and prudence with farm improvement loans as they do with their own loans.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat concerned about the fees being imposed in this particular clause. I therefore propose to move the following motion:
That Bill C-78, be amended in Clause 4 (3)e(i) by deleting line 41 to line 3
inclusive at pages 4 and 5.
This would have the effect of removing the ability for fees to be levied under that clause of the Bill. I so move, seconded by my friend, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Debate is on the amendment moved by Mr. Althouse. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Althouse) negatived: yeas, 7; nays, 18.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
On Clause 6-
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, again in an effort to clean up the Bill and get rid of the prescribed fees and charges, I move, seconded by Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):
That Bill C-78, be amended in Clause 6 by deleting lines 18 through 21 at
page 7 inclusive.
Amendment (Mr. Althouse) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 7-
Maurice Brydon Foster: Could the Minister explain why the limit of $1.5 million is not being increased when the program is being expanded to cover co-operatives which will be able to borrow

June 30, 1987
Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act
up to $3 million each? There are literally hundreds of farm cooperatives and if they all borrow $3 million each we would soon reach the limit of the funds available.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, we paid particular attention to that area this morning during our briefing session with the two opposition Members. The information received from the departmental officials is to the effect that this would not be a problem because we would start the program off with about $700 million. It is very doubtful whether there would be difficulty with a lack of capital for lending purposes even though we include the co-operatives in this Act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 12-
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to Clause 12. That clause says the Minister is not liable to make any payment to a lender in respect of any loss unless the lender has, at such time as is prescribed, paid to the Minister a fee of one half of one per cent of the amount of the loan or such other fee as is prescribed or calculated in the manner prescribed. I move, seconded by Mr. de Corneille:
That Bill C-78, be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 32 to 36.
That would eliminate the need for a fee under this Act.
Amendment (Mr. Foster) negatived.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, since the House has refused to agree to any of our amendments which would do away with the user fee entirely, I would like to make one last attempt at an amendment in a slightly different direction, that is, to do what the House normally does and put a cap on the spending the Government can engage in and stop what I consider to be an open-ended proposal in this Bill at Clause 12(l)(b) which permits the Minister not only to be paid a fee of one-half of one per cent of the amount of the loan but which goes on to say:
-or such other fee as is prescribed or calculated in the manner prescribed.
I submit that this permits the Minister or any future Minister to go up to 1 per cent, 2 per cent, 3 per cent or 4 per cent, or any other per cent. That is not usually the role played by this or any other Parliament in enacting legislation. In order to avoid having this legislation come before the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, which will find this Bill is not very well drafted, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp):
That Bill C-78, be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 35 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor: "the loan or such other lesser fee as is prescribed."
By inserting the word "lesser" in the appropriate place the effect would be to place a cap on the fee to be charged.
Amendment (Mr. Althouse) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 15-
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to the Minister that we have at the end of Clause 15 wording which limits the amount of the Government's liability to 95 per cent of the loan. That is well written and makes it very clear that the Government will not be liable for more than that amount. I commend that sort of writing to him and wish he had done that with the rest of the legislation. The motion which was just defeated would have been consistent with the rest of the legislation, and I again point out that I believe the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments will eventually have to deal with this one of these years.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 26-
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister would explain why he is adding "or a farm electric system". Is there a particular aspect of the present legislation which is inadequate? It seems to me that the Farm Improvement Act generally deals with all kinds of farm improvements, whether buildings, equipment or whatever. Why is this amendment being made?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, electrification has always been eligible for a farm improvement loan. I am advised that the definition was changed in the new Act. The definition did not specifically refer to the electrification of farm operations. So, a special reference had to be made to amend the Bank Act consequentially.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 33 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to take a few seconds to put on the record my sincere thanks and appreciation for the co-operation I have received throughout the day from my colleagues across the way, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) and the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).
June 30, 1987


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. 1 move:
That notwithstanding the usual practices of the House, if the House is not sitting when the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources is completed, the committee shall present its report by filing it with the Clerk of the House provided that the report shall then be deemed to have been laid upon the table.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I think we will need further consultation on this. Perhaps we can return to it at a later time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is, therefore, not unanimous consent.


FORGIVENESS OF CERTAIN OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE DEBTS ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Monique Landry, (for the Secretary of State for External Affairs), moved that Bill C-62, An act relating to the forgiveness of debts incurred or assumed in respect of certain official development assistance loans made by the Government of Canada to the Governments of Togo and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and also to the former East African Community, be the second time and, with unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole.
She said: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank all Members of this House and, of course, the two opposition Parties for deciding to consider this Bill and help expedite its passage today. 1 must say I greatly appreciate your cooperation because this is a very important and pressing matter for the the Government of Canada.
The purpose of this Bill is to forgive the debts incurred or assumed in respect of official development assistance to several African countries including Togo, Mauritania and the former East African Community.
I shall, if I may, outline briefly what is at issue here.
In the context of the North-South dialogue that took place at the Conference on International Economic Co-operation, in 1977 Canada decided to cancel debts incurred in respect of official development assistance by twelve countries included on the United Nations list of least developed countries. In December of that year, the Parliament of Canada enacted this decision.
Development Assistance Debts
The Canadian measure was favourably received at the international level. Obliging the poorest countries on this planet to repay their loans was having a negative impact, both on the countries themselves and the international economic situation. Canada was among the first countries to both recognize this fact and take concrete measures to deal with the situation.
Ten years later, Canada is still leading the way in finding solutions to the problems of the neediest nations in terms of debt and development, especially in Africa's sub-Saharan region.
In February 1986, we announced that Canadian official development assistance would no longer be defined in terms of loans but in terms of grants. This meant that developing countries would no longer be placed in a debtor position vis-avis Canada. Since the money would be given in the form of grants, these sums would not have to be reimbursed.
However, more had to be done. The sub-Saharan countries were faced with an unprecedented human and economic crisis that had taken on incredible proportions.
In May 1986, my Government therefore announced to the United Nations a five-year moratorium on the development assistance debts incurred by Sub-Saharan African countries which had implemented structural readjustment programs. This meant that these countries did not have to make any payments to Canada for a five-year period. The non-repayment period could also be extended by another five years if the economy of these countries showed no sign of recovery, and this up to the year 2000 if necessary. The entire international community, and especially the African countries, welcomed this decision as being generous and humanitarian. Indeed, it reasserted the role of Canada as concerns the critical situation in Africa.
This Bill is the result of the official decision made by Canada in 1977 to cancel the development assistance debt of countries on the least-developed countries list established by the United Nations. Since then, two other African countries, Togo and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, have suffered such an economic crisis that they have been added to the list. To ensure that our policy as concerns these countries remains consistent, the Canadian Government believes that the development assistance debts of Togo and Mauritania must also be cancelled, as well as that of the former East African Community. I remind Hon. Members that this Community consisted of three countries of which two, Tanzania and Uganda, are also on the least-developed countries list.
1 therefore hope, Madam Speaker, that the House will give all its attention to this Bill. It involves our international reputation. Also, and most important, these countries are being
[Stage Direction]
June 30, 1987
Development Assistance Debts
crushed by a virtually unpayable debt. We have to offer them an opportunity to recover. This is the purpose of this Bill.
Roland de Corneille: Madam Speaker, Bill C-62 deals with forgiving debts owed to Canada by a number of least developed countries which are not now in a position to repay their debts to Canada and will not be in a position to do so in the foreseeable future.
I am delighted to be able to have played a role in getting this Bill before the House and hopefully passed during the closing moments of House business before the summer recess begins.
We in the Liberal caucus want it to be passed now, before the la Francophonie and Commonwealth summit conferences are held so that Canada's credibility can be maintained in the area of international development assistance.
We are certainly pleased that the Government has brought this Bill forward at this time. We in the Liberal Party have pioneered official development assistance programs for many years now. As we know, not all of the assistance programs or loans of Canada's official development assistance programs are successful. Inevitably, some programs are not a complete success and some programs are failures.
We also realize the plight of the least developed countries. Indeed, the debtor countries involved in this Bill have suffered severe set-backs for some time now. Widespread drought and disease, and declining world prices in the staple cash crops they export has exacerbated the financial and social problems they face and rendered their debt retirements an impossibility.
In 1977, Canada announced that it was retroactively converting all these least developed country ODA loans to grants, as the Minister explained, and that in the future aid to these countries would be provided on grant terms only.
Togo and Mauritania did not benefit from the Canadian measure because at the time they were not identified by the United Nations as least developed countries.
However, Togo was added to the list by the United Nations General Assembly in 1982, and Mauritania was added in 1986.
Togo owes $16.6 million and Mauritania owes $4.2 million. The East African Community, or EAC, dissolved in 1977. It was only in May, 1984 that the three countries were able to agree on sharing the EAC liabilities according to a formula devised by a World Bank mediator, in an amount of approximately $47.4 million. Those countries are Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.
I am happy to point out that the financial costs of this legislation are nil. Decisions made at the time of the February, 1986 Budget mean that this debt forgiveness action involves no change in net ODA, no additional outlays and no additional impact on budgetary deficit.
In conclusion, I wish to express that we are pleased with Canada's policies on moratoriums on debts to least developed countries which are suffering so greatly from commodity price losses, from drought, and from many other social problems, including occasional invasion from outside.
I must add a sombre note and point out that Canada has been committed for years to the attainment of a .7 per cent of GNP as the ultimate goal of our official development assistance. We are gravely disappointed that the Government has been so very slow to implement the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) promise to increase Canada's ODA funding to .7 per cent by 1990. In fact, these figures have been greatly revised in a negative direction. It would appear that he is quick to promise but not agile in delivery. This is another broken promise which we deeply regret and which is particularly sad, as we go to the Commonwealth summit and la Francophonie conferences. I hope we will be able to anticipate some announcement there that will alleviate this decision.
In any case, on behalf of the members of my caucus I take pleasure in supporting the Bill which is now before the House for final approval.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I also will be very brief in my remarks. We in the New Democratic Party wish to express our support for this Bill, an Act relating to the forgiveness of debts incurred or assumed in respect of certain official development assistance loans made by the Government of Canada to the Governments of Togo and of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and also to the former East African Community.
It is obviously an important issue, and the whole question of Third World debt is something that has been receiving more attention lately. It is with some regret that we are speaking about this on the last day of the sitting when, at 6.35 p.m., there is just over an hour left to deal with four or five pieces of legislation. I wish the parliamentary calendar had provided for this legislation earlier so that we could discuss the wider problems along with the specific legislation.
Having said that, it is the intention of our caucus to pass this Bill through all stages this evening. We are pleased that there is some recognition of the fact that Third World debt is not only faced by countries in Latin America where most of the attention is presently focused, but an important issue facing African countries as well.
While the debts of those countries tend to be smaller in absolute figures, they are quite often larger in terms of debt- GNP ratio and in terms of debt-export earning ratio. It is a situation in which these prospects faced by many of these African nations and others are very great and something which the House of Commons should be considering.
As the Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) said on behalf of the Liberal Party, it is important to note that the Government has not kept its commitment of money for official development assistance. There was a promise to
June 30, 1987

achieve .7 per cent of GNP. That was delayed until 1990, then postponed until 1995. Now it has been postponed until the 21st century.
Despite all the problems facing Canada, such as high unemployment in some of our regions, we are still a rich country and we, of all nations, could afford to do better. I wish the House would not spend the time on this legislation but on the whole topic of Third World debt and make a commitment to do a better job for Third World countries.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, when 1 look at Bill C-62, 1 wonder whether it is the general policy of this Government to cancel debts. Is this a special case or will this policy be extended to other countries? If this is a precedent and there are other such cases, we could find ourselves cancelling all foreign debts, and our treasury would soon be in trouble.
On the one hand, if these countries are having major difficulties, I can, understand that we might want to cancel their debt for humanitarian reasons. On the other hand, I am wondering if it is now open general policy to say that if a country is unable to pay back its debt, this debt will be cancelled.
About a year ago, I visited Peru, which owes something like $450 million to Canada. This country is also under-developped and quite poor. Are we going to do the same for this country at some time in the future?
I think that we should have a discussion on this issue and that it would probably be a good thing to refer this Bill to a legislative committee where it could be discussed and improved.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Do I have the unanimous consent of the House for the Minister to answer the Hon. Member?


Some Hon. Members:: No. Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Am I to understand there would be unanimous consent of the House to go into Committee of the Whole?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alex Kindy: No. I have a reservation. I asked a question and somebody said they could not give me the answer, so I am not giving unanimous consent.


Philip Derek Lewis: I suggest to my hon. colleague that if we were to proceed to Committee of the Whole House, upon the appropriate clause being read, it would be appropriate for my hon. colleague to ask the Minister the question at that time.
Development Assistance Debts


Alex Kindy: I understand the explanations of the Parliamentary Secretary, but his attitude was certainly not conducive to my getting an answer. Therefore, I am going to refuse unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Perhaps the Chair could be of some help. It was not possible at the time the Hon. Member requested an answer from the Minister for the Chair to recognize the Minister again during second reading. Certainly the Minister could answer all questions should the House decide to study the Bill in Committee of the Whole House, but I need unanimous consent.
I wanted to explain the reason why I could not give the floor to the Hon. Minister.


Alex Kindy: So I will give my consent and, if the House agrees, it is unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the Chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I would like to repeat my question and ask the Minister whether it would be Canada's general policy to forgive the debts of all less developed countries.


Monique Landry: Yes, Madam Speaker. I would like to say briefly to my hon. friend what I mentioned earlier in my speech, namely that at the special conference at the United Nations in 1977, Canada decided to forgive the debts of the least developed countries appearing on the UN list. At the time, the following countries were exempted from repaying their debts: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Laos, Malawi, Mali, Nepal, Niger, Tanzania, Uganda and Upper Volta.
A Bill was passed previously in this House to forgive the debts of these countries. However, at the time, Togo, Mauritania and the East African Community were not among the least developed countries. Since they have now been added to the list, we believe it is appropriate, since these countries are experiencing problems today, to make the provisions of the same Bill applicable to them as well, but to do so, we have to table a new Bill. We are doing so simply to bring everything in line with the decision made at the time in 1977, so that we can extend the same treatment to Togo, Mauritania and the former East African Community. Their debt was endorsed by three countries, namely Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya, and we are therefore cancelling that part of the debt.

June 30, 1987
Hazardous Products Act

Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
On Clause 5-


Alex Kindy: Madam Chairman, on Clause 5, I would like to know exactly the numbers in dollars which are being discussed here.
[ Translation]


Monique Landry: Madam Speaker, the debts that were forgiven at the time as far as Togo is concerned-we are talking about $16,511,216; for Mauritania, $4,199,202; as for the three countries of the East African Community, for Kenya the debt was $19,750,000; for Tanzania, $15,463,738; and for Uganda, $12,185,241.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Bernard Valcourt: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By unanimous consent, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Monique Landry: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (for Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: that: Bill C-70, An Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act and the Canada Labour Code, to enact the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act and to amend other Acts in relation thereto, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? Now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre H. Cadieux: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Debate. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux).


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak about Bill C-70, which aims at providing every Canadian administration with a Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System.

As Minister of Labour I am particularly gratified to see the WHMIS legislation brought forward during this session of Parliament. The year 1987 marks the twentieth anniversary of the Canada Labour Code and, historically speaking, is an especially appropriate time to strengthen the protections for Canadian workers who have to handle hazardous materials.
Let me explain why I strongly believe Canada and Canadian workers need the WHMIS program. Each year many more working days are lost through occupational accidents and illnesses than through industrial disputes. One specific cause of these losses is an area that is directly addressed by the WHMIS legislation: the presence of chemicals and other materials in the workplace which are hazardous to the safety and health of workers who use them.

Workers are certainly entitled to know which material they are handling. However, the employers themselves have often little or incomplete knowledge of the dangers of some of the substances or products used. Those in the best position to have such information are the manufacturers and distributors.
That is why, Madam Speaker, Canadian federal, provincial and territorial occupational health and safety organizations have asked the assistance and participation of the federal Government in developing a single national standard for the use of hazardous materials in the workplace.
June 30, 1987

A record number of consultations took place to define this national standard. These consultations lasted over four years and required the utmost in co-operation from the federal, provincial and territorial authorities, the industry and the unions.

Over this period, the tripartite consultation phase of the WHMIS project addressed and resolved complex technical, social and legal issues. A consensus was produced, a genuine consensus with the full and active support of all participants- a truly significant achievement.
The WHMIS proposal contained in Bill C-70 provides for an orderly means of communicating information about hazardous materials from manufacturers, suppliers and importers to employers and employees.

Distributors and importers of hazardous materials will from now on have to provide labels and material safety data sheets at the time when such materials are sold or imported. As for the employers, they will have to ensure that their employees are provided with sufficient information and adequate training programs.
I believe that the WHMIS program is pratical, effective and realistic. It will allow Canadian workers to enjoy the protection they deserve. It will also be fair to manufacturers as it will improve the quality and quantity of information on work-related hazardous materials.
What is unique about the WHMIS program is that all the participants, who represent varied interests, have given it their full support. It confirms in practice the commitment of this Government to the consultation process. This is an excellent piece of legislation which will protect Canadian workers in all provinces and territories while reflecting the interests of both the unions and the employers.
It is therefore important that Bill C-70 become part of our statutes.


Jacques Guilbault: Madam Speaker, I too would like to comment briefly on Bill C-70 which sets up WHMIS, the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System. I must confess that my Party was consulted when this Bill was being drafted, a gesture we appreciated. From the outset our Party thought that a measure intended to protect workers against workplace hazardous materials would be a welcome addition to our Canadian legislative arsenal.
We thought the Bill was adequate, but we decided to consult other people to make sure that it would meet with the approval of some of the people or companies that would have to live with it. This is why we got in touch, among others, with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association where we were told they had been consulted about the drafting of this legislation They said they agreed with it. The same thing goes for the Canadian
Hazardous Products Act
Chemical Producers' Association which, of course, is directly affected by this measure.
We did the same thing with the unions. We called on the Canadian Labour Congress and other union organizations and found out that they too-through their representatives-had been consulted by the Government and were in agreement with the contents of the Bill.
Therefore we on this side of the House agree that this Bill should pass quickly this afternoon. We believe that a Bill which provides for the classification of workplace hazardous products, chemical and others, in accordance with clearly established and desirable standards, we think that certain WHMIS provisions such as labels to warn workers who will be using these products are a necessity and that the material safety data sheets which will also provide additional information are a good idea. We believe that the WHMIS must also be noted for its employee training program.
Finally, since it also contains measures to protect trade secrets by allowing certain exemptions when revealing the contents of certain matters might cause economic damage likely to be detrimental to a company, there will be exemptions to protect the manufacturers of such products. It seems to me this legislation is well balanced and this is why we on this side of the House thought we would facilitate its adoption in the House today. Indeed, Madam Speaker, this is why I resume my seat immediately.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on another piece of legislation today. This particular piece of legislation will ensure that there is proper labelling of hazardous goods in the workplace.
As was mentioned by other Members who spoke on second reading of the Bill, in committee, and in the House today, it is the result of a consultative process. It has received the agreement of the major shareholders, if I could use that term-the Canadian Labour Congress, the chemical industry, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and others.
It was an important process. It brought forward legislation which was basically good and met the needs of both labour and management. However, I do not believe that Parliament should be a rubber stamp, regardless of who has been involved in the consultative process.
We took the committee system seriously. We listened to the witnesses who appeared before us. As a result we discovered that a number of amendments could be made to the legislation without destroying the co-operative approach. They were amendments to strengthen the legislation without destroying the consensus.
As a result of the work by members of our caucus and as a result of the agreement on the part of the Government, two very important amendments to the legislation were accepted in

June 30, 1987
Income Tax Act
committee. The first was to ensure that there was an actual implementation date. We have seen legislation pass through the House and the Senate and have waited years to have it proclaimed. Therefore I was very pleased to see the Government put forward a motion which included the implementation date of October 31, 1988 or sooner.
The other amendment accepted in committee ensured that certain chemicals which come under other Acts would be exempt from the legislation and that there would be legislative review of those exemptions in two and a half years. It was an important amendment to the piece of legislation.
I was quite happy with the co-operative approach of the Government and the fact that it accepted those amendments. As a result, the House is producing a better piece of legislation and we certainly support its passage at this time.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, Bill C-70 is certainly a very useful Bill, not just for the worker and for protecting the individual but also for industry. The Bill was tabled here in the House by the Minister and I think he is to be commended, because it is a very comprehensive piece of legislation, some forty pages long, its provisions cover just about every product, and the Government is certainly to be commended for tabling this Bill and I think it should be passed as soon as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the Parties and I believe Your Honour would find unanimous consent to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs rather than to a legislative committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Hockin: that Bill C-64, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, a related Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
He said: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today on second reading of Bill C-64 which will
implement a number of changes to the Income Tax Act. The Bill has a number of merits which I am sure will be evident to Hon. Members of the House.
Bill C-64 will implement measures that will bring about a better management of government operations and public resources. One of these is the new requirement, effective January 1, 1988, for employers to remit to the Government twice monthly the deductions they make for their employees on account of personal income taxes and contributions to the unemployment insurance fund and the Canada Pension Plan. These deductions are now remitted monthly.
It is important that these measures be legislated as soon as possible in order to give corporations enough lead time to make the necessary administrative changes.
Bill C-64 contains the measures necessary to implement the income tax changes in the February 1987 Budget along with a number of tax changes. To avoid confusing these income tax amendments with those which are part of the tax reform initiative, it would be desirable for the Bill to be passed through the House as soon as possible. Passage of this important Bill before the summer recess would allow Hon. Members to devote more of their time and efforts to an examination of the tax reform measures during the summer and fall.

The Bill also contains the amendments to the Income Tax Act tabled in January by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for the purpose of establishing international banking centres in Montreal and Vancouver. The Minister clearly indicated at the time that the purpose of this very selective incentive measure was to patriate to Canada certain banking activities being conducted abroad. It will not adversely affect other banking operations currently taking place in Canada. In fact, I believe this initiative will complement the measures we have taken to increase the competitiveness of the Canadian financial sector.

As I mentioned earlier, this Bill is an important part of the Government's ongoing agenda for economic renewal. It will implement a number of important changes and represents a wide-ranging process of consultation with interested individuals, organizations, and other Governments.
This is why I trust that Bill C-64 will receive the full and swift support of Members of the House.


Aideen Nicholson: Madam Speaker, let me first say that I am relieved the Government has agreed that the Bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs rather than to a legislative committee.
Bill C-64 contains a number of very complex measures. It is based upon a Ways and Means motion which, with the technical notes alone, came up to about 15 pages. The Bill itself contains a couple of hundred pages.
June 30, 1987

For the Government to suggest that complex and technical measures of this kind would have been appropriately referred to an ad hoc legislative committee rather boggles the mind. In the same way, for the Minister to come in with the Bill on the last day the Elouse is sitting and ask for rapid passage of a Bill with such complex measures also rather boggles the mind.
Of course we are prepared to facilitate the Government and let the Bill be referred to committee this evening, especially now that we know it is going to a specialized committee.
Let us look at some of the measures that are included in this Bill, measures that go back to the February 18, 1987 Budget. Somehow these measures have become urgent at 7 p.m. on June 30, the last day for the House to sit. No similar urgency has been shown since February 18. We have measures here that deal with the special tax on corporations that distribute surplus to their shareholders as proceeds of disposition of shares. We have new rules relating to retirement compensation arrangements, rules which should be discussed carefully and on which witnesses should be called. We have new rules to give effect to certain tax treaty provisions which allow for tax deferral in Canada.
Particularly important, we have here the rules relating to the acceleration of the remittance of source deduction, that is, the compulsory deductions from salaries for Canada Pension, income tax, unemployment insurance and the like which instead of being remitted monthly, as a result of the February 1987 Budget, must now be remitted fortnightly. That is smoke and mirrors for the Government which will have the effect once only of decreasing its deficit by a billion, making Government figures look better because of an advance payment.
In this Bill before us, Madam Speaker, there are also quite heavy penalties for employers who do not remit. There is the possibility of garnishee. There are a number of serious measures here that require serious attention by a committee that requires witnesses to be called. For the Government to try to smuggle this measure in in the last hour of the last day of this House is not very responsible.
This Bill also makes the 3 per cent surtax announced in February, 1986, permanent. While we knew that the surtax was permanent, we have proof in this Bill. Perhaps here, in order to set the context, it may be useful to look at the astonishing amount of taxation that has been imposed on Canadians since the Government came to power.
In 1984-85, if we add up the income tax on individuals and sales tax, we find an astonishing $36.8 billion, which amount is expected to grow in 1988 to 1989 to $59.1 billion. Look at the effect on families with young children. For a married couple, two wage earners, two children earning $15,000 a year, their total tax increases add up to $470 for the tax year 1987. For a married couple, two wage earners, two children, earning
Income Tax Act
$30,000 a year in the year 1987, they will pay an additional $966.
Where have all these increases come from that bear on individuals? We had partial deindexation in the 1986 taxation tax year. We have seen the 3 per cent surtax on all taxpayers which was effective on July 1, 1986, the temporary surtax on high income individuals about which perhaps we do not have to be too concerned, but we have seen the elimination of the federal tax reduction which was effective in the 1986 tax year on middle and low-income earners and have seen changes to the marital exemption for the year of marriage in the 1986 tax year and the elimination of the Registered Home Ownership Savings Program effective May 22, 1985.
As well as that is the astonishing load after load of sales tax increases: 1 per cent increase in the rate October 1, 1984, a further 1 per cent increase in the rate January 1, 1986, and a further 1 per cent increase in the rate April 1, 1986. The sales tax base was broadened July 1985 and it will be again tomorrow, July, 1987. Sales tax was moved to the wholesale level May 1, 1987. We have seen tremendous increases in excise taxes and so on and on.
I mentioned earlier the question of the early remittance of the compulsory deductions. This particularly hits small businesses. It also hits municipalities and municipalities have suffered considerably at the hands of this Government. The excise tax on fuels is increasing the cost of transportation. The increased sales tax is putting the costs up for municipalities. The additional remittances fortnightly instead of monthly are increasing the paper burden. So you have cities like Toronto saying that as a result they may have to increase property taxes very substantially, something which is harder on the lower and middle-income family earners who are just barely getting by paying mortgages.
Against all of this background of loading taxes on low and middle-income earners, we find that the Government has slid into Bill C-64 measures on the international banking centres which might more properly be called the bankers' relief act.
We find that the bankers who have not asked for it are about to be given tax gifts that may go up to $100 million a year. The Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs advised against the establishment of international banking centres as proposed by the Government because the measure, as proposed, is unlikely to create jobs or increase banking activity in Canada unless the Government also moved on withholding tax. The IBC proposal is limited to loans and deposits. Profits from securities, trading, letters of credit and foreign exchange operations will still be taxed. The banks did not request this legislation, but the legislation could result in up to $100 million annually in tax savings for them and tax losses for the Crown. One witness, a tax expert in banking taxation whom we had before the finance committee said:

June 30, 1987
Income Tax Act
If I were still a bank taxman, I would be sitting down figuring out what kind of business we would put in (the IBC)-make a profit, tax free, marvellous. Our shareholders would love it.
The Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs expressed itself unequivocally in favour of measures to stimulate economic development in Montreal and Vancouver, but the Government's proposal will not do the job. Employment creation will be minimal and the proposal does nothing to help finance international trade for which both Montreal and Vancouver are particularly well placed.
The finance committee had two recommendations. First, that the Minister broaden the current IBC proposal so as to include more financial transactions when it might be useful. Second, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) look into the question of withholding tax because we had much evidence that the withholding tax is the real barrier to bringing back into Canada some of the business that is now done in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. The Government chose to ignore that advice and it chose to go ahead with this measure, which is clearly inadequate as a regional development measure. It is going to bring high costs to the Crown without creating jobs and without creating economic activity. Why? Because it is considered to be a public relations gesture to please Montreal and Vancouver.
I would suggest that the inhabitants of Montreal and Vancouver are much more astute and they are not going to be taken in by this kind of window dressing. If the Government were serious about increasing economic activity, particularly in the financial sector in those two cities, it should go back to the drawing board and produce a serious measure which this is not.
Finally, I return to the question of why the Government is giving a tax break to the banks at this time, a tax break the banks have not requested. The Government is introducing tax reform which is supposed to eliminate tax breaks. Why is it giving an unasked-for tax break to banks when it is loading taxes onto individuals and young families in an absolutely unprecedented way?
We would like to see this complex Bill referred to the Finance Committee. Not only the measures concerning international banking centres but all the measures that concern retirement planning, the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act should receive serious and careful scrutiny in a situation where witnesses can be called and hopefully where some amendments will be made so that come the fall, we will have a more sensible Bill that we can support.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, it is again a pleasure to have a chance to speak in the House on a piece of legislation. On behalf of my caucus, I would like to indicate that we support sending this legislation to the Finance Committee. Even though some elements of the legislation have
received study by the committee, we believe that there are aspects of the legislation in its final form that deserve a more thorough review.
Regarding the refundable sales tax credit, we believe that the measure before us is wholly inadequate to meet the needs of lower-income families and we support the National Council of Welfare's calculation which shows that to fully offset the burden of the new federal sales tax on low-income Canadians, a sales tax credit in the order of $400 per adult and $200 per child would be required and that for a couple with two children, a sales tax credit of $1,200 would be required. Furthermore, we believe that the failure to index these credits to inflation will erode their value over time and will quickly put many more poor Canadians back on the tax rolls.
Our research has calculated that as a consequence of the last three Conservative Budgets and the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), Canadians are paying over $20 billion more in new sales or excise taxes or will be paying that much more by 1990. Average Canadian families are paying $910 over and above what they were paying prior to 1984. We believe that that is completely unacceptable.
As a result of the Conservative Government's taxation policies, the discrepancy between what the rich are paying and what the poor are paying has actually been increased. At a time when the Minister of Finance is talking about tax reform, we believe that these measures will not do anything to adequately meet the concerns of average Canadians and their families.
The personal income tax surtax which was being paid by those in the upper-income levels is now being applied to the majority of taxpayers. That will result in more income for the Government but again, in a way that is unfair, unbalanced and will shift the burden of taxation from the rich to the low and middle-income earners. As a result of that, we have trouble supporting this particular aspect of the legislation.
As I mentioned, the surtax will affect all families. The result will be that people with incomes of $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 per year will pay the surtax, and we believe that is completely unfair. The idea of an income tax surtax is that it should apply to those Canadians who receive the most and have the greatest ability to pay. The measure that is before us at this time certainly does not do that.
The third aspect of the legislation before us is the intent to set up international banking centres. While we recognize that there may be some merit in that, we believe that there are some legitimate concerns. Obviously citizens of Vancouver and Montreal see some potential for job creation within those cities, but again, there is no indication from the information that has been given to us to date that there will be any real increase in jobs. We have heard numbers as low as eight being used in public. The economic benefits of that are low.
In addition, as we all know, taxes paid by Canadian banks are already abysmally low. The banks are not paying their fair
June 30, 1987

share of the tax burden. This legislation creates a situation in which they will be able to find even more tax loopholes in future. We do express some concern over that and look forward to the committee hearings. People who are in favour of banking centres in these cities will have a chance to express their beliefs and those who have concerns will also have the opportunity to do so. As well, representatives from cities that are not included in this special tax regime will also have a chance to make their proposals and express their concerns.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is as follows: Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre), seconded by Mr. Hockin, moved that Bill C-64, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, a related Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and by unanimous consent, referred to Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.

Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill S-6, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Madam Speaker, at the outset, I want to thank my counterparts for their co-operation on Bill S-6. I will be very brief today.
This Bill is an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. It has gone through the Senate. The problem first arose some time ago. Back in 1977, Labatt's Breweries of Canada developed a new beer product called Labatt's Special Light containing 4 per cent alcohol. At that time, it was the view of the officials of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that the
Food and Drugs Act
product was labelled, packaged, sold and advertised in such a manner that it was likely to be mistaken for light beer for which the maximum alcohol content was set at 2.5 per cent by legislation.
That matter went through the various stages of the court system and eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court. It became known as the light beer decision of the Supreme Court. With my reputation for being opposed to tobacco, impaired driving and drugs, I am pleased today to be on the other side and to do something for those who want to drink Labatt's Special Light and other such substances.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: To make a long story very short, the court ruled that certain Sections of the Food and Drugs Act were ultra vires. For this whole period of time, this matter has been before us. Canadian manufacturers, breweries and consumer groups have all been abiding by a system known as the food recipe system. On the other hand it has not allowed us to force it, for example, on imports.
These changes would allow us to remove the uncertainty in the private sector over the status of federal food products standards. They will permit amendments which reflect new technology and facilitate the handling of our international obligations in this area. It will put us back into the stream where we have usually been and allow us to protect both Canadian consumers and manufacturers.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I had about a three-hour speech prepared. However, in the interests of time and in the interests of guests who I have here from Florida, Mark Garcia, his wife Barbara and their daughter Mandy, I will cut this very short.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I concur with the Minister in that we hope this Bill will address certain concerns expressed through the Supreme Court decision. I only ask that the Government and whoever develops these Bills to please try in the future to make the wording a little cleaner and crisper. Just for the record, I would like to read Clause 1 of the Bill into the record to let people know how hard it is sometimes to follow government rules because we cannot even understand them. I was reading this and trying to figure out what it meant. It says in part:
(2) Paragraphs (l)(b) and (c) do not apply to an operator of a conveyance that is used to carry an article or to a carrier of an article whose sole concern, in respect of the article, is the conveyance of the article unless the operator or carrier could, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the conveying or receiving for conveyance of the article or the possession of the article or the possession of the article for the purpose of conveyance would be in violation of subsection (1).
You can understand why the average taxpayer gets confused. Nonetheless, the substance of the Bill is supportable and we will support it.

June 30, 1987
Food and Drugs Act


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak briefly on this Bill as my Party's representative on food and drug matters. I suppose had he been able to be with us tonight, our spokesperson for consumer and corporate affairs would have led off the debate.
We see this Bill as a tightening up of the legislation governing the labelling and production of food additives. We think it could be quite useful to the manufacturers of food products to protect them from the kind of additives which might not be permitted in Canada but which may be imported from other countries or, as the Bill says, from other provinces. It gives the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs the kind of power it feels it needs to monitor shipments of food from one jurisdiction to the other, whether it be a country or a province, with the objective of taking samples of the food to be tested to find out whether the additives used in that food or beverage meet the standards of Canadian law.
As the Minister pointed out, this came about because of a bit of a jurisdictional argument regarding Labatt's so-called light beer. The result, after it went to the Supreme Court, was that the old Food and Drugs Act was ruled to be inadequate for the kind of monitoring the federal Government felt it had to do. These amendments are an attempt to clarify that and tighten up the law. We think this rather short Bill should go to committee to permit the food industry importers and manufacturers of food products an opportunity to assess the proposal and see whether this meets their requirements as well as those of Canadian consumers.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the Government for having brought forward this Bill. Quite frankly, I think the Liberals screwed the whole situation up by allowing this matter to go to the courts. What the Government is doing now is cleaning up a mess the previous Liberal Government had created.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We are doing it for all the beer drinkers.


John R. Rodriguez: I am a light beer drinker and when any Government starts tampering with the percentage I get very, very-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am not.


John R. Rodriguez: 1 know that the town of which the Minister was a councillor is still dry. It is only appropriate that he should be bringing forward this Bill tonight.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No axe to grind.


John R. Rodriguez: No one can accuse him of a conflict of interest. Far, far from it.
I want to congratulate the Government for clearing this matter up. I particularly like Clause 6.1(1) which says:
The Governor in Council may, by regulation, identify a standard or any portion of a standard prescribed for a food as being necessary to prevent injury to the health of the consumer or purchaser of the food.
In the past we have been notoriously lax on this question of food additives. I remember when red dye used to be inserted into meat to make it appear more red to the consumer. That clause gives me a lot of confidence that we now have someone in charge at the switch who can make decisions consistent with the health of the purchaser of the food.
I have another concern which this Bill does not cover. As the Minister is in a mood to listen to representations on the question of beer and alcohol, I understand there are certain beers we cannot get in Ontario.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Ontario liquor laws.


John R. Rodriguez: The Minister says it is the Ontario liquor laws. I want to send him a clear message. He should sit down with his counterparts in the Ontario Government and try to clear up some of these problems. We are talking about free trade with the U.S. and we do not have free trade in this country between provinces. I go to Nova Scotia and like to drink Moosehead beer. Yet in Ontario we cannot get it. That points up a problem with respect to free trade in Canada. We have barriers to free trade between the provinces. Since the Minister cleared up this mess which the Liberals created, maybe he ought to go and look at what can be done to alleviate the problem with respect to the free movement of food in Canada.
I remember another problem where McDonald's could not bring in hamburger buns from western Canada. They ended up buying American buns because they could not bring Canadian buns across provincial borders. I am using this opportunity because these are things the Government and the Minister should be aware of.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Normally I would not intervene but there are only 20 minutes left and I wonder if the Hon. Member, while he is telling us about the NDP perspective on hamburgers, realizes there are other Bills we were hoping to get to before eight o'clock this evening.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I rise on the same point of order, Madam Speaker. In response to the concern of the Member of the Liberal caucus, it is certainly our intention-


Mr. Prud'homme:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Did I hear the hon. gentleman say "the chairman of the Liberal caucus"?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has the floor.
June 30, 1987


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I certainly apologize to the incumbent chairman of the national Liberal caucus. I certainly did not want to create any rebellion in the ranks.


George Albert Proud: We have enough, thank you.


Rodney Edward Murphy: However, to respond seriously to the concern of his colleague, the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) will be our last speaker on this Bill. We will then allow it to proceed to Committee of the Whole, to pass through all stages prior to eight o'clock, and to allow the next piece of legislation to be brought forward.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I was specifically referring to the hamburger buns because I think the Minister is in a receptive mood to hear suggestions. The Government is hellbent to create free trade between Canada and the United States and we cannot move hamburger buns between provinces. Can you believe that? I cannot believe that for a minute.
This looks like a very small Bill but I have become very leery of Bills slipping through in the dying hours of a sitting and giving the Government power. I have complimented the Government on this Bill, but I see something missing from it. As an example of the power that the Government has been given, it can:
-enter any conveyance that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds is used to carry any article to which section 6 or 6.1 applies and examine any such article found therein and take samples thereof-
What about having search warrants? We are giving officers of the Crown a lot of power, the power to seize.
I also see that there is a lack of any process for appeal. If I believe my product is all right and the inspector thinks I am in breach of this-


John Wise: These are amendments to an Act.


John R. Rodriguez: I know these are amendments to an Act.


John Wise: There is another part to the Act.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right, there's another part of the Act. However, I want to point that out to the Minister because he has brought this Bill forward and he is certainly not an expert on beer. I wonder whether he has taken that into consideration.
What about penalty clauses in case someone contravenes these sections? I will be asking these questions when we go into Committee of the Whole. I want to satisfy myself that we are not giving the inspectors undue powers and that we do have penalties which can act as a deterrent to people putting products on the market which have been declared unsafe for consumers and purchasers. I will ask those questions when we get into Committee of the Whole. I know the Minister will be forthcoming with his answers.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?
Food and Drugs Act


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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, Mrs. Champagne in the Chair.

Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a brief point of order before we get to the "Bunsmaster" of the New Democratic Party. There have been discussions among the Parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the passage of a motion. We are seeking unanimous consent to proceed upon the understanding that the critics for the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party on Energy, Mines and Resources be provided with a copy of the report to which I will refer prior to it being tabled. I move:
That notwithstanding the usual practices of the House, if the House is not sitting when the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources is completed, the committee shall present its report by fding it with the Clerk of the House provided that the report shall then be deemed to have been laid upon the table.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent for the motion of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 78, I do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.
House in Committee of the Whole on Bill S-6, (from the Senate) an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act-Mr. Epp (Provencher)-Mrs. Champagne in the Chair.
On Clause 1-


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Chairman, I posed some questions when speaking earlier. I ask the Minister to respond to my questions with regard to the penalty clauses.

June 30, 1987
Food and Drugs Act


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, the Member for Nickel Belt asked about the penalty clauses. The penalty clauses are incorporated in the Food and Drugs Act. These are amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and do not change the scope or extent of the penalties presently in the Food and Drugs Act.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Chairman, is there a process for appeals?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, the answer to that question is similar to the answer to the first. There is an appeal procedure under the Food and Drug Act. However, quite frankly, in terms of the seizing of products and the appeal process, it is not an appeal process similar to that which we are used to in a judicial sense because of the type of product that would be seized and the shelf life of products. Therefore there is a sensitivity there.
However, we have found, through working with our inspectors, the consumers groups, and the retailers and wholesalers, that there is a reasonable balance in the approach and the sensitivity of inspectors. However, I cannot put forward an appeal process outside of the Food and Drugs Act presently constituted. It is not similar to that with which we are familiar in a judicial system.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Chairman, I realize that it characterizes the NDP to run off at the mouth. I was sitting outside and could not believe my ears. I know that the former Liberal Government was responsible for many evils-


Rodney Edward Murphy: Agreed.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My back was burning-


Rodney Edward Murphy: I rise on a point of order, Madam Chairman. If the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain-or Hamilton East-would like to move a motion to that effect, I am sure she could get unanimous consent for it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Chairman, I understand the Freudian slip of the tongue about the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain because when September comes the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain will be sitting on this side of the House among the Liberals.
However, I will be brief because we have all agreed that this is a measure which should be passed and will be passed. Why are they wasting our time coming up with spurious arguments, complaining about a decision of the Supreme Court?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, the Hon. Member is right in the sense that the Cabinet of the former
Government had instructed the drafting of this legislation back in 1983. It died on the Order Paper.
My concern is not with the past. My concern as Minister of National Health and Welfare is that we have the ability to enforce that which Canadians are now following voluntarily in terms of the Food and Drug Act. Others who might be importing goods are not necessarily bound by that morally or legally. That is my concern.


Alex Kindy: Madam Chairman, how does the Minister intend to enforce the transport of food between provinces? Will inspectors be at the border? What will happen if there is free trade with the United States? Will there still be no free trade between provinces?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, we have food inspectors now. I do not have the exact number, but there are approximately 550 to 570 across Canada. We do this inspection now.
This amendment allows us to do it legally, which we have been doing otherwise, and were doing prior to the Supreme Court decision. That remains in place.
In fact, we are finding that the industry is very much interested that inspectors have this power legally in order that the industry is also protected from practices being used without the power of law which we had earlier.
In terms of free trade, I believe that if there is a trade agreement, obviously conditions under the Food and Drugs Act and other import Acts relating to health and safety of Canadians would be in place.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.
June 30, 1987


CRIMINAL CODE, IMMIGRATION ACT, 1976 AND CITIZENSHIP ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is a very important Bill. Indeed, it is an historical Bill which I have the honour to present for second reading.
Unfortunately, without commenting on what has transpired here, due to the circumstances of the business of the House, we find ourselves with five minutes within which we are expected to deal with a Bill that I believe is very important and which has been developed by all Members of the House in a spirit of non-partisanship and co-operation that I believe is important for legislation of this sort.
I had rather hoped that we would make progress before the summer recess and, indeed, today I was in receipt of a package of amendments that were presented to me and which have been cleared by members of the Opposition in discussions with members of all Parties.
These amendments constitute a package which involve very important concepts and fundamental questions with respect to the operative sections of the legislation.
Indeed, my friend, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), spoke to me this morning with respect to a particular provision. I have had an opportunity to discuss this matter with my staff to try to determine whether or not there was a possibility of having these matters dealt with today. Regrettably, I have come to the conclusion that the amendments, some of which affect the proposed amendments to the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act, and which I would be required to discuss with my colleagues, the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). It is important for us to deal with this matter carefully. I could have rejected the amendments, one of which would have made this legislation retroactive rather than retrospective.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the importance of this legislation, and in view of the fact that there appears to be a consensus among the Parties with respect to the matter, I would seek unanimous consent at this point, given the hour, that we proceed with this legislation notwithstanding the clock, until it has received and completed second reading.
In view of the fundamental importance of dealing with this matter expeditiously, I would seek unanimous consent for us not to see the clock in order that we might complete second reading of this important legislation.
Message from the Senate


Jacques Guilbault: Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House might be amenable to the suggestion made by the Hon. Member. However, in the spirit of co-operation, there are other Bills that other Members would like to pass. I wonder if the Hon. Member would be agreeable to passing Bill C-83 as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There seems to be negotiations taking place on the floor of the House of Commons.


George Albert Proud: To say the least.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are some messages I would like to read to the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I am here in all seriousness to try to do the right thing with respect to this legislation.
I can assure Members of the House that this is a matter of very great importance to the Government. I am not going to have the matter dealt with in a slapdash, haphazard manner.
I can assure the House that I will call on my House Leader to make arrangements to have this matter brought up at the earliest date when this House reconvenes. It will be a priority matter for us. I want to deal with this legislation and we will deal with it in a manner which does it justice and, I hope, in a spirit of non-partisanship that has prevailed on this. I realize there is an order of the House, Madam Speaker. I can only say that I will continue my remarks when we next have the opportunity. I hope I receive the co-operation of the House.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, just so there is no confusion in the House, we are certainly not tying the progress of this piece of legislation to any other legislation in the House.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills, without amendment:
Bill C-56, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to financial institutions.
Bill C-62, An Act relating to the forgiveness of debts incurred or assumed in respect of certain official development assistance loans made by the Government of Canada to the Governments of Togo and of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and also to the former East African Community.

Bill C-63, An Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.

June 30, 1987
Sitting Suspended
Bill C-69, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff and the Duties Relief Act.
Bill C-78, An Act to increase the availability of loans for the purpose of the improvement and development of farms and the processing, distribution or marketing of farm products by cooperative associations, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof.
Bill C-80, An Act to amend the Customs Act.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being eight o'clock p.m. pursuant to order made Monday, June 29, 1987, the sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.
At 8 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 9.48 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-70, An Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act and the Canada Labour Code, to enact the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act and to amend other Acts in relation thereto.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

["I do know that earlier today, Mr. Speaker thanked the staff and our Pages. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Lewis) for expressing what all of us feel. In my own name and in the name of my colleagues who have the privilege of sharing the chair with Mr. Speaker, I would like to give our best wishes and our love to all of you.", "Have a good summer.\nIt being 10.07 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 4, the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 14, 1987, at eleven o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).\nAt 10.07 p.m. the House adjourned."]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:



[Stage Direction]
30 June 1987 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 30th day of June, 1987, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Leopold H. Amyot Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-41, An act to amend the Judges Act, the Federal Court Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.-Chapter No. 21.
Bill C-21, An Act to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Competition Act, to repeal the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1979 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.- Chapter No. 22.
Bill C-42, An Act respecting financial institutions and the deposit insurance system.-Chapter No. 23.
Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act.-Chapter No. 24.
Bill C-66, An Act to establish the Veterans Appeal Board and to amend other Acts in relation thereto.-Chapter No. 25.
Bill C-56, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to financial institutions - Chapter No. 26.
Bill C-62, An Act relating to the forgiveness of debts incurred or assumed in respect of certain official development assistance loans made by the Government of Canada to the Governments of Togo and of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and also to the former East African Community.- Chapter No.27.
Bill C-63, An Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.-Chapter No 28. '
Bill C-69, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff and the Duties Relief Act_
Chapter No. 29.
Bill C-70, An Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act and the Canada Labour Code, to enact the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act and to amend other Acts in relation thereto.-Chapter No. 30.
Bill C-78, An Act to increase the availability of loans for the purpose of the improvement and development of farms and the processing, distribution or marketing of farm products by co-operative associations, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof.-Chapter No. 31.
Bill C-80, An Act to amend the Customs Act.-Chapter No. 32.
Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.-Chapter No. 33.
Bill S-11, An Act respecting the acquisition, operation and disposal of the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel by the City of Windsor.
Order, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), on a point of order.
June 30, 1987


George Albert Proud: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are not numerous, we back-benchers, but some of us would like to first offer you our best wishes for the summer. We would then like to thank the staff who has worked so late tonight. More especially, we would like to say how much we will miss the Pages, these young, beautiful Canadians who come from all across Canada.
Some of us may not have been kind to them at times, some of us may not have been as patient as we should have been, but by now, they know why. They know we mean well, they know we love them. I am not shy to say we love them. They are good young Canadians.

We wish them luck in their carerrs-

And now, I see that some of them are becoming emotional. 1 think some of them have tears in their eyes. Do not be afraid to cry sometime. That shows that you have passion and emotion.
We have been served very well by beautiful young Canadians. I would like on behalf of my colleagues-not my Party but my colleagues in all three Parties-to thank them for their patience with us. They knew and they know now how much we love them and how much we mean it when we say-

Good luck. Come back and see us, and have a good summer. [English]


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I would join with my colleague in his sentiments expressed for the staff who have persevered
Royal Assent
with us today including the Table, yourself and others who have served in the chair, as well as the Hansard reporters. I would also join with my friend in saying that the Pages have seen Parliament at its best and occasionally Parliament at its worst. That is the way it goes. They have enjoyed a tremendous opportunity as young people to come to the nation s capital to begin their university education and to get an education in how this place works. They will be able to see it from two sides now. I guess there are 40 or so young people who will take a different view; of Government out to the world and that is very important.
I wish you bonne chance in your endeavours and we hope you will come back and see us again. Thank you very much and enjoy the summer.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do know that earlier today, Mr. Speaker thanked the staff and our Pages. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Lewis) for expressing what all of us feel. In my own name and in the name of my colleagues who have the privilege of sharing the chair with Mr. Speaker, I would like to give our best wishes and our love to all of you.

Have a good summer.
It being 10.07 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 4, the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 14, 1987, at eleven o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 10.07 p.m. the House adjourned.