1988-09-30

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, September 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-140, an Act to amend the Bank Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The disorganized conduct of the Government and its handling of the agenda without rhyme or reason has the effect of greatly disorganizing the House of Commons and has contributed to the bad feeling in the House of recent months. In contrast with that state of events, I would like to point out that the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs dealt with this whole matter of charges by financial institutions in a systematic, orderly, and careful way. In response to complaints by the public the committee responded sensitively and effectively.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Trinity.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, today we are continuing second reading debate on Bill C-140, an Act to amend the Bank Act. I have said on two other occasions in this House that haste in presenting Bills, followed by a very perfunctory study of the legislation, has become the hallmark of this Government.
In dealing with this legislation, the Government has really outdone itself. The Government enjoyed a long delay between tabling the legislation on June 30 and beginning second reading debate yesterday.
In his speech yesterday the Minister commended the positive contribution of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, yet he chose to delay action, despite the contribution of the finance committee, despite considerable prodding by members of his own caucus, and despite the unease of banking customers who wanted more clarity. Now suddenly he decides to act with lightning speed.
Yesterday the Minister had the arrogance to suggest that the House debate and pass the Bill at all stages even though he said that he had amendments which he did not yet have ready. Without seeing amendments we were being asked to deal with the Bill in all stages. Further, no text of the Minister's statement was provided in advance to the opposition Parties.
When the previous Liberal Government was in power it was customary to provide opposition critics with the text of ministerial statements three hours in advance. That is a
First, a report was commissioned by the committee staff because the committee wanted to have a clear picture of the extent of the problem so that we knew how far it extended over and above the letters we ourselves were receiving. The conclusion of that report has now been confirmed, and essentially it was that due to the unbundling of services, fees were imposed too quickly without adequate notice and in a manner that customers found insensitive.
According to the report prepared by the committee staff, routine financial service charges per family were averaging approximately $100 a year or $2 a week. That in itself is not a large amount, but customer irritation arose from the fact that some of these fees were unexpected and that information on them was difficult to find.
The committee went on to hold public hearings so that we could receive first-hand evidence of the extent of the problems from consumers, and also so that we could hear the responses of the financial institutions. On June 6, the committee tabled its report. The committee called on financial institutions to provide better information on charges, to provide certain basic services without charge such as the low balance accounts often held by children, and to prohibit certain charges altogether.
To give some examples, the committee recommended that the following fees be prohibited: fees to close an account which had been open for more than a year and fees levied when customers failed to make transactions on an account. The latter fees were particularly a source of irritation to customers who could not understand why they were being charged a fee for maintaining an account in which there had been no activity

September 30, 1988
Bank Act
and therefore no work done by the financial institution on their behalf.
The committee also proposed that the penalties for banks which failed to provide full and clear information and notice to customers be stiffened, and that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions create an internal office to deal with consumer complaints.
The banks responded defensively. The Canadian Bankers' Association stated that the committee's recommendations were interventionist and that they went against the stated free enterprise philosophy of this Government.
On June 23, I spoke in this House to an opposition motion by the New Democratic Party. Strangely, after tabling a minority report, the New Democrats then moved a motion to support the main committee report. I said at that time that neither the blatant bank bashing done by the New Democratic Party calling for regulation at any cost, nor the staunch Conservative anti-regulation, anti-interventionist policy were useful in this debate. More careful consideration is required in order to be fair and reasonable to all parties.
My own bias is always in favour of negotiation and agreement. I said then that regulation of financial service charges should be a last resort. This matter did not proceed very well because unfortunately, instead of admitting that they went too far too fast with their user-pay notion thus irritating, confusing, and inconveniencing their customers, the banks chose to be very defensive. Indeed, it was very much a botched public relations exercise on the part of the banks.
On June 30, the Government responded to the committee's report in the form of Bill C-140. However, earlier that week five of Canada's six major banks said that they would voluntarily comply with the committee's recommendations. The main purpose of the legislation at that time was to assure Canadians that the Government would monitor the bank's voluntary compliance.
Yesterday the Government decided to begin the debate at second reading at 12.30, even though the Minister's office previously informed me that the debate would begin at three o'clock and I had therefore arranged other business for that time. In my absence the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) responded to the introduction of the Bill.
On August 17, 1988, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) tabled the report of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions assessing the voluntary compliance of financial institutions in making the following changes: first, that recipients of NSF cheques not be charged for depositing those cheques in their personal accounts. Many people felt that it was hard enough when a cheque they were given bounced; for the bank to impose a very large penalty on them for depositing that cheque in all innocence seemed doubly harsh.
Second, the closing of personal accounts which have been opened for more than 90 days was no longer to be subject to a cancellation fee.
The other matters on which the voluntary compliance of financial institutions was assessed included no charge for basic personal accounts if the balance fell below a certain level; no charge for services rendered due to an error on the part of financial institutions; no increase in charges for administrative and transfer services on fixed term deposits, notes, and GICs during the term of those instruments; and customers with inactive accounts and balances greater than $10 would not be charged, providing they had responded to a letter advising them that the charge would occur.
What is the status now with respect to these areas? As of August 17, the survey done by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, tabled in this House, indicated that four banks were complying with the letter and spirit of the voluntary measures agreed upon. One bank reported that it was in compliance except for the withdrawal of the NSF chargeback fee, which would be done by November, 1988. Another bank is in compliance except for the provision of a basic no-frills account.
As a result of that report a member of the standing committee withdrew his Private Members' Bill to legislate the measures, which now remain voluntary. It does appear that voluntary compliance has occurred for the large part. Furthermore, what is particularly important, consumers are now being well informed so they are aware of the issues and, if they are not happy with the services of one financial institution, they can always take their business elsewhere.
After the report was issued in August the Minister kept his Bill on hold for six weeks. Why? What was happening in the interim? On September 15, the Minister said that the Bill would now extend the same requirements to small business. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business told him of its concerns in April. Yet up until September 15 there was no indication of any response from the Government. The Minister said that he was satisfied that the competitive market-place would solve all the ills.
However, the position of the CFIB is that increased competition in the financial institution sector is hurting more than helping small business. According to the CFIB, because of deregulation, because the banks are much more aggressively pursuing large accounts, profit margins on big business lending have decreased and, as a result, financial institutions are imposing larger and more numerous charges on small businesses. Cost saving actions undertaken by financial institutions, such as closing branches in small towns, also leave small business persons without any nearby financial institution with which to deal.
Although the committee was dealing only with consumer accounts, the small business concerns as presented to it are important for three basic reasons. First, small businesses typically have less choice in their financial dealings than do
September 30, 1988

personal customers because their freedom to switch business relationships with banks is more restricted than for the individual consumer. Second, the magnitude of service charges to small business is proportionately greater, often totalling hundreds of dollars. Third, unpredictable and sizeable changes in bank service charges can have dramatic negative impacts on the ability of small business to plan operations and cash flow, and could in turn affect the viability of the business itself.
The CFIB asked government for something it usually does not ask for, government intervention, so as to ensure the measures taken voluntarily by the banks for consumers are applied to small businesses as well. Yet the Minister of State for Finance maintained in his statement of September 15 that he expects increased competition in the financial sector to be the best method of ensuring reasonable service charge practices.
The CFIB continued to make some very specific recommendations. It wanted very complete information regarding current levels of and changes to service charges for small businesses. It wanted the elimination of chargeback fees for NSF cheques. It also wanted annual monitoring of bank practices with regard to small businesses.
The CFIB tried to negotiate with the Canadian Bankers' Association but made no headway, particularly on the NSF chargeback issue. The Government has given no quarter either. In its announcement to extend similar disclosure and complaint resolution benefits to businesses, it does agree with the recommendation on eliminating chargeback costs for NSF cheques.
The Government has released a statement of what it intends for small business, but we have not seen the actual amendments. We have been told what will be in them and, consistent with what is now proposed for personal accounts, we are told that the amendments to Bill C-140 and the draft regulations will first entitle businesses, when they open accounts, to receive an enhanced disclosure of charges applying and information on the institution's procedures for handling complaints. Second, they will entitle businesses to ensure that banks and other financial institutions make available to the public for examination, on request, a list of all charges for business services in their branches doing commercial business; third, to provide for ongoing disclosure of core account related business charges through a brochure available to the public; fourth, to provide 30-day pre-notification, through statements, of changes in account related charges.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions will also mediate complaints on behalf of small business account holders. So far so good but, Mr. Speaker, I would feel much better about dealing with this if I had seen the actual text of the amendments.
The Government has promised to continue monitoring the situation. My Party and I will be watching closely to see if the
Bank Act
disclosure of information on financial service charges continues. We will also carefully monitor whether consumers and small businesses are treated with fairness and consideration in the weeks to come.
As of yesterday the Minister was converted to being a supporter of small business, whereas before September 15 he was an ally of unbridled competition. Yesterday he also became a supporter of government intervention.
By the time he rose in the House yesterday, he still did not have amendments to offer the Opposition. We were expected to take all these flip-flops on face and vote blindly for whatever he provided us, and he wanted the amendments dealt with in Committee of the Whole. The amendments finally reached my office late last night, which surely was not the Minister's idea of giving them to us in time to study. I am in favour of what I am told we are going to have, but the Minister's "trust me" approach in presenting and debating pieces of legislation is decidedly irritating. It does not inspire confidence and we will want those amendments carefully examined.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about this legislation as well. We are in a situation where the Government is rushing into this legislation only because of an impending election. I think it is obvious that there was no concern by this Government at the time that this was a crisis for many Canadians. We saw the banks charging for everything in sight. People would go to the banks not knowing that they were being charged.
We had examples raised by our critic, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), of pensioners with very small accounts being ripped off by the banks. We had the example by our agricultural critic, the Hon. Member for Humboldt- Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) of how farmers were being penalized by the banks. We have had other examples too. As the banks have closed down in many communities, a decision they made, residents of those communities were charged extra for using the same services in other communities.
As mentioned by the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), this matter was examined by a House of Commons committee. Months ago recommendations were made. Instead of acting, the Government waited and waited until the banks started to reform themselves. Recognizing that the banks may have reformed now but may jack up prices perhaps during the election, the Government has come up with this very minimal package. It is an ill-prepared one.
The Government itself has announced that it wants to pass this legislation now. It wanted to pass it in all stages yesterday afternoon, but at the same time that it wants this legislation passed the Government tells us that there are amendments to make to this Bill. Where are the amendments? If the Government really and truly wants this legislation to pass and expects the co-operation of the opposition Parties, one would assume that the Government would have come to us and shown us the amendments.

September 30, 1988
Bank Act


Mr. Orlikow:: Where is the Minister?


Rodney Edward Murphy: There is not a single Minister in this House who can reply to these charges. I do not know if the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Siddon) will get up in a few minutes and explain what are the changes the Government wants to make.


David Orlikow: He is a shark.


Rodney Edward Murphy: He is a shark? I do not want to get into any personal attacks on the eve of an election. I think I will leave it to his constituents to solve his problems.
This is obviously not only a phoney issue; it is a phoney debate. You, Mr. Speaker, and everyone in the House at the present time know that when the Government wants legislation passed and wants the co-operation of the Opposition there are meetings, as we say behind the curtains, or meetings in Ministers' offices to discuss possible amendments. There has been no attempt whatever to do this. What the Government will do is go out on the campaign trail saying: "We tried to deal with the bank service charges, but the Opposition would not let the legislation pass". There has been no attempt by the Government to have this legislation passed.
I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is almost in the House. Perhaps he can tell us what the amendments are the Government wants to introduce because there has been no attempt to tell us. I would give him the opportunity. 1 will sit down now. If the Minister of Finance can get up and tell us what amendments the Government has to strengthen this rather weak legislation, then perhaps there could be some move in the House. At the present time we do not know what the amendments are. We do not know if the Government has any particular strategy to make sure that the banks do not rip off-as I mentioned earlier-the pensioners, the farmers, the fishermen and women in fishing, and all the other people who have been ripped off in the past by these outrageous and quite often hidden service charges.
I will take my seat and give the Minister of Finance an opportunity to set the record clear, if the Government really does have some amendments to show the Opposition.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, 1 find it interesting that the Government thinks this Bill is important, but we know that it is only important to the Government. Given the tremendous antagonism to the kinds of rip-offs the banks have been doing to their customers, the Government had to appear to want to deal with the problem. In fact, this Bill does very little, if anything, to deal with the kinds of problems which thousands of customers of banks had to accept in recent years.
We are opposed to this Bill in principle because it does little to provide consumers and small businesses with any guarantees that they will be protected from unfair charges on the part of the banks.
What does this Bill do, Mr. Speaker? The Bill legislates the banks to publish a list of charges and to inform customers and small businesses of banking fees. I was in the branch of the Royal Bank with which we deal and it had a little pamphlet which said there were 168 different ways of a customer dealing with the bank. I ask Members of Parliament and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), which ordinary Canadian, which small businessman can possibly think through and come to an informed decision on which of these 150 different ways he or she can deal with the bank.
This Bill is based on the assumption that informed customers are the protected ones, but that is not the case at all. This Bill, if enacted, will do very little to help consumers who live in communities where in fact there is only one bank to help any community; nor will it do anything about charges that are already in place.
This Bill will require the bank to designate an employee to handle complaints about service charges. What bank employee will tell his or her employer, the bank, that it is charging exorbitant rates or that it really has not explained the situation to the customer?
As well, they can go to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to make the last appeal for unfair charges. Given the kind of reports we are getting daily about how inadequate our financial regulators were in dealing with the Principal Group of companies, a case in which ordinary Canadians lost hundreds of millions of dollars unnecessarily, we can see how little this means.
This Bill means, in fact, that there is no independent body to handle grievances. The superintendent is charged primarily with ensuring the solvency of the banks, not the protection of their customers.
What are the kinds of complaints ordinary Canadians have made in recent years? I can tell the House of one such complaint from personal experience. My wife saw an ad for an item being sold in the United States which she thought our grandchildren would like to have. She sent a cheque marked in U.S. funds for $6 to pay for the item. Even though the cheque was marked in U.S. funds, the bank charged $8.50, and this is from memory, as a service charge.
A 62-year-old Ottawa widow was seeking change for a $20 bill so she could do her laundry at the laundromat and was charged a $2 service fee by the Bank of Nova Scotia. This happened in June of this year. A pizza vendor in Oshawa went to his bank to get some rolls of change which he needed in order to settle the accounts with his customers and was charged 40 cents for every roll of 50 pennies he got from the bank.
Let me give some details of the kinds of things the banks have been doing and which, as far as we can tell, will not change at all as a result of this legislation. As reported in The
September 30, 1988

Toronto Sun of August of this year, the charge for an overdraft cheque on an account will increase by $1 to $5, a 25 per cent increase. Returning an NSF cheque will cost $15, also up $1 or 7 per cent. The charge for searching for any transaction through a person's account will cost $2, up 33 per cent. If the transaction took place over 60 days previously, the charge will be $25 a hour, up 25 per cent, with the minimum charge being $15, up 50 per cent. The charge for presenting a cheque not computer encoded will rise 8 per cent to $3.50. Those are just a few examples.
Let me deal with the Royal Bank. Among other things, it will increase service charges for people holding gold, silver, term notes, demand notes, and Treasury Bills and for handling escrows. Among the increases for business services are 70 cents from 66 cents per cheque, deposit, debit or credit entry in Canadian funds; 72 cents from 68 cents for the same service in U.S. funds; $1.80 from $1.70 for each $100 of rolled coin deposited; $20 from $15 for an oral or written credit report; $25 from $20 for an oral credit report followed by a written report; and $14 from $12.50 for each NSF cheque returned. That is the charge for ordinary customers.
Let us look at what the banks will be able to do to the small businessman or woman after this Bill is enacted. After all, if one listens to Conservative Members of Parliament, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or to the Minister of Finance, one hears repeatedly that the small business person is the backbone of the Canadian economy, that he or she creates over 80 per cent of the new jobs, and on and on. Look what this Bill will permit the banks to do to small business people.
The illustrations I will put on the record come from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which analysed this Bill. These small business people are not in any hurry to be critical of the banks, because without the banks they really cannot survive. They are captives to their particular branches, even more so than consumers who, if they get annoyed, can move their accounts from one bank to another. For small business, fear of offending the bank manager, something which might prejudice future business dealings, is a very real risk. Despite that, small business people still have major objections to this Bill.
First, the federation called for the banks to adopt a clear, open service charge policy which is consistently applied. Schedules must include the exact service on which a charge is applied, the exact price, and how long the price will be in effect. Nothing like that is in this Bill. Second, it calls for the elimination of blanket clauses used by the banks to waive the right to notice of service charge changes. In other words, small business people would like to know for some considerable period of time what the actual costs to them of services they get from the bank will be.
Third, the chargeback for NSF cheques from third parties should be eliminated as the banks have voluntarily done now for consumers. If an individual or company sends a cheque to a small business operation for work, service or goods supplied
Bank Act
and the cheque bounces, why should the business person be charged for it?
Fourth, the federation says that bank errors should be paid for by the banks. It is saying that if an employee of the bank makes a mistake, and that mistake is caught at a later time, the cost of correcting the mistake made by the bank is charged to the small business person. How that can be justified by the banks, I cannot understand, and why the Government's legislation would not at least take care of that objection which is so obviously valid, I simply cannot understand either.
Fifth, the federation says that the communication of bank service charge policies and changes to these policies should be dramatically improved. In other words, to give the individual or business customer a booklet with 150 different ways of doing business is simply not good enough.
The CFIB suggests in its conversations with us that what small businesses really need is a yearly contract with their banks regarding services so they can plan their financial requirements. That seems to me to be a very valid, simple and justified request. As the CFIB has pointed out, the banks have traditionally accused small businesses of failing to manage and plan. Yet these unpredictable ever-increasing service charges are part of the problems of small business.
Finally, they point out that the Government's recent pronouncement on monitoring bank service charges and making changes to the Bank Act do nothing for small business. Those charges that the banks have volunteered to roll back or eliminate do not apply to small businesses. Further, they point out that given the track record of banks to date on interest rate charges on credit cards, an issue highlighted only a year ago, regulation and legislation is the way to deal with the banks.
When the Minister announced his Government's response to bank service charges as they affect consumers, he referred to "certain reprehensible and objectionable charges" having been voluntarily withdrawn, among them "recipients of NSF cheques will not be charged for depositing these cheques in their personal accounts".
Yet these same reprehensible and objectionable charges are continuing to be passed on to small business by the banks. We ask where the Government is, where the Minister is, and why the Minister does not live up to the promises he made.
When dealing with banks we are talking of a group of companies which play a tremendously important role in the economic and social life of this country. After all, the banks' decisions on whether to permit a loan, the size of the loan, the terms of the loan, and if and when the bank may call in that loan, give the banks tremendous economic and social clout.
We are not talking about some poor neighbourhood mom and pop store. We are talking about companies which are among the most profitable in this country. Let me put on record precisely what I mean. The latest figures we have are

September 30, 1988
those for 1987. Let us look at bank profits and special writedown provisions, that is, their profits after regular taxes, including deferred taxes which are usually never paid, but before special write-downs they were allowed to make for tax purposes. Let us just look at how the banks did.
The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce had profits of $387 million. The Bank of Nova Scotia had profits of $381 million. The Bank of Montreal had profits of $413 million. The Toronto-Dominion Bank had profits of $528 million, and the Royal Bank, the big daddy of all the banks, had profits in 1987 of $541 million. That adds up to a total of $2.25 billion on which, as I have indicated, they paid very little in real tax.
On top of that they were permitted to make special writedowns for the huge loans they made to Third World countries, to companies like Massey-Ferguson which has disappeared, and to some of the oil companies as well. They were permitted to make a special write-down-and I do not have the time to give it bank by bank-of somewhere between $2.5 billion and $3 billion. These companies, which are among the most profitable and most powerful in this country, actually paid very little in real taxes on, as I have indicated, profits of well over $2 billion.
Let us look at the profits which they made from service charges. When you and I, Mr. Speaker, go into the bank and are charged 25 cents or 50 cents for a transaction, it does not seem like a great deal, but when you add these millions of transactions together and see what the banks charge, you get an amazing picture. Here is what banks made on service charges in 1987. The Toronto-Dominion Bank made $138 million.


Mr. Fontaine:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) is interjecting as he so frequently does. I invite him to get up and make his own speech. I say to the Hon. Member from Levis that the figures I am giving are not figures which we pulled out of the air. They are figures provided ...


Gabriel Fontaine: Figures from NDP research.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I can ignore the Hon. Member for Levis because 99 per cent of the time his contributions are so pointless and so useless that I really should not spend even 30 seconds dealing with them.
The figures I am putting on the record are figures supplied by the banks to the appropriate Department of the Government, whether it be the Superintendent of Insurance, Revenue Canada, or the parliamentary committee which looked into these questions. The majority of the committee's members, of course, were Conservative Members of Parliament.
The Toronto-Dominion Bank collected, in service charges, $138 million. The Canadian Imperial Bank collected $235 million; the Bank of Nova Scotia, $113 million; the Bank of Montreal, $283 million; and the Royal Bank, $365 million, for
a total in 1987 of $1,134 million collected through service charges.
That may be satisfactory to the Hon. Member from Levis and the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) who interjects almost every day when an NDP Member asks a question. He suggests that those questions come from Bob White of the Canadian Auto Workers or Shirley Carr, the President of the Canadian Labour Congress. The Hon. Member from Peace River should be much more concerned about how the banks overcharge and deal unfairly with their customers than about Shirley Carr or Bob White. The Hon. Member for Peace River, who is not here, will know what I am talking about.
Here we have a group of companies, the Big Five banks, which are among the most profitable, which pay virtually no taxes, and which have consistently ripped off their customers, whether they be individual consumers or small businessmen.
The public has demanded action and the public is not getting action because the Government is bringing in a Bill which it will be able to claim deals with the problem when in fact it is a hoax. In fact the banks will be able to continue to do almost everything they did in the past. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that we intend to vote against this Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to Statements pursuant to Standing Order 21.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great day for Canada, it is a great day for Canadian athletes with the gold medal won by Carolyn Waldo.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: The courage and spirit she showed were the kind of lift, as Carolyn Waldo said, that the Canadian team needed.
We have other winners. There was the stellar performance by Dave Steen of Burlington who threw off all comers to get the bronze medal in the decathlon. We have many winners representing Canada and I would like to spend a moment to read their names them into the record.
Carolyn Waldo, gold medal, Calgary; Mark Tewksbury and Victor Davis, Point-Claire, Quebec; Thomas Ponting, Calgary; Sandy Goss, Toronto, silver medals, swimming; Cindy Ishoy, Hamilton, bronze medal; Ashley Nicoli, Toronto, bronze medal; Eva-Maria Pracht, Cedar Valley, bronze medal; Gina Smith, Saskatoon, bronze medal; Lori Molion, Whitby, Ontario, bronze medal; Allison Higson, Brampton, Ontario,
September 30, 1988

bronze medal; Jane Kerr, Mississauga, bronze medal; Andrea Nugent, Nanton, Alberta, bronze medal; Dave Steen, Burlington, bronze medal; and Frank McLaughlin and John Millan, both of Toronto, bronze medals.
[ Translation]
And congratulations to all those who participated and who have represented Canada so well at the Olympic Games.


OLYMPIC GAMES-CAROLYN WALDO-SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMING GOLD MEDALLIST
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians can rejoice in Carolyn Waldo's great achievement, winning the Gold Medal for synchronized swimming.
Showing the true Olympic spirit in pursuit of excellence, Carolyn Waldo went all out in her final performance, rather than playing it safe even when the Gold Medal was in reach.
Perhaps we need to learn from athletes like Carolyn Waldo, and from coaches like Debbie Muir, that doing our honest best is even more important than winning the gold. As her coach said: "We were determined to go all out, and do extremely well to show Carolyn is a worthy champion".
We know she will take that same spirit into the duet final with Michelle Cameron a few hours from now. I am sure all Members will want to join me in saying "Thank you Carolyn Waldo, and good luck".


NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL SCIENCES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the William Pinch Mineral Collection is one of the world's finest and largest. With over 16,000 specimens, many of spectacular quality, it has great potential for both display and research purposes.
It is good news that this collection is being acquired by the National Museum of Natural Sciences for incorporation into the National Mineral Collection of Canada.
It will cost some $7 million to acquire the collection and provide suitable public display facilities but this will not be borne by the taxpayers at large. The money is being raised by
private donations. About three million dollars has already been pledged by some 64 corporations and a number of individuals.
Further donations to this worth-while public purpose would be welcomed by the trustees.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the contribution to world peace by the Polish people is a well known historical fact. Unfortunately, many of the Polish military were displaced following the Second World War as they could not return to a country which had succumbed to communism.
Polish soldiers fought alongside Canadian troops in Italy as part of the 8th Army during the Second World War. The famous Polish "Blue" Division, which distinguished itself during the decisive Battle of Warsaw, was trained at Niagara-on-the-Lake in 1917.
Our ties are close and I believe that consideration of this closeness must be granted to the Polish prisoner of war survivors.
Given our close ties and the courage and sense of community Polish Canadians have brought to our country, I urge the Government of Canada to reconsider the existing legislation and allow the remaining Polish veterans to be eligible for prisoner of war compensation benefits.


NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian soldiers are among those who have been honoured as recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. Our nation's highly respected and competent role in peacekeeping had its strong foundation put in place by Canadian statesmen such as the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson and the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent.
So well did these Canadian statesmen lay that foundation for our country's role in peacekeeping endeavours that those Canadian principles have continued to develop and grow in the years since and have culminated in world-wide recognition, respect, and trust on the part of Canadians.
In a speech in the House on August 24, during debate on a motion dealing with peacekeeping, I stated that our Canadian soldiers are among the best diplomats that we have in the

September 30, 1988
Government's service when serving abroad. They are politicians in their own right because they have to understand fully the people with whom they are dealing, and finally, they are among the best trained professional soldiers in the world.
Peacekeeping is worth the price. As a nation that is looked upon as a middle power in the world, as a country that has many friends all over the world, along with the Nobel Peace Prize there is no greater tribute that can be paid to our Canadian Armed Forces than for the Parliament of Canada and all Canadians to say "Thank you for your efforts and we wish you continued success. We are firmly behind you in your mission".
Canadians are a humble people. The meek shall inherit the earth. Canada and our Armed Forces will continue to try to make that a peaceful world.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, Bell Northern Research announced today that it reached an agreement with the National Capital Commission to lease 300 acres of land adjacent to BNR's world headquarters laboratory complex in Nepean.
BNR plans to use the leased land to consolidate its various laboratory facilities in the Ottawa-Carleton region. This development will be the world headquarters for Bell Northern Research and one of the largest research and development facilities of its kind in the world.
This project will have an enormous positive impact on the economy of the national capital region. It will result in the creation of 4,000 new jobs in the high technology area.
The NCC will acquire other environmentally sensitive land in the National Capital Region to offset the impact of the use of Greenbelt land with proceeds from the lease.
This project is good for Nepean and good for Canada. It is consistent with both research and development and environmental protection.


THE ECONOMY
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, for more than 10 years the organizations representing big and small business, including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business, and some very prominent businessmen like Mr. Robert Campeau have been warning Governments that the deficits that federal and provincial Governments have permitted and continued are unacceptable, and will lead to disaster for our country.
The Conservative Government supposedly made the reduction of the deficit a major part of its policy. In the last couple of months the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Ministers have made promises. We have totalled the cost of those promises to be somewhere between $15 billion and $20 billion.
What astounds me is the cynicism of these business organizations that, after all the years of preaching restraint, are completely silent about the problems that will be created by implementing these promises that will cost billions of dollars to Canadians. They should put up or shut up.
The Government has talked about reducing the deficit. Why does it not say what these promises will mean to Canadians in the next five to ten years?


CANADIAN EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, after analyzing the current low world prices for oil and gas, and recognizing the extreme difficulties small and medium sized producers have in raising risk capital, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) announced today an adjustment in the phase-down of the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program.
The incentive rate from October 1, 1988, to June 30, 1989, will drop from 33-1/3 per cent to 25 per cent. As of July 1, 1989, until December 31, 1989, the rate will be 16-2/3 per cent. The cap remains at $10 million per company or related companies.
The Minister has also recognized the number of jobs in western Canada that are totally dependent on the petroleum industry. This incentive means a further $80 million will be injected into the industry, which will keep the rigs working, protecting jobs and helping to replace Canada's depleting conventional oil reserves.


STEEL EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, Bethlehem Steel Corporation in the United States
September 30, 1988

wants U.S. trade authorities to slap punitive duties on imports of steel rails from Sydney Steel Corporation and Algoma Steel Corporation.
Bethlehem says that Canadian producers are benefiting from Canadian government loans, grants, and other subsidies. This is clear proof that the Americans consider regional development as a subsidy under the trade agreement. The term subsidy under the agreement is not to be defined for seven years, which the Government hoped would more than allow it to get through the election without Canadians knowing the truth.
There is no level playing field with this trade agreement. It is tilted in favour of the United States. If the Government has any concern whatsoever remaining for Canadian workers, it will not allow this regulatory invasion of Canada by the United States. I ask the Government, for once, to stand up for Canadian industry.


THE ECONOMY
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, it has been four years since the Conservatives started a number of changes.
The results have been a major economic recovery, more jobs, excellent federal-provincial relations, lower taxes, environmental controls, and acquiring a market of 250 million consumers for Canadian producers and workers.
Mr. Speaker, we of the Conservative Government will continue in the same vein during the nineties.
That is what Canadians want. And good-bye to my Conservative friends!


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, today is the last day of employment for the four mentally handicapped adults who water plants on Parliament Hill. For the past 10 years the Ottawa and District Association for the Mentally Retarded has successfully bid for the contract to water the 5,000 plants in federal buildings. The Parliament Hill contract, at a cost of $3.50 per plant per month, ends today because a private sector competitor submitted a bid of 35 cents per plant per month lower.
I find it appalling that, in the International Decade of the Disabled, the Government is allowing this immensely worthwhile employment project to expire in order to save 35 cents per month. The project provided mentally handicapped adults with an opportunity to perform useful and productive work, and to feel valued as productive members of society.
Mentally handicapped adults face incredible obstacles in our society. In view of those obstacles, the federal Government should demonstrate leadership in recognizing the important contributions of the disabled. Instead, it is backing down on its commitment to disabled Canadians. In allowing those policies to be dictated by market forces, it is abandoning the sense of social compassion that makes Canadian society unique.
I call upon the Government to rethink its policy on employment contracts for the disabled. Governments should be providing leadership in these matters. This incident is not one I would want the private sector to follow-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni.

"UP, UP, AND AWAY!"


HEAVEN-BENT FOR ELECTION
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry and Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's successful launch of the space shuttle can be compared to another launch, soon to occur.
If you compare the Discovery shuttle to the Progressive Conservative election campaign, Mr. Speaker, you will quickly see the similarities!
Picture it, Mr. Speaker. The supportive polls are in place; the captain and the crew are looking good. Suddenly, with a burst of speed (and a visit to the Governor General) lift-off is accomplished.
The booster tanks-NDP hot air on one side, Liberal hot air on the other-lift the Big Blue Machine into the heavens.
Then they separate. Both the Liberal and socialist boosters fall to earth, their fuel expended. And the mean, lean, PC machine soars to the heavens where it belongs.
Mr. Speaker, it is T minus 10-and counting!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, there is a quiet village in my riding by the name of

September 30, 1988
Oral Questions
Lemieux. Unfortunately, this community is located on the banks of the South Nation River. Its banks are made of lead clay and are subject to landslides. There have been three such landslides in 1895, 1910, and 1971.
The last landslide engulfed 70 acres of land adjacent to the village. Studies have now determined that the whole village could slide into the river. The village must be moved to another site. This will result in tremendous disruption for the people of my riding. People need financial assistance to do this. 1 know that the Province of Ontario is working actively to help those people.
I now call upon Environment Canada or any other arm of the federal Government to provide assistance to the people of Lemieux in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Let us not wait for another St.-Jean-Vianney before we act.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to those of my colleagues who will not be standing for re-election in the upcoming election.
The Hon. President of the Treasury Board (Miss Carney), the Hon. Members for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer), Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway), Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish), Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), Red Deer (Mr. Towers), Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon), Bow River (Mr. Taylor), Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), Lisgar (Mr. Murta), Winnipeg- Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Warner), Northumberland (Mr. Hees), Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), Elgin (Mr. Wise), Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin), Cambridge (Mr. Speyer), Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis), Ontario (Mr. Fennell), Joliette (Mr. LaSalle), Saint-Jean (Mr. Bissonnette), Langelier (Mr. Cote), Labelle (Mr. Ladouceur), Montmorency-Orleans (Miss Blouin), York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie), Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), Malpeque (Mr. Gass), Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates), South Shore (Mr. Crouse), New Westminster- Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), Sudbury (Mr. Frith), Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Ms. Killens), and Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin), have all indicated that they will not be seeking re-election.
I wish I had time to pay tribute individually to each of these men and women. However, may I mention five Hon. Members whose lengthy and honourable service merits special acknowledgement. They are the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland who completes 30 years in the Ontario and federal Legislatures; the three retiring members of the class of '57, the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, the Hon.
Member for Cumberland Colchester, and the Hon. Member for South Shore; and the Hon. Member for Bow River who completes a combined total of 48 years in the Alberta and Canadian Parliaments.
I have been privileged to serve here with these Hon. Members. While they will not be returning to the House, their contributions to Parliament and to the country will not be forgotten.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we seem to be a little thin here this morning. I say, on behalf of the Member for Oshawa, that we mean on the government side.
My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Last night I was in Winnipeg and I have to say that the people of Winnipeg were not at all surprised that the Prime Minister made an announcement about Winnipeg from New York City. That was very much appreciated.
During his only other speech to the United Nations on October 23, 1985, the Prime Minister had the following to say to the Assembly: " ... if there are no fundamental changes in South Africa, we are prepared to invoke total sanctions against that country and its repressive regime. If there is no progress in the dismantling of apartheid, our relations with South Africa may have to be severed absolutely".
When the Prime Minister made that statement to the United Nations three years ago he received world-wide praise. However, the blunt fact is that the Prime Minister broke his word. He has not invoked total sanctions against South Africa. He has not severed diplomatic relations.
Why did the Prime Minister break his word to Canadians and to the world?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian I was very proud of the address delivered by our Prime Minister to the United Nations yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would like to quote the Prime Minister's words when he said: "Consistent with our policy of moving systematically and deliberately to increase pressure on South Africa our Government announced earlier this week specific new measures to tighten the ban on government contracts with South African companies, and a further ban on high technology"-
September 30, 1988

What is important about this approach is that it has been endorsed by the leaders of the Front Line States in southern Africa. I would refer the Leader of the Opposition to the words of those who best know the situation in southern Africa. President Mugabe has told our Prime Minister-and I want to quote his words because 1 see the Leader of the Opposition laughing. Mr. Mugabe told our Prime Minister privately and publicly that he endorsed the anti-apartheid measures that Canada has taken, and that further steps are not necessary at this time.
I want to say that ours is a consistent and pressurized approach on the South African Government that is bringing results.


John Napier Turner: The Minister of Communications in her role as Acting Prime Minister did not, I am sure, feel too comfortable in congratulating her Prime Minister for breaking his word.


IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on September 13, 1985, a week earlier, in this House of Commons the Secretary of State for External Affairs had this to say:
South Africa should have no doubt that we will invoke full sanctions unless there is tangible movement away from apartheid.
That was on September 13, 1985. The situation, as the Minister knows, has deteriorated since then.
The Prime Minister restated that position at the United Nations on October 23, 1985, and again in this House of Commons on October 28, 1985, in almost the same words. Why did the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs make those promises to the world, and to Canadians, if they did not intend to keep their word? They did not talk about partial sanctions. They did not talk about travel embargoes. They talked about breaking diplomatic relations and imposing total economic sanctions.
The situation has deteriorated in South Africa. Why did the Prime Minister not keep his word yesterday by imposing total sanctions and breaking diplomatic relations?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Canadian Government is to move in a deliberate and systematic way toward total sanctions, and that is what we are doing. That approach is endorsed by the majority of members of the Commonwealth. It is endorsed by the leaders of the Front Line States in southern Africa. It is endorsed by those who best know the terrible situation which exists in South Africa and who really want to do something to help reverse the terrible blight of apartheid.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the deliberate speed invoked by the Acting Prime Minister is a disguise for a hasty retreat from a position made firmly three
Oral Questions
years ago by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Let's face it. The Prime Minister used the United Nations yesterday as an advanced photo opportunity for the election campaign.


DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH SOUTH AFRICA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had announced he would impose full economic sanctions and break off diplomatic relations with South Africa, but he failed to keep his word.
Why did he bother to go to New York and address the United Nations, if it was not his intention yesterday to keep his word and announce that he would break off diplomatic relations with South Africa and, in fact, break off all relations, both diplomatic and economic, with that country?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the cynicism and low level tactics of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition know no bounds.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: That's why he is in third place.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition seeks to discredit the United Nations-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -and the appearance of the Prime Minister of Canada before the United Nations. I am absolutely amazed, Sir, that in a forum where one looks for a nonpartisan approach, such as the United Nations-


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about sanctions?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -the fact is that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition seeks to score cheap political points, cheap partisan points, which he thinks will gain him some advantage in this country. That is absolutely reprehensible.


Mr. Gauthier:: Order! She is not answering the question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Canadians are much better attuned to world events than the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


OLYMPIC GAMES-DISQUALIFIED CANADIAN ATHLETE-SUSPENSION FROM NATIONAL TEAM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the Ben Johnson case. Throughout this entire affair the actions of the Government have been contradictory and certainly worrisome, to say the least.

September 30, 1988
Oral Questions
Last Friday the Prime Minister called to congratulate Ben. Then on Monday the Minister for Fitness and Amateur Sport, supported by the Prime Minister, condemned Ben to a lifetime suspension. On Tuesday the former Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport suggested that Ben Johnson, in his belief, is innocent and that Canada should fight to defend his honour. Then on Wednesday the Prime Minister reversed himself and ordered a full inquiry under the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister to grant Mr. Johnson an opportunity to clear his name.
Flow can the Acting Prime Minister justify and explain the contradictory actions of the Government in the face of the Ben Johnson story? More important, will she now do the honourable and correct thing and suspend the lifetime suspension until this inquiry, under full process, has been given a chance to look into this matter, conduct hearings and make the appropriate recommendations? Does the Government not think that this would be the fair and judicious process with which to proceed in this very crucial matter?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth)) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think every Canadian sympathizes with the situation of Ben Johnson, certainly for being an athlete and a person who represented us well and who is now in some difficulty. We can sympathize with him.
1 have no problem sharing in that sympathy. But what I have a great deal of difficulty with is the position of the Liberal Party that would apply sanctions to all athletes in Canada, according to the rules and policies we have had up until now, but in the case of one athlete, in particular, for political reasons would take a different position. I think it is dishonest. It is inconsistent. It is not compatible with the truth and our approach as a Government, but it is typical of the Liberal Party of Canada.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, what I have difficulty with is being a Canadian and being embarrassed and appalled in watching the Prime Minister shift gears and shift positions on this one issue of a champion, a Canadian citizen, in front of the international community, depending on where he thinks public opinion is going to be. That is what I have difficulty with.


CONDUCT OF PROPOSED INQUIRY
Sergio Marchi: I return to the Acting Prime Minister. Given the fact that the Prime Minister has asked the Deputy Prime Minister to head this inquiry rather than the current Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport, and given that that obviously signals a loss of confidence, why does the Minister and the Government, rather than simply shifting another important dossier on to the Deputy Prime Minister, not replace the existing Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport with an individual who enjoys the confidence of the Government and Canadians?
Will the Government assure this House that that inquiry will be fully public, because it has not committed itself to that? And will it commence immediately following the completion of the Olympic Games this Sunday? Can the Minister give this House and Canadians that important assurance?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat the exact process. In the case of Mr. Johnson, as in the case of other athletes who are now competing in the Olympics, when a first test is positive, a whole detailed process comes into play for the B test, and that is exactly what happened in the case of Mr. Johnson. There is then a opportunity for Mr. Johnson and the Canadian Olympic Association to be heard and to present their arguments.
They had that opportunity. They were heard. The Medical Commission then reached a conclusion, transmitted that conclusion to the Executive Committee which then made a decision. That is the first decision. Once that happens, our policy since 1983-and the sanction changed in 1985-86- automatically kicks in. It automatically, in the case of Mr. Johnson, as in the case of all other athletes in Canada, applies.


Sergio Marchi: You had the option, Sir.


Jean J. Charest: We applied the policy in a very consistent way as we have done for all other athletes in this country.
May I add in conclusion that, if there are any medals to be won in the category of political hypocrisy, the Liberal Party would win gold, silver, and bronze, and that is in the dope category.

[Translation}


DISASTERS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister who is today responsible for the Environment.
The day after the PCB disaster at Saint-Basile-le-Grand, 1 asked the Governement to share the cost of compensating the people affected by this disaster. The Government said yes, and subsequently, the Minister of Transport, speaking directly to the people in that area, said that the federal Government, and I quote: " ... will match every dollar provided by Quebec."
My question is this: Why did the federal Goverment fail to keep its word?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Defence gave a detailed explanation of the agreement between the federal Government and the provinces concerning federal contributions in case of disasters. I could repeat those words, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps the Hon. Member would care to read the details in yesterday's Hansard at page 19,773.
September 30, 1988


PROMISE OF TRANSPORT MINISTER-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer the question directly. The Minister of Transport promised the people of the region that the federal Government intended to share (the cost) dollar for dollar with the Government of Quebec. That is the promise of the Minister of Transport. And now, this Minister (Miss MacDonald) repeated what the Minister of National Defence said yesterday; that is, we have another example of a promise broken by the Government. That is the case.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No!


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister says no. But why did the Minister of Transport directly promise Quebecers that the federal Government intended to share (the cost) equally? Why?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I made clear that the Minister of National Defence explained the formula in case of disasters yesterday and I ask the Hon. Member for Oshawa to read his words.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I read his words and that is why I am asking this question. It is because the Minister of National Defence said one thing, but the Minister of Transport told Quebecers the opposite, for political reasons. I understand that very well.


AIR CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have another question concerning the Government's hypocrisy, to put it directly, on this matter.
A week ago we saw a couple of Ministers on television attacking Air Canada for transporting PCBs from Canada to Wales, fully consistent with federal regulations. If the Government is sincere and not just playing political games, instead of attacking Air Canada for acting on federal regulations, why does it not change those regulations?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it is very important to note that the Minister of Transport wrote to the President of Air Canada expressing the view of the Government of Canada. He said in his letter, and it has been made public, "I would like to receive your immediate assurance that Air Canada will not carry PCB
Oral Questions
waste or similar waste on aircraft carrying passengers". He made that very explicit to the President of Air Canada.


DISASTERS
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting Prime Minister. I want her to adjust her set because I want to read to her the words reported and heard on CKAC on August 26, 1988 at 7.45 p.m., on the program Dimension. These are the words of the Minister of Transport.
The message is very short. The message is very simple. It is simply to tell you that the Government of Canada intends to be involved and there are various programs. Ottawa will put in as much money as Quebec so that "we can deal with the situation in the best possible way." So said Benoit Bouchard.
Can the Minister explain to me what those words mean, in view of what the Minister of National Defence said yesterday?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained that the Minister of National Defence, who is responsible for this dossier, gave the details on this matter yesterday in the House of Commons. I want to assure the Hon. Member that certain conditions have to be met. The province must put in an official request for compensation and assistance. That is the process which must be followed.
[ Translation]


SAINT-BASILE-LE-GRAND TRAGEDY-COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the Minister of Communications in her capacity of Acting Prime Minister. She heard the statement made by the Minister of Transport on August 26, which was clear and specific. Let's not confuse the issue! The fact is that the Minister of Transport promised a dollar for a dollar, not half, not one-quarter, not 25 cents, 35 cents or 50 cents, but a dollar for a dollar! I would like to ask the Minister whether the Minister of Transport's word is worth at least a dollar. If it is not, is the Minister of National Defence going to try to make us forget what the Minister of Transport said by contradicting the Minister of Transport and, in the process, make it clear to us and to the people of Saint-Basile-le-Grand that the Minister of Transport lied outright?

September 30, 1988
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained that the Government of Canada will certainly meet its obligations in this regard in cooperation with the Government of the Province of Quebec. Any request for assistance will come through that process, and will be honoured.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Acting Prime Minister and concerns a broken promise of the Conservative Party in 1984. Back then the Conservative Party, and I have the literature here with me, made a promise to "increase Canada's contribution to official development assistance to 0.7 per cent of GNP by 1990". In other words, it promised to increase our foreign aid budget to 0.7 per cent by 1990.
We have now heard from the Minister responsible that we will be hitting 0.5 per cent by 1990. Why has the Conservative Party broken its promise to the Canadian people? Why does the Government keep on breaking promises? How can we trust it and believe it when it is breaking promises like this?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, we know the hon. gentlemen opposite are feeling increasing tension as their time comes to a close.


John Edward Broadbent: Tell us about St. John's East again, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is illustrated by the questions they are asking this morning. The fact is there are no promises unkept. The Government remains committed to the ODA target which is 0.50 per cent by 1991, and 0.60 per cent by 1995. We have confirmed that before. There has been significant growth in ODA. In 1987-88 over $2.6 billion was spent by the Government on ODA.
Will the Member listen to this or is he going to talk to his Leader, who is also very nervous? Over $2.6 billion was spent by the Government on ODA, an increase of about $100 million, or 4.1 per cent over the previous year, and a 23 per cent increase-that is a twenty-three per cent increase-over the $2.1 billion spent in 1984-85. Will the hon. gentleman now get up and apologize for what he said?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is no wonder that, when the Rhinoceros Party looks at the Hon. Minister, it calls for "freedom of Screech" in Newfoundland.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for External Relations said recently that we
will hit the target of 0.7 per cent by the year 2000. In light of that, can the Minister explain why the Conservative Party promised in 1984 that we would reach the target of 0.7 per cent by the year 1990? Why this ten-year delay? Why this breach of a promise? Why did the Minister break a promise made to the people of this country back in 1984?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this was all explained in detail, I recall, by our fantastic Minister of Finance several years ago when he dealt with this matter.
ODA performance fell a little short of the target in 1987-88.


John Edward Broadbent: A little short?


John Carnell Crosbie: The question is why. It was because our GDP expanded at a greater rate than anyone could have anticipated as a result of the efforts of the Minister of Finance. We have introduced other measures to improve the quality of ODA. There is an all-grant program. There is increased untying of bilateral aid. We have also entered into major ODA debt forgiveness for the sub-Sahara African countries. The Hon. Member should be on his feet congratulating the Government on how it has improved the quality of our aid.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Employment or the Acting Prime Minister.
In 1986 the Government rammed through Parliament a weak employment equity Bill which we said would not do the job for women, minorities, and the disabled because it contained no sanctions. Now, according to Section 6 of that Bill, all employers were to report progress to the Minister by June 1, 1988, and according to Section 9 the Minister was to report to Parliament as soon as possible after June 1 and not later than the end of this year.
It is now three months past the June 1 date and the Minister has not tabled the report. Will the Minister explain why the report has not been tabled, and when does she intend to table the said report?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I don't need to be reminded of how vigorously members of the Liberal Party have opposed employment equity. I remember very well how they opposed it when the Bill was going through the House.
I want to tell the Hon. Member, in case he has not realized it, that the work flowing from that legislation has brought
September 30, 1988

about employment equity in a great number of firms. The reports have come into the Department of Employment and Immigration and are being compiled at the present time.
That report will be made public as was stated at the time the Bill was going through the House.


REQUEST THAT REPORT BE TABLED IN OCTOBER
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is hiding this employment equity report because there has been no progress on employment equity, and there has been no progress on employment equity because there are no sanctions in the Bill as recommended by the Abella Commission, the target groups, and the Opposition.
Will the Government make a commitment to table this report before the end of October so that the people of Canada can make a judgment with respect to this program before any federal election? Will she do that and be fair with the Canadian people?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the benefits of employment equity. I want to assure the Member, who had looked at this when he was the employment critic, that 600,000 women who have come into the labour force, who have new jobs, are saying yes, indeed, employment equity is improving in this country. There are 600,000 more women at work today than there were in 1984, Mr. Speaker.
I want to assure the Hon. Member that if he would look at the number of companies that have contracts with the federal Government and which have already signed agreements to have employment equity as a condition of those contracts he would see how it is working.


PRIVATIZATION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Privatization.
Can the Minister confirm that $7 million has been assigned for marketing and advertising of the Air Canada share issue? Can he explain why, since this would appear to contravene the regulations of the Ontario Securities Commission and other securities commissions?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: I thank the Hon. Members for their applause, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I can confirm the figure to which the Hon. Member has referred.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The tax king of Canada.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is nothing contrary to the Securities Commission here. The expenses are made up with the normal things that you would expect in an issue, printing, share certificates, and advertising. I should comment that the advertising budget was somewhat greater than normal because we had, with Air Canada, asked the underwriters themselves to participate with us in broadening the market as much as we possibly could in this issue so that many Canadians could participate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You were advertising pure and simple.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The result of this was a broad advertising program with a marketing programming in which the underwriters themselves participated. The result is that we will probably have close to 100,000 Canadians who will be shareholders in this company.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the brokers I talk to tell me if they hyped an issue like this, they would lose their licences.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Since the shares are priced to sell, the demand is strong, so would the Minister not agree that this $7 million was a frivolous and unnecessary expense?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think if the Hon. Member checks comparable size issues she would find that a great many fewer people participated in those issues, that there was much broader institutional participation and fewer average investors.
What we were striving for here was the broadest number of average investors we could get. I think the results of this issue speak for themselves. Close to 100,000 new investors in this company is an indication of a very successful issue and a very successful effort in exposing the issue to as many people as possible.
If I could add just one more thing, Mr. Speaker, I do a lot of travelling which I am sure is no surprise, and I talk to people from Air Canada. One of the real successes in the Air Canada issue is the broad number of employees from Air Canada-I think it is something like 70 per cent of employees-who have participated in this issue as well, which indicates their commitment to the company they work for, and it is certainly an indication of the success they expect Air Canada will have in the future as a company owned by individual shareholders.


Aideen Nicholson: Did you have to spend $7 million?

September 30, 1988
Oral Questions


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Housing. As he is aware, Canada Mortgage and Housing owns some 80 townhouses in the city of Kitchener, Ontario, which have been sitting empty for about eight years because the housing was built on top of a garbage and landfill site and methane gas has been leaking into the houses.
I went to Kitchener a few weeks ago and took a look at the houses and the site. The Member for Kitchener said that he would "never in good conscience recommend to his child to move in there", and that in his opinion "the complex should be bulldozed".
Will the Minister agree that in the interests of public safety those houses should be bulldozed and the area cleaned up?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (International Trade) and Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to make it very clear that CMHC did not build these units. They were zoned by the municipality and permitted to be built back, I believe, in 1974-75. In 1976 it was found out that methane gas was seeping from an adjacent property. I do not believe the complex is built on top of the land site but is adjacent to it.
CMHC's position has always been that until the appropriate authorities signify what a safe level of methane gas is, it will not allow these properties to be occupied. CMHC is working with the provincial, municipal, and regional Governments to come to a decision on what the safe level might be. CMHC is also examining ways of taking methane gas away from the area. But I can tell the Hon. Member that no one will move into the units that CMHC owns until safe levels have been set. I do not think bulldozing at this time is the answer.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER VISIT SITE
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same Minister. The reason I went to see that site was to see for myself what kind of condition the site was in and also to talk to people in the surrounding area. I want to suggest to the Minister that the housing is actually built on top of a garbage dump and that is from where the methane gas is coming.
Let me suggest to the Minister that he himself should visit the site and take a look around it. If the Minister wants, I would be quite happy to go with him at that time.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the company of my hon. friend, whether we are flying back and forth to our ridings in Toronto.
This matter has been drawn to my attention by the Hon. Member for Kitchener and the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean).
I hope to get there in the not too distant future and look at that particular project. If I do, I will be more than happy to have the Hon. Member accompany me.

[DOT] (M50)


INDIAN AFFAIRS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. On Wednesday, 16 members of the Barriere Lake Algonquin Indian Band were arrested and their tents were dismantled and seized after they had set them up on Parliament Hill. This removal of the Barriere Lake Algonquins symbolizes what is happening in their home territory which is being threatened by clear-cut logging.
Why has the Prime Minister, or at least the Minister of Indian Affairs, not been willing to meet with these people to work out with them a plan by which together they could meet with the Quebec Government and ensure that their traditional way of life will not be destroyed?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had done his homework and had looked at what we did, he would have realized that I met twice with the Chief and his representative in a period of two days, without notice. I have offered the Indian Band in question our full support in contacting the Government of Quebec, which the Hon. Member should understand has jurisdiction over the lands in question.
I have personally talked to my Quebec colleague, Minister Savoie, with regard to setting up a meeting with the Indians, and I am informed this morning by the Member of Parliament for the area involved that in fact they are on their way to Quebec to meet with the provincial Minister.
The issue has been handled. We have offered our support and we will do whatever we can to help the Barriere Lake Indian Band solve the problem.


REQUEST THAT TENTS SEIZED BY POLICE BE RELEASED
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of State has said was clearly not enough to satisfy the Barriere Lake Indians who felt themselves driven to the extreme measure of having to set up camp on Parliament Hill on Wednesday. These are desperate people.
I would ask the Minister if he would at least ensure that the tents are released so that the people can go fall hunting. Will the Government support their request for an eight-month
September 30, 1988

moratorium on all clear-cut logging in the area while another alternate environmental plan can be worked out? Will the Government commit itself to a political and a technical process with the Band and with the Quebec Government to ensure that their traditional way of life is not destroyed? Will the Government act as an advocate?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member points to a situation that did not begin in 1984. It is noteworthy that these people have had the problem for a long, long time, some 20 years, and no one had addressed it.


James Douglas Manly: You have done nothing.


Bernard Valcourt: We have met with them.
The Hon. Member talks about interfering in the administration of justice. I understand that the police have taken action. The socialists, of course, would always intervene in police work. That is not my job to do. My job is to work with the Chief and with the people to help them get Quebec to discuss the issues they have raised. We have made that commitment and we intend to follow up on it.


CANADIAN EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Government has had no trouble giving billions of dollars to the big oil companies, but today the Minister of Energy reduced the assistance to small and medium oil companies under the Canadian Exploration Development Incentive Program.
I know the Government considers small and medium oil and gas companies a nuisance even though most of them are Canadian, but to reduce funding at this time of low world oil prices will be extremely harmful. Why is the Government trying to put the small and medium oil companies out of business?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has referred to an announcement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources this morning, and he says we decreased. In fact we increased. We increased the amount of assistance available from 16 and 2/3 per cent to 25 per cent in the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program, CEDIP.
The Hon. Member has said that we view this part of the industry as a nuisance. I do not know where the Hon. Member has been over the last four years, but the policies of this
Oral Questions
Government in the energy field have been directed at bringing back that part of the industry that was destroyed, absolutely destroyed during the 1980-81-82 period.
I visited many parts of Alberta and talked to those people he is referring to as a nuisance. They may be a nuisance in the minds of the Liberal Party because that is how the previous Government treated that part of the oil and gas industry. It treated it as a nuisance, and sent so many of them south of the border during that time. That is how that industry was destroyed.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance better stop smoking that stuff, because he really knows that it is one-third now, and the small and medium oil and gas companies wanted to keep it at one-third. However, as of October 1 it is reduced from one-third to one-quarter.
The Minister was not short of funds for the big oil companies, but if he was short of funds, he could have reduced the total amount available from $10 million to $5 million instead of reducing the percentage. He is acting contrary to what the small and medium producers wanted.
The Government says it wants Canadianization but it is putting Canadian companies out of business. Why is the Government refusing to acknowledge the damage being done to small and medium oil companies by the OPEC-orchestrated low world oil prices?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said we did not give the industry exactly what it wanted. I do not think we have given anyone in this country exactly what he or she wanted. That is the way the Liberal Government used to operate, throw the money around, make everybody happy.


Mr. Tobin:: You have the face of a robber's horse.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What we have done is looked at the proposal that this-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Give us a break, Mike, sit down. Issue the writ, call the election.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Clearly, the Hon. Member-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You have more nerve than a toothache.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Clearly the Member from Newfoundland is getting a little twitchy. His collar is probably getting a bit too tight because of the pressure he is under now. I know that when you are third in the polls, just bumping up against the libertarian party, it is tough.

Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and relates to what he referred to in his previous answer. When his Leader was running for election in 1984 he promised that he would not be bribing us with our own money. That promise has been rehashed this week by the new Leader of the Opposition.
Does the Minister believe that the way money has been spent and thrown around in the last couple of weeks has been good for the Canadian economy and the Canadian taxpayers?


John Edward Broadbent: I want to record this one. Let's hear it.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The socialist promises are pure hypocrisy.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend has used a word which I think is very appropriate, hypocrisy. I think that when the Hon. Member looks at himself in the mirror, he will not be able to believe what he just heard come out of his lips. What we have demonstrated over the course of the last four years and what we propose to generate if we are re-elected-


Some Hon. Members:: When.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -after this next election-


John Edward Broadbent: When?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Very soon, very soon. What we will see is a continuation of the fiscal responsibility that we have demonstrated very clearly over the last four years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have brought down the deficit every year for three years running, the first time that has happened since the war. That is a commitment that we made to the Canadian people and it is a commitment we will continue to make to the Canadian people during the course of this campaign.


REGIONAL PROJECTS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister, and I believe it is a serious question. Canadians want their MPs to fight for projects in their provinces and their regions, but they want the Government to have some kind of sense of fiscal responsibility and fairness.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill.
September 30, 1988


Rodney Edward Murphy: The question is very straightforward. Why has this Government been a complete failure over the last four years in making sure there is an honest bidding system, and making sure that when the Prime Minister promises roads, airports, and services to remote parts of his riding, it is done for all of the remote areas of Canada?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I see. That is fiscal responsibility.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can't believe what I am hearing from this Hon. Member. He represents the Party that has called for an $11 billion annual- annual-child care program.


John Edward Broadbent: You're wrong again. That's your propaganda you believe.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, it's your proposal.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is the same Party, whose Leader, every time we brought forward any proposal to cut government spending, was the first one on his feet acting as self-righteous as he possibly can-


John Edward Broadbent: Wrong again! Wrong again!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -saying the Conservatives shouldn't be cutting spending on this program, we shouldn't allow this type of change to be made.


John Edward Broadbent: Do you ever tell the truth over there? Try the truth for a change, Michael.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@Pembina: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. The drought in many parts of Canada has reduced the production of grain and oilseeds. Is the Minister in a position to announce a program at this time? If so, would he share that with Members of the House and Canadians?
Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and
Oilseeds)): Mr. Speaker, I think it is well known that there have been some major production problems this year because of weather, heat, and lack of moisture. It will be a more difficult problem to address than we have had in the last couple of years. People are going to need more assistance than will be able to be provided by crop insurance.
We are in the process of consulting with producers and with the provincial Governments, Ontario and the other provinces, in order to devise a program that will target the assistance and see that it goes to the producers who have suffered the most as a result of lack of production.
September 30, 1988

We are well along in that process and hopefully we will have some announcements made as quickly as we can so that producers know there is assistance coming. That will be of some assistance to them in meeting their financial commitments this fall.
I should also say that we anticipate a very large payment under crop insurance, likely to be close to $1 billion. There will also be some payments available under the Western Grain Stabilization Fund for the western part of the country.


John Edward Broadbent: What is the total, Michael? What does it add up to?


Mr. Mayer:: We are looking to do what we can for other areas, especially Ontario, that are affected by the lack of production this summer as well.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Efon. Member for Hamilton East.


HEMOPHILIACS WITH AIDS VIRUS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Six weeks ago the Minister met with the Canadian Hemophilia Society with respect to its proposal for a compensation package to assist the 1,000 Canadian hemophiliacs who tested positive for the AIDS virus. Given that we are expecting an election call very shortly, probably within the next few minutes or the next hour-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -I would like to ask the Minister if he could-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: You're two days late.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 would like to ask the Minister whether he will commit today in the House before the dissolution to a compensation package for hemophiliacs who have contracted the AIDS virus as a result of deficient government blood supplies.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is a serious question. It needs a serious answer.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the preamble of the Hon. Member, if she knows something about leaving ships and
Oral Questions
stories about people leaving ships, of course she will have to address that.
I met with the Hemophiliac Society on August 15. We have had discussions. That was not the first. It gave us a proposal but I am not going to be making an announcement today or in the immediate days ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


BLOOD SUPPLY-COMPENSATION QUERY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, what I think we have here is a national tragedy. We have a national tragedy where 50 per cent of patients with hemophilia have received the AIDs virus as a result of tainted blood supply which was under the direction of the Government. I do not expect the Minister to announce a dollar figure today in the House. I do expect him to endorse the principle of compensation for the 50 per cent of hemophiliac victims who are currently facing an uncertain future because they have contracted the AIDS virus. Will the Minister commit today to the principle of compensation for those hemophiliac victims?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, what should be mentioned to the House and to those I have met with, with respect to the Hemophiliac Society-the first point that has to be made, I think, is that some of the statements the Hon. Member makes are probably made for political rhetoric rather than for health reasons.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Come on, Jake!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Sit down!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I mean that, because when the Member talks about trying to tie in government with irresponsibility, that has simply not been the case. This has been an international situation. Blood products up to the fall of 1985 were not heat treated and that was not only a Canadian situation, that was as the AIDS issue developed. This Government then insisted that all product be heat treated. Even today, within medical circles there is a question of whether we should go from one method of heat treatment to another.
Second, blood products coming into Canada, or Canadian products, are under the control of the Canadian Blood Committee which is a committee of federal and provincial members-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Under your direction.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -appointed by both provincial and federal Governments. So this Government took action as early or earlier than other countries.
With respect to the principle of compensation, as was my first answer today, I cannot give a commitment as this time.

September 30, 1988
Vacancy


VACANCY
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, Lome Greenaway, Esquire, Member for the electoral district of Cariboo- Chilcotin, by resignation.
Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I have a significant and important petition to submit. The signatures have been collected and presented by 230 students, young Canadians, who attend Lisgar Collegiate Institute. Perhaps it is the first time they have become involved in the political process. They are concerned about an issue which they would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker.
The Algonquin Indians of La Verendrye Park who were demonstrating before the Centre Block a few days ago have put forward an issue which requires your attention, namely, the right to protect natural resources on the reserves and the land which they occupy and have occupied for centuries from the devastation caused by the lumber industry and by hunters who take away from them the natural resources on which their livelihood depends.
The petition is duly prepared and certified and is submitted for your consideration.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present 7,000 signatures to add to the 20,000 signatures which have already been put forward petitioning the Government on the issue of food labelling, given that many restaurants do not provide a complete list of ingredients in take-out foods.
I would like to present these with a special tribute to Christian and Betty Lou Taylor. Christian Taylor died as a result of eating fast food from a particular restaurant. His mother has been carrying on this battle. For Mrs. Taylor and all the other Canadians who support ingredient labelling, I table this petition.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, since this may be the last day we are here for a while, I want to present three petitions on behalf of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). They deal with a request from a number of British Columbians to amend the Indian Act to end all discrimination based upon sex and to ensure that past discrimination against women can be steadily and fairly rectified by reinstatement of the status and band membership which aboriginal women would have enjoyed if not for this discrimination.
The petition goes on to detail other things they are asking for but I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, can take a very close look at them after we finish this part of our proceedings. I wish to table these petitions on the Member's behalf.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have a duly authorized petition here from a number of Canadian citizens concerned about the fact that on the very day the Government signed the South Moresby Park Agreement it also committed itself to spending $20 million or more to explore for hydrocarbons in the South Moresby Marine Park.
The petitioners point out that the Queen Charlottes region has higher earthquake activity than the San Andreas Fault and that Hecate waters are among the roughest and most unpredictable waters in the world.
Therefore, they point out that they do not want any more hydrocarbon exploration activities to take place in our coastal waters and neither do they want the Government to pay for any such activities.
V * V


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, somebody said: "Here's 'old one-a-day' again". We have done more than one on many days. Our record is around 90 per cent, much better than that of the previous Government.
I think I will have a lot of answers on Monday, but today I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
September 30, 1988


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the Parties. 1 think you would find unanimous consent to proceed with Bill S-21 at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to proceed with Bill S-21?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for this Bill to proceed through all stages at this time. If the motion were to read to send it to a Committee of the Whole House, we could proceed through all stages.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the Bill proceed through all stages at this time?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Vankoughnet:: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) who will be absent from the House today, I suggest that I be made the sponsor of Bill S-21, an Act to revive Grenville Aggregate Specialties Limited of Madoc, Ontario, and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act. Accordingly, I request, with the leave of this House, that my name be substituted for the name of the Hon. Member in the records of the House as sponsor of said Bill.
I seek unanimous consent of the House to proceed through all stages of Bill C-21 now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Members have heard the request of the Hon. Member. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


William John Vankoughnet: that Bill kS-21, an Act to revive Grenville Aggregate Specialties Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I had thought the Member would give some explanation of why we have agreed to pass this Bill. I think a short history would have been appropriate.
Bill S-21 apparently began in the Senate where it was sponsored by Senator Romeo Leblanc. It proceeded through all stages there in fairly short order. I do not intend to prolong debate here, but I think it is important that people understand that this is a Bill to revive a company which was incorporated
Grenville Aggregate Specialties
in 1964 but failed to file its annual summary with the Secretary of State for three years and, therefore, following notice in The Canada Gazette in 1967 the company was dissolved in 1968.
Since then, however, it has apparently acted as though the company was never dissolved. Its directors continued business activities without knowledge of the company's dissolution. The company is now being sold. In order for the company to be sold it must be revived. The Canada Business Corporations Act does not provide for such revival. Therefore, a special Act of Parliament is required and that is why Bill S-21 is before us. It is no more complicated than that.
I may have a couple of questions at report stage, but I think this is a straightforward revival of a company, something we have been doing here for many years in cases where directors, lawyers, or whoever was acting on behalf of a company forgot to file the required papers with the Secretary of State annually.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Marcel Danis: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill S-21, an Act to revive Grenville Aggregate Specialties Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On Clause 2-Rights preserved


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, Clause 2 presents a concern to me. The concern which I have to put to the House arises from the wording in the Bill, that is, that the revival of this company will not prejudice the rights of any third parties which were acquired during the period of dissolution. I think that is a legitimate concern which should be answered in the House.
Is the Bill drafted in such a way as to protect those people who dealt with the company while it was not actively recognized as such? My concern is, of course, for any third parties that may have been acting with the company not knowing that it had been dissolved. Could there be a prejudice to the third party? If that concern can be answered in the positive, I would be satisfied.


William John Vankoughnet: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Bill has been drafted in such a way as to take this

September 30, 1988
Bank Act
matter into consideration. Anything that has taken place will be taken care of in this circumstance.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William John Vankoughnet: that Bill C-21, an Act to revive Grenville Aggregate Specialties Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act, be read the third time and passed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say a few words at third reading of this Bill. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) was originally to pilot the Bill through its stages in the House. I want to thank her for the work she has done for this group, Grenville Aggregate Specialties Limited.
During the committee stage I rose to ask what I believe was an important question. I understand that we have assurances now that there will be no prejudice to third parties. I just read a letter dated September 23, which was signed by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. It was addressed to Mr. Fred Seller, and the Hon. Member asked about third parties.
The answer came to her on September 26. I will quote the letter from Drache Rattenberg, barristers and solicitors, so that we understand that indeed these third parties will be protected. The letter is signed by Mr. Fred Seller. He states:
It is my understanding that you are in possession of the draft Minutes from the Hearing before the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I have enclosed herewith a copy of the final edited version which makes reference only to affidavits relating to the publications of notices.
However, if you desire an Affidavit I will have the principal shareholder of Grenville Aggregate Specialties Limited swear an Affidavit accordingly.
I think that satisfies my request. Therefore, I conclude my remarks by saying to the House that these Bills occasionally come before the House of Commons. They meet with certain requirements of the law.
Some time ago I believed that we could do without this process by having another forum look at these companies which fail to file the proper documents with the Secretary of State. I hoped that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would find a solution that would avoid the House of Commons and the Senate doing what we are doing today, passing a Private Members' Bill that revives a company which failed to report according to the law.
However, I believe there could be a solution by Consumer and Corporate Affairs if we address that properly. In the next Parliament I hope to have a chance to present appropriate legislation.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-140, an Act to amend the Bank Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Motion agrees to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, September 29, consideration of Bill C-152, an Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the amendments of Mr. Marchi:
September 30, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-152 be amended in Clause 27 by striking out line 16 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"third anniversary of the coming into force".
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-152 be amended in Clause 27 by striking out line 24 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"before each House of Parliament and referred to such committee of the
House, of the Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established for the purpose, within the".
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the Elon. Minister responsible for housing asked whether I had come back to Ottawa to say no to the Government's Bill on service charges. If he will give a few moments of attention he will know perfectly well that I came back for a bit more than that. I came back for report stage on the Heritage Languages Institute Bill and whatever action may occur on it.
I come back with anything but good cheer on this particular Bill. Other colleagues have already pointed out the kind of treatment the Bill received in the legislative committee last week. It was outrageous treatment. One would have expected preparation for hearings, albeit limited hearings I am sure, for the testimony from persons in Canada who have a great concern about heritage languages, persons who have been involved in advancing the study of heritage languages, persons who are concerned about the organization of classes in their communities, in the various regions of Canada. I had fully expected that the establishment of a heritage languages institute in the City of Edmonton, with the responsibility to advance the study of heritage languages across the country, would have required some attention in the legislative committee to determine how the existing activities in the various regions of the country would relate and integrate with the programs that will be established by this institute. Of course, on this Friday afternoon, on September 30, it is a most doubtful question whether it will even be established, given all the speculation about an election.
The refusal of any such hearings in the legislative committee was a denial of all the conventions of the House and the parliamentary principles on which the Parliament of Canada is founded. During the last months of its mandate and the very rapid action on multiculturalism in certain areas, the Government is claiming that it understands the situation in this country and is concerned about advancing multiculturalism. At the same time it is prepared to reject the fundamental principles of the parliamentary system. That is a complete contradiction to all of its claims.
When Conservatives were members of the Opposition, they were well equipped to argue for the liberties of Parliament and assert the rights of the Opposition. For them to behave this way when they are in government is an abomination to the people of Canada. How can they make any claim to respecting the various cultures in this country and their traditions when those traditions we have derived from the Mother of Parliaments, including the principles of careful and deliberate
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
consideration of legislation in this House and the legislative committees, were denied by government Members in the legislative committee?
The Taylors and the Turners who did the job on members of the Opposition in the legislative committee, who insisted that there be no hearing of witnesses at all, who pressed ahead and insisted that amendments to the Bill should be considered immediately, and who insisted that within hours the work should be done on the Bill in order to send it to the House, have no sense of what the Parliament of Canada is about.
I have attacked the Government once already in terms of the abuse of power. When it dealt with the multiculturalism Bill last spring, it suddenly cut off the process of hearings, put forward a limited list of witnesses to be considered, in the absence of opposition Members insisted on dealing with the amendments to this bill that have been put forward, and voted them down seriatim, one after another, in the legislative committee.
That abusive power is one that I have attacked from coast to coast in Canada. There are mailings to representatives of multicultural organizations and of the multicultural press. We have in this particular Bill even greater abominations, in the refusal of any kind of consideration of the testimony that could be provided by persons. This suggests a dreadful beginning for the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute when or if it is brought into existence.
If we establish this institute based on a request for a National Heritage Languages Institute in western Canada, to be based in Edmonton, it will be given a national mandate, as the Bill proposes to do. However, there is a refusal to talk with people who have been involved in the advancement of heritage languages anywhere in the country, as much in Edmonton and Winnipeg as in Toronto and Quebec City. When there is this sort of refusal to consider what is going on, obviously there is no respect for traditions or for parliamentary conventions and no regard for the regional realities of Canada. What one has is the most shameless sort of playing of politics with a matter that is of enormous importance.
These comments have to be put on the record. One can only regret that at this late point in this Parliament, early on Friday afternoon of September 30, even government Members are hardly here to hear what a couple of their colleagues have chosen to do, presumably on the marching orders of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) or whoever is in charge of these abominations coming out of this Government these days.
To focus particularly on Motions Nos. 5 and 6 which we are considering this afternoon near the end of debate at report stage, we have two amendments by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), both of which I would want to support in my specific comments.

September 30, 1988
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
The first is an amendment which would propose that the operations of this Bill become active and take effect, and that the operations of the new Canadian Eleritage Languages Institute be considered not at the fourth anniversary but at the third anniversary of its operation.
Clearly, from what I have said about our inability to have proper parliamentary consideration of how effectively this institute is begun, it becomes all the more imperative to have an early review of that institute. We all know that Parliaments tend to run in about four-year cycles. We all know that if this Bill actually takes effect, it is all too likely that the fourth anniversary review would coincide very closely with the next federal general election. That makes it all the more imperative that the review to be carried out be undertaken after three years rather than four.
I think government Members could recognize the value, for the good government of Canada, of having the operations of this Canadian Heritage Languages Institute reviewed after three years, so that there might be a possibility in the next Parliament for reconsidering what we are doing in such a hurried, hasty, and unconsidered way in the late days of this particular Parliament.
As far as Motion No. 6 is concerned, we have a proposal for the report of the institute to be presented, not simply to Parliament but to the Standing Committee on Multicultural-ism for consideration. That seems to be a very useful amendment to the Bill.
We have not seen in the first three and three-quarter years of this Government very much of value in the area of multicul-turalism. We had wasted days and wasted opportunities time after time. Practically the only useful thing this Government did in the first three and three-quarter years of its mandate in the area of multiculturalism was to move in this House for the establishment of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, which was done at the end of June, 1985.
The standing committee has begun to do useful work. I suppose all Members would agree. Obviously I have a certain self-interest in asserting that as one of the ongoing Members, the New Democratic representative on it. I leave to others agreement on the value of the committee, but I would point Members to the report issued by the committee last year, at the end of June, 1987, as one indication of the hard work members of the committee have done. More of our recommendations have been taken up in the last weeks, really, than we had expected in the spring when the multiculturalism Bill came before the House without any provision for institutional changes. Suddenly the Government has decided in these last weeks to establish a full-fledged Minister and Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, as it happens. That shows that the Government has far more acceptance of the work of the standing committee than we had been led earlier to expect the committee would have the satisfaction of seeing.
Given this evidence of the work of one more standing committee of this House, in this particular instance, I think the
case for a review by the standing committee of the work of the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute on an annual basis is a good one. It does not really take very much argument to say that they are in the standing committee where so much of the detailed work in practically every area of this House is done by Members who develop expertise, have a real concern, and work together across partisan lines. Certainly that was true in our committee.
Although the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) with whom I spoke earlier this day is not in his seat at the moment, he deserves commendation for the generally nonpartisan way in which the committee operated, pressing multiculturalism and the achievement of the practices of government to' ensure that the old policy statement and our Canadian commitment to it became a reality. That work in the committee is the best basis for making the argument for committee consideration of the annual reports which the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute would provide.
1 speak very firmly in support of these two amendments in a positive sense, after my strong and very critical and really bitter attack on the treatment given members of the legislative committee. Opposition members particularly received bad treatment from those government members who chose to abuse the liberties of Parliament, who chose to violate the conventions of the House and ride roughshod not just over parliamentarians but over everyone in the country involved with heritage languages who deserve the right to comment on and to criticize the Bill in order to ensure that what we do here this day, this week, next week, or whenever it is concluded, is properly done.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we can certainly feel in the air that things are running down, but I would like to take the opportunity to make a few comments about the proposed amendments, specifically perhaps a little about the Bill in general.
It is time for the Government of Canada to support a Canadian Heritage Languages Institute. One of the hidden strengths of the country is the capacity of Canadians as a global group to speak almost every language spoken in the world today. Our immigration policies over time have brought to Canada, as landed immigrants and citizens, people from all four corners of this globe and from every nation of the world.
If we do not act and put public resources into the retention of those languages, we will lose the advantages that we have in terms of world trade, our influence on world peace, and our influence for a better environment on a global basis. We get some of that influence because of our heritage, our heritage languages, and the capacity of Canadians to speak with everybody on the globe. It is in the context of a better environment, a better future for people around the world, our capacity to help reduce poverty around the world, and of our capacity as a nation to contribute to the peace process around the world
September 30, 1988

and to participate in the notion of economic development that the richness of our cultural diversity and our heritage languages becomes a priority item, at least for this Government.
I heard people on the other side complaining about the Government taking so long to come forward with a number of initiatives, including the naming of a Minister. One of the first initiatives of the Government was to set up consultation processes. Whether we were talking about the changes in tax policy or the multicultural policy, the Government said, in the interests of national unity and in the interests of getting the legislation correct and making sure that it would function, it must set in place processes that provide better consultation.
It is a pipe dream for anyone to think that the moment they are elected to this Chamber somehow or another the necessary expertise to deal with all the subjects that affect Canadians falls out of the sky. Hopefully, the electorate of this country choose men and women to come to this Chamber who have some broad base of experience, a lot of common sense, and a capacity to ask good questions and listen to the answers. In the final analysis it is our job to referee disputes and produce legislation that will help us as a nation to progress. At the heart of our capacity to produce good legislation lies the notion of our capacity to consult. Consultation takes time. If one is sincere in an attempt to consult, then one has to acknowledge that there must be the passage of time spent to listen, time spent to dialogue, and time spent to reach conclusions. All of that has to be done in the context of priorities.
When this Government came into office in 1984, the nation was looking bankruptcy in the eye. We had runaway borrowing. The Government of Canada was borrowing an amount that was equivalent to more than 90 per cent of the savings of Canadians. There was no money left for Canadians to borrow to buy a car, a home, or other things without going to the international market, reducing the value of our dollar, and increasing interest rates. Our standard of living was falling like a rocket. The Government came into office with many commitments. However, the priority was to straighten out the economic situation in order that there would be jobs for Canadians to enable them to participate fully in society.
I stand here four years later with certain knowledge that there are approximately 1,300,000 more Canadians with jobs today than there were in September, 1984. It is a record of achievement. It had to be dealt with first. We could not have a Canadian heritage language institute, or the budget money for that very important initiative, or the Bill before us today, if we continued on the path that the previous Government had taken us on.
Bankruptcy produces a situation where none of the good or positive things can be done. Bankruptcy would have eroded our health care system and our unemployment insurance system. Bankruptcy would have eroded our colleges, universities, and all our social programs. We make no apology for commencing our four year term of office with those initiatives required to restore the country to economic health, to provide jobs for
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
Canadians and ultimately taxes for the public purse, to reduce the deficit, and put us on a path that would lead to the health that we are enjoying today.
I wish to deal with the amendments for one moment and urge my colleagues to defeat the amendments. Motion No. 5 seeks to take a four-year period and reduce it to three for the Minister to comment on the success of an institute. I believe that four years might even be a little short. Certainly, to make public evaluation comments after three years in the life span of a new institute with a mandate of this type is simply too soon.
Motion No. 6 has some detail on where the reports of the institute should be referred. The Standing Orders take care of that situation. Therefore, Motion No. 6 is not necessary, and probably it is not a good idea.
I urge my colleagues in the Chamber to approve the Bill, but to reject the two proposed amendments before us at this time.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division will be deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.

September 30, 1988
Point of Order
And more than five Members having risen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division will be deferred.
Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill C-152. However, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 13(5) the recorded divisions will stand deferred until six o'clock on Monday, October 3.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we had hoped to be able to deal with the divisions and third reading today. However, I understand the position of the Official Opposition, and, therefore we will have to wait until Monday.
There have been discussions among the Parties, Mr. Speaker, and I think you would find that there would be consent to suspend the sitting until 2 p.m., and at the conclusion of Private Members' Business, which will commence at 2 p.m., to further suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair until later for the purpose of Royal Assent, and any other business unanimously agreed upon among the Parties.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we agreed to the Government's request for the simple reason that there is a bill dealing with unemployment insurance that we consider to be very important and would like to see given royal assent. Otherwise we would have said no, because the Government has failed to give us satisfaction on many issues and is constantly wasting the time of the House. However, to make it easier for the unemployed to receive their benefits, we agree.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to give our consent to the procedure outlined by the Minister. The reason, of course, is that we want to see the unemployment insurance Bill receive Royal Assent now just in case something may happen later today or tomorrow.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, as official critic for the Liberal Party, I would like to say that notwithstanding the Government's action vis-a-vis the legislative committee on Bill C-152, we would have been prepared to see that Bill through report stage and third reading provided the Government cooperated and agreed to the very few amendments proposed by this side of the House.
[ Translation]


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, since it is 12.55 p.m. and we are going to adjourn until two o'clock, would the Minister be prepared to discuss Bill C-79, the amendments to the Canada Elections Act? As you know, the Legislative Committee has already been formed. I was appointed Chairman of the Committee by the Chair, and I would be willing to sit if I were sent the election reform Bill. Could we start considering the
Bill today? Or would the Minister consider putting it on the agenda next week, at the House Leaders' meeting?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No.


POINT OF ORDER
David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, this morning when 1 made my statement pursuant to Standing Order 21, I neglected to include the name of a Member who announced yesterday his intention not to run in the next election, namely the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle). I would like to add his name to the list and wish him well in retirement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 12.53 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West) moved: that Bill C-266, an Act to provide for the limitation of interest rates and fees in relation to credit card accounts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: This Bill intends to impose a financial law of gravity: what goes up should come down. The intention of the Bill is to regulate interest charges on credit cards issued by financial institutions, petroleum companies and retail stores. It will impose a floating rate limit so that interest charges may increase when the cost of money rises and be required to fall when the cost of money declines.
The reason for the Bill is straightforward. If the companies' costs go up, so do the customers'. If the companies' costs fall, so do the customers'.
September 30, 1988

In the case of financial institutions, the limit will be 6.5 per cent above the Bank of Canada rate averaged over the previous month, if the bank, trust company or credit union charges user fees and entry and renewal fees. The limit will be 8.5 per cent above the bank rate averaged over the previous month if no fees are charged at all. The limit will be 9.5 per cent above the average bank rate in the case of petroleum companies and 11.5 per cent in the case of retail stores.
To illustrate, if this Bill were law, credit card charges would have been limited, during the month of September, by the bank rate averaged through August. That average rate was 9.73 per cent. The requirements of this Bill would thus mean important savings for Visa and MasterCard users and dramatic savings for users of petroleum cards and retail store charge cards. Petroleum companies would have been limited to 18.28 per cent instead of 24 per cent. Retail stores would have been limited to 20.8 per cent instead of 28.8 per cent. The Bill will also prevent card issuers from getting even by increasing user, entry and renewal fees. So much for summing up the intent of the Bill.
Let me raise a question for the House. Why should Parliament want to impose this kind of limit? I would like to attempt an answer which is partly philosophical and partly historical.
First, let us face the argument that Parliament should stay out of the market-place, that this Bill represents an unwarranted intrusion. I know that there are probably certain officials in Ottawa who are having apoplexy on this Friday afternoon at the thought of this Bill. It might be a good argument if the users of the argument really meant it, but they do not unless it suits their convenience. They support the theory of free enterprise but often they advocate the opposite.
Where is this free market that they like to talk about? It certainly is not found in Ottawa on Thursday afternoon at 2 p.m., for at that time, the Bank of Canada, owned by the Government of Canada, enters the market-place to control the price of money, to control the interest rate that will be charged to banks and through them to the whole country.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada does not have the slightest inhibition about telling the business community what it can expect from him and what it can expect from him is certainly not a free market-place. That is an important point for all who think that Conservatism and an unbridled free market are one and the same. Obviously they are not. The leftwing critics of Conservatism like to see it that way and so do its radical champions, but the philosophy of Conservatism has stood for something else, and it can be summed up in this way: it is the belief that no power should be unlimited, that each power should be checked and balanced by another.
Conservatives, therefore, want private enterprise instead of state enterprise having a monopoly because they do not want the state to combine economic monopoly with political monopoly. However, private enterprise also must be checked and balanced. Its power has to be limited too.
Interest Rates
This Bill is based on the principle that the state has a right to check and balance the power of corporations. When large corporations are not fair to their consumers, the state has a right to require that they become fair.
In the United States, the top 25 firms in the country control 50 per cent of the credit business. It could well be worse in Canada, and this means that only one power in those two countries is strong enough to defend the people. In our case, it is the power of Parliament, so I bring to the floor of the House of Commons this afternoon this Bill.
Let us take another example of how the state has the right to be active in this arena and is active in it. Our statutes include a penalty for usury. It is not always realized, but they do. They define usury in the most extraordinary way. Usury is defined as interest rates that are 60 per cent or higher. The rate is so fantastic, so ludicrous, that the financial institutions do not worry about it. I suggest that they should worry about it, and all their lobbyists should be arguing against this definition of usury because it means that Parliament has accepted the principle that Parliament has the right to impose a limit on interest rates. If we do not have that right, then how can Parliament be entitled to limit interest rates to 60 per cent or to any per cent? We could choose 60 per cent, 6 per cent or 160 per cent. Once we do so, we are expressing the same principle that Parliament, in the name of the people, has the right to do that.
Bill C-266 is therefore not a radical imposition of state power where the state should not intrude. It is just the opposite. It is an application of the principle that is found in our existing law.
So much for philosophy. Let us turn briefly to history. History shows that issuers of credit cards have been very quick over the years to raise rates but have been equally reluctant to lower them. Let me give a few examples from retail stores. In the 1970s, the major retail chains throughout Canada imposed charge card rates that rose steadily from 18 per cent in 1971 to
23.4	per cent in 1980, and this was because of the rising cost of money. Then they catapulted to 28.8 per cent in 1981. That was because the bank rate soared that year to 18.3 per cent. Note this carefully: the spread between those two rates was
10.5	per cent. That is a full point less than the spread that would be imposed by Bill C-266, so it is a very moderate Bill.
A reasonable person might expect that stores, given the situation, would have cut their charge card rates when the bank rate fell so dramatically in the mid 1980s. You would expect that, but they have not come down a fraction of a point. The Bay, Home Flardware, Canadian Tire, Eaton's, Sears, Simpson's and Zellers are still charging 28.8 per cent. Woodwards charges 26.4 per cent.
Some of the lobbyists justify this by claiming their customers pay less than Visa or MasterCard users since the stores do not charge any interest for a certain period, often 30 days after

September 30, 1988
Interest Rates
the purchase. Let us acknowledge that, whether it is 30 days or 21 days, but let us also see that it is only part of the truth. A customer may pay less if he pays in full in a few months, but if the bill goes on longer than three months, he will find himself paying more than if he used Visa or MasterCard.
Tough on him, you say, that is his fault, he should have paid up. Perhaps that is right, and it is tough, tough, tough on a Toronto man who wrote me and showed me how a debt he had incurred when he was working had doubled in the two years he was unemployed and could not keep up with the credit card charges.
I ask the House to take this seriously, to see this as a human problem, and to recognize that we have an opportunity and an obligation. Let us come back to the point that is so important for us to recognize. If the major store chain of this country can make profits in 1981 with a rate that was 10 per cent above the bank rate, why in August 1988 did they have to levy a charge 19 points above the bank rate in that month? Perhaps part of the answer is given here. I quote from The Globe and Mail of May 7, 1988. The news item is headed: "Card operations get the credit at Canadian Tire". It is a report by Karen Howlett.
Profit at Canadian Tire Corp. Ltd. was up a whopping 27 per cent in the first quarter of this year. But most of the gains did not come from selling lawnmowers, hammers and spark plugs-they came from the company's credit card operation.
Over-all, profit has been growing faster than sales at the Toronto based retailer. In its core merchandising division, however, profit gains have lagged behind sales increases.
Further on in the report we read:
For the first time last year, the division passed the $1 billion mark in credit sales for its own and other credit cards, Mr. Groussman told shareholders. Canadian Tire's total sales, by comparison, were $2.5 billion.
The credit division recorded a 29 per cent profit gain, far surpassing its revenue increase of 13 per cent.
Is it not clear, Mr. Speaker, that people who are using these charge cards of our major stores are paying more than reason and fairness should allow? Some Members may say that is true but they still do not want to pass a Bill like this. They may argue that in view of past successes by Parliament, the way to deal with this issue is to focus on it the spotlight of a House of Commons debate, such as the debate this afternoon, and committee inquiries such as we have had with some success. That method produced results with credit cards in 1987 and bank service charges in 1988. They were not the great results anyone in the House could have wished but, notwithstanding, they were results.
Why not rely on that method now? The reason, I submit, is simple. The public surely has the right to a guarantee that it will not be gouged. It cannot take that guarantee for granted in this country given the past and current practices of credit issuing institutions. Through the 1980s the bank rate has been up and down and up again and surely will be down again, but the store charge cards seem now written in stone.
Albert Einstein said that everything in this universe is relative, but he forgot about these charge cards. They are absolute. The rate on these cards cannot be changed no matter what else changes in the 20th century? So there is only one absolute left, the rate on these store charge cards, unless Parliament is ready to help the people. I ask in this debate that the House give the consumer a break and pass Bill C-266. Send it to committee. If there is quibbling about some feature of it, let the committee improve it. That is what a committee is for. It could be the Committee of the Whole this afternoon. That would be great. This Bill could be refined, of course. It is a human document, but let us pass it.
The financial institutions will not like it, but the people of Canada will. The retail chains will denounce us, but the people will cheer us. The lobbyists will show fury unbounded, but the people will see that this House of Commons is what its name suggests, it is the House of the people.
Since this just might possibly be the last hour of this Parliament, may I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all the other speakers, for presiding over our debates with such fairness and grace. I want to say thank you, through you, Mr. Speaker, to all fellow members of this House for the opportunity to live and work with them all. I have enjoyed the company of all Members of all Parties so much, I am going to do my best to get back here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on Bill C-266. I want to begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) for bringing forward a matter about which all of us from all sides of the House feel strongly. As a result of the Member's efforts and the efforts of members of the standing committee, it is obvious that something must be done about the fees and charges and interest rates on credit cards by a variety of interests.
I am sorry that my hon. friend is acquiescent enough to be satisfied that this Bill be referred to a legislative committee. I want to tell him that he would have the support of my Party and it is very possible the support of the Official Opposition for unanimous consent to deal with this Bill in all stages between now and three o'clock.
I want to refer to a story in the Bible, and I do this with some trepidation in light of the past of my good friend from Scarborough West. He knows better than I the story about Jesus driving the money changers out of the temple. That was at least 2,000 years ago and they have been sneaking in the back door ever since. They have done this in a manner which flies in the face of every Christian ethic and principle.
My hon. friend mentioned a person who was unemployed, could not pay his debt and ended up paying double. Those who would make a profit from the misfortunes of others are basically immoral. That kind of immorality flies in the face of principles and ethics not only of the Christian religion but
September 30, 1988

every other religion I can think of. It is not a case of objecting to someone making a profit. Everyone agrees that for your efforts and your investments you are entitled to a reasonable profit after you have paid your taxes. That is not a problem.
My hon. friend mentioned usury, and he is right on. That used to be a hanging offence. Centuries ago it was an offence for which you could be drawn and quartered. I do not think my hon. friend's Bill goes far enough. I do not think they should be entitled to 9.5 per cent to 11.5 per cent above the prime rate. That is far too generous. However, at least the Bill places a limit on what they can do.
My hon. friend is perfectly right that when interest rates went up it was amazing how fast interest rates on credit cards and other fees and charges went up. They went up almost daily, certainly weekly. When interest rates started coming down, it took a month or more before the interest rates on these credit cards started to come down. Sometimes it took two or three months.
As an innocent stubble-jumping prairie boy, an average Canadian, I do not like being taken for a sucker. I am not going to be a party to what Barnum said, that there's a sucker born every minute. If I owe money, due to actions of my own, I will pay it no matter how long it takes and I do not object to paying a reasonable interest charge on it. However, the kind of stuff that Canadians are forced to put up with nowadays is more than usury, it is criminal. I cannot remember if there was ever a charge laid under the usury provisions of the Criminal Code. There might have been a hundred years ago. It is a criminal offence, even though they never get charged.
The bank rate is approximately 11 per cent today, yet the petroleum companies, Canadian Tire, Eaton, and The Bay charge 28 per cent. That is a 17 per cent mark-up. If that is not usurious, I do not know the definition of the word. The fees of bank cards like Visa and MasterCard are smaller than that.
I remember when an organization in Toronto started up a card called Cashex. There were a couple of thousands retailers in Toronto and area which agreed to give a 5 per cent discount when you had this card and paid cash because that is what it cost the retailers when it accepted a credit card. The credit company not only charges that interest rate, but charges the retailers 5 per cent.
I am sorry that Cashex did not survive. I quite often go into a store and say: "Here is my MasterCard, or I will give you cash if you knock off 5 per cent". Once in a while they do it.
I am certain that there is all-Party agreement on this very limited Bill of my hon. friend. The Senate is sitting this afternoon and it can deal with it in five minutes. Therefore, I not only give my support to the Bill but would like to close my remarks by asking for unanimous consent that we deal with second reading, report stage, and third reading between now and three o'clock this day.
Interest Rates


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the proposal made by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) that the Bill go to Committee of the Whole. Is there unanimous consent to that effect?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that government Members would not give unanimous consent. Perhaps the Bill could be voted on prior to three o'clock if government Members do not speak to it. That is the other way in which the Bill can pass the House. I will confine my remarks to only a couple of minutes.
I will speak to the principle of the Bill which involves interest rates and fees on moneys owed by Canadians. I want to put on the record the most outrageous interest rates and fees charged to Canadians.
I am sure every Member of Parliament has recently received letters from people saying such things as: "I owed $2,000 two years ago but now owe $5,000". That is all because of interest and fees. Imagine owing twice as much over a two-year period as you actually owed in the beginning. That is incredible. The person or institution to whom the money is owed then places a third party lien on the business from which the person collects his money, commonly referred to as a garnishee of wages or a third party lien.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was at the United Nations yesterday announcing a further forgiveness of debt owed to Canada by Third World nations. I am certainly not objecting to that, but it seems ironic that while we are being generous to our less fortunate neighbours, we are persecuting our less fortunate citizens in this country.
This morning a gentleman phoned me and told me that four years ago he owed $4,326.47. A month ago that $4,326.47 had become $22,562.94. Do you know who had put on those interest rates and fees, Mr. Speaker? It was the Government of Canada through National Revenue. There is your biggest violator. The highest interest rates and fees in the world are charged by the Department of National Revenue, the Government of Canada, the politicians.
His account from National Revenue came to $18,182.33 on a debt of $4,326.47. There is a line for law costs, which amounts to $51.70. I do not know what that is. I wish there was a lawyer one could hire for $51.70, but I am sure there is not. From a debt of $4,000 four years ago on a bankruptcy of a small company, this gentleman now owes over five times that amount.
This gentleman, like thousands of other Canadian families, has a gross income every two weeks of $699.56. The deductions from that include pension of $30, union fees of $16, income tax of $121, Canada Pension of $12, unemployment

September 30, 1988
Interest Rates
insurance of $17, for a net income of $489.56 for two weeks. What did the Government of Canada do? That great Government, made up of politicians who are supposed to represent the people, garnisheed his wages. It left him with $239.56 every two weeks for that gentleman, his wife, a mortgage, three children in school and two in university. Today he is looking at a cheque for $239.56 for a two-week period, all because he was charged interest and penalties of four times the amount he owed. It happened to be the Government of Canada.
The Department of National Revenue simply goes in and begins attaching. The amount it attaches depends on the attachment of wages Act of the province in which the person is living. Unfortunately, this person happens to live in a province where the attachment level leaves one with about $120 in the pay cheque.
The attachment of wages Act is another Bill made by politicians who are representing the people of each province. They decide to allow the courts to attach wages down to that amount. The federal Government of the country then decides to pass a law saying that interest rates and penalty fees charged by the Government of Canada to individuals can be as high as to cause a debt of $4,000 to become $22,562.94 after four years.
This family and thousands of other Canadian families are being driven into Third World poverty by the Government. I say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and other politicians that when they talk about forgiving debts, charity begins at home. There are thousands of Canadian families who are suffering because of the actions of the Government.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Justice begins at home.


George Baker: The hon. gentleman says that justice begins at home. That could be the subject of another long address.
Hopefully the election will be called today and there will be a new Liberal Government in power so that in two months we will sweep all of these high interest rates and charges by the Government of Canada into the ash can of history.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, first I would ask that someone check the sky carefully. I know there is a full moon, but there must be at least two to have that kind of rhetoric this late in the day.
I agreed to speak on this Bill in the name of my good friend, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse), because I want to perform a bit of subterfuge on the House. I know the Speaker will have a deaf ear on this side for at least a minute and a half.
I came into the House some 16 years ago next month. This will be the last chance I will have to speak here. In fact, as my good friend from Newfoundland said, this is very likely the last half hour of this Parliament.
I want to take some time to say a special thank you to my electors, my staff, my colleagues-both pre and post TV-the
Chair and all the people who sit in it, the Table and all the staff who work with the Table, the administration staff of the House of Commons with whom I have had a particularly close relationship, the committees and their staff and the pages particularly. I took part in the initial page program. To my left there are some fellows who are grown up pages now. We appreciate the help they give us as well.
I want to comment on the Bill put forward by my friend from Scarborough West and comment particularly on a superb speech he made just recently in support of this Bill. I want to recognize the Hon. Member's contribution to the public discussion of credit cards and interest charges thereon.
In the next election his electors should know that he is largely responsible for the recent Government investigation into this issue, especially those by the House of Commons Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. I am sure that many Canadian consumers are now more aware of the interest costs associated with credit cards because of the public debate that he initiated.
In introducing Bill C-226, a Bill to limit credit card interest rates, in September last year, there can be no doubt that my colleague was attempting to protect the interests of credit card users. However, the Government believes that the Bill does not quite do what it would like to see done.
As a result of the Government's investigation of credit card interest charges, everyone's understanding of such interest charges has increased. Initial public concern regarding credit card interest charges focused upon the apparently high interest rates of credit cards as compared to the interest rates on consumer loans and mortgages.
However, the standing committee found that the issue is considerably more complicated than it first appeared. I think the Member would be the first to agree that that is the case. Indeed, the first five of the seven recommendations in that committee's 1987 report concerned measures intended to enable consumers to understand credit card interest charges.
A number of the committee's recommendations for measures to facilitate consumer understanding of credit card interest charges concern matters of overlapping federal-provincial jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) initiated joint federal-provincial activity on the issue, and this has resulted in publication of a joint federal-provincial discussion paper.
This discussion paper shows that because the interest rate is only one of the factors involved in the calculation of credit card interest charges, the credit card interest rate is not a reliable indicator of the interest charges associated with its use. The discussion paper uses an example to show that a credit card with a relatively high interest rate can sometimes involve much lower interest charges than a card with a much
September 30, 1988

lower interest rate. This clearly represents a very confusing situation for consumers.
The discussion paper outlines a number of alternative approaches which can be used by Government to help consumers make informed comparisons of the interest charges from competing credit cards. The objective of the current federal-provincial activity on credit card interest charges is to promote consumers' ability to make informed decisions on a competitive card market.
The Government has demonstrated its intention to proceed as quickly as possible to institute measures regarding credit card interest charges, which will be of great benefit to Canadians.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs tabled its report on March of 1987. In June of that year, federal-provincial activity in the area of credit card charges began.
In December of that year, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs made an announcement concerning the Government of Canada's approach to the issue and, in accordance with a committee recommendation, released the first of regular consumer information materials on this issue.
The federal-provincial discussion paper was released in April of 1988. Even now, government officials are presumably preparing to report on consultations with the private sector concerning the policy options outlined in the discussion paper.
My good friend, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West, will know that not infrequently members of Government who have a particularly good reason for bringing forward a Private Member's Bill and who do a tremendous amount of work on it do not necessarily get their Bill through. I stood in this House about three years ago with a recommendation and had it talked down by my colleagues. I felt some considerable hurt at that time, because I felt then, as I do now, that the intent of the Bill was absolutely essential. In my zeal to have my Bill put through, I was quite discouraged when my colleagues talked it out. I am happy to say that the essence of my Bill is now in place. I will not talk out this Bill this afternoon. We are in the dying minutes of a Parliament that, with all things considered, has been very productive.
I think, when he comes back, as most assuredly he will, that he will be able to follow on with his quest for fairness for consumers in this particularly difficult area, and I am confident that despite the technocrats, as he made the point in his speech, he will eventually be successful. 1 want to go on record as wishing him every success, both in his election and in his work in this House in the future.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for giving me these few minutes to say again that when I came into this House the first day as a very young Member, the House was full to capacity. As I stand here today, there are very few of us here, but at least I have had a chance in the dying minutes to go on record and say how much I have appreciated being here. Thank you.
Interest Rates


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will allow me to extend cordial greetings to my good friend, the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis).

As you know, Mr. Speaker, for the last four years I had the honour every Wednesday of the year, almost, to chair the Members' Services Committee. We sat every Wednesday afternoon very peacefully, but very energetically. It was one of my great pleasures to be Chairman of that permanent committee of the House of Commons.
I must explain for those who are listening that, by tradition, this committee is usually chaired by a senior member of the Official Opposition. One of my pleasures, as I was saying, in being the Chairman of that committee was to have on the committee the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis), who was the Vice-Chairman. I would rather call him by his name, as we always do. I must say that he sat on that committee before I became Chairman. Therefore, I was very privileged to be well informed by him as to the tradition of that committee.
There is a long series of great Members, and he may correct me if I miss some. 1 do not know how you say it in English. The le regrette. Mr. Duquet from Quebec was a member of that committee. That committee was chaired mainly by the Member from Nova Scotia, Bob Coates, and before him by Mr. Angus MacLean, who became Premier of Prince Edward Island. I have the honour, as I said, to chair that committee. I could not have done so without the immense co-operation of the Vice-Chairman.
I must say today that I always regret when I see an old colleague, a friend of mine, leaving the House, whatever Party he may belong to. I see with great sadness the departure of Dr. Pauline Jewett. I had the honour to sit with her as a Liberal Member when I came into the House of Commons in 1964, and I regret very much her departure. I sat with her on the committee of foreign affairs, national defence, and with Mr. Manly, who I had less chance to know.
There are so many colleagues of other Parties. I think of Dr. Isabelle right behind me, who is not going to run again. He is a long serving Member. There are so many other Members. There is Mrs. Killens. If I start, I will have to get the list of those who are not running. I hear that there are around 40 to 50 Members of Parliament who are not going to run again. I regret their departure. Every one of them, in their own way and in their own capacity has served very well.
I would also like to say that this is a good Bill. That is why I stood up to speak today. The time has come to provide for the limitation of interest rates and fees in relation to credit card accounts. I certainly pay homage to my colleague, who introduced the Bill, Mr. Stackhouse from Scarborough West.

September 30, 1988
Interest Rates
If the electors of Saint-Denis can endure me for one more time, I hope that by next Parliament we will call each other by our names and not by our districts, or at least leave it to our choice. I would rather say, "my hon. friend, Mr. Stackhouse", than "the Hon. Member for Scarborough West or East". The time has come to look into that in the next Parliament, to be able to call each other by our own name and not by a seat.
The Hon. Member has been highly devoted in the House and has put this Bill forward with great passion, because he strongly believes in it. I passionately believe in it, too. There are so many views that are taking place that I would like to add en passant, at this late hour, on a Friday when everybody seems to be somewhere else-I do not know where our colleagues are, but I see that Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Stackhouse and Mr. Ellis are here, and our friend from north Canada. I do not know where the others are. It seems that there is something going on that I am unaware of. Are you aware of something, my friend, Mr. Daubney?


David Bruce Daubney: No, we are paid to do the business of Canada.


Marcel Prud'homme: The House is sitting, so we are here, in case we are not back next week. I regret I did not have a chance to sit as Chairman of the legislative committee on Bill C-79, an Act to revise the electoral Act. I am the Chairman, and I am the Chairman of a committee that does not sit, so it is very frustrating.
I have been waiting for one year to do my duty. I would like to give my support to this Bill. As a matter of fact, if there is unanimous consent why should we speak on this Bill today? By unanimous consent we should accept this Bill at this time. I will put forward a motion to accept the Bill at this stage.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In all stages.


Marcel Prud'homme: Seconded by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) or Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse), I am sure, since it is his Bill. I propose to the House that the Bill be accepted, if there is unanimous consent. I do not hear any nays. We could at least accept the Bill at this stage and go immediately to the next stage and see how far we could go.
I am willing to move that this Bill we are now studying be accepted at this stage of the procedure. If it was the wish of the House to accept it at this time, I would rise again at the next stage and probably make the same proposal. I propose that we do not speak too long and accept the Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. We will resume debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Who said no?


Marcel Prud'homme: Is there unanimous consent?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I didn't hear a word.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I asked whether there was unanimous consent. I hear and I see that the House is silent. Unless someone says no, I believe the House is . ..


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Shaking of heads does not count.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair heard one Member say no.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I saw one Member shaking his head and we heard a rattle, but that is not no.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Western Arctic.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) for bringing forward Bill C-266. The subject matter certainly requires debate. It also requires the attention of the public and this House to be focused on a most important matter. During the course of the entire thirty-third Parliament this subject has been kept before us by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West. During that time he has struck the fear of God into the hearts of credit card users throughout Canada.
Most of us have a credit card because they are so useful and convenient. Most of us have at least one in our pockets, especially those people who, like ourselves, travel around quite a bit and do not want to carry a lot of cash. They are extremely convenient and one of the things of the modern age with which we are familiar. Apart from being an advantage to the user of the card, they can also be extremely profitable to the issuer thereof. Certain examples of exactly how profitable have been given this afternoon. For example, some retail stores make more money out of the credit card side of the business than out of actual sales. Credit card issuers make money in a variety of ways. Merchants who take those cards are obliged to pay 2 per cent, 5 per cent, and I have even heard as much as 10 per cent as a commission given by the merchant to the issuer of the credit card. In that case, it would not be an inhouse credit card. There are also various user fees attached, whether it be a start-up fee, or 15 cents per item that is charged. The big money maker is the interest rates charged which range all the way from the high to the extortionate.
I have one complaint against credit card companies when it comes to the calculation of the interest payable. I am one of those people who like to make a little profit out of the credit card companies, if I can. I like to pay all my bills on time within a few days of the end of the period. That way perhaps I can have some free money for a couple of weeks. Occasionally, if I have been travelling around and do not manage to make that payment on the due date, then interest is charged not from the due date until the time that the bill is paid, but going back to the date of the initial purchase. I guess it serves me right because sometimes I make money out of the credit card company, but it does not seem entirely fair.
September 30, 1988

Occasionally there are pretty high pressure sales tactics used, particularly by in-house issuers or certain retail stores. Some pretty high powered tactics are used to get people to accept their credit cards and use them. Often those retail stores have the highest rates of interest attached to the use of their cards. This afternoon we have heard examples of rates as high as 28.8 per cent.
I would like to say a few words about the Bill presented to us in response to this real problem. We have a proposed legislative solution. We are going to legislate ceilings that credit card companies can charge. It will be done on a sliding scale which gets away from some of the difficulties that happen when a maximum interest rate is imposed, and for that reason it is good. If a legislated solution of this nature can be avoided, I think that that would be the preferable way to go.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We tried that and it did not work. You are dreaming.


Dave Nickerson: In the final analysis, if I accept a credit card and use it, that is a freely entered into contract between myself and some other person. If at all possible the state should not intervene in those contracts that are made on a voluntary basis.
Another reason is that where Governments in the past have imposed maximum interest rates it has resulted in noneconomic allocation of resources and, in the long run, brought about things that were undesirable. An example that immediately jumps to mind is the question of the Savings and Loans in the United States that are going through a difficult period and causing a lot of problems.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I could prevail upon my colleague, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) to sit down, let us at least deal with second reading of this Bill, and quit trying to talk out the Bill of his own colleague.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2) the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, the sitting is suspended until the call of the Chair.
At 3 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 4.23 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman:: Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, the sitting . . .
Human Rights


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Steve Eugene Paproski: 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-158.


Marcel Prud'homme: On a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, so that we may have a clear picture of the proceedings, would you be so kind as to repeat what you said initially and then dropped because it seemed inappropriate? Could you repeat "pursuant to the order adopted earlier" ... ? I would like to hear the end of this "pursuant... ", what we agreed to this morning.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the order approved unanimously by the House, we are back for the message from the Senate.


Marcel Prud'homme: Today?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, today. The sitting of the House was suspended, but now we are back.
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-158, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, without amendment.
I also 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-147, an Act to establish the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, with amendments.




[Stage Direction]
With unanimous consent, the House proceeded to consideration of amendments by the Senate to Bill C-147, the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development Act.
Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that the amendments by the Senate to Bill C-147, an Act to establish the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, be now read the second time and concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion? Debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).

September 30, 1988
Human Rights


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of a number of changes the Senate has proposed to amend Bill C-147.
I wonder whether the Government could explain to the House the scope of these amendments and perhaps give us an opportunity to consider and discuss this important issue here in the House. Bill C-147, as you know, is a proposal we support and that, we believe, represents a reasonable position, but we would like some details on the process and perhaps a little more information on the amendment proposed by the Senate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, as Members will know, the Bill in the form originally passed by the House referred in Clause 4 to the International Bill of Human Rights and certain things flowed from that. The amendments to Clause 4 make it more clear so that the average Canadian could look at the Bill and understand what it is intended to do. It is really the addition of some words such as "democratic human rights" in that clause which make it more clear. They were already in the Bill passed by the House in statutory form but in reference to the human rights Bill. Now they are in the clause itself for ease of reading and understanding.
The amendment to Clause 28 is designed to make sure that Parliament has the legal authority in the future to vote funds for the purposes specified in Clause 4. In particular, if Members look at Clause 4(b) where it says "support programs and activities for the benefit of countries other than developing countries", there was a sense in the Senate that the statutory authority to vote the funds existed only for developing countries. The insertion of that clause is to make sure that we are able to vote funds not only for developing countries but for non-developing countries.
In effect, the amendments are there for clarity as well as making sure we have the legal authority to vote funds in future to make sure the endeavour is a success. The Government is very pleased to be able to support these amendments and if Members have other questions, I am sure the House would give unanimous consent for me to rise again and give the answers if I can.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, 1 studied the Bill very carefully. I am sorry to say that we passed such an important Bill with incredible haste. I know that my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Graces-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) intended to take part in the consideration of this Bill, just as I did. We were both coming from Montreal to the House and unanimous consent had quickly been given when we arrived. The Bill had even passed third reading when we were to speak in the afternoon and the Bill was adopted.
I am sorry to get on the nerves of the majority by talking this afternoon. I have no intention to filibuster, but this Bill is very important to me.
I took part with the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau in setting up the Institute for Peace and Security in 1984. That Bill was like this one. But I must tell the Speaker of the House that when we studied that Bill in 1984, we went through all the stages in the House. We sent the Bill to a Parliamentary Committee which I had the honour to chair for months. We studied that Bill and heard 52 witnesses. I know that the Minister is very annoyed, but what I do not understand is why always ... As a Member of Parliament, I hope that in the future, if I have the honour to be re-elected, we will learn that very important bills should be presented in good time so that we Members can not only really discuss them but also call the people from across Canada who have a tremendous interest in that legislation. This is not just any Bill. It is a Bill to create an international centre for human rights and democratic development.
We passed it with incredible haste and today, people say to me, "I would have liked to testify. I had concrete suggestions to make. How come you did not proceed as you did with the Bill to create the Institute for Peace and Security?"
This Bill was voted on in such haste, so quickly that even today, the Government in the last minute is accepting an amendment made by the Senate. I do not intend to defend the Senate, but once again, it may do some good for the Senate to know that a Member of the Lower House can talk eloquently, I hope, about it. But the Senate, after looking at the Bill and scrutinizing it, came to the conclusion that it was quite unacceptable. If you want a good Bill, amendments will have to be made.
Today we are given a quick explanation of the amendments that were just accepted by the Senate. They relate to the purpose of the Bill, Mr. Speaker. We know very well that the purpose of a Bill almost always has legal effect and the whole purpose of this Bill was changed.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary gave us explanations. I would not want to make myself too unpopular this afternoon by questioning every line of that Senate amendment, but what the Senate has just proposed to us is much more than that and the Government has accepted it, because it wants to have this Bill. They blindly accepted what the majority in the Senate wanted. They accepted it. That proves that the Senate, which has a constitutional duty... I am not defending the Senate, but I do defend its constitutional right to go through bills, which we often pass with incredible speed here, with a finetoothed comb. And the Senate, after giving it careful consideration, decided to change the purpose of the Bill completely. And despite what we were just told, clause 28 that was just amended is not meant to allow the Government to vote additional money for countries which are not less developed.
September 30, 1988

No way. That is Bill C-147, Clause 28. I just had a few minutes to listen to the debate in the Senate, but that is not at all what we were sent here. It is not to allow Parliament to vote supplementary credit. It is to allow the institute to derive its money from aid programs. It allows the institute to go outside of Parliament to bring in new moneys.
Let me give a concrete example, Mr. Speaker. If the institute were to initiate a study and what have you in a country that is not the object of assistance, it will allow the institute to bring money out to study what may happen, let us say, in Poland. If it wants to give some support to the question of studying Solidarity, this would not be possible under the objectives of the Bill. It will now be acceptable according to Clause 28.
I like to co-operate. I look at people on the other side who are looking at me in anger. I regret that people will be angry at me for raising this, but in matters pertaining to foreign affairs, national defence and international development, I have always had a great deal of interest. I have not always been lucky enough to get the nomination I should have had to be the critic or otherwise-this will be a long story some day-so when these matters are put before the House, it is the only occasion I have to put my views.
This is a good Bill as amended. Therefore, I thank the Senate for having at least at the last minute, on the last day maybe, scrutinized the Bill. The Senators would have come up with a totally different Bill if they had had more time, a Bill that would have made sense, one that people would understand and that people all across Canada would be happy to have and be part of. We have to agree that the Bill as presented was not that perfect if at the last minute the Government has accepted a major amendment to Clause 28. I have not read the Bill today, but I have listened to what happened a few minutes ago in the Senate.
I would have liked the Minister in charge to explain to me word by word what it means. It means a hell of a lot more than what people envisaged. I was listening to an Hon. Senator who is not a Liberal. I was there to listen to a remarkable man, Senator Ottenheimer from Waterford-Trinity. He is a Conservative from Newfoundland. He is an extraordinary, bright, articulate Senator. I was listening attentively to what he was saying just an hour ago in the other Chamber, so I cannot be accused of quoting Liberals. He asked about the definition we may have in this country on democracy.
I look at my colleagues. At least some are interested. I thank the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Graham) for his interest. I look at what they mean by pluralistic. It is the ultimate in arrogance to believe that our kind of system is the kind that applies to every country in the world. There are countries just emerging from the British Empire, the French Empire, the German Empire, et cetera.
Human Rights
These are ex-colonies that are now new democracies in their own way. I will stand here and defend their right to be different from mine. True democracy does not necessarily mean for all the world to follow our kind of system and government. In some countries it may be a one-Party system where they have a lot of elections. Or it may be our kind. Of course we may by having a real democracy in Canada show by example, but we must not be arrogant and tell others that what we do they do. That was the meaning of some of the wording we found in the Bill.
I regret that at the very last minute I have to get up and speak like this without a file. My staff are like the majority of Members, they think there is an election on and everybody has left. It is too bad that we do not have a Minister here, perhaps the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) or the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Landry). I know everyone is busy preparing for an election. We hear it may not come but it is our duty to know what the hell we are talking about. I am trying to follow the French translation to make sure I do not speak too quickly. If I could only leave you with a thought, Mr. Speaker.

... a comment. I do not understand how, in our Western style democracies, we who want to give the rest of the world an example, I do not understand why every time, whether it be the Liberals, the Conservatives, the New Democrats in the Western provinces where they have held power, the PQ or Mr. Bourassa's Government in Quebec, there is always this tendency, when Members are exhausted, at the end of their rope, and something may be about to happen, tremendously important bills like the one on child care are brought forward. Child care is important, Mr. Speaker. The Senate is still discussing it and I am told that the Senate is probably going to sit tomorrow, as an exception, to study child care because they might in the last minute accept a Bill on which there is not even agreement. But frankly, for future generations of parliamentarians, for the generations to come of those who believe in the British Parliamentary system . ..

I say that in French for those who believe in our parliamentary system which originates from the British parliamentary system. I am not afraid to say that in French. The British parliamentary system is one of the best systems sous lequel nous operons-under which we operate, I think it is in English-in the world. We must take care of the good merchandise as they say. I do not understand why government always comes at the last minute with things and is unable to arrange an agenda, but I leave that to those in the future to decide. I would have liked to have this Bill because I have received so many representations from non-governmental organizations and human rights groups. They would have liked to have appeared as witnesses. It is sad that they were not able to. It is sad that these people could not come forward and make suggestions because now we are stuck with this Bill for years to come. To have to wait three years or five years to find

September 30, 1988
Human Rights
out if we have made a mistake or not is sad, because this institute could do a lot to help people understand our kind of democracy.
Everyone is unkind to the Senate. I would like to say a word on the constitutional right of the Senate, if it is only to make the Hon. Minister a little more impatient. The virtue of politics is patience. I know the Minister wants the Bill passed and wants to have Royal Assent, but for me, each minute counts. Perhaps there will be an election, I do not know. For now, there is a duty to be done.
I will tell Hon. Members why the bell rang a minute ago. For something as important as we are doing, we need a quorum. I was not playing games. We need a quorum, according to the British North America Act of 1867, Article 48. Some believe that Mr. Speaker is the only one who could go to the Senate to represent us all, but that is not true. That has been slowly implemented, but according to my understanding of the British parliamentary system, particularly the way we have implemented it here in Canada, we should have 20 Members, and the Speaker shall be reckoned as a Member.
At times, by agreement, we can do anything. By agreement, we do not see the clock. By agreement, we can say that it is Monday. However, if a Member insists, it is too bad, and I am one of those who insisted.
I regret that neither of the Ministers could come to the House to explain exactly what they have accepted that originated in the Senate committee that studied the Bill extensively and heard from great experts. 1 say this for the benefit of those who are listening and those did not have a chance to come forward to put their views. I would hope that they will listen to us. They should read the speech made by Senator Ottenheimer from Waterford-Trinity. He made an excellent speech that everyone should read. The Hon. Allan MacEachen made an excellent speech that everyone should read to understand the meaning, the feeling and the work of Senators. They have the constitutional right to do this.
If we do not like the Senate, let us abolish it. But as long as the Senate exists, the Senate has the constitutional right to do certain things. I am in favour of at least amending the Senate Act, and that would please the Minister, so that the Senate could not delay any longer than three to six months any legislation. I am in favour of a system like that of Great Britain with no suspensive veto longer than three or six months.
The Right Hon. former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau did this in matters pertaining to the Constitution. It is because of Mr. Trudeau that we have today the Meech Lake Accord. He insisted, in the repatriation of the Constitution, that in the case of amendments pertaining to the Constitution, the Senate could not delay for more than six months. It is good for people to know this, though it only refers to matters pertaining to the Constitution. That is why we have Meech
Lake today. So, en passant, un coup de chapeau, and I do not know how to translate that.
Perhaps I will give the Minister a gift by sitting down. If he has more explanations for the object of the Bill, I will receive them with pleasure.
I for one believe that as long as the Senate exists, it has the constitutional right to do what it has done. If you do not like the Senate, abolish it. After all, when the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was the Minister of Justice, he wanted to amend the Senate Act, and he should have done so. He would not have had the trouble he has had today. I would vote for a suspensive veto of from three to six months any time.
The Senate has looked into the Bill, and has been highly accommodating to the Government. It passed the Bill rather rapidly. It could have taken a few more months and could have called the witnesses we forgot to call in the Lower House.
I regret, on behalf of the Commoners that we are, that we could not hear from all the people who would have liked to have attended to put forward their views on this very important piece of legislation. If it is better now, it is because the Senate majority saw fit to amend the Bill to make it more acceptable. It amended Clause 28 of the Bill and the objective of the Bill in Clause 4.
Unprepared as I may have been for this, because I was expecting to be in my riding at three o'clock, I heard that the bells were ringing. I did not know what was going on. I had to rush to the Senate and I discovered that it is because of this issue.
You can relax, Mr. Minister. I have finished. I do not know if others want to participate, but I have said enough.
I regret that we rushed the Bill. I regret that the Ministers were not here to explain the new object of the Bill. If the Minister is impatient, I would ask him to explain to me the object of the Bill. I would be interested in listening to him.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague if he would tell us where he stands on the Senate. Does he want it to be abolished or elected, or was he preaching for a call?


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, if that is the kind of comment I have to deal with at the end of a session, I can do without it, but I will answer. I do not expect a call. The Hon. Member will never get one because he said he is against the Senate. I would love to be there if he were ever offered a chair in the other Chamber and see how he would agonize and if he would accept or not.
Where do I stand on the Senate? It is very simple. If we cannot let the Senate do its own work, abolish it. If we cannot abolish the Senate, amend the Senate Act.
Does the Hon. Member want to hear a speech on the Senate? I will make one. I sat on the Constitution committee. I sat on the special committee in 1972 which went all across Canada. We made very special recommendations including
September 30, 1988

that Senators should have a 15-year tenure of office and that Senators should only sit until 70 years of age. My Party now stands for an elected Senate, but we will have to know how this will take place. If we cannot accept the Senate, let us abolish it. As long as the Senate is there, its constitutional right is to scrutinize a Bill, regardless of pressure.
We should beware at times of the massive pressure of public opinion. Some say: "You do this," and then you panic and say, "Oh, my God, there are thousands of people on the Hill, I must do this". By the time you have finished doing it, there is another group of thousands of people who say: "You should not have done that, you should have done this". That means you must be intelligent and do what you think is best.
The Senators have done their duty and I am happy that the Hon. Minister has accepted this very substantive change. The Hon. Minister is not as stubborn as his assistant who could not come to an agreement with the Senate. It was the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who accepted the amendment. He knows that when Senators really get to work, they work well, but if they would have been given a little more time, they would have come out with a better Bill.
No one is attacking the integrity of the peace and security Bill. We took time, and every individual in Canada who had an interest in this matter was called in. I went to meetings day after day for 50 days. Today we have a good Bill which works very well. The same should be true of this.
I congratulate the Government for holding its nose and saying that what they say over there is not that foolish and it will accept at the last minute amendments put forward, i would like to try to make the Minister smile a little bit because I know he is extremely upset that I should speak for so long on such a very important piece of legislation.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I will not be very long. I would agree to have the Parliamentary Secretary answer some questions that I will raise. I would agree to have him answer some questions I will raise. While I was quite prepared to accept the centre as defined in the original Bill, I must say that the centre as defined by these amendments is a bit different and raises some concerns.
The centre we were ready to accept in the original Bill was a centre to initiate, encourage and support co-operation between Canada and other countries with respect to the strengthening of human rights. These amendments from the Senate have now introduced a new concept that the centre should not only promote human rights institutions and the development of human rights but also promote democracy. When one first looks at that we find a motherhood concept, and we are all ready to support democracy, but we also know that countries around the world define democracy in different ways.
Human Rights
I have a bit of concern. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to let us know who initiated these amendments. Did they come out of a committee study in the Senate? Were they unanimously put forward in the Senate? I would like to know that because of different situations in the world. For example, the German Democratic Republic calls itself a democracy but in fact does not carry out many of the things that are set out in this amendment. It does not have the freedom of the press as we know it. It does not have pluralistic elections as we have them. On the other hand, we have the President of the United States criticizing Nicaragua and setting up an economic blockade of Nicaragua because it is not a democratic country and does not have a pluralistic democratic system. Yet there were more political Parties running in the election in Nicaragua and more Parties sitting in the Nicaragua National Assembly than there are in the American Congress.
Nicaragua might ask if they really have a democratic system in the United States. Unless one has huge sums of money, in the United States it is impossible to crack the two-party system in that country. It has a two-party system that relies on heavy financing and there is not the control of the expenditure on election campaigning as we have in Canada. One might ask if that is really democratic.
I think this amendment changes the nature of the centre to a certain extent. It was a centre in the first place that promoted and strengthened human rights institutions and dealt with the violations of human rights. By the way, human rights are more easily definable and discernible than democratic institutions. We know if someone is being tortured. We know if someone is being put in prison without trial. We know if people are being executed without trial. But when it comes to determining whether this country or that country is democratic, and what is really a proper interpretation of democracy, it becomes more difficult.
While I am willing to support this amendment because I support democracy and I support elections and the freedom of opinion and expression, I would like some assurance from the Government that we do not intend to impose our western concepts of democracy on all occasions.
It is interesting to note that if we were to apply this in a very strict manner, I think out of the approximately 150 countries in the United Nations, only 30 are democracies as we have them in the West. The great majority of the countries in the United Nations are either one-party systems, dictatorships of one kind or another or absolute monarchies, but they are not democracies as we know them. It is easy to support motherhood wording but this is motherhood wording that is open to some dangerous interpretations. I would like some assurance that we would take a small "1" liberal approach in interpreting what democracy means, what periodic elections means and what pluralistic political systems mean. All these things are mentioned in the amendment. As my hon. colleague from Saint-Denis said, to have this thrust on us at the last moment is a bit surprising.

September 30, 1988
Human Rights
It is true that on the original debate on second reading we questioned why the centre was called the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development because when one reads the original Bill, it seems the substance of the Bill is more directed to human rights and not to democratic development. Of course, the Senate now has come forward and included some further wording with respect to democratic development. All I say is there is some danger in that and I would like some assurance from the Government that this will not be the imposition of our strict interpretation of what democracy means on other countries or to proselytize in a very aggressive way our concepts of democracy.
There are some, of course, I would not accept. I think they are phoney and foolish. On the other hand, we have just settled the Japanese question. One could question whether during the Second World War we were acting as a proper democracy when we did what we did as Canadians. If it is possible, I would like some further explanation from the Government with respect to this amendment and the matters I have just raised.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I just have a few words to say on the human rights centre, Mr. Speaker. It is rather appropriate that the human rights centre is going to be established in the City of Montreal. I was one of the Members of the House who were here in 1970 when the War Measures Act was invoked by the Liberal Government of the day. Of course, that was all centred in the City of Montreal and the Province of Quebec, but particularly in Montreal as the biggest city in the province. At that time, of course, all the rights of individuals, human rights and other rights, were taken away with the implementation of the War Measures Act.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, that it was invoked on that day by a Liberal Government supported by the Progressive Conservative Party. I was one of 16 Members of the House who stood up and voted against the invocation of the War Measures Act. It was very interesting to note that a few years later, the Hon. Robert Stanfield said in a major television program that perhaps the biggest mistake he ever made in his political career was to support the invocation of the War Measures Act.
Some 18 years later, as it will be pretty soon, it is rather interesting to note that this centre is going to be located in the City of Montreal. It is not only what happened in the Province of Quebec in 1970 that makes a centre like this so important. The other day we did what we did to redress the problems of Japanese Canadians and apologize for what was done to them during the Second World War. In addition, there have been all kinds of other examples of discrimination not only outside this country, as my friend, the Hon. Member from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East said, but also within this country. 1 think of the example of the Chinese head tax.
I think of the discriminatory action taken against Ukrainian Canadians many, many years ago. Many of these Ukrainians
reside in my riding in the Province of Saskatchewan. I can think of many examples in Canadian history when there has been rampant discrimination and violation of human rights in this great country of Canada.
I think it is very symbolic that the centre is being established partly because of the invocation of the War Measures Act back in 1970. It is rather interesting to note that it has been established in the City of Montreal.


Marcel Prud'homme: I said that if anyone would speak on the War Measures Act and not give the facts exactly as they were, I would always stand up in the House.
My hon. friend was there, I was there, and many of us voted for it on the information that we had then. In case the Party of my hon. friend is more virtuous than they are, I would like to remind him that some of his colleagues of the New Democratic Party voted for it. I know that we are on the eve of an election, where my hon. colleague was an excellent friend, I may say, and I do not abuse that too often in the parliamentary system. I would not like Quebecers-

. .. men and women, to believe that the New Democratic Party is so virtuous, because several NDP Members also voted for the War Measures Act. I understand that something may be coming and that they would like to fight as the great defenders of virtue, morality and all the other fine things ... Well, I say to him that several of his colleagues at the time, with the information they had, voted for the War Measures Act. I do not want to get into a debate on the War Measures Act... If he wants to, I will, but I have already had the opportunity to take part in such a debate and I said how much I regretted what was happening, how I would spend the rest of my days apologizing if we had committed an injustice. However, I think that we could end the debate by concentrating more on what has just happened rather than by re-opening what could be a longer debate. Let us do that somewhere else.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In response, Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to mislead the House.

. . . when I said I was one of the sixteen Members who voted against the War Measures Act. At the time, there were twenty-three NDP Members in our Caucus. Twenty Members voted, sixteen against and four in favour. A Member from Ontario and three Members from British Columbia voted in favour of the Act. As I said before, I was one of the sixteen who voted against invoking this appalling legislation in our country eighteen years ago, one of the vast majority of the Members in our Caucus.

I was very, very proud to be one of those 16 that stood up at that time. I can tell you that at that time it was not easy.
September 30, 1988

Public opinion polls that were taken at that time showed an overwhelming majority of people in Canada who believed that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had the proper facts and that he was doing the right thing. I can recall friends and associates and supporters in the general public who, in many, many cases, could not understand why we voted in that way. But I am proud to say that of the 20 members of the caucus present, 16 of us summed up enough courage to vote in the proper way.


Marcel Prud'homme: The 10 minutes is not over. I am just glad that my hon. friend put on record that some voted against it. Otherwise, the way he put it, if it would not have been challenged, it would make them look good. My father always taught me that you do not calculate virtue. You are virtuous or you are not. If some people happen to say, well, you know, some of us did it and some of us did not do it, then there is no more virtue, really.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I guess virtue is in the eye of the beholder. I spoke for myself and I spoke for, I guess, 80 per cent of my NDP colleagues, because 16 Members voted against invocation of the War Measures Act. There were only four that voted against it. The three that were not there issued statements saying that if they were in the House they certainly would have been voting against the invocation of the War Measures Act as well.
I hear the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). 1 suppose in those days she was probably out there in support of the invocation of the War Measures Act. As I said before, I think it is appropriate to have the centre located in Montreal.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I thought in most cases the Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) was free of the political gamesmanship that often goes on in this place. I would like him to specify specifically. I do not have any particular axe to grind. There is no particular reason-or maybe he can give me a reason-why this particular institute should be placed in Montreal, other than for pork-barrelling. I would like to know if he can give me the reason as to why this institute should be located in Montreal.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As I said, the only reason that I can think of that made it slightly appropriate was that it was the centre of the crisis back in 1970, which was the October crisis. I suspect that the principal reason is that it is being created for pork-barrelling reasons, for political reasons. The Conservative Party is in very, very serious trouble in the City of Montreal. I suspect that, if you carried out some public opinion polls, you would still find the Conservative Party running probably third in the City of Montreal.
In addition to the human rights centre, I would not be surprised if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced within a week or so that the space agency is also going to be located in the City of Montreal.


Marcel Prud'homme: Are you against it?
Human Rights


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I suspect that those are the real reasons. I am not against that at all. I am just making a prediction that the space agency will be announced by the Prime Minister as to the land in the City of Montreal. But that will not be done until probably the first or second week of the campaign.


Marcel Prud'homme: There is one minute left. May I ask my hon. friend where we stand on the space agency? Are you in favour of putting the space agency in Montreal? A yes or a no.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is not related to the Bill. On debate, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I had wanted to speak to some of the elements of the Bill. Frankly, I guess I am getting a little bit cynical. In the last week we have passed more institutions around this place. It seems to me that with the budget that is being given to this institution, it is a farce. It is a joke when you consider that, with a budget, the first fiscal year of the centre is going to get a $1 million budget.
There are people in the Third World right now who are dying by the millions of starvation, and this centre that is supposed to be promoting human rights and democratic development has a total budget of $1 million. Who are we trying to kid?
Furthermore, with respect to the location of this so-called international centre for human rights and democratic development, I cannot understand it, because having previously sat as the Liberal Member on the Human Rights Committee, 1 do not have a particular axe to grind for any community that has the knowledge in the area of human rights, or an expertise.
I know that when I needed to get expertise, I went to the University of Ottawa, the Human Rights Institute, which was the only institute of its kind in Canada that had developed a knowledge base and an expertise in the area of human rights. I assumed that when a Bill of this nature is going to be implemented, at the very least there should be consideration as to what educational base, what knowledge base, exists in the country, and where that can best be implemented in terms of such a centre. But it seems, just like the decision that was announced yesterday in the United Nations with respect to another community, that the Government does not make decisions on the locations of institutes on the basis of what is going to be best for the institute and for the country. The Government makes those decisions on crass political bases.
I have not seen as crass a political base as the suggestion that other centres of excellence, like the City of Ottawa, should not be considered for the human rights institute. I have not seen an analysis which shows me that the knowledge base that exists in the City of Montreal should be the best place for the institute. Perhaps that exists, but it seems that it was pulled out of the blue.
We are going to spend a million bucks, create another institute, give the Government another campaign platform,

September 30, 1988
Human Rights
and then say that we can announce this in the City of Montreal or in another city, where the Government is desperate to save seats.
Let us face it, in the City of Montreal the Government is desperate to save seats, and it has created the location not because of the concern for the over-all development of human rights and democracy, but simply to pork-barrel, and I, as a person who has a moderate interest in human rights issues and who was involved as a Liberal critic, am distressed that the Government would not consider the issues of human rights in deciding where the most appropriate place would be to locate the centre for human rights. They would rather resort to crass political considerations.
It is not the first time that it has happened. You have a problem, create another institute! That will solve it. Who are we trying to kid?
We will all pass this Bill today and everybody will go home and sleep a little bit sounder tonight knowing that we have created the international centre for human rights and democratic development.
Frankly, with the budget that we have been accorded, with the fact that the decision for the centre was made not to create or to build on a body of excellence that already exists, but merely to pork-barrel, I think it is a bit of a farce. I want to know why we have spent our time over the last number of weeks in Parliament dealing with what I consider to be pork-barreling attempts by the Government to buy votes in a preelection period. It would be far better if an institute of this importance were given an appropriate budget and located on the basis of an analysis of the body of expertise and experience that exists in the human rights community. Why not make that decision in the fullness of time as opposed to rushing it through so the Government can wave around another campaign promise?
Frankly, I am a little surprised and dismayed at the attitude of members of the NDP, the sanctimonious, holier than thou Party that is dragging up the history of the War Measures Act to justify the location of the human rights institute and then says in the same breath that they consider it pork-barreling. I consider that this has the potential to be an extremely important arm of Canadian and international democratic development. It is unfortunate that, in the course of this Government, much of the work that is going to be done by this centre has been abdicated by the Government. Our role in international aid, in foreign affairs, and as an adjunct to the foreign policies of the United States of America has diminished us in the eyes of the world community.
It used to be that, as Canadians, we could hold our heads high around the world because we were well respected for being able to maintain and sustain an independent foreign policy, and to be able to encourage the establishment of human rights and democracy in many centres and areas around the
world that currently have not enjoyed the type of democratic rights that we have in this country.
Last week the President of the United States called the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) a visionary. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? Ronald Reagan calling Brian Mulroney a visionary. At the time I said: "My goodness, that statement alone will cost the Government thousands of votes". That statement comes from a man who, by the admission of his own advisers, was almost ruled incompetent during the course of his administration in the United States because they were so concerned about his handling of foreign and domestic affairs, and he is calling our Prime Minister a visionary. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada have travelled lock-step in their assessment of foreign policy. Remember the Philippines. Was it not Canada that spoke first to recognize the Government of Corazon Aquino and to recognize what many of us had known for many years, namely, that Ferdinand Marcos was an unabashed dictator? We waited and waited to see what the United States did.
It is unfortunate that the centre for human rights and democratic development will have to assume much of the work that should have been done by the Government. The Government has abdicated its role of arm's length foreign policy from the United States, and we are lock-step now in terms of the economy. In the area of regional development we have to consider what the United States will say before we can give money to Sydney Steel or do anything to support Algoma. At the same time as we are moving lock-step in the area of economic policies, social and foreign policy will follow suit.
That is why the Government has had an extremely ambiguous position on the question of Star Wars development. It did not come out against Star Wars development. The Prime Minister stated that the Government cannot get involved because it is too expensive, but the private sector can go to it.
Furthermore, let us look at the record of the Government in human rights in respect of exporting of arms and equipment that is being used to crush democratic developments in other countries, to sustain and abet regimes that depend on the use of force to sustain themselves, and on the use of military force. One of the first acts of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) was to loosen the regulations on exporting arms to other countries, and exporting arms to countries that were on the forbidden list.
It was not until it was raised by the Liberal Opposition in committee, and raised by human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, that the Minister realized the error of his 1985 amendment and changed the legislation or the regulations governing the control of the export of arms to prevent countries such as South Africa and other regimes from using Canadian armed military goods and ancillary goods, including helicopter equipment, from being used against the democratic process. We were actually supplying arms indirectly to South Africa, a country that the Prime Minister
September 30, 1988

claims to abhor. Yet we were doing it because the Government opened a loophole in the export legislation.
I am sorry that this particular centre will have to pick up where the Government has left off. It is pure folly to suggest that the establishment of this centre could have any ripple effect on human rights development around the world with a $1 billion budget. Who are we trying to kid? We are kidding ourselves with that miniscule budget. After having cut back on our commitment to foreign aid, and cut back on our promises of tying increases in foreign aid to increases in the Gross Domestic Product, we are failing in the area where Canada used to be a leader.
1 do not particularly know the best location for the international centre for human rights and democratic development. Perhaps Montreal is the best location. However, it seems to me that that decision was made in the same manner as many other decisions are made by this Government, and not on the basis of building upon an extremely valuable body of expertise and knowledge. Canada is the only country in the world to have received a human rights award for the work that we collectively did as a nation when we opened our arms to the boat people fleeing from Vietnam. We are the only country in the world to be so honoured.
Certainly, we have a background and a record, but that is not to say that the centre should be put in Montreal on an arbitrary basis when perhaps there are equally good arguments to say it should be located in Ottawa. The Human Rights Institute, where I certainly drew much information when I was acting as critic in the area, is based in, attached to, and has a strong association with the University of Ottawa.

I really cannot say whether Ottawa or Montreal is the best place for the centre. When we consider human rights, we should at least consider where the centre would have the best resources to prepare a sound policy on international human rights, instead of having a situation where the Government, and that is what it is doing today, doesn't decide on the basis of the facts but of political gain, which is a form of blackmail.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that once again, when human rights are at stake, rights that are deeply cherished by all Canadians, the Government still wants to play politics.
I really can't say whether Montreal would be better as a centre. But at least we should look at the possibilities, otherwise we will just have one more organization, one more international centre that will operate with a budget of one million dollars. This is incredible, it is ridiculous and it is just one more Conservative promise that doesn't mean a thing.
So in that case, I wonder whether there are any New Democrats who could tell us how Montreal was chosen. I would like to ask the Conservatives whether they can justify this decision. I am the first to support the decision, but not for the same reasons. They will give the Centre to Montreal
Human Rights
because otherwise they will lose votes. That is not enough, Mr. Speaker, that is bribery, and Canadians will not be bribed.
That is what I would like to find out from the Government. Has any analysis been done relating to the location of this human rights centre? Human rights are fundamental and we are just tossing this around like a pre-election pebble, throwing it where it will get the widest ripple. Unfortunately, that has characterized the approach of the Government on too many issues. As far as I am concerned, the fundamental issue of human rights is too important to be just a pre-election pork-barrelling gesture.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is always interesting to listen to, and usually very consistent in her logic. She condemned the Government for its cynical approach in dropping an institute here and an institute there for political reasons. I wonder if she would apply the same logic to the Canadian Institute for Peace and Security created in the dying days of the Trudeau Government in 1984 when the Liberal Party realized it was in serious trouble in Ottawa? The former Leader of the Ontario NDP, Michael Cassidy, was coming back to run in Ottawa Centre. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) ran to the Prime Minister and said "Look, with Cassidy back we are going to lose". They lost the seat.
Would she say the same thing happened then, that it was a cynical move by the Trudeau Government in 1984 because it happened to drop an institute here and an institute there? Does she apply the same logic to Trudeau in 1984 that she applies to my friends across the way today? I would be very interested in knowing the answer to that question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What happened to the Liberals in 1984?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They went down.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Obviously people were getting a message and they wanted to make a change and they made a change. I do not think Mr. Trudeau has to take lessons from any Member of Parliament about the issues of human rights and peace and security. When he was Prime Minister of Canada we were respected around the world. We were not wimps on our knees constantly begging the President of the United States to give us a little crumb here and there to survive in this worldwide economic mayhem.
No, I will not take a lecture from the NDP about the Liberal record on human rights prior to 1984. However, I do think that in the dying days of the Liberal Government some actions were taken that were not consistent with the longstanding record of strong human rights policy. That is why we were thrown out.
The thing I cannot understand about the NDP is this. A few minutes ago the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
September 30, 1988
Royal Assent
Nystrom) was hearkening back to 1970 and the War Measures Act. Now he is hearkening back to 1984. When will the NDP stand up on its own policies and stop talking about something that happened almost 20 years ago? I could probably drag up something that Aggie McPhail did, and I will if that makes him feel any better. We are talking about 1988, our plans for the future and what we will do when we form a government. 1 wish the NDP would take the same positive approach, instead of talking about things that happened 20 years ago which I think most people would like to bury, if not forget.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was talking about 1984 and the export of arms and other military equipment to Third World countries. I would like to ask her whether or not a few years ago, when she was a member of the Ontario Legislature, she condemned the Liberal Government of 19801984 for increasing the export of military equipment to Chile, Taiwan, Paraguay and other countries like that which do not exactly have democratic Governments? After all, it was the Liberal Government that increased the export of military equipment to Chile. It seems to me the Hon. Member will want to get up and say that was wrong as well.
I admired her answer when she said in the dying days of the Trudeau Government that she disagreed with some of the things that were done. Unfortunately, the current Government kept on doing some of those things, like patronage, and dropping institutions into ridings according to political preference, and moving a prison to the riding of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and all these last minute announcements, buying people's votes with their own money. I think those are the politics of the 1930s and they should have been gone in the 1930s, and I am very pleased the Hon. Member is getting up and saying quite frankly that she did not like what happened in the last days of the Trudeau Government and the dying days of Liberalism.
In the name of consistency, openness, honesty and integrity, will she now stand up and condemn her Liberal colleagues for the export of military equipment to Chile, Taiwan and many other countries with governments which we in this country think are reprehensible?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would rather talk about more recent events. I am willing to recant if the Hon. Member is willing to recant for his two pork-barrelling colleagues, such as Ian Deans, the triple dipper, the great socialist from Hamilton Mountain, despised Brian Mulroney one day and loved him the next after being offered a $95,000 a year job. Is he willing to recant? Is he willing to condemn his colleague-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think we are moving away from the Senate amendments.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to consider a response to the Hon. Member's question on arms if he is willing to agree with me that his former provincial Leader in Ontario did an absolute flip-flop. The Hon. Stephen Lewis one moment was completely against the federal Government and could not
stand anything it was doing, until it offered him a cushy job in New York. He took it and sang the Government's praises for four years until the day he was about to leave the job and then started dumping on it.
The Hon. Member should not lecture me and the Liberal Party about humanity and consistency because a couple of his colleagues have a little bit to learn about that as well and I am not going to take that from him.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, the sitting is suspended until the call of the Chair.\nAt 5.27 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows: Rideau Hall,
September 30, 19888 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable John Sopinka, 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 September, 1988, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smythe,
Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, the sitting is suspended until the call of the Chair.
At 5.27 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 6.06 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable Senate.
September 30, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-158, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 - Chapter No. 63, 1988.
Bill C-147, an Act to establish the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development-Chapter No. 64, 1988.
Bill S-21, an Act to revive Grenville Aggregate Specialties Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), on a point of order.
Royal Assent


Marcel Prud'homme: Since we will adjourn until Monday and it seems the Senate will sit tomorrow to consider the Child Care Bill, if we don't adjourn, I wish you a happy weekend. If by any chance we do not come back, I would like to say it was a great pleasure for us on this side of the House to work with you. I want to thank you for your tremendous patience and your infinite wisdom during the difficult times we have gone through together.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My sincere thanks to the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).

This House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.15 p.m.

The thirty-third Parliament was dissolved on Saturday, October 1, 1988, by proclamation of Her Excellency the Governor General.


[Stage Direction]
37 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, August 18, 1988

Because the Government has such a large majority, it feels
[Stage Direction]
 justified in steam rolling all its legislation through Parliament,
so that the Opposition and Canadians barely know what has Prayers	hit them. When Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition objects to
______________ these unparliamentary and undemocratic procedures it is
accused of filibustering.