1991-11-25

Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should commit itself to entering into negotiations with the government of Ontario to safeguard the Oak Ridges Moraine and protect the headwater aquifers sourcing Lake Ontario from further pollution and toxic contamination.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address a subject that is of great importance to the people of Ontario and Canada. My motion states that in the opinion of this House, the government should commit itself to entering into negotiations with the government of Ontario to safeguard the Oak Ridges moraine and protect the headwater aquifers sourcing Lake Ontario from further pollution and toxic contamination.
I have presented this motion to the House because I firmly believe that this issue merits the attention of and action by the Parliament of Canada.
I also believe just as firmly that the government has a responsibility to involve itself in co-operation with the provincial government in the protection of this moraine. I believe this because I understand how important the Oak Ridges moraine is to the environmental well-being of this country. Given that many millions of Canadians depend directly on the moraine for water, I can say that the protection of the entire structure of the Oak Ridges moraine is potentially the most important environmental issue in Canada.
To illustrate this, I should begin by providing the House with a certain amount of background information for the benefit of those who are not familiar with the moraine.
The Oak Ridges moraine was created some 14,000 years ago when glaciers from the last ice age began to recede across Ontario. It is a very large geographical formation, 1,500 square kilometres in area, stretching from the Niagara escarpment in the west to Trenton in the east.
The composition of the moraine is what gives it its important role in Ontario's ecosystem. As it was caused by the pressure of two glaciers, the moraine is made up of a combination of sand, gravel and rock fragments of various sizes. This means that the inside of the moraine is porous like a sponge. Unlike the Canadian Shield which water runs off, melting snow and rainwater seep through the soil on the surface of the moraine and collect inside.
So the Oak Ridges moraine is in a sense a combined holding tank and filtration system designed by nature. No one should be surprised to learn that a great deal of life depends on it functioning properly.
The water contained in the aquifers found in the moraine is the source of many rivers in south-central Ontario: the Rouge, the Don, the Humber, the Holland, the Nottawasaga and the Ganaraska all flow from these headwaters. These rivers flow into Lake Simcoe, Lake Ontario, Georgian Bay and ultimately into the lower part of the Great Lakes. The fact that the Great Lakes are affected adds an international element that should not be overlooked.
It is clear therefore that the Oak Ridges moraine has an impact on the quality and quantity of water in southern Ontario. This affects many wetland habitats and other wildlife as well as agriculture and human consumption.
Unfortunately, the speed of growth in south-central Ontario now threatens the continued health of this moraine. The Keele Valley landfill site located in my riding is the largest dump site in Canada. It sits on the centre of the moraine. At the edges of the moraine, aggregate mining activities have increased in recent years, contributing to the erosion of the formation and threatening its ecological integrity. At every point along

Private Members' Business
the length of the moraine, development is stripping away the trees and covering the surface of the moraine with concrete and asphalt. This effectively cuts off the water that would normally feed the aquifers.
The cumulative effect of all this activity is potentially disastrous. First of all, let us consider the damage being done by the Keele Valley dump. At present, the landfill's capacity is being reached.
There are some questionable provincial government policies being considered that may result in the expansion of the site.
Although there is a clay lining in the dump, leachate seeps through the lining and contaminates the moraine's aquifers. Every year it is estimated that 100 million pounds of leachate will reach Lake Ontario and enter our drinking water.
Along with the danger posed by waste disposal landfill, there is that of the aggregate extraction operations in Northumberland and Dufferin-Simcoe counties.
These sand and gravel operations are eating away at the moraine, and if they are not controlled, will do irreversible harm to the structure.
The principal danger is erosion. The gravel and sand pits, unlike the moraine's natural state, present an unprotected surface to the elements. Instead of filtering through the topsoil and collecting in aquifers, melting snow and rain water wash away the surface, breaking down the moraine's capacity for collecting water.
The negative result of this is twofold: First, the water which would normally be absorbed by the moraine is not absorbed and can contribute to flooding. Second, by wearing down the moraine and reducing its absorbent nature, a situation is created where worse flooding may occur the following spring.
A long-term effect is that erosion reduces the moraine's water recharge capability. This means that there is less water being channelled into the numerous rivers sourced by the moraine and less water finding its way into the water table. This means there is less clean water for the people of the greater Toronto area.
Finally, there is the two pronged assault being launched by development. First, the deforestation of the moraine contributes to the erosion I have just described. Second, building on the moraine damages it in many different ways. Development brings wells. Too many
wells lower the water pressure and deplete the water supply. Development also brings sewage from industrial and agricultural sources and from septic systems. Sewage contributes to the contamination of the water supply, especially when the ratio of pollutants to water increases.
All of these human contributions, the landfill site, the gravel pits, deforestation, wells, septic systems and agricultural activities, are more than the Oak Ridges moraine can handle. The system, which was very fragile to begin with, is now being pushed to the limit and will definitely break down unless something is done to stop the damage.
That is why I present this motion. After numerous consultations with my local advisory group on environmental issues, as well as with such environmental groups as STORM, Vaughan-Cares, and others, I have come to the conclusion that only an active intervention by the federal government in co-operation with the provincial government can give the moraine the protection it so desperately needs.
The arguments in favour of federal action are numerous and compelling and I will outline some of them in the time remaining today.
First, there are the twin issues of environmental protection and sustainable development. Many people are still unsure about what sustainable development means. I would suggest that what is happening to the Oak Ridges moraine is a good example of unsustainable development.
In the past, the Canadian government has often repeated that it is firmly committed to cleaning up the environment. It has signed the acid rain treaty with the United States and it has introduced the green plan. In fact, in the green plan the government makes a specific reference to the importance of protecting our water resources.
In the chapter entitled "Continuing Action to Protect and Restore Water", the government makes a number of very laudable commitments in this area. It promises to introduce a drinking water safety act in 1991. It promises to publish a series of guidelines and codes of practice to help local authorities deal with groundwater problems like contamination from landfill waste disposal and leaking underground tanks. It promises to establish a Great Lakes pollution prevention centre.

Implicit in all these promises is a recognition of the great importance of the water recharge function of formations like the Oak Ridges moraine. If the green plan is official government policy then one must conclude that the government accepts the fact that it has responsibility to act in protecting our water resources.
However, quite apart from the recognition of the technical responsibility, a more important issue is the government's moral responsibility to protect the environment. A government's first responsibility is to protect the quality of life of those it governs. Our governments fulfil that responsibility by maintaining police forces, a judicial system, a national health care system and a variety of other programs aimed at improving our standard of living. Increasingly, Canadians are demanding that their governments also involve themselves in protecting the environment.
Again referring to the green plan, it is clear that the federal government recognizes that it has a moral obligation in this area. As the government states in the introduction: "Our health and the environment are inseparable". It also says "Canada's goal is to ensure that citizens today and tomorrow have the clean air, water and land essential to sustaining human health and the environment." It is obvious, therefore, that the responsibility to act exists. If we accept that the green plan is sincere and legitimate and not 174 pages of empty posturing, then we can say that the willingness to act also exists.
But how to act, and in what capacity? The government, well intentioned, may sincerely want to act, but what means does it have to get involved in the protection of the Oak Ridges moraine? Fortunately, a number of mechanisms exist that would allow the federal government to involve itself along the lines put forward in my motion.
For example, section 4 of the Canada Water Act reads:
For the purpose of facilitating the formulation of policies and programs with respect to the water resources of Canada and to ensure the optimum use of those resources for the benefit of all Canadians, the Minister may enter into an arrangement with one or
Private Members' Business
more provincial governments to establish intergovernmental committees or other bodies: to maintain continuing consultation on water resources matters and to advise on priorities for research, planning, conservation development and utilization relating thereto; to advise on the formulation of water policies and programs; and to facilitate the co-ordination and implementation of water policies and programs.
If that is not a blueprint for government action in protecting the Oak Ridges moraine, I do not know what is.
One of the reasons why the Canada Water Act was introduced is that "pollution of the water resources of Canada is a significant and rapidly increasing threat to the health, well-being and prosperity of the people of Canada". There is no better example of that threat than the damage being done to the Oak Ridges moraine. As I stated earlier, the area's rapidly expanding population and such activities as construction, mining and agriculture are slowly leading to the disintegration of the moraine. This wonder of nature which is so intrinsically linked to the survival of numerous ecosystems throughout south central Ontario is badly in need of protection.
Aside from the Canada Water Act, the federal government could also use the Fisheries Act and the National Parks Act. The stated policy of the Fisheries Act is "no net loss of habitat". Under the act, the minister is authorized to set aside certain bodies of water for special protection. Because Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible for implementing the legislation, it provides an excellent opportunity for the two levels of government to work together to protect the moraine.
The National Parks Act could also be used to protect this national treasure. The 1976 Task Force on Park Establishment found that Canada, with less than 3 per cent of its area in national parks and other protected designations, is a follower instead of a leader on the question of parks. As its report stated: "because of our size, our failure is globally significant".
This is an opportunity for the Canadian heritage parks initiative to narrow that gap by recognizing the cultural and natural heritage value of the entire Oak Ridges moraine and by forming a working committee to look into establishing new parks in the area.

Private Members' Business
In its green plan the government recognizes that it has a duty to protect our most precious natural resource: water. Also in the green plan it accepts that it has a moral obligation to do so.
Finally, with the Fisheries Act, the National Parks Act and most important in the Canada Water Act, the government has in its possession a number of devices which enable it to act decisively in the area of water protection.
All that I ask and all that Canadians ask is that the government live up to its commitments. If the condition of the Oak Ridges moraine continues to deteriorate, if there is not immediate action to protect the moraine in its entirety, the water supply of many millions of Canadians will be endangered.
I urge the government with all the conviction I can command to act now before it is too late. Let us take the lead, let us show to Canada and to the world that the green plan has teeth, that this government takes its environmental responsibility seriously and that it really cares about the quality of life of its citizens. This government has the tools, it has the duty and the ability to act. There is no excuse for inaction. I ask that this government act on my motion to provide strong protection for the ecological integrity of the Oak Ridges moraine.


Mr. John E. Cole (York- Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion that my hon. friend for York North has brought forward today regarding the government's ability to take part and support the Oak Ridges moraine. I was very pleased to hear in his comments that he supports the actions of the green plan and the outline the green plan has set out under the Canada Water Act and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act. That is a very positive step. It just shows that if everyone works together we can address these problems quickly and efficiently.
The Oak Ridges moraine is one of the most natural features in the greater metropolitan Toronto area. It is something that requires a lot of attention from individuals, from all environmental groups from all levels of government. It is something that has to be acted on now and very quickly.
The moraine is a significant part of the natural greenlands resource in the whole metropolitan area. After all, there are over 30 rivers and streams that have
the moraine as their source in this particular area. The vast underground reservoir of groundwater is critical to the drinking water of many municipalities in addition to metropolitan Toronto; the great municipalities of Newmarket, Sharon, East Gwillimbury, Palgrave, Caledon East, the west side of my friend's area. That is very significant to them.
It is also significant because the slopes of the moraine contain many small wetlands which, on an individual basis, one might not consider to be overly significant, but in total they provide that whole environmental resource that really has been declining in Ontario over the last number of years.
The other aspect of the moraine that is very important is the beautiful natural setting it provides for both recreational and scenic pursuits. After all, the Pine Ridge Trail, which is a scenic trail running throughout the moraine, was probably developed, as is said to have been developed by equestrians many years ago.
The federal government fully supports the activities of the provincial government as the leading player in ensuring the protection of these many environmental values. In fact, the province is and must continue to work with the municipalities and conservation authorities, public interest groups, developers and citizens advisory groups in addressing all of these developmental pressures on the moraine.
The province will be working with municipalities to carefully review official plan amendments and rezoning applications as they apply to this area.
The federal government does support this effort in many ways, but it also provides some expertise in computer modelling and analysis of this particular area. It stands prepared to provide available scientific and technical information as required by the province in its studies of it.
The Oak Ridges moraine is one of the most prominent, physiographic features in southern Ontario. It is a remnant of the glacial ages. It was formed primarily of sand and gravel. The moraine is a rise of land north of metro Toronto stretching from the Niagara escarpment on the west right through to the Trent River in the east, a distance of over 160 kilometres. The moraine extends about 90 kilometres in the greater metropolitan area and involves the regions of Peel, York and Durham.
November 25, 1991

Of special importance is the role that the moraine has in the source of a significant part of the streamflow in rivers feeding into the Toronto harbourfront, for instance, where it is the source and the headwaters of the Don, the Humber and the Rouge, but it is also the course and the headwater for rivers that extend north, such as the Holland River and the Nottawasaga.
Those are very, very significant to the people in my area and it is something that is often forgotten when the Oak Ridges moraine is discussed and talked about.
The moraine covers over 1,000 square kilometres. It passes through 14 municipalities. So it is very significant as to the number of people that it involves and directly affects.
The Oak Ridges moraine is the divide or height of land between water courses flowing both north and south. Rain falling on the moraine is rapidly infiltrated through the well drained moraine soils into the groundwater reservoirs. They have two main functions. They have a recharge function where the water goes through the sand and the gravel and is purified and eventually flows from the moraine south to feed the tributaries into Lake Ontario and north to feed areas such as Georgian Bay and Lake Simcoe. But there is also the discharge function. Any contamination of this groundwater could have potentially more wide-ranging effects because many of these communities rely on the moraine aquifers for their drinking water, but also these waters eventually lead into our lakes that we use for various reasons and various sources, particularly pleasure craft in the Lake Simcoe area. The water quality and water quantity is very, very important and very, very critical for that particular activity.
Any actions that could have a substantial impact on the delicate balance of hydrology in the moraine would have a similar wide-ranging impact throughout the area.
The moraine contains many important aspects of plants and wildlife in the greater metropolitan area. It has a number of small lakes that rely on this to provide this kind of abyss in the middle of a very heavily populated area. These slopes of the moraine provide the source area for many streams and contain many small wetlands. The open spaces and the natural areas are very significant to help us with our clean air and our clean
Private Members' Business
water. Anything that would take place in this area or any damage to this area would affect all of us very critically.
Obviously the forest acts as a filter for our air, just as the wetlands provide that filter when water meets soil. So that is very significant.
It is also very important for the wildlife in the area. This is one continuous piece of land that allows wildlife, deer, nesting areas, nursery areas. All these areas are involved in this particular piece of land and it is very, very significant for the wildlife in the area to be able to move as their feeding grounds or their nesting or migration is necessary to move from one area of the province to the other. It is also very important to the people of the greater metropolitan area. Many of us recognize the importance of open space and green land as our way of life. We use and often take advantage of the Oak Ridges moraine for improving our health physically.
I recognize I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker. There is a lot to be said for it but it is certainly important for our physical and our mental well-being that we have the opportunity to take part in it.
The federal government is very involved in the process of examining and assessing what is going on in the Oak Ridges moraine. It is one area where there is presently a strategy going on. The royal commission studied the headwaters as it affected Lake Ontario and certainly the lakes to the north and there is now a provincial study taking place.
One of the things that concerns me greatly though in this study is the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority, a very significant group that is affected very significantly by the Oak Ridges moraine, has not been invited to take part in this study. The authority is involved in this very process. They have requested of the minister of natural resources to be involved.
Their letter states: "This authority is attempting to maintain all water courses, wetlands and headwater areas that we must be aware of and directly involved with policy development affecting these areas. Through our environmentally significant area study we have identified biological ESAs but also recharge-discharge areas. We have carried out a number of projects in the headwater areas to improve stream habitat for our cold water systems".

November 25, 1991
Private Members' Business
I could go on but I did want to quote from that letter. Here is a group of people wanting to help in this process. They have been shut out temporarily and I hope that the provincial government in its wisdom of preserving the Oak Ridges moraine that is vital to all of us will take into account the expertise of not only the federal government but also the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority and put together a game plan that is going to be effective for all of us and all our future generations.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for York-Simcoe for having brought this important motion to the floor of the House, the motion which says:
-the Government should commit itself to entering into negotiation is with the Government of Ontario to safeguard the Oak Ridges Moraine and protect the headwater aquifers sourcing Lake Ontario from further pollution and toxic contamination.
It is an important motion and one that I am sure on reflection the hon. member will realize is but the beginning of a very long personal battle that he will have to involve himself in. I say that from personal experience.
I recall almost 15 years ago having begun the battle with many others to protect South Moresby in my constituency and ultimately there was a resolution on the floor of this House that brought that to be the national park reserve status that it has today.
It is the beginning of a long battle but I think some of the pieces that are needed are now in place. This House in June of this year for the first time passed a unanimous resolution to protect and to preserve 12 per cent of all of the lands and waters in Canada.
This area, which is some 1,500 square miles, falls well within the rubric of what we are talking about in terms of that 12 per cent. It is quite different from the traditional Canadian perspective on national parks. Back in 1985 we began, thanks to the incredible foresight of our forefathers, to set aside Banff National Park. In those days, and in most of the days since, we have looked at the perimeters of certain pieces of land and we have sort of locked them away and said: "Within those areas that is national parks and we will protect them". Similarly the provinces and territories have gone along that route.
Thanks enormously to the Brundtland commission undertaken by the United Nations, the world and in particular Canadians have a much better understanding now of what kinds of land use planning, integrated planning by regional approaches, are necessary in order to protect the ecological integrity of the land masses that we have to protect, not only for ourselves but for future generations.
This particular area which my friend from North York pointed out runs from the Niagara escarpment in the west over to the Trenton area, in fact to the Trent River, is an incredibly important chunk.
It provides the headwater systems for the Rouge, the Don, the Humber, the Holland, the Nottawasaga and the Ganaraska, if I have said all of those properly. Being from B.C., I am not the best on some of these names.
The water from those bodies make their way into Lake Simcoe, Lake Ontario, Georgian Bay and ultimately, of course, into the lower Great Lakes and some 45 million of us drink from those waters.
The chunk of earth that we are talking about is incredibly important. We know that not only does it act as a sponge allowing residual waters to "flow at the necessary levels throughout the year to protect the ecology and all of those water systems coming from the headwater, we also know that it acts as a fantastic, organic filtration system for all of the waters in this huge area.
We heard from both the previous speakers about the problems now, the incredible lack of co-ordination between the levels of government and the private sector developers. We know that this is going to require a co-ordinated approach by Crown Canada. I think my friend from York North has very well laid out the kinds of legislative frameworks that we can operate within to assist.
There is a need for Crown Canada to appoint negotiators who can fulfil those federal roles. Today I call on Bob Rae, the premier of Ontario and Ruth Grier, the minister of the environment, to play a useful role from the provincial side in relation to these 1,500 square kilometres and also with the municipalities.

It is through chambers such as this that we can also call on the private sector to not always be looking for the quickest, easiest way to make a buck with landfills, looking for places that are approximate to cities the size of Toronto to remove the extraordinary volumes of garbage that should not be pouring out of a city that size. We should be looking much more to the four rs in dealing with that garbage rather than looking for huge landfills, whether they are clay lined or not. We know that enormous amounts of leachate will eventually get out of them.
There are the growing difficulties on both Crown and on private land of the removal of forest cover and natural covers that act so importantly with such a body as the moraine which is so thinly covered by very light alluvials. I would like to quote from a paper prepared in a submission to the member for York North about the history of this incredible sponge and filter system before talking more about the aggregate problems and the tree extraction problems.
"One of the things that they point out is whether or not we will leave this area as a treasured legacy or as the scene of an ecological crime."
It goes on to give the geologic history: "Approximately
14,000	years ago as the Lake Simcoe lobe and the Lake Ontario lobe of the Wisconsin glacier retreated, rock and sand material transported by the ice accumulated in tremendous quantities within a temporary lake formed between the two ice fronts. It was the deposition of this rock material that formed the Oak Ridges moraine, and as this material was deposited into the water column, it became well sorted with the more dense rock and rubble material settling first, and the extremely find sand particles settling last. It is this fine sand on the surface of the moraine that makes it highly erodable when subjected to clear-cutting and other insensitive, human activities. It is the well sorted and granular nature of the moraine structure that accounts for the high permeability of its soils and the over-all lack of surface water bodies such as rivers and lakes."
That is taken from Peter Adams et al, published in 1985. It is quite small in the context of Canada: 1,500 square kilometres. We have the different levels of government that are involved, and we have the almost unremitting pace of developments that are affecting it, some intended such as landfills but some that are unintended.
Private Members' Business
There are probably still veiy few private property holders within the areas of the moraine that understand the real cumulative consequences of taking down an acre of trees here, and a hectare of cover over here. It is the cumulative impact of all of this, and then the cumulative nature of the erosion that comes with that which is causing the severe surface damage to the moraine.
Add to that what my friend properly was talking about in terms of aggregate extraction. I was a bit stunned to see on one of the papers provided that despite the existing provincial guidelines for the protection of the moraine, aggregate extraction in almost 44 per cent, almost half, is going to continue unrestricted. We know from research that the deep aggregate extraction, where large amounts of the lower aggregate are being taken for construction purposes, contributes to the elevation of temperatures in the discharge of the cold headwaters to spawning streams.
We are having all of these combined effects: the forest removal and the cover removal from both private and public lands; the aggregate removal which is changing the water temperature and affecting fish populations and obviously the over-all ecology; the chronic and dangerous problems of landfills which are allowing tens and now hundreds of millions of pounds of leachates to get into this incredible aquifer. We still must be, and I have said it before, one of the only species which so often uses our own kitchen as our sewer. It is something we have to think about. Even termites have developed systems for dealing with their own excrement in a different way than we have. This aquifer is being polluted with the most toxic forms of our garbage through landfills. It is being dealt with in a completely inhuman and unconscionably counter-ecological form in terms of the ways we are using it in terms of sewage disposal. We are stripping the surface.
It is time we really expressed ourselves with the kind of will that the Parliament of Canada is expected to express. If we are going to triple the amount of protected lands in Canada between now and the year 2000, this example by the member for York North is the kind of area we should be using. Not all of it. We are not suggesting you draw a line around the 1,500 square kilometres and say there will be no more development, no more people, no more this, no more that. That is hardly what we are saying. What we are calling for is a real bi-regional approach dealing with this as a headwaters issue, and using it as a flagship, saying that here is how we will protect this land over-all.

November 25, 1991
Private Members' Business
I think this motion is a very good starting point and I congratulate my friend for bringing it before Parliament today.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate gladly in this particular motion brought by the member for York North. It is certainly a very appropriate motion as it relates to our geographic part of Canada, shall we say. I know that the Oak Ridges moraine runs through the member's riding, as it does through my riding. In my term on municipal council in Ajax, prior to my election as a member of Parliament, for eight years we had to deal with the lower reaches of the Oak Ridges moraine and now as the member of Parliament for the riding of Ontario the upper levels of my constituency include significant portions of the Oak Ridges moraine. Not only does it include significant portions, but some 30 streams and rivers take their sources of water from the moraine.
I can tell you that creeks like Duffins Creek, Petticoat Creek, Carruthers Creek and Millers Creek all emanate from my riding. The Rouge River is on the western boundary of my riding and is obviously impacted. I know there are several other smaller streams that also can very clearly prove and indicate that the source of their water ultimately emanates from the Oak Ridges moraine.
I do not need to go into the description as members have done of the over-all magnitude of the moraine and its benefit to the southern reaches of Ontario. I would like to spend a little bit of time on the impact and some of the things that we can do.
There is no doubt that the moraine is significant and of tremendous value, but its true value has yet to be established. Certainly we know it is an important groundwater resource for the greater Toronto area and it provides drinking water for many of the small municipalities outside of the city of Toronto as well. However, there is a very delicate balance that has to be maintained in the Oak Ridges moraine.
Its form is a distinctly higher elevated landscape to the north of Lake Ontario. I think Lakeridge Road is probably a classic example because it runs from the lake to the higher reaches of the ridge and that is how it got
its name. There are also other roads like the Brock Road and Wesley Road, but as you are driving north on these roads you can see that you are not only just driving north but you are driving uphill, you are driving to the upper reaches of the moraine.
Certainly the precipitation that falls in the upper reaches of the moraine seeps into the ground and eventually flows as ground-water south toward the lake and north for those areas affected in the Georgian Bay and Lake Simcoe areas. If you affect that particular area in a detrimental fashion, then obviously it will have an effect on many areas' supply of drinking water.
The Ontario government, however, I think has the lead role in the protection of this groundwater. I appreciate that the member has brought this issue to the Parliament of Canada, but I do believe that in our constitutional set-up we have already provided that the province of Ontario in this instance should have the lead role in the protection of groundwater and the protection of wildlife and open spaces provided by the unique natural forms and features of the area north of Lake Ontario.
In order to perform this vital function, the province has enlisted the support of municipalities throughout the area, conservation authorities, public interest groups, developers and citizen advisory groups. In my riding the metro Toronto region conservation authority is certainly very active, as is the central Lake Ontario conservation authority toward the east end of my riding.
In order to manage this moraine, really what we need to do is make sure that there is minimal removal or degradation of natural areas and the maintenance of natural wildlife corridors. The federal government is prepared to co-operate with the Government of Ontario in areas which may require expertise that we can provide. This could include items such as scientific research to aid in the understanding of the physical, chemical and biological processes which influence the quantity and quality of groundwater and surface water in the region.
November 25, 1991

The federal government's National Water Research Institute is strongly involved in both surface and groundwater studies and it is the largest freshwater research establishment in Canada and is based in Burlington, Ontario, so it is certainly very close to the Oak Ridges moraine. Through this institute, Environment Canada has a memorandum of understanding with the University of New Brunswick to provide assistance in developing an operation of a groundwater program at the university. It is that groundwater that I think initially is the main thrust, although not the only thrust, of the member's comments. Very clearly there is in place a mechanism and a system to look at the groundwater programs.
Scientists have worked jointly with the drinking water section of the Ontario government on an analysis study to develop expert systems for groundwater wells located in the Oak Ridges moraine and other areas of the province. I know that in my riding groundwater wells and groundwater problems in areas such as Whitevale and Claremont are certainly very high on the list of concerns of the people who live in those areas. There is a very clear and consistent concern about the cleanliness and safety of the drinking water sources for these people in a very direct fashion.
I realize that the member has mentioned the concerns about the Keele Valley landfill site. As the member knows, the alternative to the Keele Valley site is the Pickering landfill site and it has similar concerns and considerations as it impacts on the over-all drinking water clarity and cleanliness. I am happy in one sense to indicate that the federal government has some responsibility in that it is a significant landholder in the northern reaches of Pickering where it holds some 18,000 acres of land on the lower reaches of the moraine. I am happy to report and I am sure the member would be glad to know that the federal government continuously has said that there will be no landfill sites in that region that it owns for many reasons. Certainly one of the very clear benefits of that decision is that the groundwater contamination that he mentions as it relates to federal lands will not occur.
There are many open spaces and natural areas in the moraine which serve as a vital function to ensure the integrity and the continuing existence of a balanced ecosystem. Such areas can help provide us with clean air
Private Members' Business
and water and preserve the diversity of plant life and wildlife habitat. It is certainly very common in the areas associated with these creeks and forests emanating from the moraine to see an assortment of plant and wildlife. There are some forested areas in the northern part of the riding such as the Glen Major conservation lands. Some 15 or 20 years ago I was involved with organizations planting thousands and thousands of trees in that particular area. This land is not sitting there without anybody looking at it.
There have been some very clear attempts to preserves these areas. Now with the green plan, for public organizations that wish to take advantage of additional tree planting programs, there are some tremendous opportunities. In reaches of the moraine such as Pickering we have the Seaton Hiking Trail, we also have the Ganaraska Forest, which I appreciate is outside of my riding but is another area of tremendous recreation significance to my constituents as well as to many others.
There is no doubt that the importance of maintaining this natural resource has been acknowledged. It has been acknowledged by the royal commission on the Toronto waterfront. It recommends the preservation of the ecological, scenic and recreational significance. It also recommends that a planning group with a clear provincial mandate be established to identify the conservation priorities. The prime consideration should be the identification of future development, land use objectives and a conservation plan for the moraine.
The provincial government has acknowledged its responsibility in this whole area. It has set up a study to do so and it has a particular interest in the Oak Ridges moraine as an area of special significance requiring increased control of development.
I believe the steps are well under way to accomplish the things the member has requested in his motion. I look forward to continuing discussion and debate on this issue.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek consent of the House to share my time with my colleagues.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to give the floor for five minutes each to the next two speakers?

November 25, 1991
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I would like to first of all congratulate my colleague from York North who must feel some sense of satisfaction today because during his last campaign he worked hard to bring to his constituents' attention the fact that the Oak Ridges moraine was an issue of concern. He made a commitment at that time to continue to work on this issue and here we are three years later in the House of Commons debating this very important issue and asking the government to take a lead role in co-ordinating all the various agencies of government whether they be municipal or provincial in making sure that the Oak Ridges moraine is protected.
One of the reasons I am so concerned and so supportive of the Oak Ridges moraine is because of the fact that the headwaters of the Don River, which is the western boundary of my riding, flow from the Oak Ridges moraine.
Although the Hon. David Crombie, Charles Souriol, Mark Wilson and others are working very, very hard on a variety of agenda items to begin the process of reclaiming the Don River, we cannot really see satisfaction for our work unless the Oak Ridges moraine is also put into a similarly protected mode. This is why I am so supportive of this. The Don River has now become a chemical cauldron filled with toxic and biological waste and some of that toxic waste flows from the aquifer of the Oak Ridges moraine.
I urge this House not to be sheepish or nervous about supporting this bill. Here is an opportunity where the government can take a lead role and I urge it to get behind it.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this motion put forward by my colleague from York North, together with my other colleagues from Broadview-Greenwood and Northumberland.
Time does not permit me to address all of the issues today, but clearly my riding of Scarborough-Rouge River has an interest in the Oak Ridges moraine, its preservation and its protection.
The issue that arises here is: Whose job is it, what level of government? The bottom line is that the job belongs
to all levels of government and to all individuals, the human beings who populate the area.
The Oak Ridges moraine is the source of water for many rivers which have all been mentioned here today. They flow south through areas and one of the ridings in that area is mine, Rouge River. One of the rivers that derives its water source from the Oak Ridges moraine is the Rouge River. Happily the lands surrounding that river are on their way to being preserved, but there are 40 species of fish that populate the Rouge River. Some are quite rare, but they are there and alive unbelievably still. We want to protect the water quality and we want to protect the water quantity.
The type of activity now taking place on the Oak Ridges moraine is now starting to place the Oak Ridges moraine under stress. We want to take note of the fact that this activity is putting many of these rivers under stress. If the water quality deteriorates so does the quality of life for the species that need the river and for the human beings that need the water derived from those rivers.
Just to sum up very quickly, there are two facets here. We raised the matter in this House not just for the fish in the river but for the human beings around, for all of us. We are one ecological unit. Let the parliamentary record show that members in this House care about this issue and support the resolution of the member for York North.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-4, an act to revise and amend the law governing federal trust and loan companies and to provide for related and consequential matters, as reported (with amendments) by the Standing Committee on Finance.
November 25, 1991

Mr. Speaker:: There are 95 motions set down on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-4, an act to revise and amend the law governing federal trust and loan companies and to provide for related and consequential matters.

Motions Nos. 1,2, 3, 4, 6,7, 11,16,18,19, 21,22, 25,27, 32, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 48, 51, 52, 59, 63, 64, 65, 69, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87 and 89, some 39 in all, standing in the name of the hon. Minister of State for Finance are technical in nature and either seek to amend the French or English versions of certain parts of the bill to ensure that they have the same meaning.

The Chair proposes to group these motions for debate with a vote on Motion No. 1 applying to the remaining 38 motions.

Motions Nos. 5, 53 and 55 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt will be grouped for debate. Motion No. 5 will be voted on separately. A vote on Motion No. 53 will apply to Motion No. 55.
Motions Nos. 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 23, 26, 31, 33, 34, 36, 42, 43, 49, 50, 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 66, 66A, 67, 70,71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 81A, 85, 88 and 90, some 39 in total, also standing in the minister's name are similar to provisions found in the other financial institutions bills.
I believe the hon. minister is trying to standardize and harmonize the corresponding wording in all financial institutions bills, and therefore I would propose that these motions be grouped for debate with a vote on Motion No. 8 applying to the remaining 38 motions.

Motions Nos. 20, 24, 28, 29 and 38, standing in the minister's name, will be grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 20 will apply to Motions Nos. 24, 28, 29 and 38.

Motions Nos. 30 and 47 standing in the names of the hon. members for Nickel Belt and Malpeque will be debated and voted on separately.
Government Orders
Motions Nos. 41A and 46A standing in the name of the hon. minister will be grouped for debate, and a vote on Motion No. 41A will apply to Motion No. 46A.

Motion No. 42A, standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt, will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 58 and 60 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.

Motion No. 68, standing in the name of the hon. member for Malpeque, will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 78 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt will be debated and voted on separately.
For the convenience of the House I will recapitulate. Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 27, 32, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 48, 51, 52, 59, 63, 64, 65, 69, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87 and 89 are grouped for debate, and a vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to the others.

Motions Nos. 5, 53 and 55 are grouped for debate. Motion No. 5 will be voted on separately. A vote on Motion No. 53 will apply to Motion No. 55.

Motions Nos. 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 23, 26, 31, 33, 34, 36, 42, 43, 49, 50, 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 66, 66A, 67, 70,71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 81A, 85, 88 and 90 are grouped for debate, and a vote on Motion No. 8 will apply to the others.
Motions Nos. 20, 24, 28, 29 and 38 are grouped for debate, and a vote on Motion No. 20 will apply to Motions Nos. 24, 28, 29 and 38.

Motions Nos. 30 and 47 will be debated and voted on separately.

Government Orders

Motions Nos. 41A and 46A are grouped for debate, and a vote on Motion No. 41A will apply to Motion No. 46A.

Motion No. 42A will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 58 and 60 are grouped for debate but will be voted on separately.

Motion No. 68 will be debated and voted on separately-

Motion No. 78 will be debated and voted on separately-
I will now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,11, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 27, 32, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 48, 51, 52, 59, 63, 64, 65, 69, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87 and 89.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if the Chair could perhaps make available numerous copies of that particular decision to members who are in the House so that we can have a prudent debate for the remaining part of the day, because there are a lot of decisions which have been reached in accordance with the debate.
While I am on my feet, I am wondering if I might raise a concern while the minister is in the House. I presume that as we get to each of the amendments the minister will want to give a brief and succinct description of those amendments so that members of the House, particularly those who have not been privy to the debate at committee stage, will completely understand what the minister is attempting to do in making changes to the legislation which is under question.
I say that in order to try to facilitate the debate and the reasonableness with which the opposition approaches the subject matter.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, the minister will not be getting up and making those comments today. I am
asking my colleague from Mississauga South who has been intimately involved in the process from day one and probably knows more about the Bank Act and the Trust Act, et cetera, than any other member of Parliament. I would think that is fair to say, except maybe my friend from Nickel Belt might lay claim to that.
I am sure that you will be interested in the comments by my colleague from Mississauga South who can handle this debate very well, Mr. Speaker.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulties with the minister's response. However, just so that it is crystal clear, the hon. member who has been a distinguished member on the finance committee for quite some time is in fact speaking completely on behalf of the government and the minister opposite is concurring with the views and the interventions which will be made by the hon. member opposite. It is just not a member of the finance committee making a few comments, but it is the government view. Am I right in my understanding of what the minister has put before the House?


John Horton McDermid: That puts me in a tough position, Mr. Speaker. However I do have faith in my colleague from Mississauga South that he will fairly represent the government's point of view on these amendments to the House of Commons.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, we who have followed the history of these bills in committee have found that they are extremely complex bills and that the route was very tortuous. We dealt with Bill C-4, for example, and we finished will Bills C-19, C-28 and C-34.1 want to say that I do not find it very professional that we would get 100 amendments to Bill C-4 hours before we come here to enter into debate on these very complex bills.
The opposition amendments have been in for two weeks now. Lo and behold we get these 100 amendments this morning and have to try to sift through them, sort through them, and even at this late stage we are approached by the government because in one of the amendments it forgot a section and will need unanimous approval to put it in and in Bill C-28 it missed several amendments.
I want to say that this was not a well organized operation. It has been very confusing, and now this morning is the latest in that series. I want to say that I hope the debate goes a lot better than what has presaged events this morning.

Government Orders


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to echo the sentiments of my colleague and that is why I asked the question. These amendments have just arrived and we will need a clear explanation as to what they mean and also the consequential effects that the legislation may have on other pieces of legislation before the House.
In terms of trying to facilitate the debate, I hope that the minister responsible and the member who will be responding on behalf of the Government of Canada will understand the dilemma that we as opposition members are confronted with at the present time in that we will want to have a clear explanation.
Of course hon. members opposite may stand in their place and say: "They are technical amendments and they really do not mean all that much". We have seen that case before under Bill C-35 where consequential amendments in themselves have been somewhat substantive.
As you might recall, Mr. Speaker, as you sat in the chair on Friday, Bill C-35 has not seen its passage in this House as of yet.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to speak on this point of order and the fact that all these amendments came to us this morning.
I believe the government has been dealing with the reform of financial institutions since 1985 when I served on the finance committee. We have been holding hearings and the finance committee has dealt with this, et cetera. The government has come in with a major number of amendments at the last moment. This is a very complex area and even a few technical changes of words can have tremendous effects and impacts in terms of the financial community.
We have no clear idea what the government is doing with these amendments, nor are we in a position to be able to determine the effects of these amendments until we hear presentations from the financial institutions and until experts can go through them. It is only then that we will know what is really meant by these amendments and the effects that these amendments will have.
As opposition members we cannot do our job properly, particularly in this area which is so highly technical, with the government coming in with a major number of amendments at the last moment.
Therefore I would like to move that this be set aside.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before recognizing the hon. member for Mississauga South, I may recall that the Chair received the government's latest amendments Friday evening and that all the motions were examined by the Chair and its advisers so that a ruling could be given this morning.
The hon. member for Mississauga South, on the same point of order.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the problems of members looking at a host of amendments to Bills C-4, C-19, C-28 and C-34. Members will know that the huge number of amendments to Bill C-4 are totally as a result of the hearings held with respect to Bill C-19 and with respect to Bills C-34 and C-28.
As we worked through the legislation, a number of representations were made to the committee and to the finance people who were intimately working with the details of the legislation. It was given as an undertaking to everyone involved that the legislation would be amended so that all of the bills would be read together as financial legislation bills.
There is no intention here of trying to pull a fast one. I want to negotiate and talk from time to time to my colleagues on the other side of the House, which we will do at break points, in order to make sure that everything goes along the way it ought to.
I want to point out that this is difficult legislation, as my friend from Regina-Qu'Appelle said, but it is legislation we have been working on in great detail over a long period of time.
The first passage of what is now Bill C-4 occurred last year in the last Parliament. That bill has now been re-engrossed to report stage as Bill C-4 without further debate in the House because we wanted to move the legislation forward. However, as time went by, it became necessary to make changes and those changes have by and large been agreed upon by all of the parties that are affected by the legislation. Changes are there, particularly to Bill C-4 as we start debating it, to reflect the changes that have already been made in Bill C-19, Bill C-28 and Bill C-34.

Government Orders
Therefore, I want to say to the House that there are difficulties, as the House will know, in getting the legal work done to make sure that the amendments are correct. Just prior to the House opening it was brought to my attention that Motion No. 57, which is to be dealt with in the third order of business, has to be amended because unfortunately the people in Justice missed a subclause that was agreed to as a restriction on the activities of banks. Therefore, an amendment ought to be unanimously agreed to with respect to trust companies and insurance companies as is appropriate in the particular case.
This is complicated legislation but I want to say to the House and give the House an undertaking that should there be matters that ought to be changed or ought to be brought forward that are found as we go along, I believe this House ought to be prepared to go back on those issues to make sure that any defects that could appear are corrected.
However, as far as possible-and this is difficult stuff-every conceivable effort has been made to make sure that the bills reflect not the government's view completely, but the view of the finance committee as it passed the various bills through the committee.
There is a matter I am going to bring forward and ask for unanimous consent for where, on Bill C-4, the government, and as a result of representations on Bill C-19, made changes to loans that could be made to directors and officers of an institution. They have made a provision for banks but not for trust companies and insurance companies and we are prepared to make that change now. I hope the House would want all of these institutions to be managed in the same fashion so that the system of operation for trust companies and banks and insurance companies is essentially the same, bearing in mind, of course, that they are each in a slightly different field of business. Indeed, with respect to insurance companies, they are in a substantially different field of business in terms of the way they get their deposits from the public.
I would appreciate any help the House can give me here. The House will appreciate, and the member from Regina-Qu'Appelle will appreciate, that I have been involved in this legislation for a long time, indeed, much prior to the member from Regina-Qu'Appelle.
The matters were really before the House or before the finance committee and from time to time before the House in questions and debates and so on since 1981. So this is a matter that has been before us for a good 10 years. It is not a matter you come to all of a sudden, overnight. This is a matter that has been worked on by people in the financial industries, the ministries of finance and the people who worked well for us in CDIC and the superintendent's office over a long period of time.
I want to say to the House and give it this undertaking, that this legislation is our best effort to do the best job we can. While there may be problems with it, and the amendments may likely have the odd hitch in them, this is the best we can do. I think we ought to proceed as quickly as we can with it.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have several comments. I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. member who has spoken, but a number of things have occurred. The hon. member has made reference to the fact that the subject matter that we are dealing with is indeed a very complicated matter. I think members of the committee were apprised that the government would be coming forward with amendments, and they have come forward with amendments. I think the government is within the appropriate procedure of the House in order to table those amendments, which it has. But in terms of simple courtesy -the hon. member shrugs his shoulders-we were the ones who consented to have these four bills wrapped together for the purpose of debate in order to facilitate the discussion and to assist the critics, and it makes sense.


John Horton McDermid: And it makes sense.


David Charles Dingwall: Absolutely, absolutely. But in terms of mere courtesy, to have a host of amendments dropped on you late on Friday afternoon, far beyond what was ever anticipated by members on this side of the House, is not fair game.
I understand that the government, the House leader, the parliamentary secretary and the minister responsible have the right to proceed. That is fine, but I wish to notify the Chair that the simple courtesies that we anticipated as a result of the co-operation given by this side of the House have not been forthcoming.
November 25, 1991

I accept the hon. member's undertaking that he is not attempting to fast track, or to use my term, to pull the wool over our eyes on any of these matters. But he as well as hon. members opposite must understand that when you are dealing with a subject matter as complicated and technical as this, the lateness in terms of a receipt of the amendment will put an onus on us, and particularly on the government, to explain in detail, on the floor of the House of Commons, as to the meaning and the consequential effects. I do not think it is sufficient just to say that because we received representations from party a, b, c, d, or institution a, b, c, d, e and f that we in the opposition have to sit in our places and nod concurrence because the government says this is the way it is.
The hon. minister shakes his head. In my view, he has broken a simple act of courtesy, and it may deter his ability to get his legislation through.
I just want to bring the point to the attention of the Chair that we are not very happy, not very pleased with the way in which this is being handled. My colleague from Malpeque, who has been the critic for the Official Opposition on this particular matter, also wishes to make her interventions and views known about the process which is being used in this debate.
I respectfully ask that the Chair allow her the opportunity to make that intervention.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that we expect full debate on the amendments and full explanations, hopefully to the satisfaction of the opposition.
I am convinced that it will be satisfied with the amendments because a large number of them are technical: commas, translation problems and so on. I am convinced that they will be accepted.
I can assure my hon. friend and my colleagues in the NDP that we will fully debate these amendments as we proceed through and my colleague from Mississauga South will lead that debate.


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I want to plead with you because you are my last resort.
I came here this morning wanting to speak to these bills as I have on other occasions. I have been presented
Government Orders
with 95 amendments that I have not seen until now. The Speaker has made his ruling that some are in order and that some are not. This is how they will be dealt with and that is fine. The Speaker has seen these amendments before I have.
The last chance I have is to ask you, sir, to set this matter aside until all members, not just those who have had an interest in them, who will be asked to vote on these matters have the same opportunity to see the amendments that the government members have. I will cast no aspersions on anyone. The record of the House on these bills is exemplary to try to co-operate, to facilitate and to organize the debate. This morning the minister responsible is not present. I make no argument about that but \ think, Mr. Speaker, that you have an obligation to each one of us. At this point you are the only one who can do anything about it.
It is not fair to ask the members to debate amendments which they have not yet seen. It is not fair to ask the members themselves to vote on matters that some members have seen and that other members have not. It makes no difference to me, as a member, whether the Chair has ruled that they are in order. The Chair has seen an amendment that I have not seen. I do not care whether it is in order or not, I do not know what it is yet.
I say this in the name of fairness for each individual member who will be called upon to vote on these amendments, who is supposed to know what they are but does not, who is supposed to know what they mean but does not. In this simple instance there is no possible way we could know what they mean. We have not seen them yet.
If the government were asking to adjourn the House, if it were asking to declare a national holiday, if it were a straightforward matter, a simple concise motion, the House would ask that you simply tell us ahead of time what the motion is. Then the House might be quite prepared to say "that is relatively a straightforward matter, fine, we can deal with that".
This is not a straightforward matter. There are 95 different amendments to very complicated legislation. It has been discussed and dealt with by this House in various shapes and forms for a lengthy period of time. We all know that each word, each nuance, makes a difference.

November 25, 1991
Government Orders
I ask the Speaker to make a simple ruling, not to quash anything, but simply to give the members an opportunity to look at the amendments which some members have already seen to see what the Speaker has already seen. As an ordinary member of the House I have not had the opportunity. My last chance to get that opportunity lies in your hands and I simply ask you, sir, not to stop the process, not to set it aside, but to give me the opportunity that some members have had. I believe that it is basically unfair and the House should not proceed with amendments to legislation when some members have seen it and other members have not. Sir, you are my last chance.


Mr. Speaker:: Members may have a grievance.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I am the critic for my party and financial institutions. I find it totally unacceptable what is happening here this morning.
We have been at this process for over a year. It has been a very long and complicated process. We arrive this morning and we find dozens of amendments, I believe 95 in all, that we have never seen before. Several days ago, we in the Opposition had our amendments in. You would think that the government would try to have the amendments in.
Its only common courtesy that it should. We should have copies of these amendments before we arrive in the House to debate them. It certainly indicates to me that this government is really disorganized. I always knew that before but here is an extreme example. We are debating today the biggest reform of financial institutions ever to take place in the history of Canada.
The government comes in this morning and presents us with dozens of amendments that we are supposed to discuss.
As I said, this is legislation that is complex. We have been at it for over a year. We have to study each of these amendments and know how one affects the other, and so on.
I find it unacceptable that it would come in with these amendments and not give us time to look at them. I even heard this morning that one section was left out of an amendment.
If you do not call that total disorganization, I do not know what you call it. I think it certainly points out that the government is being arrogant, insensitive, discourteous and disorganized. As I said, I am the critic for my party for financial institutions and I find this situation totally unacceptable.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out the role that we have played in the committee.
I have been the critic for our party for financial institutions. I took that responsibility very, very seriously. All through the hearings on the bills in committee, I tried to annotate whatever changes we agreed to in the committee.
As subsequent bills came, I tried to match those amendments with the following bills because they were all interconnected. In fact, we have been very co-operative on this side of the House.
In the previous Parliament, we did Bill C-83. That was Bill C-4's previous name in another Parliament. We agreed unanimously to resurrect Bill C-83 in the form it had when the committee finished with it. We resurrected it as Bill C-4.
We agreed unanimously in this House. The co-operation of my party was given to extend the Bank Act for a year so that the Bank Act would not have run out in April 1990.
We agreed unanimously to second reading debate of three bills. We did three bills, Bills C-19, C-28 and C-34, in one shot. When last have you ever heard of three bills being debated at second reading in one shot? In one shot?
We did that, and we agreed that Bill C-4 would wait until we were finished with these other three bills. We then went to report stage. We went to committee stage and we dealt with those three bills very, very expeditiously-
All during the process, the chairman of the committee, the member for Mississauga South is going to lead the government, he is going to be in loco ministerio. While he cannot be a minister, he is going to act as a minister today with these bills.

All through the piece, this member for Mississauga South kept saying: "Look, this is a done deal". Even this morning he reiterated it to me: "This is a done deal". The parties involved, the trust companies, the banks, the insurance companies, the co-operatives, have all agreed to this. It is a done deal. It is brokered.
If this opposition or members on the government side want any changes, nothing can be done. What a eunuch role for members of Parliament. The boys at the bank, the boys at the insurance companies, the boys at the trust and loans, and the boys at the co-ops have already decided what the legislation is going to be.
If we want to stop at anything that is important for the people of Canada with respect to the legislation, there is nothing we can do. It is a broker deal. Our hands are tied. Ours is just to say: "Yes, sir. How many bags full, sir. Yes. Take. Go. Go."
If you look at the minutes, that is how most of these bills went with 600 amendments.
On clause 416, they just went "carried, carried, carried".
I want to say that the straw that broke the camel's back was in having entered our amendments two weeks ago and constantly asking "Where are the government amendments?" What we wanted to do was verify, technical as they may be, those amendments that were handed to me this morning in the Order Paper. We wanted to check those against what we had agreed to in the committee. As a result, even as we were doing this the chairman of the committee, in loco ministerio, comes over and says "Look, we missed a subclause on 416 and I just got a call from John Evans over at the trust company and he said we didn't fulfill what we promised and what we had agreed to; what was done in the done deal isn't done here in the legislation". Then there are some C-28 amendments.
I do not think that is the way we should be doing business. Quite frankly, we are accepting the justice department's good work and flawed reputation of the past in missing clauses to say "we trust you, what you say is fair is fair." I do not operate that way and I wanted
Government Orders
time to verify those amendments with the bills. That is the way I operated in the committee, as members who sat on that committee know, and that is the way I operate now that we have come to report stage. I do not see that putting this off till three o'clock is going to delay anything for the government. After all, we have been very co-operative up to this point. I think that is what we should do.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I want to just take a few moments to participate in this point of order because I think there are some very valid points being made.
I want to begin by saying that I thought the process in which all were parties engaged in the handling of these four financial bills is a model of the way Parliament ought to work. We have demonstrated between all three parties how we can co-operate, how we can handle very complex, very difficult issues in a way that I think demonstrates a lot of wisdom and a lot of leadership on the part of both sides of this House.
I want to begin by saying that and to compliment my colleagues not only on this side of the House but also those on the other side of the House for the work and the co-operation they have given us.
It is obvious that there has been a very unfortunate error in process here, and it is one that I can only ask that the House forgive. I say "the House" because I do not necessarily mean the opposition members; the government members are just as unhappy about that. I apologize for that error. We are going to try and do the best we can to correct it. I would suggest that we call it one o'clock which will allow members to go back and have a look at things and get it sorted out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Members have heard the motion of the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I got myself into this dilemma a while back. May I suggest that we suspend the sitting until two o'clock?


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

November 25, 1991


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The sitting of the House will therefore be suspended until two o'clock this afternoon.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 12.40 p.m.


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

Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could have the attention of the House for just a moment. I would ask all hon. members during statements by members to be very sure they keep their statements within 60 seconds. Thank you.


EDUCATION
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to remind this government that its economic policies are affecting people in very negative ways. The latest example are the cuts to the provinces for education.
Dalhousie University in Halifax, which has prospered over the previous 200 years, has barely managed to survive seven years of this government. It is the educational centre of the Atlantic region, employing over
1,000	full-time faculty and educating almost 20,000 students yearly in many disciplines.
If there is a key to the regional prosperity of Atlantic Canada, Dalhousie must be a part. But now Dalhousie has to raise its tuition rates by 10 per cent, making them among the highest in the country. This increase will fall directly upon the backs of those who can least afford it, students.
This government must realize it cannot mortgage its future this way and it must realize that it is wiping out the key to this country's future prosperity. A strange state of affairs for the self-styled education Prime Minister.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 1990, the House of Commons purchased a
two-colour, 40-inch offset press for $800,000, without a thorough analysis of future demand or possible alternatives. It asked the Board of Internal Economy to approve the purchase on the grounds that the press would improve productivity, reduce overtime and increase capacity.
Apparently, any gain in productivity would apply solely to specialized, multicolour lithography, which could be contracted out to commercial printers. At this time, our employees are claiming very little overtime, and as I said before, the existing presses are more than adequate to the task. Today, 19 months later, the new press is not yet installed or even unpacked.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our taxpayers, I would ask you to return this luxury item as soon as possible.


THE GREY CUP
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, from far and wide they came to Winnipeg. They came to spend a great time in a great city watching the ultimate in Canadian sports, the Grey Cup.
Winnipegers can be proud of the wonderful week provided to all visitors. There were parties, receptions, benefits and just good old fashioned Winnipeg hospitality. From the minute visitors arrived they were made to feel at home.
Yesterday's game was a classic match of east versus west. Whether we watched it at home or from the stadium, there was a good time to be had by all.
This Grey Cup was also a reminder that the spirit of Canada is very much alive in Winnipeg. We were happy to show everyone that we can still have a great time together as Canadians.
Congratulations to the city, the volunteers and the CFL for a great show.


DELTA MARITIME HERITAGE SOCIETY
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday the Delta Maritime Heritage Society held the keel laying ceremony for construction of a replica of the launch that was used by Captain Vancouver in charting the waters of the Pacific northwest 200 years ago. It is the same launch used by Captain Bligh when he sailed to Java after the mutiny on The Bounty.

November 25, 1991

The launch will be built mostly by volunteer labour over the next few months using only hand tools. After completion, it will be sailed by young people in a good will tour through the same areas in the Pacific northwest visited and chartered by Captain Vancouver. This tour will last 22 weeks after which the launch will be used by local groups such as the sea scouts for training purposes and other expeditions.
The Delta Maritime Heritage Society is to be commended and supported for its ambitious and exciting project. Delta residents can be justly proud of being a part of the re-enactment of a significant historical event that coincides with Canada's 125th birthday.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, today a delegation of over 100 prairie farmers is arriving in Ottawa. They are here to talk to members of Parliament about the severity of the crisis in agriculture.
In 1990, 44,000 farm families in Canada went bankrupt or became insolvent. For the same year Canada's total agriculture debt was $22 billion. In my province of Saskatchewan two farm families are forced off the farm every day. This year the total net income for Saskatchewan farmers will decline by 52.9 per cent. The farmers are here this week to try to draw attention to this crisis.
As if the situation were not bad enough, the Prime Minister is adding insult to injury by refusing to meet with this delegation and the Minister of Agriculture is not available. How interesting that they were both readily available when Grant Devine was looking for a bailout at election time.
It is time that this government quit playing politics with the lives of farm families and acted on the escalating crisis.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, since the Oka crisis in the summer of 1990, we
have found out a great deal. It seems that the real reason behind the raising of the barricades in Oka and at the Mercier Bridge was to allow the Warrior Society to take control. There is evidence to prove that, Mr. Speaker, because since those events, Quebec Provincial Police has been unable to proceed with arrests of Mohawks guilty of criminal offences-more than 400 warrants have been issued by the courts-because they are protected by the bands.
The RCMP tells us that cigarette smuggling operations by the Mohawks are costing the government more than $350 million in taxes and that members of the RCMP were attacked by Mohawks on the weekend just because they were doing their job.
We are told that Hydro-Quebec for instance, cannot cut off power to the Mohawks as it does in the case of white people who don't pay their hydro bills, because of fear of attacks and retaliation. Today we are told by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service that the Mohawk Warrior Society maintains contacts with extremist groups and is extending its influence in Quebec and Ontario.
It is time governments tooks a firm line and cleaned up these autocratic Mohawk societies. We cannot have a double standard in this country. The security and integrity of our justice system must prevail.


CAPE BRETON ECONOMY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Sydney, Nova Scotia, more than 3,500 people marched through the streets to express their concern over the lack of employment opportunities on Cape Breton Island.
In 1984 this government promised jobs, jobs, jobs. In 1988 it held forth free trade as the salvation of Atlantic Canada. Instead, Cape Breton has experienced massive lay-offs, rising unemployment rates, anger and despair with government initiatives.

November 25, 1991
Sadly our young people are leaving in record numbers simply because there are no jobs. The government must realize that thousands in Cape Breton are suffering and will continue to suffer this winter because of unemployment. It must stop funding fly by night entrepreneurs and give Cape Bretoners the tools to do the job.
Instead of that the president of ACOA is saying the reason Cape Breton has not been revitalized economically is that it has bad weather and its illiteracy rate is 10 per cent higher than the national average.
When is it going to stop this embarrassing and disgraceful method of trying to cover itself and do something concrete to help the economy in Cape Breton?


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Garth Tbrner (Halton -Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes Question Period will begin and, if the opposition party leaders are true to the pattern they have established every day Parliament has sat for the month, they will rise to talk about how bad the national economy is, how many people are out of work, and how it is all the fault of the government. It is almost like they take a lot of enjoyment from economic misery because all this negativity hurts the party in power.
I would like to remind the opposition leaders that they too have responsibilities. Today mortgage rates are about the lowest they have been in two decades. The prime rate is at a 13-year low. Inflation is well under control and within three years Canada will no longer have a deficit. That is good news to be sure. But what we are missing is the spark that will re-ignite the economy. That is consumer confidence.
I call upon the opposition leaders to help inspire that confidence by ending their daily negative and partisan dumping on Canada.


THE GREY CUP
Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend congratulations to the winner of the 1991 Grey Cup, the Toronto Argonauts.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Derek Vincent Lee: In a tradition which began in 1909 with the donation of the cup by Earl Grey, Canadians gathered in Winnipeg yesterday to play out this modern sports spectacle. Tribute is due to the winning Argonaut juggernaut that brings the Grey Cup back to Toronto for the first time since 1983.
Congratulations are in order as well to the Calgary Stampeders and to the management of both teams. It is worth noting that it was the city of Calgary that initiated the Grey Cup Week celebrations in 1948 and which continue to be a part of the excitement and vitality of Canadian football.
Toronto looks forward to keeping the Grey Cup in Toronto for a while and looks forward to next year's challenge.



Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, when Toronto lost its Olympic bid it also lost much of its self-confidence.
Since then the poverty which those who opposed the Olympics wanted addressed has actually increased rather than decreased because Toronto not only lost its selfconfidence but its business and consumer confidence as well.
With its Grey Cup win yesterday, the Rocket Matt Dunigan and the rest of the Argonaut crew have given Toronto its pride and self-confidence back. That victory means much more than just a national football championship, because if a little guy playing a big man's game and another man playing with a broken collarbone can win it all, there is no reason why the rest of us with that same spirit and determination cannot get both Toronto and Canada moving again.
Thank you, Argos.


GREAT WHALE PROJECT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, one of Canada's leading scientists, Dr. David Schindler, has blown the whistle on the Great Whale hydroelectric project.
November 25, 1991

Dr. Schindler warns that Great Whale could contribute more to global warming over several decades than would be contributed by generating the same amount of power by burning fossil fuels.
In Geneva one year ago Canada committed to stabilize our total contribution of greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by the year 2000. This goal is far below the unanimous all-party report of this Parliament, Out of Balance, which calls on Canada to reduce by 20 per cent from 1988 levels by the year 2005.
Nevertheless, Ottawa and the Bourassa government can no longer avoid reality. The methane releases from massive projects such as Great Whale pose a real measurable threat to global climate.
Dr. Amoiy Lovins calculates that as much energy can be saved on the Island of Montreal through energy efficiency and conservation as would be produced by Great Whale. This would create thousands of permanent jobs and small businesses.
The truth about Great Whale is out. It is an atmospheric disaster.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, now that the final statistics are available for the 1991 Atlantic salmon season, we can see starkly that it was one of the worst on record.
Compounding the conservation dilemma has been an ever increasing demand upon the resource by anglers, commercial fishermen and the aboriginal food fishery alike. Indiscriminate harvesting by gill-nets has added another perilous dimension.
Clearly there is a compelling need to redefine our vision for the use and management of this great resource and, above all other considerations, to ensure its conservation and survival.
Especially in New Brunswick the situation has become critical, and commendably the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has already committed to a planning conference among all user groups for the salmon's future. The timing for such a conference is also critical if it is to have any effective impact on next year's season which will be upon us all too soon.
I urge the minister to convene this conservation conference as quickly as possible.


CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, the government has just signed a pact with the Leader of the Liberal Party to submit its constitutional proposals to a Canada-wide referendum. The purpose of this manoeuvre is to divest the National Assembly and the Government of Quebec of one of their basic prerogatives, which is to organize the referendum by which Quebecers will decide their future.
The future and destiny of Quebec will be decided in Quebec, by Quebecers and under the aegis of our own democratic system! Quebec will not countenance a federalist Canada-wide campaign in which Ottawa will manipulate the question and make the rules. Six members and one Tory minister have already shown they have the guts to fight this decision. Quebec is waiting to see what the rest will do.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today on the occasion of International Day to End Violence Against Women.
Violence against women may be the most pervasive yet least recognized human rights violation. It is a problem common to virtually all countries, cultures and classes. However until recently it received little international attention.
I am proud to advise the House that Canada is one of the leading nations addressing the problem. Earlier this month at the United Nations in Vienna Canada sponsored a meeting of international experts to consider means to eliminate violence against women. The meeting strongly recommended that the UN adopt a declaration on violence against women to set out measures to address the problem.
I can assure the House that Canada will continue to take a leadership role internationally to develop measures to counter this pervasive problem in order to ensure that women are able to live free from fear and violence.

November 25, 1991
Oral Questions


ARTS AND CULTURE
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, Quebec's cultural community is greatly disturbed by the Arpin report recommendations that the Canadian government should withdraw from the cultural sector. People in the film, television and publishing industries, including producers, directors, technicians and authors of books, films and videos, with their colleagues in the recording industry, as well as many members of the Union des artistes, totally disagree with this approach.
The arts community in Quebec is well-known here and abroad. Its creative spirit and talent reflect the diversity of our society. However, the vast majority of its members recognize the fact that their energy and enthusiasm would no longer be the same without the financial contribution and the sustained and indeed necessary support of the Canadian government.
That is why I hope members of this House and members of the arts community will explain to others the advantages of the federal government's contribution to arts and culture and urge the government to maintain its contribution intact.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the media reported that the government might be considering a fee to be paid by returning Canadians at the border. My immediate and public reaction was: Over my dead body.
I wrote a letter to the Minister of Finance to that effect. The minister knew of my strong opposition to such a surtax. We do not need a fee which will unduly increase the workload of our customs officers and run counter to our efforts to move the traffic at the border. What we need are initiatives to address the underlying causes of our uncompetitiveness, federal measures that complement and supplement those which need to be undertaken by the private sector and our provincial counterparts.
For a few weeks the minister made me sweat it out. I could not sleep at night. I was on the edge of my seat. My wife said I was more irritable than usual.
Finally last week I met with the Minister of Finance. At the meeting the minister gave me his assurances that the federal government would not proceed with this cross-border levy.
On behalf of my friends, my family, my staff and my constituents the message to the Minister of Finance is thank you: "Thank you, Mr. Minister, for this breath of life and this momentary peace of mind".



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Two years ago, all parties in this House supported a resolution to eliminate child poverty in Canada, and for two years the government has done nothing about this terrible situation. Today, the number of children living below the poverty line in Canada is greater than the entire population of Nova Scotia or Saskatchewan. These children are Canada's future. Does the government intend to act and do something about a problem as the House of Commons had asked it to do two years ago?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think it was reported recently that I was about to make a major statement on poverty in general, and more specifically on children. This may include both children at risk and other child-oriented issues. However, the Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that this is above all a matter under provincial jurisdiction. Perhaps he could ask the hon. member for Hamilton East. I imagine her leader would care to listen, and if she would have the decency to listen when we are talking about children, she might understand these issues.
November 25, 1991


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the minister.
In the last election the government made a very clear promise to have a national child care program. As I said earlier, the population and the children who live in poverty in Canada would fill the Toronto SkyDome 200 times.
We read in the paper this morning that the government is waiting to introduce this program at a time when it will be closer to an election. These children cannot wait for an election, they have a problem right now.
I want to know from the minister when this promised program will be introduced. It has been three years, almost to the day since the election was held.
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said. I said it has nothing to do with the election. Before January we should be able to produce a strategy for children, having in mind what has to be countered in a program for children today, particularly sexual abuse, children's place in the family, violence and so on.
I also said we will consider the question of child care. The Leader of the Opposition was told yesterday by specialists that we should not spend money we do not have. That is the first reason for poverty.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday that it is possible to have prosperity in Canada and to make sure at the same time that it is possible to keep the people of Canada and the poor in dignity. This is what we learned yesterday.
I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Four thousand people in Cape Breton took to the streets to try to save the economy of their region. They do not want any more of these fly-by-night operators who come in, get money from the government and then go with the cash and do not leave any jobs behind.
Oral Questions
I want to know from the Minister of Finance when we can make sure that the people of this part of Canada, who were protesting over the weekend, will get what they want, jobs. They do not want handouts, they want dignity, jobs, and they are waiting for this government to act accordingly.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to congratulate the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his party for entering the real world of global reality. I followed to some extent the discussions that went on with his senior people who were talking about the future.
Globalization is a fact of life. Canada is a part of the global economy and it is necessary for us to get our fiscal house in order. It is necessary for us to make the structural adjustments and changes, be it in tax reform, be it in trade policy, be it in implementing a GST, which replaces the old federal sales tax which was a silent killer of jobs, be it the free trade agreement. These are the kinds of initiatives that will bring about long-term prosperity and economic durability and that is the policy of the government.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in eastern Nova Scotia thousands of people participated in a march of concern to draw attention to a national crisis of unemployment in Cape Breton and the horrendous number of welfare claimants.
Jobs and dignity were their slogan. Now, on their behalf, I ask the government for the government's assistance. Will the Minister of Finance direct senior officials of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to meet with municipalities, business and labour to put in place an emergency employment program for Canadians who reside in that region of the country.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for ACOA is in the Atlantic region every weekend if not every week. He meets with interest groups, he meets with people who are interested in new job opportunities, new economic opportunities and he is there to lend a helping hand.

Oral Questions
If the hon. member has any specific suggestions to advance to the hon. minister responsible I would be pleased to convey that to him.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that the unemployment situation in Cape Breton is a national crisis.
People have lost their dignity and families believe the future is extremely bleak. But Cape Bretoners, as Canadians in that region, have not lost the hope that they can make a meaningful contribution to Canadian society.
Therefore, I ask the Minister of Finance if he, in co-operation with the minister responsible for ACOA, will order their federal agencies, CEIC, Enterprise Cape Breton and ACOA to meet with business, labour and municipal representatives to put in place and implement a plan before we adjourn this House at Christmas. Will the Minister of Finance give that undertaking?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no need to give any orders to that effect to officials of ACOA or to officials of these other departments because they already know what the task is. The effort to create employment and jobs in Cape Breton has doubled since 1984. The amount of money spent in overcoming regional disparity has gone up by a tremendous amount.
In Cape Breton, for example, since the ACOA program started, the authorized contributions to economic development have been $75 million and $253 million has resulted in project costs. Extraordinary efforts have been made through Enterprise Cape Breton and in other directions in Cape Breton.
Very often we hear criticisms that we are taking too many chances down in Cape Breton and not the reverse.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who will be meeting with a large delegation of prairie farm leaders tomorrow, leaders who are here not only because
farmers have no money but because they face a debt problem of Third World proportions as well.
Since 1982, the value of farm assets on the prairies has fallen by $20 billion. Prairie farm debt stands at $12 billion, with no income to cover it. Since over 24,000 prairie farmers went bankrupt or became insolvent last year, will the minister stop this devastation of the farm community by placing a moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures immediately?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very much aware of the trade war that is going on wherein farmers in Canada find themselves in a squeeze.
We have responded not only this year but in previous years. There was a poll that reflected that fact this week where over 90 per cent of the farmers that were surveyed indicated that they are only in business today because of the support that has been given to them by the Government of Canada. That is continuing.
In so far as his suggestion about placing a moratorium on the Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures is concerned, we have a process in place through the Farm Debt Review Board which I think has worked very satisfactorily. It has not been perfect but it has provided a mediation approach where farmers can sit down and work out their credit difficulties with independent people serving as arbitrators. I think that process has worked very well because to provide a moratorium has consequences as well.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
I know the government has dished out a lot of money and I know that a blizzard of discussion is going on but the truth is that at the same time the FCC is out there like the grim reaper, mowing down farm families right across the prairies.
Will the minister do what the Agriculture Credit Corporation in Saskatchewan has done and announce an immediate freeze on all FCC foreclosure actions so that there will be some farmers left when this farm crisis is finally resolved.
November 25, 1991


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has any examples of unjustifiable actions taken by the Farm Credit Corporation against farmers, I wish he would bring them to my attention or the attention of the Minister of Agriculture because I am sure he would be very interested and we could certainly deal with those issues.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. Since two farm families are forced off the land every day, the system is not working. A much larger and long-term solution needs to be found.
The Government of Saskatchewan will be attempting to formulate a solution and will be inviting the federal government as well as the private financial institutions to meet together to work out a better long-term solution. Can I get a commitment from this government to fully co-operate in that effort so that we can find a long-term solution to the farm debt and to the whole question of the intergenerational transfer of land?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware, I am sure, of the debate which took place earlier in the House. We have established the GRIP program and the NISA program, the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan and the Net Income Stabilization Account which is broad legislation that not only provides assistance today but down the road. It will provide stabilization for the future. This is a long-term approach to providing support and stability to the agricultural community.
I think the hon. member, who tends to criticize that particular approach, would do well to review that particular program and its effectiveness because even now as I speak money is flowing to the farmers under the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan as well as the Net Income Stabilization Account. In addition to that, $600 million plus in emergency financial assistance was provided this spring, plus another $800 million worth of emergency assistance was provided this fall which is in the process of being distributed before Christmas.
Oral Questions
Surely, Mr. Speaker, we have in place the permanent types of programs as well as the ad hoc programs to help farmers in this time of need.


OCCUPATION OF CANADIAN EMBASSY IN HAITI
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are worried about the occupation of our embassy in Port-au-Prince which has been going on for days.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why, after a week, the government has been unable to take control of the situation. Why not ask for the help of a third party, such as the churches or international organizations, in putting an end to this occupation?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, there really has been no change in the situation. We have said to those who are occupying the Canadian embassy that it would be in their best interests to leave as quickly as possible, as peacefully as possible, so that no harm would come to themselves and no further damage would be done to our embassy. That is a position which has been supported by President Aristide and by the Haitian community in Montreal.
Once again we would say to them: Leave our embassy as quickly as possible.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the situation is becoming ever more confused. The Prime Minister in Paris last week said that the situation is in the process of being resolved in Haiti, that the return of the Aristide government seems to be totally uncertain.
The embassy has been occupied now for over a week. I want to ask the government and the minister, what makes the Prime Minister so optimistic. What kind of additional measures is the government taking to end the occupation? In particular, can the minister tell me if the delegation of the OAS which will be in Port-au-Prince today will undertake to address the stand-off in the Canadian embassy and use their good offices to end this occupation?

November 25, 1991
Oral Questions


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, it has not been a week as yet since the occupation took place. I think the best approach with this type of situation is to send a very clear and unequivocal message to those who are illegally occupying the Canadian embassy that they should leave peacefully and quickly and enable us to return to business as usual.
The delegation which is obviously involved with the OAS has other issues which they are addressing. At this point we continue to maintain the position that those who occupy the embassy should leave.


CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
In the House last Thursday, the government House leader said, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, that he had no information about any referendum legislation.
I wonder whether the minister had a chance to talk to his colleague and whether today he can give this House the assurance that the government will table a bill allowing the government, if it so chooses, to hold a referendum as soon as possible on a constitutional question.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as agreed last week, there will be a meeting of the three House leaders this week to discuss a time table that would allow the government to table legislation to reaffirm-Does the Bloc quebecois want to improve my pronunciation, because I also have a couple of improvements to suggest, for their benefit.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the minister would finish what he was saying. He was interrupted by people who will not tolerate acceptance of any constitutional proposal that would be favourable to Canada. Could the minister give us the assurance that any proposed referendum legislation would provide that if a referendum
were held, it would be on the basis of a double majority: first, a national majority and second, a majority in each region of this country? It would show Bloc quebecois members that there is no reason to get upset and try to scare Quebecers, and that a Canada-wide referendum would allow not only Canadians but also Quebecers to state that they want to stay in Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, last week, the Liberal Party asked whether I was prepared to give guarantees that we could start working on a referendum bill before Christmas. I said that we could make a commitment, that there would be a discussion among the House leaders this week to look at this question. The Liberal Party wanted more, but I said that the government had committed itself to a meeting of the House leaders to discuss how Parliament could pursue the commitment given in the Speech from the Throne. Once again, I want to make it clear that if a national referendum were necessary, this government has no intention of having a decision approved in another part of Canada- of imposing a position on Quebec. That is quite clear.


CHILD CARE
Michael James Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister concerning child poverty and the House's resolution on the matter.
The group called Campaign 2000 announced this morning, in trying to implement that, what they saw as principles. I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister would agree with their version of the obligations of Parliament. Does he agree that the federal government has the paramount responsibility to finance national programs, to maintain national standards and to create a framework with provincial governments for the development and implementation of national strategies to eliminate child poverty?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I said before that we are working first with the provinces concerning child poverty and we will continue to do that.


I refer my friend to the $6.7 billion in programs which we put into the system every year. Moreover, if we consider all the tax credits and all the tax cuts that we have for Canadians it comes to about $15 billion a year. I do not say that it is too much, I say that it is a lot of money and it is done in light of the capacity to have to do that.
We are looking for a package which will allow us to find ways to do more.
Once again I repeat, Canadians have to know that the costs of programs dealing with children and families are one-tenth of the Canadian budget. It is not too much but I believe it is the second highest level in the world.


Michael James Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister.
While the minister is thinking about what he might do, he should be aware that in Halifax, for example, there is an opportunities program run by Bayers-Westwood Family Support Services Association. That program provides much needed child care for some 60 children. Their funding will expire at the end of December. Will the minister give us the commitment today that that one example of parents trying to help themselves and help others work out of the poverty cycle will have its funding extended and that it will be in place and operational in January, and that the funding will not be terminated in December.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, obviously, I cannot make a piecemeal approach commitment in the way my friend would like.
I repeat what I said when answering the Leader of the Opposition, that child care and child poverty refers first to the province of Nova Scotia.
If my friend listens to me, I think he will understand. The member believes that we have the capacity to put $3 billion, $4 billion or $5 billion tomorrow into the child care system in this country. It is not a fact. That is to spend money we do not have. We are trying to harmonize the money we put with the capacity to do that. Child care will be dealt with within the capacity we have to pay.
Oral Questions DAVID MILGAARD


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. We are all still waiting for something positive on the David Milgaard case.
Milgaard, 22 years in jail, still awaits a possible new trial. He waits, his family waits, his lawyers wait, we all wait. All we get is a story that someday the minister will rise in her place and tell us her decision, but that day never seems to come. Is the minister in a position today to announce her decision?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, first of all when I am ready to announce a decision, I will announce it to the applicant and not to Parliament. My relationship is with the applicant and his counsel. His counsel have just been to Ottawa to deal with Department of Justice officials. A number of questions were dealt with at that time. They went back to Winnipeg to consider a number of points and communicated with us in the last few days their views on those points.
I am hopeful that response will enable me to render a decision in the near future. If the hon. member had in fact kept up with the progress of this case, he would not make the comment that he makes in this House.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, the situation is quite unbearable. How long do we have to wait?
I am advised that at the beginning of November Milgaard and his lawyers were advised by the minister or the department that a decision would be forthcoming within two to three weeks.
That time has gone and I think what we are into is mental torture. Why can this minister not end the pain and make her decision now?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that my relationship is with Mr. Milgaard's counsel. That is a relationship that has been fruitful. I am hopeful of being able to render a decision in the veiy near future.

November 25, 1991
Oral Questions
I would point out that unlike comments made by the hon. member, my decision is confined to the evidence before me, not to the speculation of the hon. member.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister responsible for Western Diversification.
Two weeks ago the province of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg expressed jointly their willingness to sign a third core area initiative. This took place at a public meeting held in the poorest neighbourhood in Winnipeg.
The federal government for the first time refused even to send an observer. This is after 10 years of working together.
I ask the minister why this government has refused to help the poor of Winnipeg. Why has it turned its backs on its partners at this time?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the premise of the question, I will certainly undertake to look into the matter and get back to the hon. member as soon as possible.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his response to that question.
In addition, the people of Winnipeg have found themselves in very difficult economic circumstances. At no time in the last five years has this government announced any economic plan to assist the city.
Is it not about time that the minister and the government plan an action and begin to help the people of Winnipeg to revive the economy there?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Western Diversification Program was not a program that was designed to help only the larger cities.
As a matter of fact I am sure that he would be interested in knowing that over 3,000 specific projects have been funded under the western diversification initiative in excess of $1 billion. Many of those were funded in the province of Manitoba and many of those were funded in rural areas. I think the hon. member would recognize the western diversification initiative's
response to initiatives and applications made to it by various entrepreneurs.
I think the record of success is very good. It has been a program that has broadened and expanded the economic base of western Canada. If he would like to have any further information to prove that I would be glad to provide it for him.


GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport.
The minister is aware that while most Canadian ports are underutilized, the Canadian Wheat Board is shipping grain through the U.S. port of Seattle. In addition a Wheat Board official has admitted that the Gulf of Mexico ports are being considered for future transportation.
Does the minister not agree that Canadian grain shipped with Canadian taxpayers' dollars should be shipped through Canadian ports providing Canadian jobs?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the subsidies for grain transportation are for the transportation of grain within the country of Canada and do not apply to shipments going out of Mexico.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The minister will know that the Wheat Board has decided to take 500 grain cars out of the eastern system and reallocate them to the experiment through Seattle, Washington. Yet the port of Thunder Bay, which to this government was so important that it had to legislative the grain handlers back to work, is operating at an under-capacity of 4,000 cars.
Would the minister not agree that it makes more sense to divert those cars back from Seattle, put them in the Canadian system and keep Canadians working?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, the port of Thunder Bay is shipping grain on the routes that they can ship. There are other needs to ship grains out of other ports and the Wheat Board is doing its best to ship the grain for farmers so the farmers get paid.

Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General of Canada.
On the weekend, two RCMP officers were attacked by Mohawks connected to the Kahnawake Warriors and today, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service tells us that this Warrior society has contacts with extremists and is extending its influence in Quebec and Ontario. The minister also knows that these Warriors are involved in conspiracies, crimes and smuggling of all kinds that afflict and discredit the Mohawk people in Canada.
Can the minister tell us what he intends to do now with the help of his provincial counterparts to rid society of these bandits and to restore Canadians' security and the integrity of our justice system?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, my predecessor and I met Mr. Ryan several times and we had important discussions on maintaining order and enforcing the law among the natives.
As a result, I can assure you that law enforcement efforts have indeed been increased. The RCMP is helping the Quebec Police Force to deal with these issues.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, the minister is reading an answer written in advance. The reality is quite different. It is not what the minister would have me believe.
My supplementary question is as follows. The minister knows perfectly well that the situation in the Mohawk communities is untenable and that the RCMP, with the help of the Quebec Police Force, must implement a system to act now so that these troublemakers are arrested as soon as possible.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, when a member submits a question in advance, I prepare an answer.
About that situation, I met with Mr. Ryan several times and I think that we worked so that-
In the long run it will assist in an appropriate conclusion to this unfortunate situation.


POISONOUS SUBSTANCES
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Lead poisoning is the number one health hazard to children, causing permanent brain damage, loss of intelligence and behavioural problems.
Yet, for 240 days the minister has sat on a report telling the government to make limits on lead and mercury in paint six times stricter, just like in the United States.
When will the government stop stalling, put children first and bring in tough new restrictions on lead and mercury in paint?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, the government has stepped in several times in the past. As soon as we were made aware of problems and especially problems caused by lead additives in paint, we stepped in immediately. We sat down with industries that use lead additives in paint and succeeded in making them change their mixture or the way they were using it. That is the way to go about it. It is much better to convince companies to make the necessary changes themselves.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The minister knows that as of January 1 of this year the industry did implement voluntary limits. In fact more than a year ago, in September 1990, the industry asked the minister to ban all lead additives in paint and the minister has not done that.

Oral Questions
The industry wants to remain competitive. It wants to be socially responsible. It wants to protect the health of our children.
Why will the minister not co-operate with the industry and do that?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the answer I gave my colleague in the preceding question. As soon as we became aware of the dangers, we sat down with the companies involved and convinced them to comply voluntarily to improve the situation, thereby eliminating through voluntary compliance the use of lead in paint. I think that it's the results that count, Mr. Speaker, and we have acted as rapidly as possible to adress the matter.


EDUCATION
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The government speaks of enhancing competitiveness, of increasing productivity and of creating a learning culture. Statistics Canada has just reported that tuition fee increases have been of the magnitude of 184 per cent during the last decade in British Columbia, for example, and 139 per cent in New Brunswick. The average is 120 per cent, thereby increasing the student debt load at an incredible rate.
Will the minister admit that as a result of the cutbacks in financial assistance to colleges and universities his government is in fact well on its way to creating a college and university system for the rich only?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that Canada has the second highest per capita expenditure in the OECD for education.
I think collectively between the federal government, the provincial government, industry and individual Canadians something like $50 billion a year is spent on education.
The fact of the matter is that transfers have not been cut. The transfers to provinces are increasing on an ongoing basis; they still are increasing. Established
Programs Financing is increasing now at the rate of more than 3 per cent per year, more than the annualized rate of inflation. Total transfers to the provinces have increased by $12.5 billion since we have come into office.
Clearly it may be a matter of looking at how we can utilize the education system better and get more value for the dollars and the resources that we are providing, rather than just simply saying that we need to spend more money. We do spend, comparatively speaking, the second highest level in the world.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. At the post-secondary level, we are not in second place. Let me refer to a recent release by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants stating that Japan devotes 200 hours per worker per year to manpower training and Sweden 170 hours per year; and Canada 7 hours only. Why does the government refuse to help Canadian workers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would know as well that where Canada's students spend about 180 days a year in the classroom, German students spend about 245, Japanese students over 240. Maybe that is a thing we have to look at as well.
Obviously this is an issue that does not involve laying blame at the doorstep of any one level of government or any one sector in society. It is a matter of dealing with it on a co-operative partnership basis and that is precisely what the prosperity and competitiveness issue is all about.


CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. We just heard that Senator Castonguay has resigned as Joint Chairman of the Committee. Does the minister intend to consult the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party about changes that will now be necessary for the proper conduct of this committee?


f*

Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am sure everyone shares the government's feelings of regret that Senator Castonguay, after a conversation with his doctor, has decided that he is no longer able to continue as Joint Chairman and member of the Joint Committee, in view of the committee's schedule in the coming months. The Steering Committee will meet within the next few days, and of course the decision will be made by the committee. In this connection, the government intends to suggest Senator Gerald Beaudoin as Joint Chairman.


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. There are over 200 people in the Upper Fraser Valley who have been diagnosed with an illness that has been termed the enviro disease or somatically, chemically induced dysfunction syndrome.
As pointed out by my colleague from Fraser Valley East on Friday, this is a matter of urgent concern to the residents of that area. With allegations of chemicals leaking into the aquifer in the Fraser Valley and a clustering of cases in that area, can the Minister of National Health and Welfare inform the House of the actions that he and his department have undertaken to address this serious problem.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have to say first that the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare have been in touch with the local and provincial health officials since early 1990. After a thorough investigation undertaken by the department, we could not conclude that there was any evidence to show that there was an increase of muscle weakness in the Abbotsford population. However, we are continuing to work with the province and we are prepared to offer all the assistance we can to the province of British Columbia to investigate the issue and determine whether there is any other finding that we have not made so far.



Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. With reference to his referendum legislation, the minister just repeated that majorities would be calculated by province or by region. However, we all know that in the absence of a veto for Quebec, the consent of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population is enough to amend the Constitution. Would the minister agree that in that case, the referendum would allow the federal government to impose its own offers on Quebec, even if Quebec turns them down?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not here to respond to the hon. member's assumptions.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, one of the assumptions made recently by the minister was that he would not use the legislation he will ask the House to adopt, which means more or less that he is going to buy a gun, buy the ammunition, put his finger on the trigger but isn't going to shoot. And on top of that, the government has had some Faustian dealings with the Leader of the Official Opposition.
How can the minister expect Quebecers to trust the intentions of a government that has just made a pact with the author of the 1982 conspiracy?


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for CMHC.
Tomorrow in Vancouver the issue of the restructuring of the Quintette coal mine in northeastern B.C. is back in the courts. To date the federal government has instructed CMHC's mortgage companies to vote against the restructuring and yet the department has refused to release the legal opinion for this position.

November 25, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Can the minister tell the House the reason for the government's orders and what direction he has given for the hearing tomorrow?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite has got the facts a little bit twisted. I want to inform him that our agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing, has made every effort to co-operate in the restructuring and possible rehabilitation of the Quintette project.
If he wishes to have further details or wishes to be briefed, I would be only too pleased to do so or have my officials co-operate with him.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, according to a memo from Quintette coal, the fact is that CMHC has been holding up this restructuring. It had planned a meeting this past week with the minister and officials to try and find a positive solution to this problem.
I would like to ask the minister again: what instructions has he given for the hearing tomorrow so at least the jobs of the workers in Thmbler Ridge can be protected so they have some kind of future?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: As I suspected, my colleague has just conceded he has one side of the story only.
The instruction that I have given to Canada Mortgage and Housing is to be helpful and co-operative. We have already made some suggestions and concessions to facilitate, I am sure, the solution that he would like to see.


THE ECONOMY
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Last week the Governor of the Bank of Canada told the finance committee that the bank takes direction from the Department of Finance on exchange rate matters.
Will the minister advise the House if he and the Department of Finance have now given direction to the Bank of Canada to lower the value of the Canadian dollar and if not, why not?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member knows that neither the Government of Canada nor the Bank of Canada has a set target rate for the value of the dollar. The value of the dollar is established in the marketplace and the Bank of Canada intervenes to absorb any erratic fluctuations that may occur from time to time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8) of the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House in both official languages the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association attending the third Strasbourg conference on parliamentary democracy in the annual OECD debate.
Further, I would like the members of this House to know that tomorrow afternoon at 3.30 they have an opportunity to meet the head adviser to the Secretary-General of the OECD who will be paying a visit to the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association specifically to talk about the OECD and what it can do for Canada's youth and for Canada today. It will be at 3.30 tomorrow in 601.



CANADIAN NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.
November 25, 1991

May I add, as my hon. friend from London-Middlesex did to his report, that I would commend this report. It is a very extensive report of the undertakings of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association delegation and I would commend this report to all members of the House and all Canadians.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT

[Stage Direction]
17TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
['The hon. member raises a very important question.', 'Unfortunately, his request does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders and I must rule it out of order.']
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on House Management as per Standing Orders 104 and 114.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House of Commons this afternoon, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

The first petition deals with the tax on reading. The petitioners point out that there has never ever been a tax on reading in this country because of the high priority that we have placed on literacy and education over the years. They deplore the fact that this government should do exactly that.


Ron J. Duhamel: My second petition is with respect to education from Canadians throughout the nation who point out that the government has cut almost a half billion dollars from transfer payments this year. They point out that the government
Routine Proceedings
talks rather eloquently at times about enhanced competitiveness, increased productivity, creating a learning culture, and yet it does things like this. They ask the government to bolster its financial support to colleges and universities to remove this deplorable 3 per cent tax on student loans.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions from Canadians across this country which ask the Canadian government to be aware of the fact that 94 per cent of Croatians had voted in April of 1990 in favour of independence.
Right now they are being invaded by an undemocratic army, controlled by the Serbians, and therefore they ask this government to recognize the independence of Croatia.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting another petition signed by hundreds of people in Annapolis County, Digby County and others who are concerned about the status of Canadian Forces Base Cornwallis. They want to remind the government that Cornwallis has first-rate facilities which could easily accommodate any new duty in addition to recruit training that the Department of National Defence might require.
Included in this would be the proposal that is presently before the people on peacekeeping as well as reserves, militia and anything that this government might want to do to keep the 500 or more civilian jobs and over $64 million in the area.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from British Columbia, primarily Fort Nelson, who point out their concern with a plan by a Vancouver firm to proceed with a proposal to dam the North Thompson River at Valemount, British Columbia in order to divert some of the river water into the San Diego, California area.

November 25, 1991
Routine Proceedings
This is part of an over-all diversion plan known as NAWAPA, North America Water and Power Alliance. They are simply asking the Canadian government to state categorically that our freshwater rivers will not be dammed and diverted in whole or in part to the United States under any circumstances.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another matter, again from constituents from Kamloops, Penticton, Prince George, Cash Creek, Surrey, British Columbia and Nutsburg, B.C., they point out their concern about what they perceive to be an increasing level of lawlessness and the need to have more support than ever for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to enable it to fulfil its mandate.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Questions Nos. 128 and 140 will be answered today.


Mrs. Gaffney: Between September 27, 1991 and October 1, 1991, how much money did the government spend on newspaper advertisements across Canada which outlined its offer to the Public Service Alliance of Canada?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Treasury Board Secretariat is waiting for an invoice on the cost of advertising the government's wage offer to the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Secretariat officials have been advised, however, that the total cost is expected to be $245,893.


Mrs. Gaffney: How much money in total did the government spend on newspaper advertisements across Canada which outlined its offer to the Public Service Alliance of Canada (a) during the strike and (b) once back-to-work legislation was passed?


Gilles Loiselle: Treasury Board Secretariat is waiting for an invoice on the cost of advertising the government's wage offer to the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Secretariat officials have been advised, however, that the cost is expected to be $245,893.
Almost all of the advertising took place during the strike. However, a few newspapers carried the ad on the Thursday and Friday after the legislation was passed because it was not possible to cancel it on short notice.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the other questions stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall the other questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, late last week one of my colleagues made a specific request of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader with regard to Question 138.1 wonder if the parliamentary secretary is in a better position today to indicate as to whether those 13 departments are prepared to give their responses before that information can be made available to the House.
Perhaps there has been an update and I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could so inform the House.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the hon. member that I can update him. We are now down from 13 to eight and I hope I can eliminate those eight outstanding departments very quickly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Application under Standing Order 52. The hon. member for Mackenzie.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52 I rise to ask for an emergency debate to bring to the government's attention the urgent need for it to fulfil its promises to alleviate the current Canadian farm crisis.
November 25, 1991

The government knows that at least $1.3 billion is needed to address the farm net income shortfall resulting from the continuing decline in net farm incomes.
Last month it agreed to provide 60 per cent of this minimum requirement in the form of an $800 million aid package.
Farmers already in crisis learned this week that the $800 million commitment was somewhat diluted by being divided into two equal parts, $400 million transferred from the unused allocation for the gulf war and $400 million in the next fiscal year for a new requirement on corporate taxpayers to submit one-half of income tax funds in dispute. The second half of the government's commitment is being postponed until the next fiscal year.
On top of this, last Friday farmers learned that an 11 per cent cut had been made to the funds promised for this year. Only $356.2 million of the $400 million promised was transferred in the supplementary estimates that were tabled on Friday. The government may not fully understand the gravity of the situation facing Canadian farm communities or the critical need for it to provide all the funds promised. Urgent action is required. There is little time for the government to reverse the erosion of its aid package and provide new supplementary estimates.
I submit an emergency debate would provide the most timely and effective means for this House to bring the concerns of Canada's farm communities to the attention of those with the means and the responsibility to address them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member raises a very important question.

Unfortunately, his request does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders and I must rule it out of order.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-4, an act to revise and amend the law governing federal trust and
Government Orders
loan companies and to provide for related and consequential matters, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance.
Hon. William C. Winegard (for the Minister of State for Finance) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 2 by striking out line 14 on page 4 and substituting the following:
"des valeurs mobilieres ou encore, de toute".
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 2 by striking out line 27 on page 6 and substituting the following:
"mees ou signee de tous les actionnaires".
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 10 by striking out line 4 on page 13 and substituting the following:
"des droits de votes attaches a Tensemble des".
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the English version of Clause 10 by striking out line 28 on page 14 and substituting the following:
"standing voting shares of the body corporate,".
Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 37 by striking out line 32 on page 23 and substituting the following:
"societe etait obligee, a la date de la".
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 41 by striking out line 11 on page 26 and substituting the following:
"existant ou qui Iui est similaire, selon le".
Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 68 by striking out line 16 on page 38 and substituting the following:
"l'approbation du surintendant, en biens."
Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 124 by striking out line 44 on page 64 and substituting the following:
"ferts ou nantissements de la meme valeur".
Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 167 by striking out line 33 on page 84 and substituting the following:
"societe, lors de leur election a".
Motion No. 19.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 167 by striking out line 41 on page 84 and substituting the following:
"tive de toutes les actions avec droit de vote de la societfe, a".

November 25, 1991
Government Orders
Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the English version of Clause 172 by striking out line 12 on page 88 and substituting the following:
"outstanding, other than directors' qualify-".
Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 172 by striking out line 14 on page 88 and substituting the following:
"actionnaires sont".
Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 175 by striking out lines 17 and 18 on page 90 and substituting the following:
"pourvoir aux postes encore vacants dans les cas d'application de 1' alinea 174(4)a), soit d'elire un nouveau conseil d'administration dans les cas d'application des paragraphes 174(1) ou (2) ou de l'alinea 174(4)b)."
Motion No. 27.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the English version of Clause 187 by striking out line 40 on page 94 and substituting the following:
"munications facilities, the business".
Motion No. 32.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 232:
(a)	by striking out lines 35 and 36 on page 115 and substituting the following:
"issue de la fusion seront identiques a Facte constitutif et aux reglements administratifs de la societe mere,";
(b)	by striking out lines 15 and 16 on page 116 and substituting the following:
"issue de la fusion seront identiques a l'acte constitutif et aux rfeglements administratifs de la societe fusionnante dont les".
Motion No. 35.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 241 by striking out line 29 on page 121 and substituting the following:
"l'approbation du ministre sauf en cas d'annu-".
Motion No. 37.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 266 by striking out line 32 on page 133 and substituting the following:
"dique accessible au public les motifs et les".
Motion No. 39.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 284 by striking out line 29 on page 146 and substituting the following:
"b) s'il s'agit de la premiere mise en circulation".
Motion No. 40.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 289 by striking out line 42 on page 149 and substituting the following:
"indirectement, par lui-meme,".
Motion No. 41.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 307 by striking out line 7 on page 157 and substituting the following:
"tions prevues a ces paragraphes;".
Motion No. 44.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the English version of Clause 320 by striking out line 3 on page 164 and substituting the following:
"a company, the company and the firm of".
Motion No. 45.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 321 by striking out lines 25 to 28 on page 164 and substituting the following:
"nal de declarer, par ordonnance, que le verificateur de la societe ne remplit plus les conditions prevues a l'article 320 et que son poste est vacant."
Motion No. 46.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 327 by striking out line 6 on page 167 and substituting the following:
"reponse dans les quinze jours a la demande".
Motion No. 48.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 330:
(a)	by striking out lines 18 to 20 on page 168 and substituting the following:
"surintendant et de lui faire rapport a ce sujet.";
(b)	by striking out lines 29 to 30 on page 168 and substituting the following:
"a ce sujet."
Motion No. 51.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 354 by striking out line 37 on page 178 and substituting the following:
"ou de leurs predecesseurs:".
Motion No. 52.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 354 by striking out line 18 on page 179 and substituting the following:
"les fondateurs, en numeraire ou en biens;".
Motion No. 59.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 416 by striking out line 27 on page 214 and substituting the following:
"d'assurance et de louer ou foumir des".
Motion No. 63.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the English version of Clause 432 by striking out line 11 on page 222 and substituting the following:
"scribed manner and at the prescribed time, to its customers and to the".
Motion No. 64.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the English version of Clause 433:
(a)	by striking out line 23 on page 222 and substituting the following:
"manner and at the prescribed time to the customer in whose name the";
(b)	by striking out line 34 on page 222 and substituting the following:
"scribed manner and at the prescribed time to the customer in whose".
November 25, 1991

Motion No. 65.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 438 by striking out line 6 on page 224 and substituting the following:
"carte de paiement, de credit ou de debit a une per-".
Motion No. 69.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 449 by striking out line 1 on page 235 and substituting the following:
"developpement, a la fabrication et a la vente de materiel".
Motion No. 80.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the English version of Clause 464 by striking out lines 43 and 44 on page 245 and substituting the following:
"acquisition of the interest or the making of the improvement". Motion No. 81.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the English version of Clause 474 by striking out lines 27 to 29 on page 252 and substituting the following:
"controlled" means "controlled, within the meaning of section 3, determined without regard to paragraph 3(l)(d)"."
Motion No. 82.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 484:
(a)	by striking out line 7 on page 259 and substituting the following:
"qu'elle offre au public pourvu qu'elles soient";
(b)	by striking out line 10 on page 259 and substituting the following:
"society peut offrir des services financiers, a";
(c)	by striking out lines 13 to 15 on page 259 and substituting the following:
"moins de dix-huit ans a des conditions plus favorables que celles qu'elle offre au public si elle offre ces services a ses employes aux memes conditions".
Motion No. 83.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 499 by striking out line 3 on page 267 and substituting the following:
"sauf en ce qui a trait aux alineas (l)c) ou d),".
Motion No. 84.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 503 by striking out line 34 on page 268 and substituting the following:
"des institutions financi&res dans le cadre de celle-ci;".
Motion No. 86.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 505 by striking out line 26 on page 269 and substituting the following:
"qu'aux titres detenus par elle;".
Motion No. 87.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the French version of Clause 507:
(a) by striking out lines 12 and 13 on page 270 and substituting the following:
Government Orders
"(2) Sous reserve du paragraphe (3), le surintendant ne peut
imposer l'obliga-";
(b) by striking out line 21 on page 270 and substituting the
following:
"alineas (l)a) et b) pour une periode d'au plus".
Motion No. 89.
That Bill C-4 be amended in the English version of Clause 558 by
striking out line 45 on page 291 and substituting the following:
"each company to which the Trust".


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, this is rather an unusual procedure in a sense, but these particular amendments have been grouped by the Speaker because they are an attempt to make sure that the language in the statute, both French and English, reads the same way.
There are a whole series of very small, minor technical changes designed to make the French correspond to the English and the English correspond to the French so that our statute will read the same when people are reading it, whether they read it in English or French.
I do not see much problem with that but perhaps there is. So I suggest that we move ahead.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, these amendments are technical. It is amending the French or English version of certain parts of the bill so that it is clarified in its several cases and that the French and English have the same meaning. Mr. Speaker, we support these amendments.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I looked at these amendments to Bill C-4 and I want to say that it gives me great comfort and it should give anyone outside of Parliament great comfort to know that all the experts do not reside in the Department of Finance or in the Department of Justice.
To think that after all the experts have looked at Bill C-4, previously Bill C-83, and Bill C-19 they missed things. They missed things in translation and they missed certain language wording. We have no difficulty at all with this group of motions. As the member for Mississauga South has said, they are primarily technical in nature. They deal with making language more concise. Therefore, we have no problems with them.

November 25, 1991
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I will remind all members that a vote on Motion No. 1 will be applied to the remaining 38 motions.
The vote is on Motion No. 1.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The remaining 38 motions are agreed to.
Motions Nos. 5, 53 and 55, standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt are grouped for debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 22 by striking out lines 18 to 22 at page 18.
Motion No. 53.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 375 by adding immediately after line 14 at page 189 the following:
"(2) The Minister may approve only the following acquisitions:
(a)	the acquisition by a person, or entity controlled by a person, of up to 100 per cent of the shares of a company or an entity that holds any share of a company where the company or entity to be acquired holds assets whose total value is less than ten billion dollars;
(b)	the acquisition by a person, or entity controlled by a person, of up to 75 per cent of the shares of a company or an entity that holds any share of a company where the company or entity to be acquired holds assets whose total value is not less than ten billion dollars and not more than twenty billion dollars;
(c)	the acquisition by a person, or entity controlled by a person, of up to 50 per cent of the shares of a company or an entity that holds any share of a company where the company or entity to be acquired holds assets whose total value is not less than twenty billion dollars and not more than thirty billion dollars;
(d)	the acquisition by a person, or entity controlled by a person, of up to 25 per cent of the shares of a company or an entity that holds any share of a company where the company or entity to be acquired holds assets whose total value is not less than thirty billion dollars and not more than forty billion dollars; or
(e)	the acquisition by a person, or entity controlled by a person, of up to 10 per cent of the shares of a company or an entity that
holds any share of a company where the company or entity to be acquired holds assets whose total value exceeds forty billion dollars."-Mr. Rodriguez.
Motion No. 55.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 379:
(a)	by striking out lines 3 to 7 at page 193 and substituting the following therefor:
"379. (1) Evety company acquired in accordance with subsection 375(2) shall, from and after the day determined pursuant to this section in respect of that company, have and continue to have, voting shares that carry
(a)	in the case of a company referred to in paragraph 375(2)(b), 25 per cent,
(b)	in the case of a company referred to in paragraph 375(2)(c), 50 per cent,
(c)	in the case of a company referred to in paragraph 375(2)(d), 75 per cent,
(d)	in the case of a company referred to in paragraph 375(2)(e), 90 per cent,
of the voting rights attached";
(b)	by striking out lines 21 to 34 at page 193 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) For a company described in subsection (1) that is or is not a former-Act company, the day referred to in that subsection is the day that is five years after the day this Part comes into force.";
(c)	by striking out lines 43 to 47 on page 193 and lines 1 and 2 on page 194.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are three motions that are grouped here, Nos. 5, 53 and 55. You have read Motion No. 53. No. 53 is very basic to the position of this party with respect to financial institutions.
Throughout the study and the restructuring of financial institutions, we have held as a basic principle that the wide ownership which now applies to banks is the best hedge against the concentration of power. We wanted that to be extended to all other financial institutions. We have been concerned. There are many Canadians, informed Canadians, who are very concerned about upstream, non-financial ownership.
In other words, we are concerned by the Standard Trusts of this world, financial institutions that are owned and controlled by individuals or companies that have nothing to do with financial institutions. In this particular case, Standard Trust, it was an uranium mining company which owned the financial institution. We now know the problems that have been caused by this ownership.
November 25, 1991

Government Orders
In fact, very informed people such as Mr. Corrigan in the United States, who is very informed on the regulation of financial institutions, has recommended strongly that we ought to keep the commercial and financial operations separate.
We know that in fact the whole matter becomes very involved when you have relationships at the top where decisions for the owning company affect the assets of the financial institution.
We believe that it is the best way to prevent any kind of less than arm's length relationships. We have also provided, in Bill C-5, an amendment which we believe is important in that the government, in the Bank Act, and in Bill C-4 said that governments ought not to establish banks.
The federal government is prohibited from starting a bank. I want to say that this certainly reveals a medieval view of the state. To actually prevent the federal state from starting a bank, it seems to me is to cut out the option of the ownership by people of a banking or a financial institution.
Provincial governments in Canada do own trust and loans companies. Right here on the Sparks Street Mall there is the Ontario government's Provincial Savings and Loans. In Alberta and in other provinces they own savings and loans companies.
Yet we have a federal law which actually forbids the federal government from starting a bank, a financial institution. It was rather interesting when I raised this matter in the committee. I pointed out that it seemed to me rather medieval that the federal government would not be allowed to own a bank.
The representative from the finance department told me in the committee that one of the problems with the federal government owning a bank is that it would not be widely held. It would not be widely held?
If you think, Mr. Speaker, that it would not be widely held, suggesting that the ownership by the people of Canada of a bank-it is not a widely held bank-it seems to me is kind of out of this world.
I have problems with that and that is why I have proposed an amendment to the act to allow the Government of Canada, if at any time it decides that it wanted to start a bank, that it could do so. I have no problem with that at all.
Motion No. 55 is really consistent with Motion No. 53, which was the sliding scale of ownership. I did not pull that out of a hat. That was the recommendation of the finance committee of this House when the member for Mississauga South was chairman. It was a green paper recommendation. It was a recommendation stating that if Canada Trust wanted to grow and become a bank, when its assets reach $40 billion it could become a bank but it had to observe the wide ownership provision of banks.
My motion simply takes that sliding scale and applies it. At that time the finance committee felt that was the solution, that was the way to go. Apparently the players in the field do not like that solution. Since Bill C-4 and all the others that go with it, Bill C-19, Bill C-28 and Bill C-34, are inter-related, I have been told that this is a done deal. I have been told that in fact it does not matter what members of Parliament think is important for the ownership of financial institutions in this country; what is more important is what the financial institutions themselves think.


An hon. member:: Who is running the show?


John R. Rodriguez: The member asks: "Who is running the
show?"


An hon. member:: The banks write the Bank Act. That
is why.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. The member for Mississauga South was famous for saying in the committee: "Look, guys, you don't need to spend a lot of time on this thing, you know. This is a done deal so there is nothing you can change here. You have to accept it".


An hon. member:: Blenkie did not say that, did he?


John R. Rodriguez: He certainly did, he certainly did. He is a person, I have always said, who was an individual thinker. It did not matter what his government said on the other side. If the member for Mississauga South thought it was wrong and another proposal was the right thing, he would stand up and say so. What a pussycat he has turned out to be, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker. I want to know who is pulling his chain. He goes to speak at the insurance companies' dinners and he gets the line from them. Then he goes over and hob-nobs with the bankers.

November 25, 1991
Government Orders


An hon. member:: He is going to the Bank of Nova Scotia with Wilson.


John R. Rodriguez: The question that occurs to my mind is: Is he headed for the Bank of Nova Scotia as well? I do not know. President and chief operating officer of the Royal Bank, for a royalist that is the place to go.
We raise these concerns about the wide ownership. Wide ownership of financial institutions is the best regulatory control we can have. The reason is that the ownership is not concentrated. We wanted to make sure that that wide ownership also applied where families were concerned.
For example, we can have a father owning 10 per cent of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and his 21-year old son could own 10 per cent. They say that is fine as long as they do not collaborate. What if they live in the same house? It is fine as long as they do not collaborate, whatever that means, as long as they do not talk about financial matters. We had Sine Stevens in this House at one time. He was a minister. His wife was his blind trust. I know love is blind, but I want to tell the House that wide ownership of financial institutions is very important. We have injected that into this bill with Motions Nos. 53 and 55. Motion No. 5 allows the Government of Canada to establish a bank.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Motions Nos. 5, 53 and 55.
Motion No. 5 is an amendment restricting federally incorporated trust companies. I have to say that in committee we had over 100 witnesses for this financial institution legislation. I did not hear one witness request this. We did not have any requests from a provincial government or from consumer groups. In other words, nobody stepped forward and argued in favour of such a provision.
In the absence of any public demand or anyone asking for this amendment, I will be voting against it.
Furthermore, if a provincial government wants to get into the financial service sector it can start a provincial trust company as they have done in Ontario and Alberta.
Finally, there is another point that I want to make. Allowing a province to own a federal financial institution that would be regulated by Ottawa could cause some very serious problems in the federal-provincial relationship.
For those reasons, I will be voting against Motion No. 5.
Motions No. 53 and 55 have been proposed by the New Democratic Party. The member has mentioned that he has put this forward because he is concerned that relations at the top may affect the assets of financial institutions.
I think the improved legislation that we have before us today deals with and addresses the concerns that the member has about self-dealing. This legislation, C-4, contains the 35 per cent rule for companies. That means that 35 per cent of the trust company has to be publicly owned if it has over $750 million in capital. There is a ban on self-dealing. There are audit committees. There are conduct review committees. These are some of the measures that are in this legislation to eliminate selfdealing.
I feel the concerns are taken care of in C-4. The Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the chairman of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation are two people who are extremely knowledgeable in this area and have indicated that this amendment is not necessary.
In Canada we have a mixed regime of closely held and _ widely held financial institutions. I think that mix has ' served us well over the years. The Canadian government has not had to spend one dollar bailing out uninsured depositors of a closely held financial institution.
On the contrary, Ottawa spent $1 billion as a result of the failure of the widely held Canada Commercial Bank.
I repeat that there is really no evidence to show that one form of ownership is better than another.
A final point I want to make is that it allows smaller companies to be closely held but it requires them, as they get larger, to become more widely held. If you look back in history it is mainly the smaller companies trying to break into the market that fail and not the large ones.
November 25, 1991

If you have a concern about self-dealing and shady practices and you look back at history, the amendment really should be reversed to protect the small companies that need it the most.
We will vote against these amendments for reasons that I have outlined.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker,
I am a bit surprised that these amendments are grouped because the first amendment does not bear on amendments 53 and 55. They are grouped by the Speaker so we will deal with them that way.
First, with respect to Motion No. 5, there is some misunderstanding by my friend from Nickel Belt. The situation is that a provincial government can incorporate a provincial trust company to operate within the province. Presumably, that company can make arrangements to be a commercial operation in other provinces by arrangements with those provinces. They have their own inspection system. This is not to control provincial governments. Surely we cannot expect the provincial government to incorporate a trust company under the provisions of the federal loan and trust act.
If people in the province want to incorporate a trust company federally they can under this statute or they can go to their province and incorporate a provincial trust company. We cannot have a situation where the provincial Crown is making itself subject to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions on a national basis. In that regard, we run into all sorts of problems.
This amendment has to be rethought. As far as the federal government is concerned, of course it can incorporate banks if it wants to have banks. The federal government incorporated the Bank of Canada and the FBDB for small business loans. It can incorporate federal institutions to handle banking arrangements, but those banks owned by the federal government would not be subject to this particular Trust Companies Act. This act is designed to handle and regulate businesses owned by the private sector. It is not designed in any way to be involved with state ownerships. I believe that the amendment is ill-founded.
With respect to Motions Nos. 53 and 55, my friend has brought up a provision that was touted by the Standing Committee on Finance in its report of November 1985.
Government Orders
That was a very well reasoned report which was used as a basis for argument as to how we as a country would solve the conflict between wide ownership that was said to be "the be all and end all" of all kinds of supervisory problems by such people as the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the chairman of the Canadian Bankers Association. That was the position taken by the Bank of Nova Scotia as my friend knows, having had a lot of experience with that bank as a banker. That was not necessarily the position taken by others. When the matter of financial institutions was reported in the green paper report by the Senate, they came out with a different regime. They came out with a regime which is similar to that now in the legislation and that was the 35 per cent market openness regime.
When a company gets $750,000 in paid-in capital or surplus, it has grown to the point where it ought to be widely held. Once 65 per cent of the corporation is narrowly held, 35 per cent must be raised in the marketplace.
It has been reasonably well considered by the banking institutions in the country, by the trust companies and by people in the insurance field. While I may have had, as chairman of the finance committee making a report in 1985, a feeling that perhaps a graduated system of ownership that applied to foreign corporations as well as domestic corporations would have been an excellent solution, in the wisdom of time and in the course of debate around the country, because this matter has been debated in one forum after another, whether it has been a private group of people in financial institutions getting together and having a seminar on the issue, or however, it has been debated and debated and debated, and what we have here is a solution that I think is reasonably acceptable.
My friend raised the Standard Trust Company, but the Standard Trust Company at no time ever had anything close to $750 million of paid-in capital. If it had $750 million in paid-in capital, it would never have failed. The trouble was that the Standard Trust Company was a pretty small trust company. It failed because it did not have the capital wherewithal to get it together. Perhaps my friend will say: "Well you should have wide ownership", but I want to point out to this House that most institutions that are now widely held, institutions like the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and the Royal Bank, were at one time fairly narrowly held. The Bank of

November 25, 1991
Government Orders
Montreal, very narrowly held. What we have here is a situation in our country where the big widely-held organizations are today widely held, but at one time were not.
I believe, and I believe the people who have looked at this whole matter across this country believe, that the current proposals that are in the bill that require wide ownership after you pass the $750 million paid-in capital threshold is the best proposal that could come forward at this time.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words in support of Motion No. 5, specifically clause 22 of Bill C-4.
This amendment would remove the prohibition in the bill against the incorporation of a company by Her Majesty in right of Canada or in right of a province or an agency thereof.
In this country we seem to be almost horrified at the prospect of the government being in the commercial banking business. There seems to be a widely-held view, particularly on the political right, that governments cannot in any way efficiently operate a banking system, or at least a bank.
I do not know how this has come about. I do not know whether it is influenced from the United States or whether it is our own ingrown thinking processes. But one only has to take a look at, for example, banks in France or Germany or Italy, not all of which are state-owned or nationalized. Certainly in France, for example, many of which were just recently nationalized, not under a socialist government. It was begun even before Francois Mitterrand became president. But, nonetheless, they were nationalized. As far as I know, and I admit I am not an expert in the field of banking, the French economy is not on the skids because the major banks in that country are state-owned. That is not the reason why the French economy may be on the verge of a recession today, for example. There are many other reasons.
In Canada we do have at the federal level the Federal Business Development Bank. It is called a bank but it is really only a half-bank or a near-bank or a watered-down kind of bank, because it is not allowed to receive deposits and it is not allowed to enter into many other activities that the chartered banks enter into in their daily course of business.
Originally the FBDB, which was set up in the mid-1970s, was a bank to extend credit where primarily the private banks or the chartered banks were afraid to go. They did not want to take on unnecessarily high risks so the FBDB was there if you had certain assets or, if it had some faith in the borrower, it could charge a higher interest rate and it would lend money. I think it has to be in excess of $250,000, which is unfortunate. We all have constituents in this country who come to us from time to time wanting to start a small business. But the commercial banks or the chartered banks refuse to extend small loans to them in the amount of maybe $50,000 or $75,000. We send our constituents to the FBDB and they are told they can lend them nothing less than $200,000 or $250,000. Of course, for an entrepreneur just starting out with very limited assets and capital, that amount of money is horrendous in his or her imagination and planning. Then they come back to the Member of Parliament and say: "Well, thanks very much but I was turned down, not because I asked for too much but because I asked for too little", or perhaps for some other reasons.
I do not know why, in a bill such as C-4, we should deliberately prevent the Government of Canada, or any subsequent Government of Canada, from going into the commercial banking business. I do not know what the reason is. Is there tremendous opposition from the chartered banks at the present time, and they want it both ways? They do not want the Canadian government to be in the banking business. They want to control it, but they also want to make absolutely certain that some of these riskier individuals are not allowed to borrow small sums of money for business ventures.
I do not know what their motives are. I have not talked to the banks or any bankers recently about this. It seems to me that the FBDB as it is presently chartered is damned if it does or damned if it does not. For example, if the FBDB makes good loans, the Canadian Banking Association will accuse it of straying away from its mandate as the lender of last resort and steal the business in the process from the private banks. They will also claim that the bank is an unfair competitor because of its cut rate loans, if the loans are made at lower than commercial rates. Incidentally, this is a claim that is unfounded at the present time.

The FBDB is only an unfair competitor to loan sharks because it has been systematically lending at rates varying from 1 per cent to 3 per cent above normal rates. That is one need that the FBDB may fulfil at the present time. But I would like to see the federal government, through this bill, have the opportunity at some future date, if not at the present time, to revamp the FBDB to make it a national bank, a government bank, competing with the private banks. Perhaps it could keep the private banks or the commercial banks or the chartered banks just a little more honest. Maybe it could make them a little more competitive. I do not know today whether or not the banks are competitive. You go to four banks on four different street corners and you are going to get virtually the same interest rates on deposits and moneys borrowed. I do not see where the competition is, quite frankly. I do not know where the choice is. You talk about freedom of choice in this country as part of the right wing agenda. I do not know where the choice is in interest rates, quite frankly. They are minuscule, if they are there at all.
What I would like to see is a bank that goes where no other banks have gone before: in the small loans field, where we are at least willing to take a risk. We have a government that wants to promote small enterprise, small entrepreneurship in this country, and yet these days every conceivable obstacle is put in the way of people going into business. We have very high bank rates. We have banks that demand that you have so much collateral to begin with so they can grab it if you go down. They want collateral to the point where if a business did have that collateral, it would not have to go to the bank in the first place to borrow the money. It is this kind of ridiculous situation that I think we have to try to reform and change.
I am supporting this amendment under Motion No. 5. I hope that the government will come to its senses and at least make provision for this government or subsequent governments to expand public banking in this country.
I see nothing wrong with this kind of banking, for example, as I said at the outset, in countries like France, Germany and Italy. I do not know why we should be so special in this country to be so fearful of government owned banks, one government owned bank in this country that would act as a true competitor to the chartered banks.
Government Orders


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words of support to this particular amendment that would make it possible for a government to go into the banking business. It is certainly not any great skill and it would not mean that every government would have to do it.
I can recall when the New Democrats were the government in the province of British Columbia. We felt the need to have some bank that represented British Columbia and we did not feel that the existing banks were doing it in the way we wanted it done, but it was totally impossible under the legislation as it now exists. This amendment would make it possible. At one point, we were considering the possibility of acquiring a bank that was for sale in the United States and moving its head office to a point just immediately south of the 49th parallel so that it would still be in the States, but at least it would be a bank identified as one that was serving the interests, as we saw them, of the people of British Columbia.
Of late, there has been a lot of criticism of the banks, for example, for having almost a common interest rate when it comes to credit card dealing. If a bank, under the ownership of the provincial government, wanted to be the leader in setting those rates at what the government thought was a more reasonable rate, then that could be done. With that kind of competition I suggest it would not be long before the other banks would see the need to follow suit lest this way of handling things spread across the country.
It would not be totally new. The previous speaker talked about the Federal Business Development Bank which is in the banking business to some extent but is not able to take advantage of the many opportunities that are there for banks to cover the costs of making loans that are sometimes a little riskier than others.
The federal government used to be in it in a way too when we had the post office savings accounts. I think, Mr. Speaker, you will remember when that was a feature of life here in Canada, when people could go to the post office and do a good deal of their banking through the post office accounts such as making savings, but there were certainly limits as to what they could do. They were anything but full banks, but at least the government did set up that possibility. Post offices in those days, before Canada Post took over, were in many small communities throughout the country where banks were not available and it was not convenient for people to get to them.

November 25, 1991
Government Orders
We are not saying that a government would have to do it. We are not saying that the federal government would have to do it or that any provincial or territorial government would have to get into this business. If any government felt the need to do it, it could use that perhaps as a way of persuading the existing banks to do something differently or could even establish a provincially owned bank or purchase a bank to get into the banking business on a relatively modest scale. It would at least show to the banking industry how the government felt it should be operating in a way of providing a better service to the people of the community, to the people of the provinces and to the people of the country than it was already doing.
It is just making it possible, without breaking the legislation, without circumventing it, as we were thinking of doing in buying a bank outside of the country and moving it close to the border of British Columbia. There would be no need then to adopt this subterfuge, this way of achieving what we wanted to achieve on behalf of the people of British Columbia.
We had investors ready to make substantial deposits in it. It was our plan at the time to get involved a lot more in housing loans, to encourage home construction. A lot of homes need building in British Columbia. I suppose it is the one bright spot in the economy of B.C. right now. British Columbia is one of the leaders in the country largely, I believe, due to the fact that we are doing a lot of residential construction to accommodate the people who are fleeing to B.C. from many other parts of the country. Retiring, I think, more than fleeing.
It gives the governments the opportunity to do this and to act on behalf of the people.
If the people do not like what the government is doing, they will have the opportunity one, two, three or five years down the road to show that government what they think about what it is doing and get rid of it. They have the final say and they have the opportunity to change the government and to even stop the government from embarking on such plans and bringing it to fruition if it has not gone that far, or getting out of that business if the people of the province or of the country think it is not in the interests of the people.
I support this amendment.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to speak in favour of the amendments in front of us today.
First, one of the amendments relates to the ability of the federal government to enter into the banking business. In the Bank Act there is a prohibition against the federal government entering into the banking business, meaning the federal government is not allowed to become a deposit taking institution.
We do have the Federal Business Development Bank, but that is not a deposit taking institution. We have seen that institution, which can and should be helpful, particularly to small businesses, not being very active at all. The few small business people I have talked to who have had some experience with this institution do not speak very highly of it. To become embroiled with it very often means to become embroiled with a whole slew of bureaucrats and it is not really fulfilling its mandate, which is to help the small business community and to help those businesses particularly where commercial banks have not been all that helpful.
We hear small business people when they make their presentations to Parliament and to the finance committee continually complaining about the type of treatment they get from commercial banks. Certainly if we had an effective bank that was in direct competition with the commercial banks I think there would be much better treatment by our commercial banks to the small business people, particularly those who are trying to start a business.
The other amendment we are dealing with and that is grouped together refers to the sliding scale in terms of ownership and size.
I remember when I was on the finance committee and we tackled this one back in 1985 or 1986. There was the request of the trusts to be treated equally with the banks, but we had to tackle the question of ownership. One person or institution cannot own more than 10 per cent. That is not the case with the trusts.
At that time it seemed to make some sense to us to have ownership based on a sliding scale. The argument, for example, of a small trust company in Nova Scotia that was a sort of family run business requiring a new set of ownership rules that would prevent the family from owning 50, 60, 80 or 90 per cent of the trust, and if that trust were to become like a bank, to only allow that person 10 per cent ownership, did not make much sense to us and I think rightly so.
November 25, 1991

If memory serves me right, I thought the finance committee was in agreement with that. If it is a small trust, then you allow one person to own 100 per cent, or whatever. If the trust got bigger and bigger you would require that the ownership be more widely distributed so that if the trust got to a certain level-I do not remember the figures off hand but we are talking about the concept-and wanted to be treated like a bank, then it also had to comply with the regulations that no one individual or institution can own more than 10 per cent of that trust.
There were reasons why banks were restricted in terms of the ownership to no more than 10 per cent to an individual or to a particular institution. The reason is that no one family or person or company can control a bank and manipulate through total ownership its functioning for their own business interest.
That is why philosophically we are opposed to the linkage of commercial interests with the financial deposit taking institutions.
Again, the fundamental reason was the protection of the public interest. This is fundamental. Every amendment that we are introducing to this act is based on the basic premise of public interest. We heard our critic, the member of the New Democratic Party for Nickel Belt, this morning read into the record the comment of my comrade and former chairman of the finance committee, the hon. member from Mississauga, who in his sometimes flippant but very honest manner described the situation as "a done deal".
All the co-ops, all the banks, all the life insurance companies and all the trusts sat down and made the deal. When he read that, the question that came to my mind was: who was representing the public interest in this deal making? Who sat at that table and said: "Hold it a moment. This and this from a public interest point of view does not make sense?"
I am afraid when we see this particular government introducing changes to our financial institutions that are so fundamental. We know it is of the same political stripe of the presidencies of Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush. We have seen the public interest being degraded south of the border. I am afraid we are seeing the public interest being degraded here north of the border.
Government Orders
Where is the public interest? Who is there to protect depositors, the public? I am not saying this to be melodramatic but who is there to protect the widow and her life savings or the young working families that have put their life savings in deposits in these financial institutions? They are trusting that these are solid institutions, and that when they retire so many years later these institutions will still be around and their savings and their deposits will be well managed in their interest. They trust their deposits will not be managed in the interest of some financial or commercial organization, but in their interest.
That is fundamental. If you break the public trust in our financial institutions, forget about the financial institutions. We are back to the primitive days when people were putting gold underneath their mattresses.
I am afraid that with some of the proposals contained in this legislation, even though I am sure the life insurance companies, the banks and the trusts are going to be very happy, in the long run they will undermine the public trust in those institutions and therefore work in the end against the interest of those very same financial institutions.
Again I repeat if the public trust is no longer in those financial institutions, then those financial institutions will be the first to suffer. We saw in the 1980s major falls of trust companies in this country. We have seen major deposit taking institutions south of the border totally being wiped out.
They say it is going to cost up to $1 trillion in the United States to bail out the savings and loans. That is taxpayers' money. Talk about deficits. That is taxpayers' money. Where was the public interest? Who was there to protect the public interest when that occurred? Obviously, they were not there. They were asleep at the switch.
I am afraid, with some of the proposals in this legislation, we are opening ourselves up to those same types of mistakes.
In discussing further amendments, I will reiterate many of these points and elaborate on them as well.


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

November 25, 1991
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The question is on Motion No. 5.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 53. The vote on motion No. 53 will apply to motion No. 55.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 53?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division of the motion stands deferred.

Motions Nos. 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 23, 26, 31, 33, 34, 36, 42, 43, 49, 50, 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 66, 66A, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 81A, 85, 88 and 90 are grouped together for the purposes of debate.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think if you were to inquire there would be unanimous consent to remove from that list motion No. 57.1 believe there is an agreement to alter that motion slightly and I am told by my hon. friend from Nickel Belt that he would like to speak separately on that issue.
I think it would be in the interests of expediting the proceedings to leave motion No. 57 out of the list as a result of our further discussions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Mississauga South. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: It is agreed.

As with the first group of motions, since all these motions stand in the name of the Minister of State for Finance, I would suggest that I not read them out. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Hon. Monique Landry (for the Minister of State
(Finance)) moved:
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 44:
(a)	by striking out line 10 on page 27 and substituting the following:
"(3) Subject to subsection (4) and section 260, a company may";
(b)	by adding, immediately after line 12 on page 27, the following:
"(4) Where a company is carrying on business under or identifying itself by a name other than its corporate name, the Minister may, by order, direct the company not to use that other name if the Minister is of the opinion that that other name is a name referred to in any of paragraphs 41(a) to (e)."
November 25, 1991

Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 48:
(a)	by striking out lines 16 to 24 on page 28 and substituting the following:
"(a) a subsidiary of,
(b)	an entity that controls, determined without regard to paragraph
3(l)(d),	.
(c)	a financial institution that is affiliated, within the meaning of subsection 6(2), with, or
(d)	an entity, other than an entity that is a financial institution, that is in existence on the day on which this section comes into force and that on that day is affiliated with,
a company that is a trust company within the meaning of subsection 57(2) may, with the";
(b)	by striking out lines 28 to 33 on page 28 and substituting the following:
"(2) Notwithstanding subsection 47(2),
(a)	a subsidiary of,
(b)	an entity that controls determined without regard to paragraph
3(lXd).	. t
(c)	a financial institution that is affiliated, within the meaning of subsection 6(2), with, or
(d)	an entity, other than an entity that is a financial institution, that is in existence on the day on which this section comes into force and that on that day is affiliated with,
a company may,".
Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 62 by striking out line 31 on page 35 and substituting the following:
''company under this Act, other than a voting right, was stated or".
Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 68 by striking out line 35 on page 38 and substituting the following:
"provide that any aspect of the shares relating to money or involving the payment of or the liability to pay money be in a".
Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 71 by striking out lines 12 and 13 on page 40 and substituting the following:
"shares of a class to be issued
(a)	for a consideration other than money;
(b)	as a share dividend; or
(c)	pursuant to the exercise of conversion privileges, options or rights previously granted by the company."
Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 82 by striking out lines 44 and 45 on page 45 and substituting the following:
Government Orders
"section (4), the directors of a company may declare and a company may pay a dividend in money or property, and where a dividend is to be paid in money, the dividend may be paid in a currency other than the currency of Canada."
Motion No. 15.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 83:
(a)	by striking out line 18 on page 46 and substituting the following:
"indebtedness is fully paid for in money or, with the approval of the Superintendent, in property.11;
(b)	by striking out lines 28 to 30 on page 46 and substituting the following:
"ness, a company may provide that any aspect of the subordinated indebtedness relating to money or involving the payment of or the liability to pay money in relation thereto be in a currency other than that of Canada includinq, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the payment of any interest thereon."
Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 161 by striking out line 31 on page 82 and substituting the following:
"plaints as required by subsection 441(1);".
Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 174 by striking out lines 5 to 10 on page 89 and substituting the following:
"(2) If, after any purported election or appointment of directors, the composition of the board of directors would fail to comply with subsection 167(1), then, unless the directors within 45 days after the discovery of the non-compliance develop a".
Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 187 by striking out lines 28 and 29 on page 94 and substituting the following:
"(b) in the case of any other company, a majority".
Motion No. 31.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 205:
(a)	by striking out line 5 on page 102 and substituting the following:
"205. (1) An act of a director or an officer of a";
(b)	by adding, immediately after line 9 on page 102, the following:
"(2) An act of the board of directors of a company is valid notwithstanding a defect in the composition of the board or an irregularity in the election of the board or in the appointment of a member of the board."
Motion No. 33.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 238 by striking out lines 39 to 41 on page 120 and substituting the following:
"238. A sale agreement shall be submitted to the Minister prior to the sending of the sale agreement".

November 25, 1991
Government Orders
Motion No. 34.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 239 by striking out line 45 on page 120 and substituting the following:
"pany shall submit a sale agreement".
Motion No. 36.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 243 by striking out lines 1 and 2 on page 123 and substituting the following:
"(c) the information referred to in paraqraphs 499(l)(a), (c) and
(e)	to (h) contained in all returns provided to the Superintendent pursuant to section 499;".
Motion No. 42.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 315 by striking out line 12 on page 161 and substituting the following:
"ers of a company and their personal representatives may, on".
Motion No. 43.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 320 by striking out line 46 on page 163 and substituting the following:
"appointment as auditor of the company, other than an affiliate that is a subsidiary of the company acquired pursuant to section 457 or through a realization of security pursuant to section 458."
Motion No. 49.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 331 by striking out line 5 on page 169 and substituting the following:
"tion (1), the auditor shall state whether,".
Motion No. 50.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 334 by adding, immediately after line 47 on page 170, the following:
"(3) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of any particular subsidiary where the company, after having consulted its auditor, is of the opinion that the total assets of the subsidiary are not a material part of the total assets of the company."- The Minister of State (Finance).
Motion No. 54.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 375 by striking out lines 3 to 5 on page 190 and substituting the following:
"and section 376 any class of non-voting shares of a company that does not amount to more than 10 per cent".
Motion No. 56.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 409 by striking out lines 9 to 11 on page 212 and substituting the following:
"liquidator or sequestrator;
(c)	provide investment counselling services and portfolio management services; and
(d)	issue payment, credit or charge cards and, in cooperation with others including other financial institutions, operate a payment, credit or charge card plan."
Motion No. 61.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 419:
(a)	by striking out line 1 on page 216 and substituting the following:
"419. (1) Subject to subsection (3), a company shall not create a";
(b)	by adding, immediately after line 15 on page 216, the following:
"(3) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of security interests created on
(a)	such classes of personal property as the superintendent may, by order, designate; or
(b)	property having an aggregate value that is less than such amount as the superintendent may, by order, specify."
Motion No. 62.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 424 by adding, immediately after line 36 on page 219, the following:
"(6) This section shall not apply until the day that is eight years after the day on which this section comes into force."
Motion No. 66.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 443 by striking out line 26 on page 226 and substituting the following:
"mum credit balance with the company."
Motion No. 66A.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 443 by striking out lines 38 and 39 on page 226 and substituting the following:
"Bank of Canada, in a company or in any other deposit- taking Canadian financial institution incorporated by or under an Act of Parliament;"
Motion No. 67.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 443 by striking out line 8 on page 227 and substituting the following:
"(5) Nothing in subsection (4) precludes".
Motion No. 70.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 449:
(a)	by striking out line 6 on page 235 and substituting the following:
"holding, managing or otherwise dealing with real";
(b)	by striking out line 16 on page 235 and substituting the following:
"engaged in holding, managing or otherwise dealing".
Motion No. 71.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 449 by striking out lines 25 to 35 on page 235 and substituting the following:
"pany, means a body corporate that engages exclusively in the provision of services to any or all of the following, namely,
(a) the company,

(b)	any entity in which the company has a substantial investment,
(c)	any financial institution that is affiliated with the company,
(d)	any entity in which a financial institution referred to in paragraph (c) has a substantial investment,
(e)	any other Canadian financial institution incorporated or formed by or under an Act of Parliament that has a substantial investment in the body corporate,
(f)	any entity in which any Canadian financial institution referred to in paragraph (e) has a substantial investment,
(g)	any financial institution that is affiliated with any Canadian financial institution referred to in paragraph (e), and
(h)	any entity in which a financial institution referred to in paragraph (g) has a substantial investment,
so long as the body corporate is providing services to the company or any of the entities referred to in paragraphs (b) to (d);".
Motion No. 72.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 449 by striking out lines 29 to 34 on page 236 and substituting the following:
"(b) the holding of a security interest in real property, unless the security interest is prescribed pursuant to paragraph 465(a) to be an interest in real property; or
(c)	the holding of a security interest in securities of an entity." Motion No. 73.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 453 by striking out lines 3 to 13 on page 239 and substituting the following:
"(1) (b), (c), (k) and (1),
(i)	the company controls the body corporate or would thereby acquire control of the body corporate, or
(ii) the company is permitted by regulations made pursuant to paragraph 459(a) to acquire or increase the substantial investment; and
(b) the company obtains the prior written approval of the Minister on the recommendation of the Superintendent in the case of
(i)	a body corporate that is a financial institution or that carries on one or more of the businesses or activities engaged in or carried on by bodies corporate referred to in any of paragraphs (l)(d), (k) and (m), or
(ii)	a body corporate that carries on one or more of the businesses or activities engaged in or carried on by bodies corporate referred to in paragraph (l)(b), (c) or (1) where the company is permitted by regulations made pursuant to paragraph 459(a) to acquire or increase the substantial investment."
Motion No. 74.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 453 by striking out lines 27 to 29 on page 239 and substituting the following:
Government Orders
"(4), "control" means "control within the meaning of section 3, determined without regard to paragraph 3(l)(d)"."
Motion No. 75.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 453 by adding, immediately after line 29 on page 239, the following:
"(6) Where a company controls a body corporate referred to in paragraph (3)(a), the company may only divest itself of shares of the body corporate in such number that the result would be that the company would no longer control the body corporate but would have a substantial investment in the body corporate
(a)	if the company is permitted to do so by regulations made pursuant to paragraph 459(b), and
(b)	with the prior written approval of the Minister on the advice of the superintendent."
Motion No. 76.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 457 by adding, immediately after line 12 on page 243, the following:
"(4) Notwithstanding anything in this Part, where a company has made a loan to, or holds a debt obligation of, the government of a foreign country or an entity controlled by the government of a foreign country and, pursuant to the terms of the agreement between the company and that government or the entity, as the case may be, and any other documents governing the terms of the loan or debt obligation, a default has occurred, the company may acquire all or any of the shares of, or ownership interests in, that entity, or in any other entity designated by that government, if the acquisition is part of a debt restructuring program of that government.
(5) Where a company acquires any shares or ownership interests, pursuant to subsection (4), the company, on such terms and conditions as the Superintendent considers appropriate, may hold those shares or ownership interests for an indeterminate period or for such other period as the Superintendent may specify."
Motion No. 77.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 459 by striking out lines 14 to 19 on page 244 and substituting the following:
"regulations
(a)	permitting the acquisition or increase of substantial investments for the purposes of subsection 453(3);
(b)	permitting a company to divest itself of shares for the purposes of subsection 453(6); and
(c)	restricting the ownership by a company of shares of a body corporate or of interests in a real property holding vehicle pursuant to sections 453 to 458 and imposing terms and conditions applicable to companies that own such shares or interests."

Government Orders
Motion No. 79.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 460:
(a)	by striking out line 20 on page 244 and substituting the following:
"460. (1) Subject to subsection (3), the value of all loans, invest-";
(b)	by adding, immediately after line 43 on page 244, the following:
"(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any loan, investment or interest that is defined by regulation made pursuant to section 465 to be an interest in real property."
Motion No. 81A.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 483:
(a)	by striking out line 36 on page 256 and substituting the following:
"(b) subject to subsection (4), involves the provision by the company";
(b)	by adding, immediately after line 40 on page 257, the following:
"(4) The provision of services, for the purposes of paragraph (l)(b), does not include the making of loans or guarantees."
Motion No. 85.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 504:
(a)	by striking out lines 8 and 9 on page 269 and substituting the following:
"published
(a) in the Canada Gazette, the information contained in each of";
(b)	by striking out line 15 on page 269 and substituting the following:
"Minister, having regard to subsection 503(1), may determine, such other infor-".
Motion No. 88.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 540 by striking out line 1 on page 283 and substituting the following:
"540. If, during the third session of the".
Motion No. 90.
That Bill C-4 be amended:
(a) by adding, immediately after line 46 on page 291, the following:
'Amendments to this Act if Bill C-19 is assented to
559. If, during the third session of the thirty-fourth Parliament, Bill C-19, entitled An Act respecting banks and banking is assented to, then,
(a)	on the later of the coming into force of subsection 38(1) of this Act and section 1 of that Act, paragraph 38(l)(b) of this Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(b)	letters patent continuing the conpany as a bank under subsection 35(1) of the Bank Act or amalgamating and continuing the company as a bank under subsections 223(1) and 229(1) of that Act.
(b) on the later of the coming into force of section 445 of this Act and section 1 of that Act, section 445 of this Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
445. A bank that is continued as a company under this Act that, immediately before that continuance, held any outstanding security pursuant to section 426 or 427 of the Bank Act may continue to hold the security for the life of the loan to which the security relates and all the provisions of the Bank Act relating to the security and its enforcement continue to apply to the company as though it were a bank.
"Amendments to this Act if Bill C-34 is assented to
560. If, during the third session of the thirty-fourth Parliament, Bill C-34, entitled An Act to revise and amend the law governing cooperative credit associations and to provide for related and consequential matters is assented to, then, on the later of the coming into force of section 449 of this Act and section 1 of that Act, paragraph (e) of the definition "service corporation" in subsection 449(1) of this Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(e)	any other Canadian financial institution incorporated or formed by or under an Act of Parliament, or any central cooperative credit society to which the Superintendent has, by order under subsection 473(1) of the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, applied Part XVI of that Act, that has a substantial investment in the body corporate,";
(b) by renumbering the subsequent clauses and any crossreferences thereto accordingly.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, before this debate commenced, there is an effort here to try to standardize all of the legislation for trust companies, banks, insurance companies and the Canadian Co-Operative Society.
The motions that are grouped here, excluding Motion No. 57, are motions that will be identical in the other bills.
November 25, 1991

These motions are brought this way now in order to bring Bill C-4 into line with Bills C-19, C-28 and C-34 as they passed the committee. The finance committee dealt rather extensively with these issues at the time. Because Bill C-4 was passed really in the last Parliament and brought forward to this Parliament as Bill C-4, it was really Bill C-89 in the last session, these issues have not been dealt with as well. That is the reason for these particular motions now.
I believe that we should proceed expeditiously with them.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, in looking over these amendments I agree with the hon. member that really what they do is standardize and harmonize the corresponding wording in all the financial institution bills.
We would agree with these amendments.


John R. Rodriguez: Similarly, Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with them expect for Motion No. 57. When we get to debating it I will raise the points that I want to make at that time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?
On a point of order, the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I just want to be assured that we will get to Motion No. 57 next. Motion No. 57 is not part of this group.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The vote on Motion No. 8 will apply to all the motions listed in the Speaker's decision, except Motion No. 57.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt motion No. 8?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 8 agreed to.


William C. Winegard: Motion No. 57. (as amended)
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 416:
(a)	by striking out lines 29 and 30 on page 214 and substituting
the following:
"the business of insurance except to the extent permitted by this Act or the regulations.";
(b)	by striking out, in the English version, lines 39 to 42 on page
214 and substituting the following:
"relations between companies and
Government Orders
(a)	entities that undertake the business of insurance; or
(b)	insurance agents or insurance brokers.";
(c)	by striking out, in the English version, lines 8 to 11 on page 215 and substituting the following:
"company, but a company may require that an insurance company chosen by a borrower meet with its approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.";
(d)	by striking out, in the French version, line 5 on page 215 and substituting the following:
"aupres d'une compagnie d'assurance donnee, une";
(e)	by striking out, in the French version, line 9 on page 215 and substituting the following:
"compagnie d'assurance agrdfee par elle, la societe ne pouvant refuser son agrement sans motif valable.";
(f)	by adding, immediately after line 11 on page 215, the following:
"(6) For the purposes of this section, the business of insurance includes the issuance of any annuity where the liability thereon is contingent on the death of a person."


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The effect of this amendment is to bring it in line with the amendment in the Bank Act which effectively prevents banks from being in the business of distributing in their branches insurance or insurance products.
While I am on my feet I would like to present a further amendment and I believe the House will agree unanimously to allow me to do that. This amendment I now produce:
That clause 416 of Bill C-4 be amended by adding immediately after line 11 on page 215 the following subsection, annuities:
(6) For the purpose of this section the business of insurance includes the issuance of any annuity where the liability thereon is contingent on the death of a person.
The reason for that is to make sure that trust companies have no further power than banks will have under the provisions of Bill C-19 when we come to it. The concept is that we would have banks and insurance companies vis-a-vis the sale and distribution of insurance products exactly in the same position.
I am going to ask my colleagues to unanimously allow this motion to come forward with this amendment at this point. The fact is that members know as you proceed with a very complicated and extensive piece of legislation, sometimes minor items are left out. In this particular matter we found out early this morning that the Department of Justice in organizing the amendments did not add all of the amendment as made to clause 416 of the bill in the correct fashion as it had been passed in the Bank Act. The amendment is to bring this matter into line with the Bank Act.

November 25, 1991
Government Orders
If I could have unanimous consent on that I would really appreciate it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent for the amendment tabled by the hon. member for Mississauga South?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Amendment of Mr. Blenkam agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate on Motion No. 57, as amended.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I think you have to understand what is envisaged by this particular motion. We on this side of the House have taken the position that banks should do the things that banks best know how to do and that insurance companies should do the things related to insurance matters. Similarly, trust companies should do the things related to trust and loan companies, and co-operatives in the same fashion.
We have opposed every attempt to collapse the pillars. When this bill is all done it is going to allow banks to own insurance companies, insurance companies to own trust and loan companies, and banks to own trust and loan companies. I have no hesitation in saying that when this is all passed you are going to see the greatest urge to merge ever in this countiy.
We have taken the position that we ought not to go for that approach. The sumo wrestler approach is not the one that we should be aiming for. We have said that there is nothing wrong with a bank entering into an agreement with an insurance company, a joint venture, and for the bank to market the insurance products of an insurance company or several insurance companies. Already banks do insure. There is creditor insurance and banks do market insurance. There is mortgage insurance and banks do market mortgage insurance. We have said quite frankly to banks: "You cannot market insurance out of your branches, but you can go ahead and set up your own insurance company or buy one of the smaller insurance companies and start building its base".
It seems to me that this is not serving the interests of consumers. All this will lead to when it is all said and done is that one morning Canadians are going to wake up and there will only be one super financial institution with arms like an octopus.
When we dealt with Bill C-83, which is the former name of C-4 in the previous Parliament, we came to clause 416 and lo and behold we looked at the French version of the clause and the French version says that you cannot do anything except what we tell you to do. The English version said: "You can do anything, except what we tell you not to do". At the time we felt that the natural person's concept was reflected in the English version. I moved to change the French version so that it was more consistent with the English version. All the members on the committee agreed to that.
I want to say that the beloved chairman of our committee flew off to Toronto and spoke to a meeting of insurance brokers and insurance companies.


An hon. member:: In Thiwan?


John R. Rodriguez: It was not in Taiwan. He did it in Toronto.


An hon. member:: Did they feed him lunch?


John R. Rodriguez: It was a supper meeting. Lo and behold he came back like he was on some safari to Damascus. He was a converted man. He said "You cannot do this. Now you have broken the deal". Now the banks would be able to dipsy-doodle around the rules laid out in Bill C-83, now Bill C-4, and market insurance.
In one fleeting moment, one shining moment, in a committee room on Parliament Hill, parliamentarians decided that what was a done deal was not what we thought ought to be. In other words we decided to show our political and economic masters that they can no longer keep us on this chain. We were going break the chains that bound us to the towers of finance in this country. They were not allowing us to have that little crumb. So, they hauled our favourite chairman down there and he came back a changed man. He said: "You cannot do this because you would have broken the done deal".
November 25, 1991

I want to get back to this done deal because it is very important for people who are watching to understand. In the committee this is what the chairman said to me. I want to put it on the record.
The chairman said: "I know where we are going here and you all know where we are going. Let us face it, this deal is a cut deal. Is that what you are saying you have negotiated? You have had representations from all sides and essentially, this is a must situation as far as your minister is concerned". Mr. LePan from the department says "yes".
The chairman is not satisfied, he has to nail it down. He goes on to say: "As far as the minister is concerned and the government is concerned, from all sides, essentially, this is a must situation as far your minister is concerned". Mr. LePan says, "Yes".
"As far as the minister and the government is concerned, you want the legislation this way". Mr. LePan says: "That is right".
It seems to me the way that works is if the boys over at the towers at the CBA want this and the insurance people want this, what does our favourite chairman say? "Aye, aye, sir". And what does the minister say as he looks at the member for Mississauga South, since he probably knows more about than the minister. He says: "What do you think"? He says: "Aye, aye, sir".
For one moment we decided to do this. In this particular clause we decided that the natural persons' approach was the correct one. Lo and behold in Bill C-19, the government acceded to the requests of their financial and political bosses and turned around and are now saying: "You have to change C-4 back". I want to tell you this member and this party are not for turning. I want to tell you that my colleagues did a lot of turning up at Aylmer over the weekend. They turned 360 degrees on many, many important issues and I suppose they are going to turn on this one too.
That is the background behind our motion. We have absolutely no objection to banks marketing insurance through their branches as long as they are not allowed to own insurance companies. We believe that is the way you can provide better prices for consumers at the grassroots
Government Orders
level. This important aspect of financial matters should not be left in the hands of the insurance companies which would be owned by banks. You would then have a concentration of ownership and prices would never come down.
We believe that banks can deliver this service to consumers much more economically and in a wider way because they have all of the branching networks across the country which insurance companies do not. That is the argument for this motion.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, certainly this amended version of Motion No. 57 is one that I will be supporting. After a great deal of study on the financial institutions and a great deal of thought, we feel that banks and trust companies should not have the power to sell all types of insurance.
I will be speaking at third reading in great detail on that, but today I will give three or four reasons. Actually there is no evidence to show that banks can really sell insurance cheaper to customers in the long haul.
Second, to give banks power to sell insurance could be very unfair competition for the insurance industry. The Royal Bank has assets of $126 billion. That is more than all the assets of the insurance industry put together. So we are very concerned about the possibility of very unfair competition.
There are also avenues to suggest that there could be some tied selling, where a bank will say to a customer: "We are not going to give you a mortgage unless you buy your insurance from us". There was a study done in the United States which showed that there are certainly situations where tied selling does exist.
Those are basically three of the reasons which I will detail on third reading.
There is a question that I find hard to understand, listening to the words from the hon. member of the NDP. Why does he want banks to have all the banking functions and also sell insurance, but only wants insurance companies to do insurance? I have to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether that is fair. I certainly do not feel that it is and I will be supporting the amended version of Motion No. 57.

Government Orders


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I certainly wish to enter the debate on this particular section as well.
It revolves around, and we debated this way back in 1985, the ability of financial deposit-taking institutions like banks to sell and get into the insurance business. Of course, the fundamental problem is that if you go to a bank for a mortgage the bank is going to say: "Hey, we have this package for you. You have to take this insurance. You have to take this life insurance. You have to take this insurance on your house". There will be some connection there. You have to go and get your mortgage, so you are sort of forced into taking all these other insurance policies. Of course people say: "No, no. We are going to protect the consumer from that".
When I was attending the finance committee meetings, it used to be called the china wall. Apparently now it is called the fire wall, although I understand that the fire wall is going to become more like a wall of fire. You cannot regulate against that. You cannot enforce the regulations.
You have a little office somewhere in Strasbourg, Saskatchewan. There is the Royal Bank of Canada or whatever and you go there. You want to get your mortgage. Right beside the loan officer is a guy selling for the insurance company that the Royal Bank of Canada owns, as an example.
These two men or women are working beside each other. They are going to have lunch together.


An hon. member:: They cannot do that.


Simon Leendert de Jong: You cannot do that. Of course, you cannot do that, but who is going to stop them from doing that?
Can we trust this government- which believes in getting off business' back and allowing business to do its thing, that everything will turn out rosy-to enforce these particular regulations?
The funny thing is that in these proposals that the government is bringing forward we are going to need more regulations. The government is going to allow things that will tempt the devil. Therefore we are going to need more regulations to prevent that.
To tell you the truth, I do not believe in the ability of this particular government to enforce regulations. It does not believe in regulations. The Conservatives are the bunch that says deregulate.
We can build up a nice regime that works well on paper. We have the regulations in. We have got the regulators out there. We have the inspectors out there and lo and behold the political winds shift and we have this new right wing neo-Tory government. It gets elected on the notion of take government off the peoples' backs, deregulate, clear it up.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Simon Leendert de Jong: We hear "hear, hear". They can hardly restrain themselves from yelling "hear, hear".


An hon. member:: Wait until Preston starts pulling the strings over there.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Yet the whole regulatory regime that is being established by the legislation the government introduces depends upon an effective regulatory body. We are asked to believe in this House that this government, these people across the way, these neo-Tories who yell "hear, hear" at the mere mention of deregulate, is going to put in place an effective regulatory body.
Give me a break. Is this a joke? Do they really expect the people of Canada to believe this? Come on, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. member:: They would believe in the tooth fairy too.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, it is in the public interest to maintain the pillars. Let the insurance companies do what is best, sell insurance. They have their agents and they have developed their marketing. They have agents all over this country. I believe the Canadian public has been well served.
To throw all those people out of work and make them redundant so that the banks can start selling insurance is not going to help the consumer or the insurance industry in this country. I do not think it is going to be in the interest of the insurance industry either to become involved in a deposit taking institution.
The insurance industry has served Canada well. Let it be. There is no need to meddle in something that is working relatively well. Do we want to follow the American example? Is that what these Tories are so hot to trot about, to become like the Americans? They just had horrendous failures in the savings and loans institutions. Do we have to become like the Americans and have more failures here as well? Are the failures to be picked up by the Canadian taxpayer through deposit insurance and perhaps direct outlay of public expenditures?

The old saying is: "If it is not broken, don't fix it". We believe when it comes to providing good insurance policies to Canadians we have done well, and let us keep it that way.
I cannot support the proposals of the government. I cannot believe that this government will set up an effective regulatory regime, that it will have the people capable of doing that or the funds and the resources to be able to do the job, or that it will have the resources to do the proper regulatory job that this legislation is going to require.
It cannot be done by a group of neo-Tories. We have a group of neo-Tories in government today. It is a contradiction of terms. What the government is proposing here and what is going to be required to make this effective and real cannot be done by a group of neo-Conservatives. It cannot be done. I stand opposed to the motions of the government.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There will be two votes. The first one will be on Motion No. 57 and the second one will be on the motion tabled by the hon. member for Mississauga South.
I want to check with the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion tabled by the hon. member for Mississauga South?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, if I recall the procedure, you called Motion No. 57. The hon. member for Mississauga South stood up and sought the unanimous consent of the House to amend it by adding a subclause at the end. We all agreed to that.
You then called for debate on the amended motion and we have been debating the amended Motion No. 57. I do not see where you need two votes. You need one vote on the amended Motion No. 57.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am not a procedural expert, but because the amendment moved by the
Government Orders
hon. member for Mississauga South is substantial, I want to check to make sure that the House agrees to consider the vote we are about to take to be on Motion No. 57 as amended by the hon. member for Mississauga South. Is that the wish of the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we going to vote on Motion No. 57, as amended?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to vote on Motion No. 57, as amended?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on the motion as amended. Is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 20, 24, 28, 29 and 38 are grouped for debate.


William C. Winegard: Motion No. 20.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 170 by striking out line 25 on page 86 and substituting the following:
"section."

November 25, 1991
Government Orders
Motion No. 24.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 174 by striking out line 20 on page 89 and substituting the following:
"section."
Motion No. 29.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 196 by striking out line 10 on page 98 and substituting the following:
"section or of a body corporate continued as a".
Motion No. 38.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 271 by striking out line 28 on page 138 and substituting the following:
"the coming into force of this section, would".


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, these amendments are technical amendments of a transitional nature to move from the existing legislation to the new legislation. We must all remember that there is existing legislation and that companies are operating under the existing legislation. There has to be some time to change over to the new regime contemplated in the new financial administration legislation.
The reason these particular ones are grouped is because they are all transitional in nature and they are the kind of things we have agreed to in other bills. They are now before this House on this particular bill in much the same fashion as some other matters of this nature have been brought before the House.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, certainly we will support this group of amendments, Motions Nos. 20, 24, 28, 29 and 38. As the member from Mississauga says they are really technical in nature and they help to clarify the legislation.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, we have no problems with these amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sobeski):: Shall the amendments carry?


Some hon. members:: Carried.


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sobeski):: Just to get the
procedure properly, shall a vote on Motion No. 20 carry?


Some hon. members:: Carried.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sobeski):: Then the votes on Motions Nos. 24, 28, 29 and 38 would also be carried.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Right, carried.
Motions Nos. 20, 24, 28, 29 and 38 agreed to. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We will now proceed with motions Nos. 30 and 47, standing in the name of the hon. members for Nickel Belt and Malpeque.


John R. Rodriguez: Motion No. 30.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 204 by adding immediately after line 4 at page 102 the following:
"(3) The Directors of a bank shall place before the shareholders for approval, at every annual meeting, a list containing the names of the five directors, officers or employees of the company who are to receive the highest salaries to be paid by the company in the next financial year of the company, together with the amount of such salaries.
(4)	Notwithstanding any Act of Parliament, the salaries referred to in subsection (3) may be paid only to the extent that they have been approved by special resolution.
(5)	Forthwith after each annual meeting of shareholders, the company shall send to the Superintendent, a list containing the names of the five directors, officers or employees of the company who are to receive the highest salaries to be paid by the company in the ensuing financial year of the company together with the amount of such salaries.
(6)	For the purposes of this section, "salary" means any form of remuneration payable by a company for work performed by a director, officer or employee of the company and includes
(a)	commissions, vacation pay and bonuses;
(b)	reasonable value for rent and housing;
(c)	payments in kind; and
(d)	any other advantage received directly or indirectly from the
company;
but does not include
(e)	any amount paid as a consequence of the termination of the
employment of any director, officer or employee."


Catherine S. Callbeck: Motion No. 47.
That Bill C-4 be amended in Clause 329 by adding immediately after line 11 at page 168 the following:
"(3) A person who in good faith makes an oral or written communication under subsections (1) or (2) shall not be liable in any civil action arising therefrom."
November 25, 1991


John R. Rodriguez: I have waited for this for a long time, Mr. Speaker. Basically this amendment is what our country is all about. It is what we in the western world have always held to be the ultimate, and that is democracy.
From the whole experience I have had with financial institutions, I have found that what we want for our country and what we uphold as a model is democracy. Lo and behold, those corporate entities of this country fall far short of the model.
In fact that was one of the major purposes for moving this. I mean this was the first opportunity I had in dealing with banks and financial institutions. Shareholders are provided the opportunity to vote on the remuneration of the board of directors, but those same shareholders are not provided the opportunity to vote on the salaries of the highest paid officials of the particular institution, whether it be a bank, a trust company or an insurance company.
It seems to me that the shareholders ought to know what these people, their employees, are being paid. It is like saying to the people of Canada that they have no right to know what public servants earn or they have no right to know what MPs are paid. After all, the people of Canada are our shareholders, and God knows they have this information available to them because this is their company.
This is their government. This is their Parliament. They are paying their share in the cost of running the country and they want to be able to know what is going on. It is only fair.
I hear a lot about the fact that we want to create a level paying field with our major trading partner, the United States. The executives of large companies in the United States have to file their wages with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We have no such thing here. When we want to find out what a Canadian corporate leader is making, we have to go to the United States. If that company is doing business in the United States it has to file there. That is where we find out the information. For example, we find out information about Don Phillips, President of Inco Ltd. We have to go to the United States to find out he makes $1.9 million a year. Raymond Cyr of Bell Canada Enterprises makes $1.2 million a year. Frank Stronach makes $1.2 million a year.
Government Orders
Arden Haynes, chairman of Imperial Oil, makes $1.2 million a year.
It is important that shareholders and investors know the salaries being paid to the chief officers of their financial institution.
The Ontario Securities Commission is holding hearings to find out if this information should be revealed. It has received some 58 briefs and the vast and overwhelming majority of these briefs say no. It is absolutely astounding that for some reason some people do not believe that their wages should be revealed to the shareholders of their company.
They point out that should this information be revealed they and their families might be more subject and susceptible to kidnappings. For example, I am not aware of any statistical information showing that people from Forest Hill are more often kidnapped than people in the working class communities of Toronto. Another respondent to the commission said he does not want this information released because he does not want to be bothered by all kinds of people trying to get him interested in buying stocks and making other kinds of investments.
No one is obliged to be a senior corporate executive in this country just as no one is obliged to being a member of Parliament. It is a choice you make. With respect to what the government is doing to the economy of this country I wish it felt more obliged to listen to the Canadian people.
I believe it is in the interest of the public that the salaries of the top officials be known. We started a hearing on Standard Trust and we found out some very alarming things with respect to the kinds of deals which have been made to pay bonuses to executive officers. They were based on how many commercial mortgages they could generate, how much of the company's money they could lend for mall development, et cetera.
It seems this is one of the ways the shareholders have in controlling what is going on at the top of their company. After all, it is their money that is being spent.
I have taken the opportunity in this amendment to put this in. This is not just titillating pornography for the public. This is important business for the shareholders and the investors of the company.

Government Orders
It seems to me that we, as the federal government, could take the lead. We could send a clear message to those provincial organizations, such as the Ontario Securities Commission, that are presently contemplating bringing in some rules to reveal this. Surely the argument that has always been made is the one that says: "We have to be more like the United States because we have to compete in its market". How is that all the good regulations and rules it has we never want to adopt, but all of the more questionable measures it has in legislation, by golly, we want to adopt them here willy-nilly?
I argue for this particular Motion No. 30. I hope the House will see the reasonableness of it and the need for it and will vote for it.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that we read and hear a lot about from time to time.
I must say that during the committee meetings when we were discussing the financial institution legislation, there was not one witness who brought that up. It appears to me that it really is not a very pressing matter in the minds of shareholders.
I know that the hon. member for Nickel Belt mentioned the Ontario Securities Commission was looking into this and had briefs. No doubt we will be hearing from it that it will be making a decision later this fall.
I know that there are some people who argue that wage disclosure would put shareholders in a better position to assess the fairness and reasonableness of the allocation of resources. They also argue that investors should know if executives are receiving too much in the way of salaries in regard to the profit the company is making.
On the other side of the argument, there are people expressing concern for greater privacy, personal risk and that there would be increased competition which would raise salaries.
This amendment was put forth by the New Democratic Party. It is far from certain whether this amendment will discourage higher executive salaries in Canada. I believe that is what the party hopes.
It is interesting to note that the U.S. law on which this amendment is based has reportedly not discouraged higher salaries there. Rather, it has encouraged higher salaries. When the top five salaries are disclosed some executives will undoubtedly look at them and figure out that they are underpaid. We could have the same situation happen in Canada in which the CEO of Royal Trust would find out that the CEO of Canada Trust is making $100,000 more. What would happen? The CEO of Royal Trust would want more money. That is what has been the experience in the United States with this law on which this amendment is based. It has really driven salaries up, not down.
In view of that, this is an amendment we will certainly be voting against.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the naivety of the previous speaker is overwhelming on two points. This amendment is not primarily to try to keep executive salaries down. That is a matter for the various corporations to wrestle with. As far as the chief executive officers of one company not knowing approximately what the salaries of the chief executive officers of another company are, this is absolutely ridiculous. Of course they know. They do not know down to the exact penny or dollar or hundreds of dollars, but they certainly have a very clear idea of approximately what the top directors and the top CEOs are getting. As a matter of fact, if their stock is traded on any of the American exchanges all they have to do is phone Washington and they can find out immediately.
The point here is that it is a matter of principle. I do not know why there should be boardroom secrecy on this kind of issue. I do not know why we write laws in this country deliberately prohibiting or denying shareholders the right to know what their chief executives are earning. It is as simple as that. It is a matter of principle. It is a matter of openness.
I want to give an example of what happened in my community a number of years ago when the Canadian government and the government of the province of Ontario gave Massey-Ferguson Corporation $200 million in an attempt to get that company back on its feet; $125 million from the federal government and $75 million from the province of Ontario.
November 25, 1991

We in Brantford wanted to know what the then chief executive officer of that company was earning and we could not find out and the Government of Canada could not find out and the government of Ontario could not find out. Yet taxpayers were being asked to cough up $200 million to bail out that company. We had to go to the United States to find out what Victor Rice was earning. If memory serves me correctly I think he had taken a decrease in pay from something like $275,000 a year to $245,000 a year as his great contribution in helping to bail out that company at the same time that the taxpayers were giving him $200 million.
It is a matter of principle. We believe in an open society in this country. We believe in open government, although not all parties practice what they preach when it comes to open government. Here we have a wonderful opportunity in this House, legislatively, to make certain that shareholders and the general public and the Government of Canada know what the salaries of these chief executive officers are.
The other point is it is manifestly clear that chief executive officers do not want their employees to know and do not want their shareholders to know what their increases are year over year, when in periods of economic recession their employees are being asked to take less. There is the other side of the sword. Maybe some chief executive officers in the last couple of years have only had a 4 per cent or 5 per cent increase. Maybe some have had a 7 per cent or 8 per cent increase. If you add their perks and their privileges and the stocks that they get and the entire package then you may find that they are getting a hell of a lot more than 4 per cent or 5 per cent increases year over year during a recession when they are demanding from their employees maybe a 2 per cent or 3 per cent increase or maybe a 0 per cent increase.
Why not the openness? Why is the government defending the chief executive officers of the major financial institutions of this country against their own employees? That is the question and that is the principle.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my friend from Nickel Belt who brought this amendment brings it, I think, with a great deal of intensity in his understanding, but it is really an amendment that has something to do with stocks and stock trading situations on a stock exchange. He will know that the regulation of
Government Orders
security companies is a provincial matter and, properly, the Government of Ontario is conducting hearings on this issue.
What we have here is a situation in the way we run trust companies and remember, trust companies are trust companies. They are very much, in detail, supervised by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. The salaries paid to all of the officers are known to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. But they are a matter that ought not to be public. It is important in the solvency arrangements we are trying to protect for the Office of the Superintendent that as much confidence be there in financial institutions. That confidence should not be eroded by debates as to whether the salary of an officer is too high or too low or whether it compares with another company or how it fits in the pecking order. That ought not to be there because that kind of a debate attacks the credibility of the institution.
We have a lot of provisions in this bill in connection with the election of directors, to make directors very responsible for the management of the financial institutions covered in this group that we are going to be dealing with.
With respect to trust companies, a great number of them are relatively closely held. The owners know what they are paying their chief management people. They know it very well and they are hiring the best people they can, at the best price they can. The superintendent knows what they are paying them because if they are paying them too much, the superintendent will treat that as he does any matter that comes before him concerning the solvency of the institution.
So we are not dealing with a situation of Massey-Fer-guson Ltd. and Mr. Rice or an Inco and so on. These are not situations where shareholders have a great deal to gain by the information. Indeed, the shareholders have a great deal to lose by the information because they want their company to be successful and managed well. They do not want their company to have its linen spread across the street to cause problems with the nature of their company and the value that they have in their investment.
The government believes that the proposal is not appropriate in a loan and trust company bill. It is not appropriate, indeed, in any of the financial bills, and so the government cannot support the amendments.

November 25, 1991
Government Orders


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of Motion No. 30 by the member for Nickel Belt. Before I talk about some of the parts of that motion, I want to deal with the rather odious and foul-smelling arguments put forward by the member for Mississauga South and the member for Malpeque.
The member for Mississauga South, publicly in this House, has always patted himself on the back as being someone who always favours disclosure. The public's right to know is what he has branded himself on the forehead as being the great saviour of and the great promoter of all across this country. And here, on an amendment that would simply reveal the salaries of the top five paid executives of corporations, he is saying no, no, no. The hon. member will not explain it, but he tries to throw out a little bit of a boomerang, a little bit of a curved ball, a little bit of a smoker, when he says it has something to do with stock trading. He will not be specific, he would not go into it, but he said that the government cannot tell us what any of the CEOs or any of the top salary earners are getting because it has something to do with stock trading.
The member for Malpeque reveals the Liberal oyster, so to speak. I guess they really did slide to the right over the weekend. Her argument is that this could lead to competition for higher salaries. This is going to be known in the next federal election as Malpeque reasoning. Here is the reason you cannot disclose anything; it could lead to higher salaries. You cannot have that. That will probably be the argument the Liberals will use for not telling what the members of the Senate make, or anyone in the House of Commons, or what you pay for taxes, or what it costs to take the bus. It sounds to me like the kind of thinking that probably brought about the demise of the Soviet Union.
Let us take a look. One of the points raised by my friend from Brant is very important. We know why the National Citizens' Coalition likes to kick members of Parliament for the amount we are paid and everything else. They want to bring down the credibility of public institutions.
Have you ever heard the National Citizens' Coalition talk about the fact that the principal beneficiaries in every corporation in the country have hidden salaries?
Not likely. We know who funds the National Citizens' Coalition. We know why they continue to attack public institutions and why they are after the Public Service Alliance of Canada and Daryl Bean right now. We know why the NCC is doing that.
I see the Solicitor General here today. I am sure he is going to speak. He says he knows why the National Citizens' Coalition is going after the Public Service Alliance.
Viewers like to know what goes on in the talk box. Let us take a look at the amendment because it is a good one. It would amend clause 204. It says that the directors of a bank shall place before the shareholders for approval at every annual meeting a list containing the names of the five directors, officers or employees of the company who would receive the highest salaries to be paid by the company in the next financial year of the company together with the amount of such salaries.
It is interesting that the Liberals and Conservatives, who are always a team, are arguing that we cannot have that. We certainly could not possibly have the directors of the bank doing something like that.
Then it goes on to say that notwithstanding any act of Parliament the salaries referred to in subsection 3 may be paid only to the extent that they have been approved by special resolution. The member for Mississauga South is always talking about disclosure and the right to know where the buck is spent and that the buck has to stop somewhere. One would think he would be the first one to stand on his hind legs and argue vigorously and vociferously for there to be a paper trail from the shareholders to the directors to the salaries that are being paid to the top five.
Why is he cozying up? Is he going to leave with the Minister for International Trade for the Bank of Nova Scotia? I am always amazed after elections when government members are defeated. You can always tell the ministers who were really out there cutting the deals. They are in the paper day after day for weeks after the election, appointed to the board of blinkety-blank corporation, and blonkety-donk, and dinkety-dank, and stin-kety-stank. It just goes on and on. Look at the list of some of them; guys like Peter Lougheed with 40 or 50 directorships. What about Bill Davis?

We are obviously drilling on the right teeth. It is like being in a dentist's office. I can tell when they are getting a little jumpy over there. You can tell when you are getting close.
It says further that forthwith after each annual meeting of shareholders the company shall send to the superintendent a list containing the names of the five directors, officers or employees of the company who are to receive the highest salaries to be paid by the company in the ensuing financial year of the company together with the amount of such salaries.
That is basic fundamental disclosure. I doubt that there are many members in this House who do not from time to time contact the U.S. Securities Commission to get that kind of information either on new corporate entities operating in their constituencies; on ones that are already there; when there is starting to be a feeling about things in Alberta and you want to check things out. You might just want to make a few calls and find out how much dough is moving up and not down. That is what shareholders like to know. They want to know when those five CEOs have the plunger on the bank account and they are sucking it up into their offices. You want to know because that is how a lot of shareholders have been stripped of a heck of a pile of dough in this country.
The hon. member goes on in point six and says that for the purposes of this section, salary means any form of remuneration payable by a company for work performed by a director, officer or employer of the company. It includes-because this is where a lot of these corporate sharpies have discovered ways to get stuff under the rug, and I am not talking about dust-commissions.
They might get a little commission on a trip. It might be 10 grand, 20 grand, 30 grand.
How do we know about vacation pay and bonuses? I would not want to use the PM as an example. Let us say somebody wanted to pay him back for a big deal such as a free trade deal and he got a big chunk of property in Florida.
I am saying that in that situation, the people of Canada would eventually find out. What if it was one of the CEOs of a big corporation cutting a special deal? It could be a deal with iron ore. You shut down this town and we
Government Orders
will give you a bunch of dough later. We will keep it off shore in a bank.
Disclosure is fundamental to public trust. What about bonuses? Bonuses are quite often paid after the fact. You do the dirty job and you get it 12 months later. All of this kind of stuff should be made very clear and disclosed.


John R. Rodriguez: The stock options, too.


James Ross Fulton: This guy Munk. There is a word that rhymes with that, when one talks about the money he made on the gold shares. What did he make, $5 million or $50 million?


Mr. Bosley:: $50 million.


James Ross Fulton: Thanks, Bos. That is right. Bosley might have had some of those shares.
All of this kind of stuff should be disclosed well in advance so we know exactly what kind of dough these guys are hauling away in their Loomis trucks to their vacation homes.
Reasonable value for rent and housing: that is another good burial ground for special perks for the top five in every company. They get a nice house, say, a $3 million or $4 million house. They just live in it. They get a few rugs thrown in. They just hang around in there. They get it rent-free.
The shareholders should know about this kind of thing and they should not be Malpequed on it. This is not a situation where the oyster has to clam shut. I do not want to mix my shellfish metaphors, but I do not like oysters that clam up.
I think we should toss out that Liberal argument that disclosure could lead to higher salaries. I cannot wait to put that in my election material. "Payments of any kind".
I am just getting to the good stuff in this section. "Payments of any kind: Any other advantage received directly or indirectly from the company." That is where you really have to start looking. I think that is why Johnny properly put it in there.
We want to get to the bottom. We want the dirt on these guys who are up at the top monkey wrenching our economy, monkey wrenching employees and hiding all sorts of things from the shareholders.

Government Orders
All we are asking is to get out of this colonialist, beaver hat mentality, get both feet on the ground and say: "What kind of dough are these guys getting? What are they taking?"
Mr. Speaker, I can tell from your agitation in the chair that you would love to have an opportunity to get up and vote for this amendment because it is the best one we have heard today.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to participate although I think it might be very hard to follow my colleague.
In all seriousness, it is amazing that we are still debating this point in 1991. There is not public disclosure of the salaries of the chief executive officers of a public company. I underline the word "public". What is going on here? Why not?
It seems to me that in almost every civilized, developed country, the requirement is there. It certainly is in the United States. Again, it is put there to protect the shareholder. The job of a government is to help protect the public interest including shareholders.
That is why you have public institutions. That is why you have government. That is why you have a public domain. It is the job of this government to ensure that there is legislation so that information like the perks, salaries and remuneration of chief executive officers of publicly held companies is public information.
We generally consider ourselves to be a modern country, and in many ways we are.
Every now and then there are these little dark holes that sort of throw us back into medieval times, into the dark ages. This is one of them. The fact is that there is no requirement in this country for public officers in a publicly traded company to have information about their salaries made public. It is a dark hole.
I am quite amazed at the Liberal Party which really perpetuated this, because it has been in power for years and years and years and never did anything about it. In that period in opposition, it modernized itself enough to be able to support a relatively more modem contemporary regime when it comes to public disclosure.
It has given the indication today that it is going to go along with the conspiracy of silence. The reasoning one hears, whether it is the Liberal Party or the Tory Party,
trying to rationalize something that is irrational, is totally outdated and totally belongs to the dark ages. To hear it squirm and dance around this point is really quite, quite humorous. It would be a laughing matter if it were not so sad because it is serious about it.
It suggests that this is going to encourage high salaries and this is the experience in the United States. How can you make that determination? It is logically impossible to say that it has created higher salaries in the United States. You have to be able to then compare it to a situation in which these rules were not in place. Who knows? Salaries in the United States for the chief executive officers might be 100 times more had that requirement not been in place.
The hon. member from the Liberal Party, looking for a reason in order to impose the amendment, decided to take this particular interpretation. It is not rational mind you, it is just an attempt to try to create some rationality for a decision the Liberal Party has made.
When I hear my friend from Mississauga South trying to justify this and knowing the hon. member, I suspect his heart was not entirely in his reasoning. I know the hon. member is very much concerned about public disclosure. I know the hon. member believes that if the public knows something, in its infinite wisdom it will correct wrongdoings. The key thing in here is public knowledge, public disclosure.
If there is some hanky-panky occurring among the chief executive officers, it can best be corrected by self regulation and the shareholders bringing to task their board of directors. You need public information and public disclosure. The shareholders have got to know what is happening in order to be able to correct a wrong situation. If there is no public disclosure, you cannot really have a correction of any wrongdoing.
There are some real reasons why people do not want to have their salaries exposed. The member for Brant makes the point very clearly that in difficult economic times when everybody is being asked to tighten the belts and to make a sacrifice in order to keep the enterprise going, it is important to know that the chief executive officers are also tightening their belts, that this is just not a cynical exercise in order to deny employees an increase in their salary while the employers are continuing to take larger amounts of various forms of remuneration.

It is important for the employees as well as for the shareholders to know what is being paid. Particularly for the smaller institutions it is important for the shareholders to know that a few of the boys at the top are not really raking it all in. It is going to affect the value of the shares and the amount of dividends that are going to be paid and this is very important for them.
The shareholders will never be able to know unless there is a full and total disclosure, particularly for small and medium sized financial institutions. This is very important because it will have a direct bearing or it could have a direct bearing on the dividends being paid in the value of the shares and in the long run on the health of the financial institutions.
I think the argument in favour of full disclosure is an argument that was made in the States and a reasonable one many years ago. It is amazing that we will have this debate in 1991 in Canada and it looks as though we are going to have this debate perhaps 10 years from now when again the Bank Act is going to come up. Let us hope that somewhere in here some enlightenment and modem thinking will occur and that finally in Canada we will start having public disclosure of basically public institutions. These are public institutions so therefore the public, i.e. the shareholders, surely have the right to know.
It is quite amazing that this government cannot act on behalf of Canadians and on behalf of the shareholders. I find that irresponsible.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Government Orders
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Motion No. 47
That Bill C-4 be amended in clause 329 by adding immediately
after line 11 on page 168 the following:
"(3) A person who in good faith makes an oral or written communication under subsection (1) or (2) shall not be liable in any civil action arising therefrom."
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am moving this amendment today because it follows logically from one of the Liberal Party's objectives when we were dealing with this financial institution legislation, and that was to improve the soundness of Canadian financial institutions. It is an objective that we kept in mind when dealing with the various witnesses and briefs and presentations that came before the committee and certainly one that we are very concerned with when you consider what is going on south of the border.
This amendment prevents a lawsuit against anyone who gives information in good faith to an auditor of a financial institution. We feel that protection is important because a free flow of information to auditors helps make for sound accounting and actuarial principles and practices.
We feel that it is a protection that is needed because questionable accounting practices have been blamed in part for the failure of two western banks in 1985 and last year's failure of Ontario based Standard Trust. The Superintendent of Financial Institutions told the finance committee last November that improved accounting practices might have made a difference in the case of Standard Trust.
If an employee of a bank has information that he or she knows the auditor needs or would help the auditor to perform a proper audit, but that the trust company or bank would rather not disclose for various reasons, then that employee might be reluctant to come forward with the information and risk a lawsuit. However, if the employee does have information and he knows that he cannot be sued by the bank-he gives that information to an auditor in good faith; in other words, he is being honest and he is being very sincere-he is more than likely to come forward with it. This new information could result in a better audit, a better financial statement and a better chance for the superintendent to catch small problems before they become big ones that might bankrupt the institution.

November 25, 1991
Government Orders
I would urge the House to support this amendment because I feel it is in the best interest of the Canadian financial institutions.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I very much recognize the motives behind the member for Malpeque and I very much approve of what she has been saying.
The problem, though, is that I think the amendment is not necessary and presents a danger in society when we absolve people from civil liability for what they say.
Clause 329 of the bill says that employees, agents or servants of the company, officers, former directors and so on, shall provide information to the auditor if the auditor requests. The company, under subparagraph (b), shall provide information that the auditor requests. These are mandatory obligations on employees, officers, agents, directors and former directors of the company to provide information to the auditor.
When you are required under a statute to provide something you are required to provide it. If the auditor cannot get the information, his job is to go to the superintendent and demand the superintendent enforce that obligation as set out in the statute. But surely we ought not to go one step further as my friend would suggest and absolve people from any liability they might have in a civil action.
I do not want to go into the details or possibilities that one could imagine in a civil action. Surely you cannot be subject to a civil action if you are required by statute to supply something. But if you supply far beyond what you are required to do, if you do things that deliberately injure a company, then maybe you should be responsible for what you say and do and maybe you ought to be subject to civil liability in a civil action.
I think it goes too far to say that you can somehow slither out of your responsibility to be forthright and your responsibility to say what you want to say, by somehow being excused from civil liability and then able to plead: "I mean, sure I slandered them but I am excused". If what you are disclosing is what the auditor requests then you are okay. Surely a reading of the statute is that way. But to go on beyond that and allow people to escape liability for commercial slander, because they decided to go far beyond in their own view or disclose more than
what was really required as a court may determine and to make statements that are damaging to a company because of a disclosure made on the request of an auditor, seems to us to be beyond what we ought to allow and beyond the protection we ought to give to people fulfilling their requirements under the statute.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this amendment. As I read the amendment I compared it to the clause in the bill it is purporting to amend. The provisions in subclause 329(1) and subclause 329(2) talk about present or former directors, officers, employees or agents of the company and about the directors of the company.
It seems to me that this amendment provides much more surety so that when an employee reveals practices that are not consistent with the rules governing the operation of a financial institution, they cannot find themselves facing a civil suit because they did the right thing. They revealed to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions or to a member of Parliament or to the minister certain things that were not going correctly.
I think for example of Standard Trust. God knows we ought not have depended on Diane Frances with respect to Standard Trust, because a year before the bottom fell out of it she was touting Standard Trust as the best investment going. God knows she has poor financial judgment and she has poor political judgment, for that matter. She had poor economic judgment in suggesting to her readers that they ought to go out and invest in Standard Trust, in other words not having looked at the company thoroughly.
Suppose some employee of the company had revealed to an editor of a financial paper certain things that were going on in the company, certain bonuses being paid for going out and rustling up mortgages to mall contractors. Let us assume that that sort of thing was going on and that was revealed. I think this motion puts an onus on citizens to reveal things that are not right. In fact, if this government had any kind of courage at all, it would bring in whistle-blowing legislation that protects people in the Public Service. It took the PSAC organization to establish a telephone line where people can phone when they think things are being done that are not consistent with the rules established by Parliament.
November 25, 1991

Government Orders
It seems to me that the last time a fellow tried that in Canada Post he lost his job. As a matter of fact he had blown the whistle to a Tory and the Tory went out and fought the good fight for him. Then, lo and behold, the Liberal government was defeated and the Tory government came in and here was the post office under a Tory department and they kicked the guy out. There was one hell of a dust-up to get this guy back his job.


An hon. member:: Watch that language.


John R. Rodriguez: One dust-up for the guy to get his job back. It seems to me that this amendment puts an onus on citizens, people who work for financial institutions, that when they see something going wrong-and God knows we need it now-or something that is not in accordance with the rules, they ought to be able to blow the whistle and not be afraid of finding themselves facing a civil suit.
That has happened. That is one of the most effective ways companies have of shutting up their employees. That is one of the most effective ways of continuing this conspiracy of silence. I have to support this amendment.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of this amendment proposed by the member for Malpeque. Over the last decade I have made a number of attempts to get whistle-blowing legislation through this House without much success under either Liberal or Conservative regimes. Yet jurisdictions all over the world are adopting it because when one does any kind of a cost benefit analysis of the kinds of information one gets, one realizes pretty quickly, particularly in the field of health and safety, that there are enormous benefits to the public to having whistleblowing legislation.
This proposed clause could be included on page 168. Let us take a look specifically at the section where it is to go. In the column it is described. First there is the auditor's examination, clause 328. Then the auditing standards, then right to information. I think this is what any shareholder or any member of the public would be interested in.
It says:
On the request of the auditor of a company, the present or former directors, officers, employees or agents of the company shall to the extent that such persons are reasonably able to do so,
(a)	permit access to such records, assets and security held by the company or any entity in which the company has a substantial investment, and
(b)	provide such information and explanations
as are, in the opinion of the auditor, necessary to enable the auditor to perform the duties of the auditor of the company.
It is pretty clear it is covering present and past directors, officers, employees or agents of the company. Then it goes to directors to provide information, an obvious consequential clause which says:
(2) On the request of the auditor of a company, the directors of the company shall to the extent that they are reasonably able to do so,
(a)	obtain from the present or former directors, officers, employees and agents of any entity in which the company has a substantial investment the information and explanations that such persons are reasonably able to provide and that are, in the opinion of the auditor, necessary to enable the auditor to perform the duties of the auditor of the company; and
(b)	provide the auditor with the information and explanation so obtained.
The amendment proposed by the member for Malpeque says: "A person who in good faith makes an oral or written communication under subsections (1) or (2) shall not be liabled in any in any civil action arising therefrom".
As the member for Mississauga South or the minister or members on the government side would know, there is in the courts a broad range of definition in terms of good faith. Something cannot just be made up and given in written or oral form during an audit and suspect that if there is following litigation that you are going to somehow or other be protected because you are a nice person or you wear blue shoes. That does not fly. You have to be able to demonstrate that you provided that information in good faith and that you, in fact, thought the books were being cooked or something was being jigged or the widgets you were making were not being shipped. You need some foundation in reality in order to be able to use the good faith argument.

November 25, 1991
Government Orders
I think the member for Malpeque has quite properly brought this forward. It is not a broad based, whistleblowing concept but it does provide, in a general sense, the kind of balance that one wants. You do not want an employee, for whatever reason, to say that because they did not get a raise or they did not get an appointment to something they wanted, they would then use the next available opportunity to be involved in some kind of scurrilous, under-handed, improper attack while an audit was going on. At the same time, you do not want to foreclose the likelihood that someone with valuable information, particularly as we watch what has gone on in the United States or in western Canada, for that matter.
Let us keep in mind what has been going on in a lot of financial institutions. Some of it is clearly tied to the Reagan deregulation policies that were implemented and created an enormous fiasco in the United States. We know what has caused some of the serious collapses in this country.
There are people, often at very junior levels in many financial institutions in positions of public trust who know there is something going wrong, whether it is simply in an area of bookkeeping or in an actual area of commodity or financial transfers. I think we need not just this wording but additional active areas of whistle-blowing to touch on pieces of legislation such as this in its broadest sense. We need to protect the person who gets his pay cheque, goes home, pays the rent, pays for the bike for the kid and pays for maybe a swimming lesson a month, pays for some clothes, pays for the groceries and then has nothing left. There is the prospect of being tied up in civil litigation and because of their economic income they might not be eligible for any kind of legal aid. They have to think: "Gosh, if I tell the auditor this and I get sued by Mr. X who does not like me very much anyway, I am going to end up with all of these additional costs, not only to have a lawyer, but what if I lose".
I do not think any longer at this point in the 20th century it is a sign of good government to simply bury this kind of wording and say: "Well, now, we just cannot have it". I listened with care to what the member for Mississauga had to say and I do not buy the argument.
I think anyone who has been around the courts, around whistle-blowing situations, as we all have been on the government or on the opposition benches, knows the kinds of pressures that Canadians operate under, particularly in financial institutions where you are constantly dealing. Think of the pressures on the prairies right now between people who work in financial institutions and farmers. Twenty-four thousand have lost their farms in the last 12 months. Two a day are going into financial institutions absolutely, totally gone. They have lost their homes, their tractors, their machinery, their cars, their dreams. They have lost everything.
Within those financial institutions there are all of these other pressures that are constantly there. Without this kind of wording, all that it is is a protective shield. It is not a wall. It certainly would not protect anyone who for ill purposes or ill reasons provided inaccurate, improper or false information. What this does, and it has a good foundation in common law in this country and under British common law, is provide some kind of protection.
One can only continue to wonder out loud during debates such as this why the government would not want to have that in there. Why does it not want it in there? It is just one more unnecessary piece of protection for the very wealthy, the elite, the bankers and the super rich. Why is there always special protection for those who already can afford to hire a lawyer, another accountant or another auditor.
But no, the government says: "No. We have to give them one more kind of protection, one more coat of veneer to make sure that they can never be caught up, whether they have been doing things properly or improperly, legally or illegally". What the intention of this clause is, and I stand to be corrected by the member for Malpeque if I am wrong, is where there are situations where there may well have been wrongdoing is to open that window so that a little bit of fresh air can come in and that person directly or indirectly involved with the information would say to themselves: "I know I am right. I studied those records. I helped produce those records. I dealt with that farm foreclosure. I know what is going on. What I have been seeing in the papers and hearing around here is not what really went on in that branch. I am going to go to the auditor in good faith as is provided".

We have the auditing standards, the auditor's examination, right to information and directors to provide information. Why should it not go that one extra step to where I consider the mother lode of accurate information to be, which is among the employees at the lower end, not at the $100,000, $300,000, $500,000 salary level where they do not do any of the direct monkey wrenching. They are the ones who know. They deal with the $10, $100, $1,000 transactions. They are the ones who know because they see the roots. If there is some kind of funny business going on, that is where we need to be able to follow the trail.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted and narrow minded for the government not to agree to support Motion No. 47.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to join in the debate on this amendment and congratulate the Liberal Party for introducing a good amendment. I am glad to see, despite the stance that they have taken on some other very worth-while amendments, that they have come forward with something that I can support.
Certainly when one discusses financial institutions, banks, life insurance companies, trusts and so forth, one sees the true colours of the political parties being revealed. One sees the Tories standing up and protecting the interest of private wealth and private capital to quite an extent. As my colleague from Skeena has pointed out, why do you give this extra piece of protection to the very wealthy, the people who can hire their own lawyers? They do not need this extra piece of protection. The government, darn it, when it comes to the wealthy is going to give them every break possible.
The opposition to this amendment I do not quite understand. Let us step back and see what the government is doing. It is collapsing the pillars. It is bringing in a new regime in which banks can sell life insurance companies, trust companies can be controlled by banks, commercial interests can control deposit taking institutions. It is all going to be one. It recognizes that there is a possibility of conflict of interest here between the life insurance part and the casualty insurance part and the mortgage part, and so forth, and there might be possibilities of conflict between the commercial part and the
Government Orders
deposit taking part. The government is setting up and is going to have to set up a regulatory regime. In remarks I made earlier this afternoon, I expressed my grave concern of how a neo-Conservative government can really set up a proper regulatory regime to make certain that there will not be conflicts of interest.
The Tory rhetoric very often is: we need self-regulation, let them be self-regulatory and let the industry regulate itself. If they were really sincere about that, the best way to ensure some form of self-regulation would be to accept the amendment that is being proposed today. It would make it easier to remove the type of pressure, the type of blackmail fear that the large financial institutions can place on a lowly clerk such as the fear of having to face in court, with all of its expenses, some charge that some hot shot lawyer in Toronto in one of these huge towers in the bank zone is going to bring to bear on that little individual. That lowly individual can see that there is a conflict occurring and knows that the person who is giving the mortgages is unofficially insisting that a certain life insurance policy and mortgage insurance policy be purchased. The lowly little clerk has to run up the numbers and enter it all into computer and begins to see some correlation between the commercial interests and the interests of the deposit taking institution. To allow that individual to alert the proper authorities that something wrong is happening would be a tremendous arm in the process of self-regulation. It would ensure, where wrongdoings occur, that they can brought to the attention of the enforcers of the regulations.
I have grave doubts about whether you are going to have a big enough army of bank regulators to ensure that in Strasbourg, Saskatchewan, at the Royal Bank of Canada, for example, the person issuing the mortgage is not going to also insist, or sort of insist-it does not have to be done officially-that if you want your mortgage "we do have this good insurance policy here". No bank regulator is going to be able to sit down and have a cup of coffee with the person selling the insurance and the person dealing with the mortgages. The lowly little teller might begin to pick up on the fact that certain requirements in reality are being enforced here: if you want that mortgage you have to take out this particular insurance policy.

Government Orders
I think it is essential to allow that lonely little teller to blow the whistle. They cannot blow the whistle with no protection. They are intimidated. Only a very few and veiy brave will blow the whistle on wrongdoing.
If they are given some protection, as this amendment begins to do, then I think those in the banking industry, the life insurance or the trust industry will think twice. In fact, they might even be a little stricter with their employees in saying: "Look, let's make certain we have no tight selling here". They will never know whether the little lonely clerk might not one day say: "Hey, this is too much. This is wrong. I am going to blow the whistle on this".
That is the type of regulation we need and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to support this amendment.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in the normal course of consultation and the excellent representations made by members of the New Democratic Party and members of the Liberal Party, including my friend from Malpeque, I have spoken to my friend from Malpeque and suggested that if in Motion No. 47 we eliminate the word "therefrom" at the end of that motion and add "from making the communication", we believe that the motion could be supported all around. It would be a worth-while addition to the bill.
On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is some sense in the arguments presented and it would seem to me on that basis the motion would then read:
"(3) A person who in good faith makes an oral or written communication under subsections (1) or (2) shall not be liable in any civil action arising from having made the communication."
I do not have the material in writing at this point but I believe it is about six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. May I call it six o'clock? Perhaps the paperwork could be organized to present the amendment tomorrow as we continue the debate on this clause.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, could I suggest to the member for Mississauga South "any civil action arising from such communication"?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair has taken notice of these suggestions, and possibly, after a good night's sleep, we may come up with an even better solution.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT AND THE CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 21, consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) that Bill C-12, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being six o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at third reading stage.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: It being 6.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.27 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 26, 1991