1988-06-30

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), I have the honour to lay upon the table copies, in both official languages, of the Government's response to recommendations 1, 2 and 3 of the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-4800, 332-4801, 332-4803, 3324807 and 332-4813.
[Editors Note: See todays Votes and Proceedings.]



BANKS AND BANKING


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, for some months now, Canadians from all parts of the country have expressed their serious concern about the way in which financial institutions have been imposing charges for banking services. Today I am announcing a wide ranging package of measures which will respond to these concerns.
Four principles have guided me in developing this initiative. First, free market competition is the best way to obtain and maintain fair pricing practices. Fundamental to such competition is the informed consumer. The consumer must have the information if he or she is to act intelligently.
Third, certain basic banking services should be available at little or no cost. Fourth, customers should have a clear understanding of their recourse when they have complaints about services.

Mr. Speaker, the government has decided to take strong and direct action to ensure that Canadian consumers are fairly treated when charges related to bank and trust company accounts are imposed. Canadians will now be properly informed, in advance, of charges relating to their personal accounts. We will amend the Bank Act and Canada's major banks and federally regulated trust companies will take voluntarily action with respect to basic banking services and certain objectionable charges.

In simple terms, we are achieving results which will benefit consumers. Where necessary, we are acting through statutory and regulatory improvement. Elsewhere, we are achieving these results by allowing the voluntary and market-driven business environment to operate. We have moved on all three fronts, regulatory, legislative and voluntary.
Some in this House, no doubt, would prefer that we avoid the use of legislation in answer to this problem of bank service charges. Others would prefer that we legislate all aspects of this initiative, leaving no room for voluntary action. In my view, our initiative today strikes the appropriate balance between legislated rights and obligations and voluntary action on the part of the financial institutions.
Providing Canadians with more information, while allowing financial institutions the freedom to maintain their competitive and pricing decisions, is an appropriate response to the problems identified by Canadians. In the process of identifying those problems, I want to pay tribute to the Members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs who have worked to broaden public understanding of this problem. Their recommendations have provided the foundation for the measures being outlined here today.
I believe the way in which this issue has been examined and resolved is an excellent example of our parliamentary reform

June 30, 1988
Statements by Ministers
which was introduced by this Government. All Parties in this House, and as I look across the floor I say very clearly, all Parties in this House have worked constructively to achieve the progress which I am announcing today. I am hopeful I can count on that same constructive spirit to expedite the passage of the legislation.
Let me deal with the statutory changes to the Bank Act being brought forward today. New legislative requirements make full disclosure of commonly applied charges a fundamental part of this plan. The legislation will also ensure that customers are fully informed of service charges and the complaints procedure when opening a personal account.

Furthermore, our legislation will ensure that any increases in charges, or any new charges, cannot be imposed until there is proper notification. This will be achieved by distribution of a notice with statements, where applicable, and through prominent posting in all bank branches across Canada.
Moreover, posting will be required not only in branches, Mr. Speaker, but also at automated banking machines.

The statutory and regulatory changes are not only consistent with the recommendations of the Finance Committee but go somewhat further to ensure that customers are made fully aware of all account related service charges. I am today tabling the background material after this statement which provides a full description of the new disclosure requirements in the amended Bank Act and regulations. I believe that major federal trust companies will bring their disclosure practices in line with these provisions as well.
There is a fundamental principle which our initiative entrenches-no financial institution ought to alter its charges without its customers being fully informed in advance. This must be done. Consumers have the right to be able to make informed choices among available account options.
Following discussions between the Government and the financial institutions I am pleased to announce today that the major Canadian banks and the major Canadian trust companies will continue to provide, and in many cases enhance, their basic accounts. As a result of all this, most of the major federal deposit-taking institutions-the preponderance of them-will give their customers access to basic accounts, which will do what? They will allow unlimited deposits and unlimited cash withdrawals without charges, without maintenance fees and without minimum balance requirements. It can now be said as a result of this that all Canadians, economically disadvantaged Canadians especially, have or very soon will have access to basic banking services at little or no cost.
We shall be monitoring carefully compliance with these actions. We hope this voluntary action will be sufficient. But I emphasize that the Government will not hesitate to take
legislative steps in the future should that prove necessary. We have it voluntarily now and we will act in the future if the voluntary system breaks down.
In order to assist consumers in making informed decisions about the cost and type of banking services to which they can have access, my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), has agreed to publish a comparison table outlining available basic banking services, together with their costs. This will also help to ensure that the public can monitor financial institutions' compliance.
Let me move to certain reprehensible and objectionable charges referred to by the House committee. These charges have been or will be withdrawn. The results are as follows. I invite the House to listen carefully to these charges that will be withdrawn. First, recipients of NSF cheques will not be charged for depositing these cheques in their personal accounts. Second, there will be no charge for closing personal accounts which have been open for more than 90 days.

Third, there will not be charges for the maintenance of an institution basic account when the balance falls below a specified minimum level. Fourth, there will be no charge for any transactions resulting from an institution's error. Finally, administration and transfer fees on fixed-term deposits, notes and GICs will not be increased during the term of the instrument. Where necessary, this will be noted in the contract.

I am also pleased to announce that we will be taking specific measures to strengthen the process of handling consumer complaints concerning bank and trust company service charges. I discussed this problem with the major banks and with trust companies, that is, the need to enhance their complaint resolution procedures. This morning I went in to see my own branch manager in Ottawa. I asked him what his procedures were. He outlined that they varied from branch to branch and from bank to bank. He would welcome clarification and standardization.
It is desirable that as many complaints as possible be handled by the branch. At the same time customers must be able to go further within the institution if they are unhappy with what they hear from the branch to resolve their complaints.

The institutions have all assured me that they will take steps to improve their complaint resolution procedures. Moreover, the enhanced disclosure provisions in our legislation will ensure that customers are informed of these procedures.

Where a complaint has not been resolved by the institution, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions will mediate. Furthermore, he will prepare an annual report to the Minister of Finance to table in Parliament on the number of complaints
June 30, 1988

and their disposition. I have asked that an interim report on this be made available in six months.
In order to ensure that the changes relating to the complaints resolution procedure meet the needs of customers, I have asked the Superintendent to do something further. I have asked him to assess the operation of the over-all system in the country within the banking realm for handling complaints and report to me on the results of this evaluation. The Superintendent is considering engaging the services of a specialist to assist in this evaluation. Not only are we putting a mechanism in place, we are going to monitor it and report back on the monitoring.
In summary, I am seeking a legislative mandate to require better disclosure on the opening of personal accounts and of service charges that may be related to those accounts. Furthermore, that mandate will provide for a clear notification period for increases in service charges.

At the same time, most major deposit-taking institutions will be providing basic banking services at little or no cost. In cases where these institutions have imposed service charges, identified by the committee as unfair, they will be withdrawing them. The complaints procedures within the institutions will be strengthened and I am formalizing the responsibility of the Superintendent for mediating complaints.

Today's measures serve to underline our Government's commitment to ensuring that the Canadian consumer, whose deposits form the foundation of our banking system, is treated fairly, frankly and with respect. These measures underline that.
The problem of bank service charges raised by the committee and by Canadians and acted upon today by the Government have, I believe, been addressed. We as a Government will be vigilant in monitoring compliance and in ensuring that the problems identified have been resolved, and resolved by effective action, not red tape.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that once again, the Government was weak-kneed. The Government caved in to the banks. It didn't even listen to its parliamentary committee. It didn't hear the message sent by members of its own Caucus. It did not even listen to Canadian consumers. It lacked the courage to do so, and that is typical of this Tory Government. It is a Government without a backbone.
Mr. Speaker, anticipating action by the Government, the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) considered withdrawing his Private Members' Bill on bank service charges, after introducing it with a lot of fanfare.
Statements by Ministers
We were also surprised when the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) and the Chairman of the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs voted against their own bill this week in the House.
I hope the Hon. Member will keep his bill in the running- he is here-after reading the totally inadequate measures announced this morning by the Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Hockin).
Mr. Speaker, we saw before us a Minister who lacked courage. The report of the House of Commons Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs concerning bank service charges contained four types of recommendations. First, it recommended that financial institutions offer their customers a certain number of basic services free of charge. Second, it recommended that financial institutions keep their customers better informed of bank service charges. Third, it asked for the appointment of an ombudsman to defend the interests of customers and finally, it recommended a number of penalties in case of non-compliance with the legislation.
Obviously, we agreed with these recommendations and we strongly support such measures.
When the Finance Committee proposed free basic banking services the big banks were hopping mad. The President of the Royal Bank of Canada said that it would "impose unfair and unjustified costs" for all bank customers; that it would "distort pricing, tending to increase substantially other service charges". Those statements are taken from The Globe and Mail of June 9, 1988.
Yet, the banks themselves admit that occasionally they do provide free basic services to some four million senior citizens and young people. Now, apparently, most of them agree with "voluntary" measures to provide basic services free. In today's The Globe and Mail there is an article which states:
But Toronto Dominion representative Sue de Stein vowed that the country's
fifth-largest bank will not budge on what it regards as a question of principle.
The bank intends to stay competitive in customer services but it doesn't want
government dictating how banks run their business, she said.
"We have no intention of giving in on this principle," she added.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering what all the fuss was about. On the one hand the banks oppose free banking services, and on the other hand they claim that they already do provide some such services, and they now agree-if we are to believe them-to provide more. I am not sure if all this outcry was really serious.
I wish to quote what the Finance Committee had to say about voluntary measures: "The committee welcomes any voluntary action on the part of financial institutions to provide basic services, but worries that voluntary provisions on an institution by institution basis will fall short of what is needed". That quotation is from the report.

June 30, 1988
Statements by Ministers
The Liberal Party agrees with that statement and thinks that today's measures put forward by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) are totally inadequate.
In this morning's newspapers one reads that one of the largest banks, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, is still dickering over service charges. I wonder how the Government will oblige the Toronto-Dominion Bank, or any other bank for that matter, that in future will refuse to comply with voluntary measures. How will the Government oblige them to comply with the guidelines? There are no teeth in this morning's measure. There is nothing in there that gives the Government any stick to bring the banks into line with.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs recommended fines or penalties of up to $10,000 for a first offence and up to $100,000 for each subsequent offence committed within a period of three years. There was no mention in the Minister's statement this morning of any serious measures or penalties to force the banks to act.
As far as the ombudsman is concerned, he will be in a very difficult position because his role will not be to arbitrate but to act as a mediator in case of a dispute.
Admittedly, he will have to report to the Minister once a year, and the Minister will have to table a report in the House, but, Mr. Speaker, when a consumer's rights are violated, that person should be able to get some basic justice from the ombudsman; the Government did not accept this recommendation of the Committee.
What will happen, Mr. Speaker, if a conflict between a bank and a customer goes on and on? Who will settle it? We do not know.
Finally, the Minister's statement this morning is not specific on the measures to better inform customers about bank service charges. We do not know if there is a time limit. Will the customers have prior notice? Will there be time limits in the legislation to prevent abuse by the banks?
We in the Official Opposition would like the Government to include time limits in the legislation so that Canadian consumers really receive the services and are fairly treated.

Indeed, in my opinion, there is very little in this statement to satisfy Canadian consumers. It appears that the Minister went to his friends in the banking industry and said: "Hey, I need your support. I need your help. I need your co-operation. We have an election coming up and this could be a very sensitive issue. So, come on, friends, be nice to us, co-operate with us, do it voluntarily and we will be nice to you sometime. For God's sake, fall into line, don't do anything to hurt us now. We are politically involved in a very serious game called an election in Canada this year and we wouldn't want the banks to be embarrassing to the Government".
This is a spineless Minister. This is a Government that has no courage, and it did not do much this morning to improve the image that it has in the country.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the Minister today and read his statement, my conclusion is that this is the biggest bank hold up since the great train robbery. What the Minister has said today is a crock. It is an absolute cop-out.
Last fall Members in the House raised very serious questions not only about the proliferating bank service charges, but about the ever-increasing charges on services. There are approximately 180 different services in any given bank, and the charges have kept going onward and upward.
As a result, the Standing Committee on Finance investigated. Having heard the witnesses, the committee stated that the complaints of consumers are justified. It recommended several tough recommendations all the way from a no-frill basic bank account, to services for which there is no charge, to an ombudsman, to notification.
We in the New Democratic Party were not satisfied with those recommendations. As far as they went, we said that they were fine, but that they had to be tougher. We wanted an independent, autonomous ombudsman, and we put that recommendation into a minority report. We stated that there ought to be redress for the billions of dollars that the banks have heisted from the pockets of Canadian consumers. We said that there ought to be a freeze on bank service charges starting in the year in which the report was tabled in the House.
Following that report, the Hon. Member for York Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) entered a Private Member's Bill, which was patterned exactly after the report, complete with regulations. The Chairman of the Bankers Association, Robert Macintosh, went wild. The banks went wild. They said that politicians had tin ears, that the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) was a socialist, and that the only reason the members of the committee recommended those tough things to tell banks what to charge was that they were afraid of their seats. He also stated that there was no such thing as a free lunch, and that no one would ask the supermarkets to give free groceries to people, therefore, he asked, why are the banks asked to provide free services? That was the reaction of the banks.
Now, what has happened? What happened to the Hon. Member for York Scarborough and the Member for Mississauga South? The following is what the Hon. Member for Mississauga South said in debate on Thursday, June 23, as reported in Hansard-.
However, clearly, the kind of arrogance and lack of sensitivity expressed by the President of the Bank of Nova Scotia in his letter and other letters as a result of other actions, leave the Government with very little alternative except to proceed with the legislative hammer and regulatory control. It is important that that regulatory hammer and control be effected properly.
June 30, 1988

Then he went on to say, Mr. Speaker:
I suspect that had the committee report been before the committee today, it
would have been harsher than it is.
Now, what has happened to this roaring rabbit? There has been a conversion. He is nothing but a copy-cat today. Why? Because all the banks except one said, Oh well, we accept voluntary compliance. They said that, not because they honestly believe it. In fact, it is anathema to their very philosophy that the Government should tell them what services to charge for and how they should deliver the services. It is not part of their economic thinking. It is not part of their business philosophy.
So why did the Minister surrender? Why did he accept the fact? I mean, this Minister asking consumers to accept that the banks will voluntarily restrain themselves is like asking the Canadian public to believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) when he says that our social programs are a sacred trust. There is as much veracity to what the banks are saying as to the experience Canadians have had with the Prime Minister's promises.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Now, why did the Government do this turnabout? Because, in fact, they are not interested in protecting consumers. In a recent poll carried out by Angus Reid, it showed that 75 per cent-


An Hon. Member:: Who?


John R. Rodriguez: I know the Liberals do not like Angus Reid these days. I know he is persona non grata over there. The survey showed that 75 per cent of Canadians believe that the only way to deal with the banks in terms of bank service charges, was by government intervention, by regulation. The Consumers'-


Ms. Copps:: Nationalization.


John R. Rodriguez: The Consumers' Association of Canada said that while they will accept this sudden death-bed repentance by the banks, in fact the only effective way is through government legislation.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I thought you were going to nationalize-


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Liberal spokesman speak on this, condemning the Government, but last Thursday the Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) got up and said that she prefers this voluntary compliance, that there was really no need for the Government to legislate.


An Hon. Member:: Where do they get their money from?


John R. Rodriguez: I understand that the Liberals have some difficulty with their banking services these days. It may be why the Royal Bank did not contribute anything to them in 1986.
Statements by Ministers
The question has to arise-why? I think it is because this crock of voluntary compliance is in line with Tory philosophy. In fact, they are true to themselves.
Secondly, Canadians are well aware of the fact that the banks contribute considerably to the Conservative Party. As a matter of fact, in 1986, the five banks contributed $177,000 to the Conservative Party. In an election year, that doubles. For example, in the year 1984, they got $360,000 from the banks. This year, given the inflation factor, it will approach $400,000, no doubt about it.
So, do Canadians really expect them to bite the hand that feeds them? Not on your life. The banks have made the argument with the Government: Well, we will regulate ourselves. We will accept certain things. We went through this a little over a year ago. This House, the Finance Committee, did an investigation of bank credit cards because the credit card interest rates were skyrocketing. The Finance Committee did a study. The banks said, "We will voluntarily roll it back", and they voluntarily rolled it back.
I suggest to you, if you went now and looked at the interest rates on bank credit cards you would notice they are moving right back up again to their heights prior to the study.
Canadians do not trust the banks to comply voluntarily. In fact, the Toronto-Dominion Bank has said it will not comply. In an oligopoly, that is what you need, one leader. The Toronto-Dominion Bank will become the bench-mark against which all the other banks will determine their own service charges.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Nationalize them.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the other argument that the banks use and which the Government has accepted is that there is no free lunch. The banks have asked, why should they give free services? Look at what the Canadian taxpayers have given to the banks. This Government, the taxpayers of Canada, allowed them to write off their Third World debt against their Canadian earnings. It is worth about $3 billion. Who picks up the tab when the banks do not pay their fair share of taxes? Ordinary Canadians. They pick it up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Furthermore, we have allowed the banks of this country collectively to defer taxes, which they will never pay. Who pays when they do not pay? The ordinary, average Canadians pay.
As Ernest Hemingway said in The Sun Also Rises: "They will pay and pay and pay". Canadians are sick and tired of paying and paying and paying to keep this Government in the position where it is today.


An Hon. Member:: Watch your ticker!


John R. Rodriguez: Now, who is getting the free lunch? The banks are getting the free lunch. The question has to be asked,

June 30, 1988
Committee Reports
after this statement by the Minister: Do things change for Mrs. de Gruchy? Does she have any more assurance, or does any other consumer have any more assurance that when they go to the bank to get quarters, they won't get dinged and donged? No, Mr. Speaker. No assurance.
Would any Canadian from a small business who goes in to get 50 cents in pennies not be charged 40 cents? No. There is no guarantee. There is no assurance that the banks won't ding and dong them again and again and again. Look at what they suggested, with respect to an ombudsman.
Now, there is one office in Ottawa, but surely it stretches the credulity of Canadians even to think that this office protects consumer interest. Do you know what office that is?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Harvey Andre.


John R. Rodriguez: It is the office of the Superintendent of Financial Services. Now, if this Government or anybody believes that that Superintendent of Banks really has the interest of consumers at heart, have I got a bridge for them. Have I got a bridge!
Mr. Speaker, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is only concerned about the solvency of banks. They are not interested in the problems of Mrs. de Gruchy or Go-Go Pizzas or any of the hundreds and hundreds of complaints we have had about bank service charges. Eighty-two per cent in the survey said that what we need is an independent economist ombudsman with the power to advocate and the power to referee. That is what we needed. We do not need to have the office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, with all its little agents running around checking on solvency of banks, to deal with these very important and specific problems that consumers have with banks.
So the New Democratic Party said, that is what is needed. The Tories can laugh and they can make fun of it all they want. They are out of step with what Canadians want, and that is a little bit of justice when they are dealing with these bankers. The banks charge you when you put your money in the bank, they charge you now when you take the money out of the bank. They charge you to keep money in the bank. All of these things will continue. Nothing will change. It is now getting to the point where you walk in the bank and be charged.
One reporter was telling me yesterday that he went to get a print-out of his account, which cost him $3. He told me that about two weeks ago the print-out cost a buck. He was told that this was the new charge system, Mr. Speaker. And that is the Toronto-Dominion Bank. Does this change anything, Mr. Speaker? No. This Government has entered into collusion with the banks to hold up the Canadian public and pick their pockets. Last year the bank picked people's pockets to the tune of $750 million. The bonanza is coming because the Government has shown it is the banks' best friend.
Let me say to the Minister that Canadian consumers and we on this side of the House are deeply disappointed with the statement of the Minister. It is a complete surrender, totally unacceptable to the New Democratic Party and to thousands and millions of Canadians.



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixty-fourth report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INCOME TAX ACT AND RELATED ACTS


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contribution Act, 1977, and certain related Acts.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Michael Holcombe Wilson: for leave to introduce Bill C-140, an Act to amend the Bank Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
June 30, 1988


Mr. Pierre Blais (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-141, an Act to regulate the marketing of agricultural products, import, export and interprovincial trade and to provide for national standards and grades of agricultural products for their inspection and grading for the registration of establishments and for standards governing establishments.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. I think you will find consent to have this Bill read later this day after the House disposes of the business of Bill C-lll.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Bill to be read later this day?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN ARCTIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE ZONE


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-304, an Act to declare the Canadian Arctic a nuclear weapons free zone.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to establish in the north of Canada a nuclear weapons free zone hopefully together with other Nordic countries as an important step toward peace and disarmament and a nuclear weapons free world.
In the U.S.S.R., General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev has undertaken revolutionary changes with perestroika and glasnost during the historic Party conference this week. It is important that the West respond positively to these changes, not with the outdated cold war rhetoric set out in the Conservative Government's White Paper on defence.


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

Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from the people of London and surrounding area calling upon Parliament to ensure that research efforts relating to schizophrenia will in future be commensurate with the seriousness of this illness in Canada.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition containing many names of people from Barrie and area in which they humbly show that as concerned Englishspeaking citizens of Canada they wish to prevent any further steps toward official bilingualism.
They are aware of the subtle manipulation of a minority group in the current Government. They want their children to have the advantage of good English language education because it is the universal language. They want to prevent future confusion and violence as job opportunities and promotions disappear to a favoured few. They petition their elected representatives to stand up, speak out and save our country from a social disaster. Finally, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to prevent Bill C-72 from becoming law and call upon the Government of Canada to hold a referendum on official bilingualism.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions today.
First, I have a petition signed by a large number of residents of the Cultus Lake area in British Columbia who are protesting the proposed closure of the post office in the Cultus Lake Mall.
Prior to the March 8 fire which destroyed the Cultus Lake Mall a post office was located there, and the people are very concerned that Canada Post may downgrade their services to franchise postal outlets, unattended letter box service and/or superboxes. They call upon the Conservative Government and their Member of Parliament to speak out against this erosion in the quality of postal service.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians from all regions of Canada who note that the U.S. strategic defence initiative is a dangerous escalation of the nuclear arms race and that over 50 Nobel Prize winning scientists have condemned it as economically disastrous and strategically destabilizing. They call upon Parliament to guarantee firmly that there will be no testing, development, manufacture or deployment of SDI systems or components in Canada, to end all Canadian political support for SDI and to support actively

June 30, 1988
Order Paper Questions
positive alternatives to SDI, including the strengthening of the 1972 ADM Treaty, the establishment of international satellite monitoring agency and the abandonment of all nuclear weapons testing.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents of my constituency of Burnaby who state that the right to life is a paramount and most fundamental right of a person.
They state that the paramount right to life is vested in each human being from the moment of fertilization without regard to age, health or dependency. They state further that the word "person" applies to all human beings irrespective of age, health, functional condition of dependency, including their unborn offspring at every state of their biological development, including fertilization. They call upon Parliament to prepare legislation immediately to the effect that no unborn person shall be deprived of the right to life except where medical procedures are required to prevent the death of the mother.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents in my constituency of Burnaby who note that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States.
They note that this trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian, political and economic sovereignty. They note that the trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada an opportunity to reject or accept the proposed trade agreement during a national general election.
[Translation\


Svend Johannes Robinson: I have the honour to table a petition signed by hundreds of Canadian men and women who note that in February 1985, the Government ordered the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to report on the right to equality in Canada and that in March 1986, the Government said that it was happy with the recommendations of the subcommittee on equality. It added that it would do everything necessary to make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal in all fields under federal jurisdiction. They mention that so far, the Government has still not introduced in the House new legislation to act on the recommendations supported by the Government.
They ask Parliament to make sure that the Government and Parliament carry out the recommendations of the above-mentioned report as soon as possible.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition duly certified, signed by residents of the City of Toronto, who protest that the very fabric of Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the proposed Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. They say that the present Conservative Government had no mandate to negotiate a free trade deal with the United States, that the trade deal that was negotiated will reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social and cultural programs we need and will integrate Canada more deeply into the North American defence industrial base. For these reasons, they call on the House of Commons to ensure that a national debate takes place on the deal and that this debate result in a national general election before any agreement is concluded.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 219, 243, 309, 310 and 312 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 219, 243, 309, 310 and 312 be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Since January 8, 1985, have any contracts been signed between CACI Canada Ltd. and Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and, if so, how many and, in each case (a) in what amounts (b) for what purposes (c) by what persons acting for (/) CACI Canada Ltd. (//) CSC?
2.	What role did (a) Senior Finance Officer at CSC (b) CSC Assistant Commissioner of Administrative Policy and Services (c) Director General of Finance, CSC (d) Director General Material & Administration (e) Director General Systems, CSC (J) Department of Supply and Services play in awarding the contracts?
3.	What is the difference in the work done by CACI Canada Ltd. for CSC and for the Director General Systems and related CSC staff?
4.	How much has CSC paid in salaries, benefits and travel to the systems staff of CSC since January 8, 1985?
5.	Are all copies of contracts signed between CSC and CACI Canada Ltd. available for public examination?
June 30,1988

6.	What is the estimated cost of the Offender Management Program and what is the estimated completion date?
7.	What will be the cost per inmate for the system related to the above Program, now being developed by CACI, by the time it is completed and acceptable to both CSC and the RCMP?
8.	How much has CSC spent for consulting and similar contract services since January 8, 1985?
9.	Has the CSC spent any money for apartments in Ottawa for consultants and, if so, how much?
Return tabled.


Mr. Robinson: Since January 8, 1985 has Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) awarded any sole-source contracts or other purchase arrangements to Mr. Lanny Klassen of Ottawa/Nepean, Ontario, or to any businesses with which Mr. Klassen is, or was, associated as an officer, shareholder, or employer and, if so (a) what was the nature of the goods and/or services obtained from Mr. Klassen or from the businesses with which he is, or was, associated as an officer, shareholder, or employer (b) what was the total cost to CSC of those goods and/or services (c) what would have been the cost of those goods and/or services had they been obtained through the Department of Supply and Services (d) which CSC managers requested the contracts or other purchase arrangements (e) what was, and is, the nature of the business relationship between Gordon Pinder, the Deputy Commissioner of CSC, and Mr. Klassen or his businesses (/) did any senior official of CSC, other than Mr. Pinder, authorize or approve any of the above contracts?
Return tabled.


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon): Between February 18, 1980 and September 4, 1984, did any government departments or agencies spend money or provide grants in the constituency of Thunder Bay-Nipigon and, if so, by which departments or agencies and, in each case (a) on what dates (b) in what amounts (c) under which categories and programs was the money spent?
Return tabled.


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon): Since September 4, 1984, have any government departments or agencies spent money or provided grants in the constituency of Thunder Bay-Nipigon and, if so, by which departments or agencies and, in each case (a) on which dates (b) in what amounts (c) under which categories and programs was the money spent?
Return tabled.


Mr. Reimer: Since September, 1984 have any government departments or agencies spent money or provided grants in the constituency of Kitchener and, if so (/) which departments or agencies (/'/) under which categories and programs (iii) in what amounts?
Return tabled.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?
National Housing Act and CMHC Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 37 minutes beginning at one o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of Public Works) moved: that Bill C-l 11, an Act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to repeal certain amendments in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you will find that there is the consent of the House to move this to Committee of the Whole House rather than to a legislative committee in order that we may deal with all stages today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent, the Bill will go to Committee of the Whole.


Mrs. Shirley Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to outline briefly to the House the amendments proposed to the National Housing Act and to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act. The Bill contains provisions which support the Government's ongoing commitment to help house Canadians.
The amendments focus on mortgage loan insurance and mortgage-backed securities, two government programs designed to encourage a continuing flow of investment funds for housing. Other amendments in the Bill are designed to ensure that the mortgage insurance fund operates more effectively and, ultimately, becomes self-sustaining on an actuarial basis.
Incidental amendments are included to clarify wording and to repeal obsolete sections. These amendments comprise part of an ongoing review by this Government to ensure that under the federal housing policy, all Canadians have decent, adequate and affordable shelter.
With mortgage insurance for mobile homes which is also introduced in the Bill, young couples, families, singles and seniors will find financing this type of home far less costly than in the past. By providing mortgage insurance for these economical homes, we are significantly increasing the number of Canadians who can achieve home ownership and build family equity.

June 30, 1988
National Housing Act and CMHC Act
Equally important to home financing, whether private or government assisted, is the amendment designed to use existing mortgages for mortgage-backed securities. The extra millions of dollars of mortgage funds they encourage should continue to result in longer term mortgages at more stable interest rates.
The benefits in reduced monthly payments for fixed terms will truly aid more Canadians to fulfil their dream of home ownership. Furthermore, they will provide all of us, and particularly our growing senior population, with secure government-protected investments.
This Government has been vigorous in encouraging home ownership through sound economic management and government mortgage insurance initiatives. By working with the provinces and by directing all government funds to those most in need, more low-income Canadians, the disabled, women raising families on their own, widows, victims of family violence and young singles have secure, affordable housing. Only recently, co-operative housing groups have received additional support. This has been welcomed by those in the coop housing movement.
The amendments with respect to social housing reaffirm the agreements for provincial contributions to housing for the needy and open the doors to home ownership to thousands more Canadians. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Members of the House for their support in helping us achieve these goals and for agreeing to deal with this Bill so speedily today.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, first, 1 want to express my appreciation to the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) for allowing me to speak after the Parliamentary Secretary.
I have had an opportunity to discuss the measures proposed in this Bill with officials from CMHC and with officials from the Minister's office who have gone over the Bill fairly carefully. 1 want to say at the outset that we support the measures in the Bill and the process that we are about to engage in to have it adopted in all stages today. Having said that, I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary or anyone else would be surprised to hear me say that while we welcome the measures proposed in this Bill which will certainly be helpful to a certain segment of the population, I would have felt much more comfortable-and I expressed this sentiment to the Minister when I met with him and with officials in his Department-if the Government had also come forward with more concrete proposals to address the housing crisis that exists in Canada today and particularly the one that exists in Metropolitan Toronto in which my constituency is situated. 1 say this for a number of reasons.
There have been sentiments expressed in the House by Members on all sides who are seriously concerned about this crisis. I received a letter from a constituent of mine, which I think would be of interest to Hon. Members on all sides of the
House because it expresses probably in a better way than I could the frustrations that are felt by many people in Toronto who can no longer afford to buy homes. My constituent wrote:
My husband is a teacher and I'm an administrative assistant. Though we earn a decent income between us, the current situation makes it unlikely that we'll ever own a home or our own. Though 1 know it has never been possible for everyone to own their own home I think its very sad when even the smallest house is beyond the reach of the average person or family. So that a privileged few can make large amounts of fast money, a huge number of potential homebuyers are put out of the market permanently.
Adding to the hopelessness of the situation is the fact that rents are so high in Toronto that even a small downpayment takes years to save. Generally, by the time one saves the downpayment on an average home, the price of the home (and the required downpayment) has doubled.
I've lived in Toronto all my life and I love it here, but it now appears that if we want to start a family David and I will have to move to a smaller city nearby and hope to gain employment there (unless we want to raise a family in an apartment building).
I know the real estate agents insist that the number of speculators within the homebuyer/seller market is as low as 1 per cent but I think this estimate is very low. I myself know several speculators (one is a real estate agent himself) and plenty of others who would gladly do the same if only they had the money to get their foot in the door.
In the long run, Toronto will suffer as well as the people who will be forced out. The colourful community atmosphere that characterizes this city will be replaced by the childless, the very rich, and the extremely poor.
The city will lose so much of its appeal as well as developing all of the problems associated with such huge gaps in the social strata.
That is a letter of concern, as I said, from one of my constituents and it is a feeling shared by many people in the City of Toronto today.
I seriously suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Minister's Department respond to that crisis by implementing many of the measures suggested by myself and the Minister's own colleague from Scarborough West. In debate the other day that Hon. Member made 10 proposals, I believe, which are well worth consideration by this House.
Without taking up any more time, I felt I had to express at least those concerns of the people of the City of Toronto. I want to conclude by saying that we support this Bill and hope that the process as suggested by the Deputy House Leader will be followed by the House and the Bill will be passed in all stages today.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I also welcome this opportunity to speak, on behalf of my Party, to Bill C-111, a Bill whose purpose has the approval of our Party, although we wonder whether there are sufficient guarantees to protect Canadians.
In a way, we are disappointed. And first of all, always in a spirit of collaboration, the Government should remember, when it introduces bills that are in the public interest, that the Opposition can work fast and pass this kind of legislation in one day. That is what we are going to do today. We will
June 30, 1988

accelerate the process and thus help Canadian taxpayers who stand to benefit under this legislation.
Second, we are disappointed, as I said before, because this is not enough, although the amendments are valid ones and there is an improvement in the timeframe in which services are provided. 1 think making mobile homes and floating homes eligible is a step in the right direction. However, I would like to know whether these will be eligible for other CMHC services. I would have liked to see something for those thousands of Canadians who are waiting for social housing, which may be in the form of public housing provided through the provinces, referred to in Quebec as "HLM", and also for Canadians involved in housing co-operatives.
I think the Government could have made the necessary amendments requested by housing co-operatives, the groups involved in the construction of social housing. First of all, there is an appalling lack of housing units for the Montreal area, for Toronto, as was mentioned earlier, for Vancouver, Edmonton and in fact all large urban centres.
There is a shortage of cheap housing. There are a lot of condominiums going up, renting for $1,000 or $2,000 per month, but there is a lack of decent, affordable housing for people on middle and low incomes.
I think that here the Government missed a golden opportunity to show it has a social conscience. I agree the Tories certainly don't have a reputation . . . Remember what they did to the elderly, remember what they did with their tax on drugs, and as far as social housing is concerned, they have shown this is not really... Today for instance, they were a lot more flexible with the banks. This talk about controlling the banks is just that, but where the average citizen is concerned, they are not as generous.
However, Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of my colleague from Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens) and on my own behalf, I would like to say that our Party agrees to have all stages of this Bill adopted today, so that Canadians can take advantage of its provisions as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Marcel Danis: House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-lll, an Act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to repeal certain enactments in consequence thereof Mr. Mclnnes-Mr. Danis in the chair.
Is there unanimous consent to declare Clauses 1 to 37 carried?
National Housing Act and CMHC Act


Jean-Claude Malépart: To save time, Mr. Speaker, I could start with two short questions and we could then proceed.
Concerning the matter of mobile homes or house boats being eligible for mortgage insurance, I would like to know whether that eligibility under the legislation will make mobile homes, house boats eligible for every other existing CHMC program, for home renovation or otherwise, or whether amendments will have to be brought in to other aspects of the National Housing Act to make them eligible, or whether this is strictly limited to mortgage loan insurance?
My second question deals with the delegation of authority to provinces. I think we agree on the matter of delegation, power sharing, cooperation with provincial governments, but where there is a breach, where, a province decides it no longer wishes to be the one to deliver housing in its jurisdiction and it wants to put an end to that operation, will the federal Government retain the same right as before to make direct delivery within a province? Or, in the case where there is a disagreement, can the federal Government reclaim its right to continue building housing, to deliver those programs in a relevant province, otherwise the legislation means that authority to deliver the CHMC programs is completely relinquished by the federal Government to the provinces?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Chairman, to answer the second question first, no, it does not take any more power away from the federal Government whatsoever. If any province decided not to deliver, the federal Government could still deliver those programs.
On the mobile homes issue, this Bill provides for mortgage insurance only, not for other programs at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement for clauses 1 to 37 to carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Danis: Clauses 1 to 37 inclusive agreed to.
Clauses 1 to 37 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Philip Derek Lewis: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: that the Bill be read for the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
June 30, 1988
Canada Agricultural Products Act

Pierre Blais: that Bill C-141, an Act to regulate the marketing of agricultural products in import, export and interprovincial trade and to provide for national standards and grades of agricultural products, for their inspection and grading, for the registration of establishments and for standards governing establishments, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to speak to the Bill we just tabled which concerns agricultural products in Canada. I may add that speedy passage of this Bill is urgently needed. Mr. Speaker, we need this Bill first of all to clarify and reinforce the role played by the federal Government in the agricultural sector. This legislation will give the federal Government more clear-cut statutory powers to regulate the marketing, inspection and grading of agricultural products and to provide for national standards and grades. It will help improve agricultural trade, both in Canada and on the international market.
Bill C-141 also provides better protection for the Canadian consumer. Speedy passage of this Bill is of the utmost importance to all Canadians, and especially to the agri-food industry. As you know, it is also of vital importance to the Canadian fruit and vegetables industry, whose 27,000 growers of fresh fruits and vegetables now have annual sales of over $1.7 billion. That is impressive, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Horticultural Council and the Canadian Fruit and Wholesalers Association agree that this legislation is essential to maintaining a well-organized market.
The two groups I just mentioned are among the twenty-seven national agri-food organizations supporting this Bill. At the present time, standards for these products are regulated under the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act. In fact, very few amendments have been made since the legislation was passed in 1955. As you know, the Act contains a number of shortcomings and ambiguities that were already pointed out some time ago. Some regulations have become practically unenforceable. That is why we must act now to provide the requisite authority to revise the regulations covering agricultural products. For instance, sub-paragraph 7(iii) of Clause 31 of the Bill will again give us the power to control consignment selling of fresh fruits and vegetables.

Until 1983, consignment selling was controlled under the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act of 1935. The Act was amended in 1942 to prohibit imports of produce which the importer purchased later than 24 hours after shipment and from the point of production. This effectively controlled consignment selling.
When the CAPS Act was introduced 33 years ago, it consolidated a number of existing Acts, including the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act. However, the import provisions concerning consignment selling, Sections 56 and 57, were not consolidated but remained under the original Act.
For over 40 years these regulations controlled imports on a consignment basis. In other words, imports could only enter Canada under a prior purchase agreement. However, in January of 1983, the Standing Joint Committee on Regulatory Scrutiny examined the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act. It ruled that the Act did not have the enabling authority to regulate consignment selling.
In more than five years there has been no attempt to enforce such regulations. However, last summer notice was served that Canada's fresh fruit and vegetable markets are vulnerable to surplus products from abroad. These surplus products can be sold at depressed prices in direct competition with Canadian production and pre-purchased imports.

Without controls on consignment selling, Mr. Speaker, products can be imported without a prior purchase agreement. Blemished products can be offered for sale, causing prices to fluctuate in a market that is already unstable.
Controlling consignment selling does not in any way affect our free trade agreement with the United States.
During the talks, we clearly explained our position to the U.S. negotiators. They are well aware that Canada intends to take action in this respect.
In fact, these controls are entirely in line with the rights and obligations we have under GATT.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill also guarantees us some flexibility in cases where it would be undesirable or impractical to apply the present Act.
For example, test marketing of new products or new packaging would be impossible if it were not exempted from the requirements of the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act. Furthermore, packers and processors of fresh fruits and vegetables must at times be temporarily exempted from the packaging and grading requirements when some Canadian products are in short supply.
Subparagraph 31(1 )(iv) of this Bill authorizes the Minister or his delegate to allow the bulk transport of fruits and vegetables in containers that do not meet the regulatory standards. This makes possible the orderly, efficient interprovincial or international sale of fresh or processed fruits and vegetables when shortages occur on the domestic market.
Section 15 of the Bill authorizes us to make logos and quality names for agricultural products into national brands. Making trade marks of federal quality names will increase the effectiveness and credibility of our inspection system. The
June 30, 1988

resulting constant quality will clearly benefit consumers, Mr. Speaker.
Improved controls on imported products or those sold interprovincially will protect consumers from products that do not meet our health standards.

Additional provisions will allow Agriculture Canada to respond to developments in the agriculture sector and provide authority for cost recovery and privatization. Proposed revisions will increase penalties established in 1955 and provide a general updating of the Act similar to revisions made to the Meat Inspection Act in May, 1985.
To ensure the use of fair and ethical trading practices and the orderly marketing of safe, wholesome agricultural products, it is necessary to improve the licensing of dealers of agricultural products. This is prescribed in Section 32(b). It clearly defines the terms and conditions under which dealers can operate.
This Bill will ensure that the new marketing procedures work fairly for dealers and buyers of fresh fruits and vegetables.
The Canadian Board of Arbitration and the Review Tribunal, which now operate under the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act, would be maintained. I refer the House to Clause 4 of the Bill. The Board will consider complaints against dealers and provide rulings in accordance with the Act. The tribunal will hear any appeals against the Board's rulings.
The Canada Agricultural Products Act will update current provisions governing trade and product standards. Outdated and impotent legislation will be replaced with legislation that can help guide the agri-food industry into the 21st century.

Better regulations in the farm export industry would certainly enhance Canada's image as a supplier of healthy and high quality foodstuffs.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize the continuing support of our colleagues, especially in the Niagara Peninsula area.

I am thankful for the warm support of the Members for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin), Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson), St. Catherines (Mr. Reid) and Welland (Mr. Pietz) and the surrounding area. It was very important for the Government. Now we will have legislation that will be good for us and good for the future.

Mr. Speaker, if this legislation is important for the Canadian farming industry generally, it is vital for horticulture.
Canada Agricultural Products Act
Therefore, I strongly urge the Members of the House who are here today to complete their deliberations promptly and give this Bill their full support.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us today is certainly much broader than we had called for under the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act. It goes far beyond the simple provisions relating to consignment selling and to bulk shipments.
This issue has been before the Government since at least 1984. It has not been able to enforce the old Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act regulations since 1984. The Canadian Horticultural Council has been calling for action since 1984. Last summer, the entire frozen sour cherry industry was destroyed because the Government refused to act even though it had promised for years to bring in amendments.
I cannot help but have the same feeling today, the last normal sitting day, that I had last year with the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The Government brought in a Bill and allowed for a briefing of opposition Members in the lobby in the last hour before the House sat. We allowed the Bill to go through in one sitting. There were probably many flaws in the Bill because we did not have public hearings. The Government then took eight months to proclaim the Bill.
The Government will demand that this Bill be passed immediately, but will reluctantly proclaim the Bill next January or February, as they did with the Farm Improvement Loans Act. It is not only unreasonable, it is unfair to agriculture and certainly unfair to the House of Commons to bring in legislation in the dying hours of the session. It shows no respect for the House.
We know that the Canadian Horticultural Council needs this legislation and that the cherry producers need the legislation this year. We want to co-operate, but we are opposed to the Government treating the industry and the House of Commons with contempt, as it does year after year. We are faced with the ultimatum to either pass the legislation or let the industry be destroyed without it. The Government is showing utter contempt, as it did last year with the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
The Minister said that this legislation is leading the industry into the 21st century. The joke is that as a result of the free trade agreement that his Government is hammering through this House, the industry will not be around in the 21st century. Much of the industry will be destroyed with the loss of the seasonable tariff.
The grape industry will be destroyed. We learned yesterday that the Government will provide some $35 million in the Ontario region for the grape industry. Yet the grape industry requires at least $156 million just to cover its losses in the adjustment as as result of the trade deal. This industry was sacrificed because the President of the United States tipped his glass of wine with the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
June 30, 1988
Canada Agricultural Products Act
Mulroney) at Rideau Hall and said that he will not be happy until the entire Canadian grape industry and wine industry is destroyed and Canadians are drinking California wine. Clearly he is getting his wish. If the Government is going to sacrifice the grape and wine industry in Canada, the least it could do is pay some reasonable adjustment.
Furthermore, the Government is demanding that the Ontario Government pay a similar amount when it knows that Ontario has openly and consistently opposed the trade deal. The ones who will suffer are the people in the Niagara region, along with those in the Okanagan.
The Minister said that the Members from the Niagara region gave their warm support to this legislation. They will require more than warm support in order to get re-elected after the trade deal is passed. The trade deal will be absolutely destructive.


Mrs. Sparrow:: That is not true.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Every one of them knows it. The Canadian grape industry faces the loss of half their acreage. Some
11,000	acres will have to be removed but they will only get a quarter of the amount they need for compensation. While the Minister of State for Agriculture (Mr. Blais) states that he has warm support, 1 suspect it is very lukewarm. The meaning of "lukewarm" is "not too hot". The Members from the Niagara area are not too hot on this trade deal because they know they will be destroyed. They know the Government has abandoned them. The industry is demanding $156 million because half their grape-vines will have to be torn out. They are getting exactly $35 million. The Minister announces the best he can do with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is some $35 million when the adjustment required is $156 million. Everyone knows what will happen. There will be a tremendous demand for the small amount of dollars, one-quarter of what is needed.
This trade deal is absolutely devastating. I talked to a producer last weekend who has 800 acres of grape-vines in the Niagara area. He is facing their removal. I said to him that surely there will be some market, and he replied, yes, there will be some market, and do you know what the market will be, Mr. Speaker? The average white hybrid grape producer received something around $600 per tonne during the last three years. In 1989, he must compete with the grapes produced in California. The average price he will be competing with is $347, that is assuming the dollar does not appreciate some more, which is what it is doing practically every day. No wonder these producers are going to be put out of business. If they are selling white hybrid grapes for $600 a tonne on the market and suddenly they have to compete with the prices in southern California, delivered in Canada, with transportation and all the other charges, they are looking at $347. It is little wonder they are very concerned.
The Minister indicates he is going to provide about one quarter of the assistance required. This Government is not only sacrificing this industry but will not pay any compensation. The Prime Minister tips his glass to the President and says: "We are going to sacrifice the Canadian grape and wine industry". Surely he should pay the cost. But he is only putting up one quarter of the money.
We are not very happy with a Bill that does all kinds of things that are way beyond the scope of the original regulations which were ruled ultra vires last year. The old Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act was ruled ultra vires in 1984. The Government stopped enforcing it because of the decision of the Special Joint Committee on Regulations and Statutory Instruments. The industry has simply been in limbo with respect to this consignment selling ever since. So the pressure has been there.
The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister have promised year after year at the Canadian Horticultural Council's annual meeting that they will bring in amendments. That is great, but why bring them in on the last sitting day of the session? This is an industry that could face horrendous problems. Literally millions of dollars were lost last year when the Government refused to bring in amendments relating to bulk shipments for the sour cherry industry.
This is the kind of Bill that should have proper hearings. It has all kinds of legal ramifications relating to search and seizure and relating to interprovincial trade. The Government talks about giving greater freedom for interprovincial trade. If we are going to have a free trade agreement with the United States, it might be good to have free trade between the provinces. Everyone seems to agree with that although Deputy Ministers of Agriculture have had not had much success so far. This Bill, if you can believe it, Mr. Speaker, actually further controls interprovincial trade.
The people in the Department say if we are going to control international trade, as this Bill proposes to do, we have to control interprovincial trade. That may be necessary under the GATT, but I would feel more comfortable if we had some public hearings and had the Deputy Minister for International Trade before the committee. Perhaps we could hear from some of the provinces. Perhaps Nova Scotia does not like this provision. Perhaps British Columbia does not like the provision with respect to interprovincial trade. But the Bill is brought in on the last afternoon of the regular parliamentary calendar to be swallowed whole. I suppose we could take the attitude that some like it. If the Government is going to screw up the country, let it go ahead and do it. But I do not really think it is discharging our responsibility either as members of the Opposition or as Government back-benchers to leave it to Government control.
This legislation will apparently upgrade many sections with respect to the horticultural industry, very much along the lines of the Meat Inspection Act a few years ago. That is desirable. We had public hearings. We brought in various people from
June 30, 1988

the industry to see how it would work. I would think similar kinds of public hearings would be desirable for this Bill. This is a big country, with about five or six distinct agriculture producing areas, and the impacts are very wide. Clause 4 provides for an arbitration and review panel to handle disputes between shippers and receivers. This is very similar to the existing Act. There may be some minor adjustments there because this whole Bill has been brought in on an emergency basis in the way the Government does most things and the details are not provided for us.
The registration of establishments is provided for. This is similar to the existing Act, but there is a whole new section under Clause 14 which provides for contracting out. Apparently the Government has a policy now of contracting out for laboratory work. That may be desirable. I am not judging it one way or the other, but it seems to me it would have been good to hear from the private sector and from government officials as to what standards would be put in place to ensure that the laboratory standards are just as good in private sector laboratories as they are in government laboratories. We do not know that.
There is a new section, Clause 15, for national trademarks which provides for the products which use that national trademark standard and have not met those standards even though they have not crossed an international boundary. They would be subject to federal inspection. I think that is probably a very good provision. There are a number of arrangements with respect to Clause 19 as to how administrative officers are appointed. It is similar to the existing CAP Act. The inspection provisions are very similar to the existing CAP Act.
There is a new section with respect to search and seizure which is not in the existing Act. I have been told by officials that it is similar to the provisions which were put in the Meat Inspection Act, and it is probably useful, but I would have preferred to hear some testimony by officials with respect to the legal limits which are prescribed. There is also a provision for disposal of seized fruit and vegetables and other commodities. There are dramatic changes in the penalties. They have been raised from $500 to $10,000. That may be appropriate. We do not have testimony to prove that one way or the other.
I do want to deal with the question of consignment selling because that has been a problem with shippers in the United States who have surplus fruit and vegetables. Once they are loaded on the truck and moving, they can easily be rolled across the borders. It is a type of surplus disposal mechanism. For many years we were able to control that. Back in the forties it fell under the regulations of the fruit, honey and vegetable legislation. Those regulations were ruled ultra vires in 1984, and nothing has been done since.
We are glad that the Government is bringing in this amendment to change the CAPs Act. We hope that the Government will not wait for eight or nine months to proclaim
Canada Agricultural Products Act
the Act and to bring in the regulations. If it does the value of it for this year's fruit and vegetable producers will be lost.
We heard stories of shipments of boxes of plums coming into the country last year from California which were selling for $10 a box in California. By the time they reached Montreal in a deteriorated condition, they were down to $2 a box. That totally destroyed the Canadian market for those commodities. Similar things happen year after year with regard to peaches and other perishable commodities. They are simply rolled across the border and thus destroy our markets.
Apparently the same arrangement applies to interprovincial trade under this legislation. I am sure that some shippers and producers will be surprised that these regulations are being put in place. Likewise, I am sure that some provincial Governments will be surprised.
In Clause 32(l)(iv) there is a provision for the control of container shipments coming into the country. It states:
(iv) permitting the Minister or a delegate of the Minister to exempt the marketing of any fresh or processed fruit or vegetable in import or interprovincial trade from any of the requirements of this Act or the regulations where the Minister or delegate considers that it is necessary to do so in order to alleviate a shortage in Canada of the fruit or vegetable or an equivalent fruit or vegetable,
Last year, because this legislation was not put in place a year ago last spring as had been promised, we saw the whole frozen sour cherry industry destroyed as a result of massive shipments coming in from Michigan and other points in the United States. This resulted in millions of dollars of lost production in the fruit and vegetable industry. We hope that the Government will not dally with this legislation this year because it will mean a similar loss.
Under its marketing orders to control price, quality and quantity of any fresh or frozen vegetable, the United States has all these powers. This measure will give our Department of Agriculture a similar type of control, belatedly, after a year or so. Law officers of the Crown advised the Government that the regulations which had been drawn for processed fruit and vegetables a year ago should be brought in to control those shipments. Of course, this legislation will firm up the regulations as they apply to fresh fruit and vegetables, as well as to processed fruit and vegetables.
Consideration of the impact that this measure will have on the trade deal is another aspect of the whole agreement which would have been useful if public hearings had been held. Clearly, in the drafting instructions provided to the United States administration there was a provision put in place by the two congressional committees to authorize the President to negotiate the control of vegetable imports into the United States. Our potato producers in the Maritimes may be looking forward to the American Government negotiating import controls. That sounds rather strange when we consider that the Government has agreed to a free trade agreement with the United States. Yet we see in the drafting instructions a measure for administrative action, not necessarily in the trade

June 30, 1988
Canada Agricultural Products Act
deal itself, but for administrative action to authorize the President to negotiate import controls and their levels. Under its marketing orders the American Government can do that at any stage with any fruit or vegetable.
As far as Canada is concerned, under the agreement as long as these requirements of size of container, quality standards and so on are met then the fruit and vegetables can flow into Canada. It is a very unequal arrangement that arises from the free trade deal. Clearly, assuming that these regulations are not protested at GATT when the Government actually has the courage to proclaim the legislation and to pass the regulations, we will be able to control consignment selling, and the rolling of van-loads of fresh fruits and vegetables often in a deteriorating condition into Canada. Likewise, processed fruits and vegetables in bulk containers can be controlled.
I have already outlined what the impact of the trade deal will be with regard to the fruit and vegetable industry with the removal of the tariff on processed food. The seasonal tariff is replaced by something called a snap-back provision which has absolutely no effect. It is only effective providing the farmer does not increase his acreage. In other words, the industry has to retrench if it is expanding and then that whole snap-back provision does not even operate.
The snap-back provision is a total joke. It provides that if the price drops below 90 per cent of the five-year average, removing the highest and lowest years from that five-year average, then the original most favoured nation tariff can be reinstated. Of course, those prices have to prevail for five days. There is also an administrative period of another two days to consider. I do not know of any fruit or vegetable producer or distributor who believes that once the price of a fresh fruit or vegetable breaks even for 48 hours it can ever be brought back in that season. It may make some people feel better to reinstate the tariff, but it has absolutely zero impact on holding up the price.
Of course, we have the disadvantage of being in a colder climate where many of our perishable fresh fruits and vegetables come on to the market three or four weeks later. Now we will always be taking the lower price at the end of the market.
We have been calling for this legislation to protect fruit and vegetable producers for at least one and a half years. We want to see it passed and have the protection. We are very concerned that the Government will not proclaim it for six or eight months, in the same manner as the Farm Equipment Loan Act. Although we have the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, the Government did not bother proclaiming that Act for six or eight months. We could face a devastating year for fruit and vegetable producers like the sour cherry processed producers faced last year, and the Government will fail either to proclaim the Bill or write the regulations and put them in place. We were assured by officials that those regulations can
be put in place in a week or so. We on this side want to see the legislation passed. We think that the industry is facing a tremendously difficult time with the trade legislation.
In February I had the opportunity to attend the annual meeting of the Canadian Horticultural Council. At that meeting there was a panel on the opportunities for free trade. I listened carefully to all the problems of the various sectors in the industry. I heard practically nothing in terms of opportunities from the trade deal for the fruit and vegetable industry. It is facing an incredibly difficult time.
I have already described what is happening to the grape and wine industry. It will be destroyed. Today I read a confidential document from the American Agriculture Producers Advisory Committee. It is the same as the Canadian SAGITS. They stated that they were quite pleased with the free trade deal, because they felt that right off the top in the grape and wine industry they were going to take at least $60 million of additional wine exports into the Canadian market. When one considers that our wine production is in the area of $210 million that is a pretty significant chunk of the industry.
We believe that if the Government is going to sacrifice the grape and wine industry, as the Prime Minister has decided to do, it should at least pay adequate compensation. We have been told that the compensation will only be $35 million over a six-year period, and the industry is asking for $153 million in the Ontario region alone. It seems like a total disregard for anything that is fair or just for that industry.
The Government has decided to sacrifice that industry and it is not willing to pay the money. The federal Government is saying that the provincial Government should pay the money. Surely the provincial Government through bringing in its legislation relating to the trade deal, whether it is for water, hydro, or medical services, has laid it on the line that it is not supporting the federal Government plan to sell out the industry. Why would the federal Government expect the provincial Government to provide the industrial adjustment for the industry?
Some 17 producers have already been put out of business in Ontario, and more and more are walking away. That is not surprising. If a producer is selling grapes this year at $600 a tonne and as a result of the trade deal that producer will be selling them for $347 a tonne next year, there is no question that the producer will go out of business.
The legislation before the House today will provide some assistance in controlling the imports, assuming that the Government passes it, and assuming that regulations are put in place. The industry is facing a very severe challenge in the future because it is being sacrificed in the free trade deal.
In committee we will look forward to receiving answers to some of the questions that I have raised. I hope the Minister of State for Agriculture will be able to provide those answers. This is a much larger Bill than we had anticipated. It goes far
June 30, 1988

beyond the question of consignment selling and bulk shipments. It is brought forward in the last days of this session. It should have had a much more extensive committee study. We should have heard officials from the whole fruit and vegetable industry, from provincial governments, and from marketing boards in order that we would know what will be the impact of the interprovincial regulations, and the impact with regard to the whole industry from such an extensive Bill that was not envisaged and on which we heard nothing until one day ago.
In fact, we thought the Government had decided not to bring it in. I hope it will not simply be window dressing. If the Bill is not proclaimed and regulations are not drawn almost immediately, we will see many producers destroyed in this very crop year because of the Government's negligence to put in place the proper regulations to control imports from the United States. The Government has known about those problems for almost four years. In October and November, 1984, the Government was told that the regulations for consignment selling under the old Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act were ultra vires. One year ago the Statutory Instruments and Regulations Committee told the Government that the regulations with regard to bulk shipments were illegal, and that they could not be enforced for processed food. They were also told that they were probably ultra vires for fresh fruit as well.
Yet this legislation to give the proper legal framework for those regulations to control those two serious problems for the fruit and vegetable industry were not brought in until this morning. We hope that there will not be more mistakes and errors in it. We hope the Government will act, because it is destroying the industry through the free trade deal. We hope that the Government will at least try to take this one action which can be useful in controlling these abuses which have been going on for several years and have been extremely costly and harmful to agriculture producers in the fruit and vegetable industry.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-141, an Act to regulate the marketing of agricultural products in import, export and interprovincial trade and to provide for national standards and grades of agricultural products, for their inspection and grading, for the registration of establishments and for standards governing establishments.
This particular Bill came about as a result of a ruling or a decision by the committee on Statutory Instruments and Regulations. It ruled that the regulations Canada was using under the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act and the Canadian Agricultural Products Standards Act were ultra vires because those two Acts failed to deal with the marketing of agricultural products. They were simply attempting to designate some of the other rules and regulations as having to do with standards, quality, and grades. The committee of the two Houses of Parliament, the Committee on Statutory Instruments and
Canada Agricultural Products Act
Regulations, found that the scope of powers that the Department of Agriculture was attempting to use lie outside of the scope of the legislation.
This legislation has been promised by the Minister for almost one year. It has been brought before us on the last day of June on a rush basis. The House has agreed to forgo the usual waiting period after introduction, therefore, we have had very little chance to become knowledgeable of the legislation. By agreement, the legislation will go through the House today.
I have had a chance to go through it. I believe I now see why the Minister has delayed so long with the legislation. It approached us before the recess at Christmas, suggesting that perhaps we would have the legislation replacing the CAPs Act at the last day of the sitting at that time. Apparently it was not quite ready and he did not introduce it. We have it now. It is not just a question of chance, on the last day before the July 1 holiday. There are not too many Members in the House. Some of the Conservative Members who represent western ridings have chosen to go home so that they can attend their July 1 functions. As a result, the Minister does not have the problem that I think he would have had had he introduced this when there were more of his own back-benchers around. For the last two decades, at least, the Conservative caucus has refused to allow any agriculture legislation that permits control over the marketing of agricultural products to pass this House, particularly if that marketing involved livestock.
You will know, having been a long observer of this House, that when the legislation to permit the establishment of national marketing boards was established in the early seventies, that a rump of Conservative back-benchers stopped that legislation and in fact made it impossible for even a Liberal Government to bring it in, until they had put in an amendment making it impossible for producers of products to set up a national marketing board for those products, unless the product was named in the legislation.
They totally reversed the intent of the legislation, and it is now necessary to come before the House to have a product named in the legislation before you can begin the slow, tortuous process of setting up a national marketing agency. This House and this Parliament went through that in the case of tobacco. It was one of the first pieces of legislation before us.
Most Members in the House will remember that in spite of that having gone through the House relatively quickly, most of the impetus for the establishment of that national agency had passed by that time. It had taken three years of long, arduous work on the part of tobacco producers, who were going broke and were tired. They never did get their national marketing agency, even though the legislation finally was permitted, three years after it was needed.
What we have is an Act which, by force of the necessities and the exigencies of the way business is carried out, is

June 30, 1988
Canada Agricultural Products Act
permitting and requiring the Minister to have say, legislative and parliamentary say, over the marketing of agricultural products. Which agricultural products does he have the power to control? In marketing, and I quote from the legislation, it means the preparation and advertisement of agricultural products. It includes the conveyance, purchase and sale of agricultural products, and any other act necessary to make agricultural products available for consumption or use.
It is very broad and very necessary for the role that the Department of Agriculture has been carrying on in conjunction with the Horticulture Council of Canada. It goes beyond that because, under this Act, an agricultural product means, (a) an animal, a plant, or an animal or plant product. It is not just plant products, fruit and vegetables or honey that is affected this time. This Act does include animals and animal products. It goes on to say that the agricultural product also means, under (b), "a product including any food or drink, wholly or partly derived from any animal or plant". Or, (c), and this is new, "a product prescribed for the purposes of this Act".
The Minister will have the power under this Act to prescribe other products that do not easily fit within the category of being a plant or an animal product such as, I would presume, honey which comes from a bee and is only indirectly from the plant. What about mushrooms, which by definition are a fungus rather than a plant or an animal?
It gives, I think, the necessary latitude for a Minister of Agriculture to perform his functions and the functions of the Department on behalf of Canadian producers, and I am pleased that this legislation unshackles the Minister of Agriculture in a way that previous legislation did not permit. I am therefore supporting this particular action by the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of the Government.
The legislation also proposes to legalize the arbitration and review tribunal and to give it some enforcement powers, a problem that that particular tribunal ran into under the old Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act and the Canadian Egg Products Standards Act.
A change which I am ambivalent about is that it accredits certain laboratories in the private sector to perform necessary laboratory work. It maintains these laboratories under a system of accreditation, which will be maintained by federal inspectors doing spot checks, by sending some products for testing, to see whether the tests are similar to the ones that have been done by the Department of Agriculture itself. It will, to some extent, be privatizing some of these services that were largely carried out by the Department but can now be shared with the private sector. It establishes an agricultural product legend which has been in use, with the Maple Leaf and the Canada No. 1. It makes this a trademark so that this can be officially used only by the Government of Canada.
I am not sure whether we are going to have some of the spinoff problems with this particular trademark that the Olympic Committee had with the name "Olympic" and the circles and
so on. I would hope not. Otherwise, we may find Air Canada and the Department of Agriculture in court some day, both using the maple leaf. Other corporations, Crown and otherwise, have used the Maple Leaf as well. I think that this makes good sense. The Maple Leaf and the No. 1 are readily identifiable symbols, and I believe that to register that symbol or that legend as a trademark is a necessary part of the marketing of our agricultural products from Canada and within Canada.
This legislation strengthens the rights of inspectors to open containers and it spells out the right of seizure of additional products when an inspection is made by a Department of Agriculture inspector.
Consistent with the new Constitution, the old legislation had to be changed. This legislation is modern in that it specifies there can be no entry to a dwelling or search of a person without a warrant, and the warrants in this case must be issued each day. It is my understanding of this Bill that during the course of such a search under warrant if other illegal products are found, charges can be laid concerning those illegal products even though they were not necessarily specified in the warrant.
Fines have been updated in this legislation because the old legislation had not dealt with the question of fines for 25 to 30 years. We now find that there are two ways of handling the question of fines. Under this Bill there is a procedure for minor offences where the arresting officer or the official of Agriculture Canada can simply issue a fine and ticket the offender for minor infractions and the fine would be paid immediately just as a parking ticket or something like that is paid. Fines for corporations and officers of corporations are now included in this new Bill and those fines will be to a maximum of $10,000 under summary conviction and/or six months imprisonment. Under an indictable offence fines rise to $100,000 and/or one year in prison. Fines have been tightened up considerably, the ability to enforce the legislation and penalties for avoiding the new law are much more onerous than they once were.
Terms and conditions for marketing, importing and exporting in and out of the country and in interprovincial trade will be spelled out under regulations. This is not anything new. Most of this kind of legislation makes the methodology which the Government proposes to follow clearer under regulation. We have had difficulty in previous legislation introduced in a rush by this Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), namely the Farm Improvement Loans Act. That Bill was introduced in a rush last June but was not put into effect until the following February 8 or 10. I have been assured by officials that this Bill comes into effect upon promulgation by the Governor General because there is no clause in it which says the Bill comes into effect upon the proclamation by the Cabinet.
We are allowing this Bill to go through the House quickly on the assumption that it will be in effect within a matter of
June 30, 1988

days. We have been told that the regulations are prepared and that within 10 days or 2 weeks it is hoped to have them published. We are willing from my corner to permit the process to go through quickly. Therefore, I am now prepared for the legislation to move into Committee of the Whole so that the process can be finished in this Chamber.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to speak on this Bill.
The Government suffers from an acute case of Roy McMurtry syndrome. When I was in the Ontario Legislature, the Attorney General of the province, Roy McMurtry, used to regularly introduce Bills on the last day of the session, expecting passage that very same day. This Government has adopted the same kind of philosophy when it pertains to agricultural legislation. Regularly on the last day of a session the Government brings forward a Bill that it has probably had ready or at least should have had ready for a long time. It wants first reading, second reading, committee stage and third reading on the same day and it expects co-operation from Members of Parliament. Of course, it expects that cooperation having approached Members discreetly beforehand saying that the Government merely wants to correct a portion of a Bill, in this case portions relating to consignment selling and bulk container shipping.
In other words, those two provisions have been turfed out of the old Bill because the regulations were done in a way which went beyond their scope and the Bill was necessary to make that correct. The Minister approached my colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), and told him that. That is partially true, Mr. Speaker. The Bill, in part, addresses those issues, but it goes further. It addresses a number of other important issues.
However, the Bill is not 21st century legislation as the Minister of State for Agriculture (Mr. Blais) stated earlier today. He said, and I paraphrase his words, that this Bill will help to guide the fruit and vegetable industry into the 21st century. But with the free trade deal that his boss, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), has signed there will not be much of a fruit and vegetable industry left in this country at all. The only hope we have is that the Government will be turned out of office before the trade deal and the implementing legislation is over and done with.


Shirley Martin: No chance.


Don Boudria: I hear the Member from the Niagara Peninsula across the way. I am sure the grape growers will want to know why the federal Government is offering a mere pittance to the grape growers of that region-


Mr. Della Noce:: Not true.


Don Boudria: -when they will be suffering losses as a result. The Member from the grape growing region of Laval is telling us that that is not true. As an Ontario Member I have
Canada Agricultural Products Act
met the grape growers of our province. He can say that the grape growers do not tell the truth.


Vincent Della Noce: No.


Don Boudria: He has a right to say that and he can say it all he likes. All the grape growers who are listening will know that they have asked for at least $156 million in reparation for the damage inflicted upon them by the Government as a result of the trade deal. They will be offered somewhere in the order of $30 million or $35 million. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, the federal Government has the nerve to ask the Ontario Government to contribute half of the amount of repairing the damage the federal Government has caused to the Ontario grape growers. That takes nerve. It is the same as if I ran into your car with mine and I asked you for half of the money to fix my own car, Mr. Speaker. That is about the same kind of thinking and it is not surprising given that the thinking comes from the Tory Government.
This Bill goes well beyond the issue of consignment selling, bulk container sales and so on. I want to give an example of some of the things covered in this Bill. It is a very lengthy piece of legislation to be passed in a matter of minutes after a long-winded speech by the Minister of State for Agriculture. Let me read Clause 14 of the Bill:
For the purpose of administering this Act and the regulations, the Minister may designate as an accredited laboratory all or part of any building or place set aside and used for conducting research or carrying out inspections, grading, testing, analyses or experiments in science or used for the manufacture of chemical or biological products.
That goes well beyond the issue of consignment selling and bulk container selling. Clause 13 is even more interesting. It reads:
It shall be a condition of the registration and operation of an establishment as a registered establishment under this Act that this establishment and all agricultural products in it are subject to this Act and the regulations.
What we have here with those two clauses that I have just read is a system whereby the Government can contract or privatize certain services which are done right now by federal government employees.
I have not heard representations from the Public Service Alliance or from anyone else concerning the impact this clause could have on federal government employees. Does the Government intend to use this clause only in cases where there is an emergency and when the technology is already available in the private sector, something which could be deemed to be reasonable, or does it intend to privatize certain services being offered right now by federal government employees? I do not have the answer to that question. It will be very difficult to get the answer to such a question if we are forced to deal with this issue in a matter of minutes.
The Government wants this legislation passed with a few minutes' debate. It is interesting to recall that we dealt with another agricultural Bill earlier this year, the Pedigree Act, an

June 30, 1988
Canada Agricultural Products Act
important Bill. However, I would suggest that the Bill before us today is even more important. The Pedigree Act was discussed for one hour and 31 minutes in the House of Commons and it was debated for three hours and 39 minutes in five committee meetings.
The Bill before us today, which does a number of things which have been described by my colleague from Algoma, by me and by the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party, is supposed to be dealt with at all stages today without hearing from the provinces, from the industry or from anyone else. We will not even have the weekend to talk to our constituents in order to determine how they feel about this Bill that no one had seen until 11 o'clock this morning.
At 11 o'clock this morning, officials from the Department of Agriculture walked into the opposition lobby, Bill in hand, to brief us while another Bill was being discussed in the House of Commons. There we were sitting in the lobby listening to the debates of the House in one ear and being briefed in the other ear. That is the process the Government wants us to use in order to pass important legislation dealing with agriculture.
As has been said previously, this is the second time the Government has done this.
[ Translation]
At about the same time last year, as the House was preparing to adjourn in late June for the summer recess,-in fact, on the very last day-the Government asked us to adopt another urgent farm bill. It needed it immediately. There were certainly flaws in this bill. We overlooked them. We were not even allowed to hear witnesses because of the so-called urgency. Do you know when the legislation took effect, Mr. Speaker? Eight months later. We had to wait eight months to see this bill implemented. How can we take this Government seriously, Mr. Speaker? I am not saying that we should not take this matter seriously, because it is serious indeed, but I am saying that if this Government was serious, it could have introduced this bill yesterday, the day before yesterday, or even before that to give Parliamentarians at least an opportunity to contact their provincial counterparts and the various farm organizations in this country to seek their support and advice.

The Minister of State for Agriculture talked about the fruit and vegetable industry being guided into the 21st century by this legislation. I do not intend to delay this any longer than I have to, but I must protest with the Minister the manner in which he and his Government have dealt with this issue today, a manner which is disrespectful of this parliamentary institution.
The Government talks about guiding this industry into the 21st century. Let me remind Hon. Members that McCain Foods, earlier this year, wrote to the then Minister for International Trade to tell her in no uncertain terms that the fruit and vegetable industry would be totally devastated by the
actions of this Government. Mr. McLean of McCain Foods can hardly be considered to be someone who is a partisan of my political Party. As a matter of fact, he indicates in his own correspondence that he has been a supporter of the Conservative Party in the past.
Mr. McLean states that he cannot support this kind of legislation because it would totally destroy the Canadian agricultural industry. I have his letter here in front of me. In the interests of time, I will not read it into the record, but I do want to tell Hon. Members that Mr. McLean has indicated very clearly, as a supporter of the Conservative Party and as the representative of the largest food processing company in Canada, that this trade deal is not good for him.
We are talking about leading the fruit and vegetable industry into the 21st century, but we will certainly not be doing that with the Prime Minister's trade deal. That trade deal means total devastation for that industry. The Government knows it. It has chosen to sacrifice the fruit and vegetable industry, the grape growers of the Niagara Peninsula and the Okanagan Valley and several others in the agricultural sector deliberately in order to obtain that trade deal that the Prime Minister wants so badly.
That being said, I will end my remarks by again indicating to the Government that this Roy McMurtry syndrome from which it suffers has to be put out of its misery very soon, and an election should do it.


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.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Chairman, in view of the time and the fact that I believe the House would normally rise at 1.37, I think I can speak for Members on the government side when I say that we would be prepared to not see the clock to allow for my colleagues opposite to put as many questions as they like in Committee of the Whole House, with a view that perhaps, in accordance with discussions earlier, we could try to get through all stages of the Bill. The officials are here and we could go right through until two o'clock in an effort to allow for as much time as possible. If everyone would agree to that suggestion, we could move ahead.


Marcel Danis: Is there such unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Danis: products in import, export and interprovincial trade and to provide for national standards and grades of agricultural products, for their inspection and grading, for the registration of establishments and for standards governing establishments.
I would suggest to the Hon. Member for Algoma that if the committee agrees, we could probably proceed with questions from Members and then we could carry all the clauses unanimously at the same time. Is that agreeable to everyone?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, the key question about this legislation concerns especially the consignment selling and the bulk shipments provisions of the Bill, and I wonder what commitment the Minister can make with regard to implementation of these provisions. Does the Government intend to proclaim the Bill or will it become law the moment it is passed? What commitment can the Minister give to putting the regulations in place, and how long will that take?


Pierre Blais: Concerning this matter which is certainly important, Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague the Hon. Member for Algoma that this Bill will be promulgated as soon as it has been signed by the Governor General and there will be no problem.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Since the Minister has his officials with him, can he estimate when the regulations will be put in place and become effective? I am asking this because of what happened last year with the sour cherry crop.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Chairman, it will be within two weeks, no question about that. We will work very soon on that matter, within two weeks.


Maurice Brydon Foster: With regard to the consignment selling issue, can the Minister clarify whether the powers proposed in this legislation under Section 32(1)(3) are identical to the powers which previously existed under Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act Regulations 56 and 57?
Can he also comment regarding container shipments under Section 3 2(1) (4) and whether the regulations drawn there to control bulk shipments are identical and that these powers will not be struck down by the trade agreement?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the Hon. Member that those regulations will be exactly the same as what we already have, in both areas, bulk and consignment.


Maurice Brydon Foster: With respect to the disputes handling mechanism, is the board of arbitration given the same powers it had under the existing legislation?


Pierre Blais: Yes, those powers are exactly the same as they were before.
Canada Agricultural Products Act


Maurice Brydon Foster: Referring to Section 15 of the National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act, will a producer in, say, Prince Edward Island who is carrying a national trademark on his product be subject to federal Government inspection and investigation simply because the agricultural product carries a national trademark regardless of whether it has moved into interprovincial trade or not?


Pierre Blais: This being a provincial matter coming under provincial jurisdiction, national trade marks will only be used when they come under national responsibility. On the private and provincial levels, federal jurisdiction will not apply.


Maurice Brydon Foster: My question was this. As long as the product is carrying a national trademark and is considered eligible for interprovincial or international trade, is it subject to all the inspection and investigative powers provided under this Act regardless of whether or not it has moved into interprovincial or international trade?
[ Translation]


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, if national grades are used, they must be in accordance with the grading standards even if it's at the provincial or international level.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Since this brings in a whole new barrier to interprovincial trade, I wonder if the Minister can identify which provincial Governments and which provincial marketing boards have been consulted and are aware of what is proposed in this legislation?


M. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, because of the specific objectives of this legislation, all the provinces have been consulted and have agreed to it.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Can the Minister identify which marketing boards for fruits and vegetables have been consulted and those which object to the powers given under this legislation?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, in the case of marketing boards, growers' associations from all regions have been consulted concerning the commodities involved, but not the national marketing boards. I am speaking of the growers' associations in the sectors involved.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Are the powers given under this legislation approximately the same as those in the U.S. as far as limiting bulk shipments and consignment selling is concerned? I realize of course that more fruits and vegetables flow to Canada than flow the other way, but I would be interested in knowing whether these powers are similar.

June 30, 1988


M. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, there are two distinct aspects here. In the United States, they control quality and price. In Canada, we only do quality control.
With regard to quality control standards, they are the same on both sides of the border, Mr. Speaker.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Since we have not had the advantage of a committee hearing or investigation, can the Minister indicate if the powers of search and seizure and investigation are similar or equivalent to those powers granted under the Meat Inspection Act which did go through a proper parliamentary hearing process? Can he also tell us where they differ and which ones are greater?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, yes they are similar in all respects and it is also worth mentioning that we have also checked to see whether they were in agreement with the Charter of Rights and Freedom.

Clauses 2 to 42 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre Blais: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.40 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have read with astonishment, not to say disgust, the 136
amendments tabled by the Conservative members who want to sabotage the Official Languages Bill. I think those amendments are bad, racist, and full of hatred.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada would never have let its members say such divisive remarks. I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, how the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who himself negotiated the Meech Lake Accord, can keep those members in his Party.
Is the Prime Minister ready to repudiate once and for all those members for their actions and to stop trying to convince Canadians that the Conservative Party is for official languages. When he talks to the French Community, he says he is for, when he talks to the English Community, he says he is against.
Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister please make up his mind, it is important for our country!



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, exactly four years have passed since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) took over the reins of the Liberal Party, and still they have no defence policy. In fact, searching for the Liberal defence policy is like trying to catch fog in a butterfly net. Not a single original thought has clouded their minds on this vital public issue since 1971 when their last White Paper was tabled.
The NDP, to their credit, have put their few thoughts on paper in the form of a "red" paper on defence. Confused, self-defeating, and ever changing though it may be, the NDP has had the courage to put it forward and face public ridicule. Say what you will about the NDP, they have never been afraid of looking foolish in front of the ordinary people.
The Liberal defence policy, however, seems to be "What we don't know can't hurt us".
If ignorance is bliss, the Liberal caucus must be the happiest group of politicians in Canada. They dither, they ponder, they offer platitudes, but in the end they have no policy and no ideas. They remain as unconvinced and unconvincing as ever. The only defence policy the Liberals have is kept by their Leader to use against his caucus. That, Mr. Speaker, is not good enough for Canadians.
June 30, 1988



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the riding of St. John's East there is a crying need for assistance for municipal services. The City of St. John's desperately requires sewage treatment facilities to stop the flow of raw sewage into the St. John's Harbour. This will cost about $50 million.
In the Town of Paradise, believe it or not, open ditches are a health hazard because of sewage pollution. The Town of Conception Bay South, the fourth largest community in Newfoundland, needs $55 million now to answer the urgent needs for water and sewage facilities and another $60 million to complete its system.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been Fighting for years to get the Conservative Government to contribute to an aid program for Canadian cities and towns. We in the New Democratic caucus support their proposal and believe the federal Government's one-third contribution ought to be in the form of grants to municipalities. The Federation of Municipalities has shown the economic viability of such a program and the returns to the economy.
Why is the Conservative Government turning its back on Canadian cities and towns? I call on it now to provide the communities of Canada with the help they so desperately need.



SENIORS


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, many seniors in my riding of London East have expressed concern about the fact that the Ontario Government is now housing young psychiatric patients released from hospital, as well as disabled and handicapped young people, in apartment buildings which were originally designated for seniors only.
It is important that we meet the needs of these young people, but many of the seniors have expressed concern about excessive noise from rock music and late night parties, as well as theft and violence.
I ask the Minister of State for Seniors (Mr. Hees) to raise this matter with his provincial counterparts in the Peterson Government who are responsible for management of these buildings. I believe that this matter should be resolved as quickly as possible.
[Translation)



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, on June 30, 1988, the French-speaking people of Canada cannot but be disappointed, especially the ones from Quebec like me, who fought in the last referendum to stay in Canada.
When we see on the Order Paper of the Canadian Parliament, where we have fought for equality of both official languages, motions by 25 Conservative Members proposing that, in case of doubt, the English language shall have precedence over the French language .. .
They go so far as to ask that the language of work in the National Capital, where my collegues from Ottawa-Vanier and elsewhere have fought for years so that the Frenchspeaking Quebec side would get its fair share, should be English only ... And these people have the nerve and the lack of courage ... knowing the attachment the people of Quebec have for Bill 101, to ask that the federal Act take precedence over Bill 101, Mr. Speaker.
Let's hope that the new Mr. Clean from Lac-Saint-Jean will show his mettle and will bring these 25 Members in line. And let's hope that the Prime Minister will stop doing somersaults and invoke closure so that we can pass Bill C-72, the Official Languages Act, and get these stubborn Conservatives off our backs.



ARMS AND ARMAMENTS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in the international arms bazaar just who are the super salesmen?
Perestroika notwithstanding, the U.S.S.R. comes in first by a wide margin with annual arms exports of $120 billion. Yankee traders manage only a little less than half of this. France, with its Mirage jets and Exocet missiles, comes in third at $30 billion.
The prize for most improved performance goes to China, at $11 billion, which has now cornered some 80 per cent of the lucrative Iraq-Iran market.
These countries must certainly be very proud of their contribution to world peace.

June 30, 1988
5. O. 21 TRADE



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-JOHNNY CANUCK CRUSADE

Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in 1911 Oliver J. Wilcox, Member of Parliament for North Essex, was one of the Conservatives who defeated the Laurier Liberals on the issue of free trade. Today his great-grandson, John Wilcox of Salt Spring Island, fights to save Canada from the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal.
On April Fool's Day, a significant date, Mr. Wilcox assumed the identity of Johnny Canuck, the mythical Canadian hero who appears whenever Canada is threatened. Starting from Mile 0 of the Trans-Canada Highway at Victoria, Johnny Canuck drove his rebuilt 1941 Maple Leaf Chevy halfton truck across Canada to warn Canadians about the loss of sovereignty if the trade deal goes through.
Johnny Canuck will be in Ottawa tomorrow to celebrate Canada Day. We welcome Johnny Canuck to our nation's capital and, with millions of Canadians from coast to coast, we join with him in the struggle to keep Canada "the true North, strong and free".



NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, does the leader of the socialist party read the background of his party's candidates in the upcoming elections? Does he condone their behaviour when they join his party's ranks? Has he read in the July 1977 issue of Chatelaine the article in which his candidate for Chambly, Mr. Phil Edmonston, gives advice on organizing demonstrations? Let me quote, for example, his advice no. 19:
Destroy the company's property.
This is advice no 36:
Organize civil disobedience through illegal ways.
Advice no 37 goes like this:
Destroy property illegally.
This instructive article contains 50 such pieces of advice. It makes us understand better why the shadow and the blessing of the socialist leader lurk behind every illegal demonstration in this country.
To make a name for oneself, everything goes: illegal acts, destruction of property, and I include the recent incident in New-Brunswick. Such is, Mr. Speaker, the hidden side of the leader of the professional agitators, the Member from Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, following the International Year for the Homeless it is disturbing to learn from an Ontario government report that 200,000 families in the province lack appropriate housing. Unfortunately, this is not news to those living on the streets, in emergency shelters, and those in sub-standard accommodation.
The escalating problem of unattainable housing for the poor, coupled with unaffordable housing for the working middle-class families in Metro Toronto, cries out for immediate federal leadership and co-operation with the municipal and provincial levels of government.
The federal Downsview Airport base, vacant postal lands, and surplus federal properties should be made available for home construction at once. As well, a first homebuyers program, and action on speculative transactions which grossly inflate the prices of homes, should be initiated in order to encourage the availability of reasonable homes at reasonable prices.
The federal Government has ignored this dangerous housing crisis for far too long. It is now time that the Conservative administration exercise its responsibilities if we are to avoid turning the dream of owning a home in Metro Toronto into an ugly nightmare.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, today the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) will be celebrating the fourth anniversary of that fateful day when he became Prime Minister. We all know what the Canadian people thought of that idea.
One item not to celebrate today, however, is his defence policy because he has yet to offer one. We can only look to the sorry past of former Liberal Governments, and the Liberal defence record can be summarized in three words: shame, shame, and shame!
The right hon. gentleman's defence policy remains one of our nation's best kept secrets. He opposed Cruise missile testing because his own caucus was planning to use the Cruise on their Leader if he did not toe the line. He opposed nuclear powered submarines, presumably to uphold the Liberal tradition of rust-out of our navy. But what do the Liberals favour for our defence?
June 30, 1988

It is perhaps most telling to observe the actions of his loyal friend and defence spokesman, the Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith). That Hon. Member, in the next election, has decided that the best defence is to be on the fence, choosing the life of paid lobbyist over explaining the unknown, his Leader's defence policy.
When voting Canadians concerned with our sovereignty ask what is the Liberal policy in the next election, the answer is clear: more of the same, more of nothing, more shame.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, 136 amendments were introduced today which should put the Conservative Party to shame.
Those documents reveal the true nature of the beast and make us realize that the Conservative Party has remained antiFrench. I hope that the Prime Minister will be as courageous as his predecessor, Mr. Stanfield, when he got rid of the Hon. Member for Moncton. I think that some of the amendments introduced go against the letter and the spirit of what the Prime Minister himself is spreading across the country. They go against the basic principles, if any, on which the Prime Minister got elected and against his perception of Canadian society and I consider them unacceptable.
Therefore, it remains to be seen if the Prime Minister will intervene to make his party recognize the Canadian duality over the precedence of the English language in Canada. Failing to do so would be unacceptable to all French Canadians. I hope that Conservative Members such as the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) will rise and ask those involved to withdraw from their caucus because their views are unacceptable in Canadian society.



TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the Economic Summit has come and gone, leaving behind a number of pluses and credits.
The first is to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for his leadership and direction resulting in a successful summit conclusion.
The assembled G-7 leaders tackled many different social and economic problems. Realistic solutions were sought and practical plans were developed.
A big plus must also go to the summit food and drink organizers. Ten years ago, indeed five years ago, no thought would have been given to serving Canadian wines at such an international dinner. But this week was Toronto's week, Toronto's summit. Instead of the usual imports, Canadian wines complemented the summit menu, and were presented with pride and confidence.
Salute to the government advisers, the leaders and their spouses for their support of the Canadian wine industry.
Salute to the Canadian wine industry, the wines and wineries which have, at last, received the reputation that they so well deserve.



EMPLOYMENT EQUITY


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard the Government mislead the House by stating that the Employment Equity Act is working to bring equality to the Public Service and in companies under federal jurisdiction. Today we learn that the wage gap between men and women federal public servants actually is widening.
In 1987 the average male public servant made $9,300 more than his female counterpart, an increased wage gap of almost $3,000 since 1981. Why the persistence of this wage gap? Not only are the few women in high level administrative jobs paid less than their male colleagues, female public servants continue to be ghettoized in clerical support jobs, jobs which are low paying and offer few opportunities for advancement.
Canadian women deserve employment equity legislation that works, legislation that applies to all levels of the Public Service, and that includes mandatory pay equity.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the world community is concerned about a thinning of the ozone layer and its consequential effects on all forms of life. Environment Canada is monitoring its status and conducting research relating to the chemical processes in the stratosphere, with investigations to confirm the presence of an ozone hole in the Arctic region, in co-operation with other countries.

June 30, 1988
Oral Questions
The Department has been operating ground based ozone observing stations since 1957. It has developed a modern ozone measuring instrument which has been exported to over 10 countries in recent years. Also, since the late 1950's, Environment Canada has operated the World Ozone Data Centre for the World Meteorological Organization which provides data for scientists on an international basis.
In September, 1987, Canada signed an international agreement, the Montreal Protocol, along with 24 other countries, to control substances that deplete the ozone layer.
Canada is working with its international partners to address this crucial issue, which has to be a fundamental priority for all of us in the global community.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the prospects of a successful agreement on South Moresby grow dimmer. Despite a unanimously recorded vote of this Parliament, the Prime Minister's Office has chosen deliberately to ignore that resolution of May 14, 1987.
A Memorandum of Understanding was reached between Canada and British Columbia last July at a cost of $106 million. Consultations have been pursued in good faith between the Council of the Haida Nation and Crown Canada as represented by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan). Sadly, these have led nowhere and this is confirmed by the Prime Minister's Office this week insofar as those discussions were and are limited to the context of the National Parks Act only.
I believe that Section 35 of Canada's Constitution means what it says. The rights of the Haida in South Moresby are recognized and affirmed. I believe a unanimous vote of this Parliament means what it says, that the Haida be involved in matters affecting South Moresby. I believe that a consent agreement can and must be reached with the Haida Nation and be further negotiated through a framework agreement.
South Moresby will be preserved forever as a direct result of the will of the Haida people and their supporters across Canada. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should recognize and affirm reality through a Canada-Haida agreement. The Haida people, Canada, and South Moresby deserve respect.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday June 9 last, an escape took place, shots were fired and hostages were taken in my riding as three dangerous convicts escaped from the Saint-Vincent de Paul maximum security detention center in Laval.
During this multiple escape, two hostages were taken, a corrections officer and a resident of my riding, Mrs Georgette Richard, who was fortunately released on the same day as a result of a well thought out operation by the Quebec Provincial Police. The three escapees were captured 90 hours later.
1 am shocked and astounded to find out that victims such as Mrs. Richard, a law abiding citizen, received no form of help whatsoever. Indeed, prisoners are better treated than victims. The prisoner who was wounded during the incident was taken immediately to hospital and cared for without having to stand in line. When our victim, Mrs. Richard, whose car was used for the escape and later declared a total loss, asked for a means of transportation to IVAC, an aid agency for victims of criminal violence, some 46 kilometers from her home, the only answer she got was that she should take the bus to get there.
Mr. Speaker, it is crucial that we correct these and other criticized flaws in the administration of justice and that victims be afforded adequate humanitarian, medical and financial support.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
On today's Order Paper and Notices of the House, there are 136 proposed amendments to Bill C-72 respecting the Official Languages Act. Those amendements are moved by 15 Conservative Members.
Mr. Speaker, I must say to the Minister that those amendments are an insult to the dignity of all Canadians. We have here tangible and concrete evidence that an important number of Conservative Members are against the bilingualism policy we have here, in Canada, and do not believe in it.
Will the Minister of Justice require of his Conservative colleagues that they withdraw the shameful amendment, and I
June 30, 1988

quote number 11, which says: "If the two versions of this Act differ..."


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Right. Hon. Member, but I think he should ask his question directly.


M. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister request that his Conservative colleagues withdraw the shameful amendment, namely Motion No. 11 which appears on this morning's Order Paper and which reads: "If the two versions of this Act differ, preference shall be given to the English version."?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I think Bill C-72 represents a very substantial advance in recognition of the bilingual status of Canada. The Bill is one which has the full support of the Prime Minister, the Government, and the caucus of this Party, the government Party. It is a Bill which has received very careful attention on the floor of the House of Commons. Amendments have been put forward by members of the right hon. gentleman's own Party.
I do not think it is appropriate for me to make comment with respect to every amendment. I think it is the right of Members of Parliament to bring forward amendments as they see fit. I may disagree profoundly with the principle stated in that matter. I can tell the Right Hon. Member that we will have a chance to analyse the amendments that have been placed, on the question of dealing with the admissibility of some of these amendments, and whether they are appropriate.
Let me tell the right hon. gentleman that this Prime Minister and this Government have done more to enhance the understanding between the two founding groups in our country. It is a commitment we hold very dearly and one we are going to carry out.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in 1969 1 had the honour to introduce Canada's Official Languages Act, and I find these amendments insulting.


ALLEGED ATTACK ON FRANCOPHONE RIGHTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Why did the Minister of Justice and his leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, as well as his colleague the Deputy Prime Minister, an Albertan, fail to have the Conservative caucus withdraw these amendments?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives who are against bilingualism have already managed to make 52 amendments to the Official Languages Act, and now they want to add 136 more, including a discriminatory provision, and I quote Motion No. 39 which appears on this morning's Order Paper:
English shall be the language of work in federal institutions within the
National Capital Region ...
Oral Questions
English shall be the language of work for all members of the armed forces of
Canada ...
The last of these amendments, Motion No. 136, maintains that Canada's two official languages are a source of divisiveness.
How can the Minister of Justice allow Parliament to waste time debating such a flagrant attack by the Conservative Members against the rights of French-speaking Canadians?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as the old hope would have it, I may disagree profoundly with the position the right hon. gentleman takes but 1 will defend with my life his right to express it. This is a democratic institution. I am opposed to those amendments. I make no secret of that. But what does the right hon. gentleman hope to accomplish by suggesting that we arbitrarily prevent people from moving amendments?
What did the right hon. gentleman do with respect to the dissidents in his own caucus on Meech Lake? Why does he not tell those people, who are against the inclusion of Quebec in the Canadian federation, to sit down or get out of the House? If he is so smart about his own Party, maybe he had better start getting his own act in shape.


POSITION OF MINISTERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, these antediluvian Conservatives opposite are so desperate to destroy the official languages policy in our country that they are even willing to sacrifice English-speaking Quebecers.
I want to refer to amendment No. 39: "French shall be the language of work in federal institutions in the Province of Quebec". It is right on the Order Paper this morning. How else can one explain that type of amendment?
I want to say to the Hon. Minister that if Parliament has to debate every one of these 136 amendments under the current rules of the House it would take a full year. Will the Minister explain how the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and he himself could allow their colleagues to put forward such offensive and discriminatory amendments on the Order Paper of this House?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one thing very clear to the right hon. gentleman. This Party and this Government are going to move forward with this legislation. We are going to have it brought down and passed on third reading and send it to the Senate. I hope the right hon. gentleman has some influence in that place to make sure it gets through the other place.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He has spoken in the debate. You guys didn't.

June 30, 1988
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I want the right hon. gentleman to know that all of us in this country understand the principles of democracy with respect to the ability of people to put forward their points of view. I may disagree, very profoundly disagree, with the position put forward by Members on this side occasionally and very often with Members on the other side of the House, but we are determined to get this Bill passed into law and we are going to want the assistance of the Opposition in that respect.


OPPOSITION OFFER-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice just told us that the Government is determined to have the Official Languages Act, or Bill C-72, passed by this Parliament, by this House before the next election. If I understand him well, he asked for the help of the Opposition. Well, I want to offer him that help. On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, I would like to give the consent of the Official Opposition to time restriction under Standing Order 115. I am sure the New Democratic Party would also consent to limit the debate on Bill C-72, because we know very well that a clause-by-clause debate of those 136 amendments would put that off indefinitly. Is the Government willing to accept that offer?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman was less interested in grandstanding than he was in making progress, he would have already discussed this matter with the House Leader. It is a little bit of show business for that Hon. Member to stand up and suggest he was prepared to do a certain thing in a procedural way. This is Question Period.
If the hon. gentleman wants to know where we stand on this Bill, we stand behind a Bill that has been described across the country by editorialists and thinking Canadians as being a fair and equitable piece of legislation, one that deserves the support of all Members of this House of Commons, and we intend to get on with the job.


OFFER TO APPLY TIME ALLOCATION TO DEBATE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I think everyone understands that these 136 amendments are just dropping out of nowhere. We did not know about them yesterday. We did not know about them two days ago. So I am making the offer in all honesty because the Government is telling us it wants to pass Bill C-72, the official languages amendment Bill, before the next election. I am saying right now that we will agree under Standing Order 115 to apply time allocation to this Bill to ensure that it passes before the next election. This is an offer which is made not behind the curtains, not under the table like the way in which the dinosaurs move their amendments-it is made in the open. Just say yes or no.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I guess I have heard it all. Here is the Liberal Party in the Opposition who attempted to filibuster this Bill at second reading.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They did everything possible to stop the Bill from getting into committee.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It was for two days, for God's sake. What a lot of nonsense.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They forget now, Mr. Speaker.
If the hon. gentleman is really serious, then maybe he can talk to his House Leader to take this matter up with the Government House Leader. They can put forward the proposition. The House Leaders have meetings on an ongoing basis. If they want to co-operate with this Government on this progressive legislation, it is about time.


BILL C-72-QUERY WHETHER CONSERVATIVE CAUSUS DISCUSSED AMENDMENTS SERIOUSLY AND COMPLETELY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of Justice. A few weeks ago, we learned about the possibility of such amendments. When I asked the minister about it, he answered that these were only rumours. They are not rumours any more but the strict reality. My question is simply this: Can the minister tell the House of Commons whether the Conservative caucus has fully and seriously discussed these unacceptable amendments?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think the role of Question Period is to question the Government with respect to government policy, not what goes on in caucus.
I ask the Leader of the New Democratic Party this. What is he suggesting to me? Is he suggesting that in his Party there is only one point of view and it is his point of view, and that whatever his Members do they have to get his permission before they even move an amendment? Is he saying that everything that is done by a member of the New Democratic Party on the floor of the House of Commons by way of amendment has to have his seal of approval, and that he has complete control over his caucus? I would be interested in hearing his answer.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON AMENDMENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, not that it is relevant, but I would say to the Minister that one would expect a government caucus not to be presenting as amendments principles or ideas that are completely contradictory to
June 30, 1988

the laws of Canada which the Government itself says it accepts. I want to say in that context that that is certainly the rule in our caucus. We do not propose amendments that are not consistent with the policy or program of our Party; nor should the government side be doing that.
Former leaders of Governments, and 1 think particularly of the Hon. Bob Stanfield, at one time in the history of the country all federal Leaders and all Parties-were solidly behind the Official Languages Act. Does the Minister think that it is compatible with government support for this law to be so acquiescent in accepting as proposals from government back-benchers amendments that would destroy the Official Languages Act?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is having some trouble with the line of questioning. First, I am not at all sure that it is completely appropriate to be putting questions to the Government in terms of what any Private Member may do with respect to an amendment to a Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on!


Mr. Speaker:: I am certainly not going to stop the Minister from answering. However, I want to indicate to the House that I think this line of questioning is getting us into some procedural difficulty.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, Canadians know where this Government stands. We have brought forward the most progressive legislation that has ever been brought forward in this area by any federal Government. The Hon. Member has a very selective memory. 1 remember distinctly when the whole western caucus of his Party bolted and repudiated him with respect to his position on the Constitution.


John Edward Broadbent: That is absolutely false.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. But I did not hear him beating his chest and saying: "You're either going to come with me or you are out of the Party". I do not recall that happening. I remember him acquiescing to his western Members.
In this particular case I have said that our Party policy is quite clear. We have a difference of opinion. I do not deny the position or the right of any Private Member to bring forward amendments. We are going to vote against them if they are inconsistent with the principles of the Bill. We have made a great many amendments to clarify and strengthen this Bill through the committee process. We think it is a balanced Bill, one which protects all Canadians. We want to see it through as the law of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE CLOSURE ON DEBATE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Minister that there was a time when a former Leader of his Party publicly disavowed a potential candidate and said that that candidate would be unacceptable in the Conservative Party because of the position he took on this type of issue.
Since both opposition Parties are prepared to expedite a Bill that the Government says it stands by, will it for once use a closure motion in support of opposition Members-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -and in support of a principle to get something that is desirable adopted as a law of Canada, to get Bill C-72 passed as quickly as possible?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate the answer that I gave to the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques. If the Leader of the New Democratic Party is really serious in wanting to help put through legislation in the House of Commons, from what I hear from the Government House Leader on the basis of what has happened with every other piece of legislation, this would be a complete 180-degree turn.


John Edward Broadbent: We are talking about what you support, you dolt!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Opposition has spent its whole time on pointless delays and debates so that we cannot get on with the legislation we want.


John Edward Broadbent: Two Bills were passed this morning.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why does the Leader of the New Democratic Party not clean up his own act, get a little co-operation going in this House to get some of these Bills through that are in the interest of Canadians, including this legislation?


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think what discourages Canadians in this case and in others is the web of contradictions that seems to emanate from the Government. We saw another contradiction this morning.
Many women remembered in the last federal election when the Prime Minister made a great many promises about how he was going to move quickly. One commitment was: "We are committed to making the federal Public Service a model to be

June 30, 1988
Oral Questions
followed with regard to the equality of women in the workplace".
Can he explain why almost four years into his mandate that model now means that the wage gap between men and women working for the federal Government is actually getting wider? Can he explain why, just because a person happens to be a woman, she can expect to be paid $9,300 a year less than a man working for the federal Government?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first, one of the things that happened with the publication of this story today is that there was a mixing of apples and oranges in terms of average wages and pay equity.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nunziata:: You're selling your soul, with your dishonest Leader.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Let me also point out that in the numbers that were published there was virtually no difference. In statistical terms there was none. That does not mean to say that we are not anxious to see this situation improved, because we are. That is why we have employment equity legislation.
In terms of the legislation and its impact, this study was done before the impact of the legislation was felt in the Public Service.


GOVERNMENT EXAMPLE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister suggesting that a woman is an apple and a man is an orange? What is the difference? Just because a person happens to be a woman there is no reason why this Government should countenance a wage gap which has actually increased by $3,000 in seven years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would like to ask the Government why yesterday-and perhaps the Minister who seems to be the expert on this can respond-we heard the Government beating its chest about the success of its private pay equity program, a 1,000 employers out of 30,000 had finally signed up. Can the Government explain to the private sector how we can go and ask the private sector to come forward with affirmative action and contract compliance when in our own backyard our own federal Government's salary and wage policies are discriminatory? What kind of an example is that for the private sector?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, there is a member of a Party that did absolutely nothing about affirmative action or employment equity. That Party never once introduced it.


Mr. Axworthy:: You are lying on the floor of the House.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: More important, in the area where they had control, where they could have made some difference with regard to women participating, what did they do with regard to Governor-in-Council appointments? Of the appointments that they themselves could have made as a Government, 15 per cent of the appointments were women. Over 30 per cent of the appointments that this Government has made, that this Prime Minister has made, have been women. That is double the record of that crew opposite.


Lloyd Axworthy: Ever heard of the Abella Commission? Who set that up?


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, and it concerns the proposed amendments to the Official Languages Act.
Does the Government agree with the principle in Motion No. 39 which says, and I quote: "English shall be the language of work in federal institutions within the National Capital Region."? Does the Government agree with the principle in amendment 5 which says: "English shall be the language of work for all members of the armed forces of Canada who may directly or indirectly participate in combat."?
If not, is the Minister prepared, on behalf of the Government, to repudiate the dinosaurs who sit on the backbenches, the Conservative Members who have put forward that amendment and similar other amendments to Bill C-72?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government I will simply reiterate the point that we do not accept the amendment raised by the Hon. Member. I do not know what else the Hon. Member wants me to do about this. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that somehow the New Democratic Party's position would be that unless you vote with your Leader you are expelled from the Party? Is this roughly the position that he is taking?
In this particular case we in the Government have a position which is reflected in Bill C-72, the Official Languages Bill. It is a fair and equitable Bill. It commends itself to the support of all Members of Parliament, and I am going to urge everyone to support the principles there. That is the position of the Government. It is progressive legislation. That is something that the New Democratic Party has not been in a position to bring forward. I hope members of the New Democratic Party support us in trying to bring a better and more equitable law to Canada.
June 30, 1988


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in my Party we vote for party policy and vote with our Leader in order to put into place party policy.


John Edward Broadbent: It's the policy that counts.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: We as a Government would not tolerate a situation where a certain number of our deputies were allowed to send a hidden message to people who are language bigots across the country, such as saying that English only should be the language of the Armed Forces, or the language of the National Capital Commission, or saying that the Government will simply ensure that no anglophone has the right to services in English in the Province of Quebec. That is the position that the Minister should repudiate.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like the Hon. Member to put his question and try to keep it within the bounds of government policy.


Michael Morris Cassidy: In view of the danger that these amendments pose to the policy of bilingualism, which is a corner-stone of our national unity, and in view of the fact that a government Member is even proposing that English not be allowed as a language in which to serve the public in Quebec, is the Minister, on behalf of the Government, now prepared to repudiate the dinosaurs in his backbenches who have put forward this series of 136 objectionable and unacceptable amendments?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated the view of the Government with respect to that particular provision.


An Hon. Member:: What is it?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We do not accept it, it is very simple.
I ask the Hon. Member is he going to stand up now and insist on the repudiation and rejection from his caucus, and to sit as independents, the Hon. Member for Burnaby, and the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway, because they did not support their Leader with respect to bringing Quebec into the family of Confederation?
The same applies to the Liberal Party. Is it going to repudiate those people who took a negative and, 1 say, destructive and divisive position against the Meech Lake Accord which will at last bring unity to Canada by allowing us to have Quebec within the family of Confederation?
I think the Hon. Member has a double standard. I will not call him a hypocrite, because it is not parliamentary.
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Yesterday in the House of Commons in his capacity as Acting Solicitor General, the Minister of Justice said that there was no ongoing RCMP investigation involving officials in the Prime Minister's Office, as reported on television yesterday.
Late last night the RCMP Commissioner, in a news release, confirmed that an investigation had taken place involving officials in the Prime Minister's Office.
Could the Minister of Justice clarify his answer today, and confirm that, according to the RCMP, there have been inquiries concerning an official within the Prime Minister's Office? Can he confirm that? Yes or no?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, what we have here is an example of what I would call selective reading by the Hon. Member of the Opposition. Why did the Hon. Member not read the following paragraph from the Commissioner's statement which reads as follows: "The Commissioner also confirmed that in the spring of 1986 the RCMP made inquiries concerning an official within the Prime Minister's Office based on information-"


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's not what the Minister said yesterday.


James Francis Kelleher: Before you crow, listen.
"-presented to the force alleging a possible breach of the law. The investigation was concluded in the fall of 1987 without any evidence of wrongdoing or impropriety being disclosed".


PLACE VINCENT MASSEY LEASE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Minister has clarified the modification here.
My supplementary question to the Minister is the following. Could the Solicitor General, or perhaps the Minister of Public Works, explain to the House why it is then, if there was such an investigation, as the Solicitor General described, from March, 1986, until the fall, 1987, that the lease which I have in hand here for the Place Vincent Massey Building in Hull was signed in the middle of that investigation? If the investigation was going on about this case, why was the lease signed in the middle of it giving a $30 million gift to a friend of the Conservative Party?


Mr. McDermid:: Let's go outside the House and make that accusation, you scumbag, and you are not even an honourable scumbag.

June 30, 1988
Oral Questions


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, if I may correct the Hon. Member, as is certainly necessary from time to time when he makes allegations-


John Horton McDermid: All the time.


James Francis Kelleher: -it was not an investigation. He made inquiries and it was concluded there was no evidence of any wrongdoing or impropriety disclosed.
Quite frankly, I am getting a little sick and tired of this Hon. Member standing up and making vague allegations, besmirching reputations, with no evidence whatsoever. If he has evidence, please bring it forward.


BANKS AND BANKING
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. It has to do with the statement that the Minister made today with respect to bank service charges, a statement that many Canadians hoped would give them justice when dealing with banks.
Two weeks ago today in the House in response to questions from members of the Opposition regarding the Go-Go Pizza that paid 40 cents to get a roll of 50 pennies, and Mrs. de Gruchy who paid $2 to get $10 in quarters, the Minister of State for Finance said the following. "I should also remind the Hon. Member who just asked the question that the Bank Act will be changed with regard to these matters. The regulations will be changed, and that will be coming very, very soon".
In light of the statement today about the coming legislation, what is it legally that banks cannot do tomorrow that they did two weeks ago?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, you might be interested to know that the announcement this morning has been very well received-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Hockin: and the johnny-come-lately Member from Nickel Belt is trying to get into a popularity contest with regard to this issue. Let me tell you with regard to your question.
First, we have enhanced disclosure even beyond that which the committee recommended, a committee of which you were a part. That helps Mrs. de Gruchy and the Go-Go Pizza.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Minister to address the Hon. Member through the Chair.


Thomas Hockin: The second part of the Bank Act changes that we are making is to require pre-notification, pre-notification of 30 days for regular accounts, 60 days for other accounts. That is very important and is part of the Bank Act.
Third, we have a complaints and procedure process that will be established as part of the Bank Act. That will help the Mrs. de Gruchys, the Go-Go Pizzas and every Canadian when they go to their branches. If they have a complaint, they will be able to get an answer. If they do not get an answer they can take their complaint to the boss of the banks, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. Plus, and more important, we have voluntary compliance from the banks and the trust companies, with one exception, to provide a basic account and to ban all of the charges which the committee wanted banned.


OMBUDSMAN PROPOSAL
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. The Minister of State for Finance was absolutely correct. His statement today was well received. It was well received at the banks. They are breaking out the champagne. The Minister had a wonderful opportunity to choose between consumers and his banking friends. Whom did he choose?


Some Hon. Members:: His friends.


John R. Rodriguez: Of course his friends.
One of the recommendations we looked forward to seeing the Government's response on was the whole question of an independent autonomous ombudsman as recommended by this Party. Even in Margaret Thatcher's Great Britain, even in Ronald Reagan's America, there are bank ombudspersons who have the responsibility and the power to mediate and referee.
Does the Minister not believe that, in fact, his statement today completely ignored the need to establish an independent, autonomous ombudsman, a position supported by 80 per cent of Canadians according to a recent poll, and that at least should have been the bottom line for this Government with respect to the interests of consumers?


Thomas Hockin: What has been provided, Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, is a very, very powerful mediator on behalf of consumers.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Hockin: First, when a customer goes into the bank, there is someone designated in the branch-


John R. Rodriguez: Oh, yes?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member will listen to the answer, he will get an answer to his question. Each branch
June 30, 1988

will have an officer to deal with the complaint. Then it will go to somebody further within the bank if that is needed.


James Ross Fulton: Marvellous.


Thomas Hockin: Then it goes to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions who will mediate on behalf of the customer.


James Ross Fulton: Does it take 60 years?


Thomas Hockin: As a result of this, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation whereby we will have immediate and powerful action now on behalf of the consumers-


James Ross Fulton: Send him a pension cheque.


Thomas Hockin: -rather than as the Hon. Member wants-


John R. Rodriguez: What legal basis?


Thomas Hockin: -which is to create another bureaucracy, another huge department of government which will not necessarily promote the consumers' interests one bit, and slow down the whole process.


GOVERNMENT DIRECTIVES CONCERNING BANKS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State (Finance), who seems to want to defend the banks, that considering the Government has decided to trust the banks and is using persuasion instead of legislation, asking financial institutions to adhere to a reasonable, charge-free basic services policy, and my question is this: When does the Minister intend to bring in a policy with teeth? Today we heard Toronto-Dominion thumbed its nose at the Minister and the Government and said it would not conform. What is the Minister going to do to make the banks fall in line with the Government's directives?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, we had five problems. First, the lack of information about existing charges. In this respect, we went beyond what the Committee recommended.
Second, we had the lack of notice of charge increases. We took action in this respect.
Three more points: We have made arrangements to ensure the provision of basic banking services. That is something the Committee asked for. We did it. We also got rid of unacceptable charges. The committe asked for that as well. We also put in place a complaints procedure. That is in the Bank Act.
We acted on all the things the Committee asked for. We even went beyond that.


VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE-PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Government proposes voluntary compliance, that is,
Oral Questions
leaving it up to the banks. That is the position of the Government. On the other hand we have the New Democrats who said this morning the option was to nationalize the Toronto-Dominion Bank.


John R. Rodriguez: That is a lie. That is a lie.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is exactly what he said.


John R. Rodriguez: I never said that. That is a lie.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has the floor, but I would point out that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, is more than upset-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: -about the preamble it might be helpful if the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier thought through his preamble and put it in such a way that it would not cause as much a fuss.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: But he stated that this morning, Mr. Speaker. He is the one who said a few minutes ago that they always follow Party lines. That is in their handbook.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Here we have the Government with voluntary compliance. Here we have the socialists and we will all get nationalized. Will the Minister take the middle of the road, reasonable Liberal position, and legislate consumer protection into the Bank Act so that Canadians are protected from now on?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to hear this lovers' quarrel between the two colleagues.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Hockin: The Hon. Member's colleague, the Hon. Member for Trinity, was a part of the standing committee which recommended voluntary compliance, and only if voluntary compliance could not be arrived at should there be legislation. We arrived at voluntary compliance. We are in total consistency with the Hon. Member for Trinity. We believe that we have taken the middle course. We have taken the responsible course and we are going to monitor what we have done.
Business of the House INDUSTRY

June 30, 1988


MASSEY COMBINES-REQUEST FOR RETENTION OF TECHNOLOGY IN CANADA
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Two and a half years ago Massey Ferguson, now the Varity Corporation, was bailed out by this Government through Massey Combines being spun off and a debt of $207 million being lost to Varity Corporation as a result. Now with Massey Combines bankrupt, Varity in the United States is buying back the conventional combine technology.
1 want to ask the Minister if, to express concern about keeping this technology in Canada, his Government will act to see to it that this combines technology is kept in this country in production for Brantford workers so that there is a future for them and their company.


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, yes, the Government is concerned not only about the technology that is involved in this unfortunate situation which was brought about for reasons with which most of us are very familiar, but we have three main concerns. The first of course is for the workers of the Brantford facility. The second is for the farmers who require parts and tooling for the existing equipment, and finally there is the concern about the technology.
In terms of the technology, there are two types of technologies. One is the conventional technology which is now transferred to the United States, as the Hon. Member rightly states, but in return we have a guarantee that Canadian farmers will have access to parts and replacement systems they need for their existing combines. The technology that was paid for and developed by Canadians with the assistance of the Canadian Government will stay in Canada and indeed has been transferred to Vicon Corporation in Manitoba.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for a very short supplementary question and that will close off Question Period.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the City of Brantford has asked the federal Government at least to seek a delay in court approval of this corporate shell game. Will the Government request the three-month delay for which the City Council of Brantford has asked, for the sake of Massey Combines workers and pensioners?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I have told the Hon. Member that the dossier is at the very top of the desks of the Ministers who have jurisdiction in this area, in both the federal and provincial Governments. As the Hon. Members know, the workers are
uppermost in our minds as we look at the pension rights that have been earned, and all of the facilities and the programs of the federal Government have been mobilized to ensure that the workers' rights and their particular interests are being protected in this case.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise the House that, as Hon. Members know, there is an order that the House will adjourn at three, and 1 want to make it clear that I have received several points of order and questions of privilege. With the cooperation of Hon. Members I will defer hearing those applications until Monday. However, there is one Hon. Member who cannot be here on Monday, and I have indicated to that Hon. Member that I will hear the application at another time. All of those matters will be taken into account.
Before we adjourn, I think it is appropriate to hear a point of order on some matters between the Parties.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader to tell us what business he is planning to bring before the House of Commons early next week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise that on Monday and Tuesday of next week we will continue the debate on the free trade Bill.
I want to indicate to the House that there have been the usual consultations between the Parties, and because an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 115 and 116 in respect to proceedings at the second reading stage of Bill C-130, the free trade Bill, I will be proposing a motion during Government Orders on Monday to allot one additional day for the consideration of and disposal of the proceedings at that stage.
I want to wish everyone a safe journey home and a happy Canada Day.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, to continue on the subject of the business of the House, I would like to ask the Minister, the Government Deputy House Leader, to tell us what his response is to our offer to co-operate on time allocation for Bill C-72, the Official Languages Bill. That offer is now supported by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), and since it was made over three-quarters of an hour ago, perhaps the Minister has had time to think about it. He has shown us he can move for time allocation. He just did so with the free trade agreement Bill. Would he be
June 30, 1988

prepared to do so on Bill C-72? In that case, he would have the Opposition's consent to limit debate.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the traditions of consultations between House Leaders, those are consultations which we will have at the appropriate time, and I will be glad to get back to my hon. friend.
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: It being three o'clock p.m., pursuant to Order made Thursday, June 23, 1988, this House stands adjourned until Monday, July 4, 1988, at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.06 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, July 4, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers