1991-10-30

Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the problem of airport noise from Pearson airport is very real and continues unabated.
The airport's surrounding communities have had to endure frequent aircraft take-off and landings every 30 seconds in late night flights on the routes directly over their homes well past the established airport's curfew.
During my meetings with the numerous community and ratepayer groups along with hundreds of local residents in my riding, they demand that the Minister of Transport enforce the regulations at least to alternate flights to and from Pearson on runways 24R and 24L.
In addition, the cavalier attitude expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport against community groups is offensive to their concerns and displays his lack of understanding of the problem at hand. His misguided comments in the Mississauga news, for example, show blatant disregard for the plight of the public.
The minister and government must act now so that the pleas of community groups living around Pearson are not drowned out by airport noise or any noise emanating from the government benches.


CANADA POST
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. Marcel Danis, the Minister of Labour and
member for Vercheres, who managed to include an amendment to section 7 in the special back-to-work legislation for postal workers.
Thanks to this amendment, postal workers were able to have the legislation cover certain items on which agreement had been reached during the mediation process under Judge Alan Gold.
Mr. Danis did this to ensure that what had already been accomplished during the process would not be lost.


NUCLEAR VESSELS
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of National Defence announced that the government was consenting to all future visits to Canada of U.S. and U.K. nuclear powered and nuclear armed military vessels.
This decision is taken without any public participation or consultation. In fact by using the Order in Council route, a procedure already ruled illegal by the Canadian courts, the government is deliberately seeking to avoid a public environmental review.
The consequences of a nuclear accident, especially in built-up areas such as Victoria, are incredibly serious. Emergency procedures are not fully in place.
Finally the decision flies in face of the rapid de-escalation of the nuclear arms race. Instead of taking this particular position the government should have shown leadership and placed a moratorium on nuclear visits to Canadian waters at least until a full public independent environmental assessment takes place.


WHITE RIBBONS AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, many church congregations throughout my constituency of Brandon-Souris are actively participating in White

October 30, 1991
Ribbons Against Pornography Week, October 27 to November 3.
I would like to take this opportunity to add my words of support to this campaign. In an age of increasing violence, which seems to be particularly and tragically directed against women and children, society must do all it can to negate the all too present message which erroneously suggests to some that such violence is an inevitable part of life.
Society must also address the problem of the production and utilization of pornographic materials, and particularly when children are the subjects. Such degrading and exploitive material by implication diminishes the values of those who are portrayed therein and in my opinion helps create a climate which leads directly to the violence which we abhor, to the violence which must be prevented.


PROSPERITY THROUGH COMPETITIVENESS
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade tabled a document in this House entitled Prosperity Through Competitiveness.
He started out his comments by saying "Canadians today are perplexed and confused". That was the most meaningful statement of his entire speech. He went on to talk about prosperity, education and other subjects. He did not mention the fact that because of the government's softwood lumber tax which was belatedly removed and the high Canadian dollar this government has been guilty of increasing welfare payments by 500 per cent to 2,000 per cent in some municipalities where lumber was the main industrial employer.
He forgot to tell this House that when he was Minister of Finance the transfer payments to the provinces for education were cut back. Training programs were cut back. He forgot to tell Canadians that his government promised large increases in research and development to help Canada to be more competitive. Today research and development is at its lowest point in decades.
Because of what the government has failed to do, it has created havoc and hardship for many families and
has discouraged young people in their outlook for the future. It has failed the children and young people of this nation and it has failed the very nation itself.


LITERACY
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I rise today to share the news of an important honour bestowed upon one of our members.
Last week the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Louis Braille Memorial Committee awarded the Louis Braille commemorative medallion to the hon. Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
It is a rare honour, having been presented to Canadian recipients only on two previous occasions since 1952 when the medallion was first struck in Paris. The distinguished award was given at the launch of the Braille Literacy Foundation in Toronto. The Government of Canada has placed $1 million toward the establishment of this vital and high profile project. This contribution is but the most recent of numerous steps forward that we have taken in the area of literacy, in partnership with business, labour, various levels of government and the voluntary sector.
The silver medallion was presented to our minister and is indeed a shining tribute to the universality of literacy in our land.


MEME BREAST IMPLANT
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the time for this government to act in the interests of Canadian women who have had the Meme breast implant has long passed. We have heard the words of concern from the present minister and the pious assertions of his predecessors that all was being done to safeguard the health of Canadian women.
What we have yet to see is any concrete action to address this serious health issue.
Following my meeting with the minister in July, we were assured that an internal review of his department, and the approval that followed of the Meme breast implant for use in Canada, was under way and would be available soon. We are still waiting.
October 30, 1991

I have asked the minister in this House and in other forums to establish an independent judicial inquiry into the actions taken by his department in allowing the Meme to be sold in Canada.
Today I request on behalf of the thousands of Canadian women who have had the Meme breast implant the establishment of an independent external audit of the working of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
In particular the actions taken or omitted by the Medical Devices Branch of that department need to be the subject of a comprehensive investigation. Canadian women have the right to know the exact extent to which this government has gone to safeguard their health.


INTERNATIONAL PEE-WEE HOCKEY TOURNAMENT
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, for more than 25 years, the best pee-wee hockey players have met annually to play during a ten-day tournament in the riding of Quebec-Est.
This international event is absolutely unique. For more than 25 years, the tournament has received nothing but praise from heads of State, hockey organizations, and especially from parents and participants.
Many great hockey players consider this an unforgettable experience. We have never heard any remarks with racist overtones, when we welcome hundreds of native people, Europeans and Asians.
I must say, however, that with Max Gros-Louis, I deplore the negative overtones of an exchange between Bev Morin and the president of the tournament. I am sure it was an unfortunate misunderstanding, and I am convinced that no one wants to use young people for political purposes.
In February 1992, Quebec-Est will once again welcome thousands of young people who will come here to have fun, demonstrate their skills and get to know each
other. We hope the team from Thompson will be applauded just like other participating teams.


CHILD POVERTY
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, over one million children in Canada are living in poverty, too many of them deprived of the basic human rights of adequate food, shelter and clothing.
In response to concerns raised here by me and across this country by others, it is obvious that the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare have never been forced to deny their own children food when they were hungry, drink when they were thirsty, adequate shelter when they were homeless, a loving home because economic stress had caused familial breakdown and havoc. Not having experienced this themselves, they deny the harsh reality of it for other Canadians.
The consequences of raising over one million children in Canada in conditions of poverty will be more devastating to our nation's well-being than our current debt. Our children are our nation's future. More than enough studies indicate how impoverished children become the health, illiteracy, early school dropout, disabled and welfare statistics of the future. This government must get real, re-evaluate current policies and assure that all future policies set the well-being of our nation's children as its first priority.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, less than 4 per cent of Canadians live on farms today, yet the industry generates billions of dollars worth of exports each year. In fact, from 1969 to 1988 the value of agricultural exports grew from $1.2 billion to $10.3 billion.
However, in recent years our farm industry across Canada has been devastated by record low prices for their quality products. In the midst of this crisis in agriculture, Canadians continue to pay the world's second lowest percentage of disposable income on food.

October 30,1991
Oral Questions
I think it is time that Canadians consider providing recognition and long-term support for our food producers by paying a targeted levy on the over $40 billion we spend each year on food. For example, the levy could be an annually adjusted rate which is designed to ensure a minimum farm income equal to a pre-1990 five-year average.
If our pledges of support for the family farm are to be more than just empty rhetoric, then we as Canadians should be willing to pay a small premium on our food bill to ensure the survival of agriculture, which historically has meant so much to our national economy.


RIDING OF BEAUSEJOUR
Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to draw the attention of this House once again to a situation in the riding of Beausejour that is most unfair. In most of New Brunswick, workers need ten weeks of unemployment to be eligible for unemployment insurance programs. In Westmorland, however, the requirement is sixteen weeks, which for some people is out of the question.

A big proportion of workers in Westmorland will not find the required 16 weeks of work. I ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to make the necessary adjustments so that the people of rural Westmorland will be treated exactly the same way as the people of rural Kent who are treated differently.
I want to see everybody treated the same way. That is why I am asking the minister to treat all the fishermen and workers of the riding of Beausejour with justice.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the 19th anniversary of the class of 1972, those members of Parliament first elected on October 30, 1972 who went on to unbroken re-election victories and still sit as members of this House. I believe these members deserve to be recognized as the rare breed they are: political survivors.
On October 30, 1972, 59 Conservatives, 23 Liberals, 11 New Democrats, and 3 Socreds were elected for the first time. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that you and I were counted among those numbers. However, of the 96 there are only 11 Conservatives and 2 Liberals remaining with unbroken electoral records.
In the Liberal caucus there remain Jean-Robert Gauthier and the Hon. Bill Rompkey. In the Conservative caucus there is you, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Harvie Andre, the Hon. Perrin Beatty, the Right Hon. Joe Clark, the Hon. Paul Dick, the Hon. Jake Epp, the Hon. Otto Jelinek, Bill Kempling, Gus Mitges, the Hon. Frank Oberle, and myself.
In an age when public cynicism is high and the fortunes of political life at an all-time low, we are to be commended for our resiliency and ability to buck the trend.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Today the Secretary of State for External Affairs again gave in to pressure from the Americans. By order in council, she gave them the right of passage for their nuclear-powered submarines in Canadian territorial waters.
Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell us why the government again yielded to American pressure, when the cold war is over?
Does the government intend to rescind this utterly ridiculous order in council?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of sovereignty over Canadian territorial waters is clear. We agreed to the situation involving submarines and we continue to consult the Americans, but it was done cooperatively.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
October 30,1991

Oral Questions
It is not the first time that this government has failed to defend the sovereignty of Canada. It seems to me that every time President Bush sneezes the Prime Minister catches pneumonia.
When will the Prime Minister stop caving in to the President of the United States and start standing for Canada?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, allowing U.S. and British submarines into Canadian waters has been a part of Canadian defence policy for a great many years. This was done on a consultative basis. We have not in any way given up our sovereignty on the waters that are under dispute. It is clear to us that those are our waters. The Americans consulted with us. The submarines are coming with our consent and we have been able to achieve certain guarantees as a result of those discussions.
Now that is exercising sovereignty.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the minister what kind of deal it is. We have said clearly for generations that we did not want any nuclear submarines in Canadian waters. Is it quid pro quo in order to have certain a concession, to accept that? We do not want these submarines in Canadian waters at all. It is clear; and this has been the position taken by this Parliament many times over.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Leader of the Opposition is totally on the wrong track. This is a part of our co-operative defence. It has been a part of our co-operative defence for a great many years and it will continue to be into the future.
I should point out that this is an acoustical testing facility only. It is not in any way a base for nuclear submarines. We are continuing to co-operate and we are realistic about our defence needs, about our deterrent needs and about our sovereignty, and that is what this is about.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the government's decision has put our environment at risk. It has put at risk the lives of people. All the ports will now have warships visiting them. It thoroughly undermines our sovereignty, and it was done without any parliamentary debate, without any consultation with the people affected. It was done in secret.
How can this government claim there is any democracy left in Canada when it makes a decision like this that affects thousands of people and it is done behind closed doors?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to forget that in August 1967, long before Mr. Bush even thought of becoming President of the United States, we had a Liberal government in Canada which adopted a policy of allowing nuclear-powered ships to enter our territorial waters provided Canada had a verification procedure with the country concerned.
So this is not a new policy as the hon. member would have the House believe. Your government authorized such things in 1967!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we have a minister who says: "If you let a thief in your house and you say 'surrender', somehow you have won a victory, and it is not a crime".
I want to ask the minister this. The Order in Council explicitly says as follows; "if claims arise out of a nuclear accident, there will be a diplomatic conference". Are we saying that we are going to have a diplomatic international conference over the ashes of people if there is a nuclear accident? Is that the safeguard this government has provided?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member should go back and see in his own notes what he would have done in 1968 in such a case, Mr. Speaker.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Today the Economic Council of Canada has confirmed that the economic and budgetary policies of this government have set us on the road to the most costly and least desirable constitutional options, and I quote: "The government's decision to alter its commitments to existing fiscal arrangements with the provinces unleashed pressures for decentralization".

October 30, 1991
Oral Questions
I want to say to the Prime Minister that the most valued contribution he can make to unity in this country is to abandon the disastrous economic policies that have led to pressures for greater decentralization.
Therefore, I ask the Prime Minister, in the interests of turning the constitutional debate around in a direction that makes sense for all Canadians, will he immediately restore federal funding to health programs, post-secondary programs and social assistance so that we can deal with the needs of all Canadians?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to read carefully the document of the Economic Council of Canada to which my hon. friend refers. Apparently the principal conclusion is in regard to some economic consequences for sovereignty association.
That may have been an interesting conclusion when the question of sovereignty association was debated 11 years ago, and resolved 11 years ago. Sovereignty association is no longer relevant.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Apart from a few people who want to freeload on the back of Canada, I am telling you it is not an option.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have a little message for them. You cannot be a part-time Canadian. You cannot have the benefits of Canada while you are trying to undermine the integrity of the nation on the other.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In Montreal last week I indicated that the question was one of great simplicity. You are either going to be a Canadian or you are going to be citizens of another country. Therefore, the Economic Council of Canada report might have been interesting 11 years ago, as it dealt with sovereignty association, the question that was on the ballot then.
The question now, for all of us to decide, is do you want one country Canada or do you want to be citizens of
a foreign country? When that question is squarely put to Quebecers, they will opt for Canada.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I agree with the Prime Minister 'that we must have a united Canada, but it is also a question of the government's economic policies. I would call the Prime Minister's attention to page 101, where it says that clearly, the present constitutional crisis is exacerbated by a whole series of financial and economic pressures. For example, the fight against inflation has produced very high unemployment.
So if the Prime Minister wants to build a Canada where everyone would like to live, will he put forward a recovery plan so that Quebec's 400,000 jobless can find work before the referendum, not after?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am told that this study concludes that sovereignty-association would cost each Quebec family at least $1,800 a year for at least a generation. That is sovereignty-association. The Council did not study the real issue, which is the cost of independence. If the Council concluded that sovereignty-association would cost $1,800 per Quebec family for a generation, imagine the cost of independence!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to the Prime Minister that in this report there were very condemning conclusions about the economic policies of this government and the implications of that for national unity. Yes, sovereignty association was one subject. It was not the total of the report. It was the economic policies of this government.
For example, the report says the experience of the past two years should not be allowed to repeat itself. We on this side agree. Economic policies that caused unemployment cannot continue in this country.
I want to ask the Prime Minister again: Will his government immediately restore federal funding to such programs as health and social spending and post-secondary education? Will he do that now in the interest of national unity?
October 30,1991


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, while not having had an opportunity to study the report in detail, there is one thing that was drawn to my attention. That is the fact that the Economic Council is projecting real growth to reach 4.2 per cent in 1992 and 5.1 per cent in 1993. That compares with our projections of 3.2 per cent in 1992 and
4.1	per cent in 1993. They are considerably more optimistic on the growth front than we are. They are also more optimistic on the employment opportunities as well.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that clearly indicates that we are following a course of sustained durable recovery with price stability.
I am really surprised that the hon. member is so much against inflation. I thought that the NDP were the champions of the under dog, the senior citizens, the people on fixed incomes. It is runaway inflation that erodes the income base of senior citizens and low income people. They should be applauding our efforts.
With respect to transfer payments, when this government came into office, it transferred to the provinces in 1984-85 $25.6 billion. In 1992-93, in the next fiscal year, we will be transferring $38.1 billion, an increase of $12.5 billion or almost 50 per cent.


ADVERTISING
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the government launched its so-called prosperity and learning initiative in the House of Commons. Two ministers stood in the House and briefed Parliament and subsequently briefed the press in a press conference and answered questions about the reported $15 million program.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this. Why did both those ministers, the minister of trade and the minister of employment, withhold information about an additional $4.5 million advertising program to be jointly funded by both their ministries, 50-50, and to be launched in the next few weeks, and an advertising blitz called "Yes We Can"? Why were Canadians not given all the information yesterday?
Oral Questions


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I believe at that press conference and certainly on other occasions yesterday I talked quite openly about advertising. I did say that there would be an advertising program. It would be financed in part from the secretariat, $500,000 from the secretariat, but in part from the budgets of other government departments.
It is those other government departments which have other advertising programs in government and will be doing so under the broad umbrella of the "Yes We Can" theme, the competitiveness theme.
It is not incremental spending in that sense. I have been quite open about it and I will continue to be open about it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, Canadians should note that the program has grown from $15 million to $20 million in 24 hours.
I want to ask the minister another question. It was clear yesterday in the briefing with the senior official involved, Mr. Tony Eyton, that an unspecified amount of money is also going to be spent on consultants and to pay for studies.
The estimate given yesterday was $5 million for that program. Will the minister now confirm that yesterday's initiative is not $15 million, but with the $5 million he just admitted and with another $5 million in his new spirit of openness-I expect him to admit this-the total program is $25 million.
Rather than listening to Canadians, $15 million is going to be spent on a communications and advertising blitz. How can you say you are listening when you are dumping a barrage of propaganda on the heads of Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think my hon. friend was told this morning by members of the secretariat that $5 million which he has just concluded now is going to be an advertising blitz is nothing like an advertising blitz.
It is moneys that will be spent on consultants, on printing and distribution, toll free telephone information services and things that are related to serving the consultation process on a community basis.

October 30, 1991
Oral Questions
If the hon. member wants to ask me another question, he can ask the other question.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott -Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on October 9, 1980, the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. member for Yellowhead said about advertising: "I think that attempts to spend public money to manipulate public opinion on public questions that have not been decided is an improper practice that offends the right of the House of Commons".
I want to ask the minister who has just answered how he can justify spending $25 million that Canadians do not have to propagate the policy of a failing government. How can that be right?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is suggesting that we should not be talking about the challenges of international competitiveness.
He is suggesting that these are not issues that Canadians want to learn more about and that Canadians do want to participate in in a broad way as we are proposing through the community consultations.
I would tell my hon. friend first of all that Canadians want to participate in them. They have said that international competitiveness is the most important issue that they are facing in a poll that was put out just on Monday by the Toronto Star and the CBC.
We are responding to that great concern by watching this prosperity initiative so we can strengthen the economy of this country in the coming years.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the minister that the ultimate democratic consultation is called an election.

My supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister, the ultimate guardian of the public purse. Once more, Tory cronies are going to dip into it and receive advertising contracts. Will the Prime Minister make a commitment today and promise all Canadians that none of this money will be spent before there is a public tender for advertising contracts? Is he prepared to give us this assurance today?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated our proposal to launch the broadest possible consultation process.
A large amount of the spending that is in that money that was referred to by his colleague is money that is being spent within the government on public servants who are being reallocated from other government departments.
To suggest that this is a total amount of new money first of all is wrong. It is reallocated money. It is reallocated people directed to focus on the most important economic issue that we are facing today, improving our competitive position internationally.


NUCLEAR VESSELS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Despite the distortions and protests of the Liberals earlier in Question Period, it was in fact they who opened our territorial waters and ports to nuclear vessels a quarter of a century ago.


An hon. member:: Shameful.


James Ross Fulton: What has happened today to the Dixon Entrance, the richest fishing grounds in Canada, is however much more serious. It is on those points that I would like the Secretary of State to address her mind. The technique that has been used to exempt U.S. nuclear submarines from transiting Dixon Entrance was found to be illegal by the Federal Court in May of this year.
My question to the minister is this: Why has she and the cabinet chosen to use a technique that has already been found illegal and denies the public in British Columbia the right to assess the real and measurable risks of submarines involved in testing activities in our waters and to the north of our waters?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me remind the hon. member of two things. First of all, this is an acoustical testing facility. It is not a nuclear testing facility.
Second, let me remind the hon. member that the history of U.S. nuclear submarines is an excellent one in terms of safety, that we have discussed with them and we have consent from them concerning their use of our sovereign waters and that we have received from them
October 30, 1991

assurances on how these waters will be passed through by these submarines to reach the acoustic testing facility.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister because this is much more serious than what the minister wants to address. Certainly a public review is where you address the serious risks that the public face.
What I am asking is a procedural question of the minister. It is abundantly clear from documentation that was provided to cabinet that this technique was already found to be illegal in the Kemano-Alcan case. You cannot use Order in Council powers to exempt yourself in any decision from things such as this.
My question to the minister is will you remove yourself from this situation-


Mr. Speaker:: The matter the hon. member raises is of course important, but I do ask hon. members to stay within the rules in presenting their questions.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think there are two important things here. First of all, the environmental aspects of this activity were reviewed pursuant to the 1990 cabinet decision to ascertain the environmental implications of cabinet decisions.
Responsible departments did analyse the information that was relevant to this activity including the final environmental impact statement assessment, as was done for the SEAFAC facility, the thoroughness of which has successfully withstood a court challenge in the U.S.
Pursuant to government policy, the results of a preliminary environmental assessment will be made available to the public.


CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, over a year ago, the Prime Minister co-chaired with great fanfare the United Nations World Summit for Children where the Convention on the Rights of the Child was passed. This convention still sits on the shelf in the Prime Minister's office gathering dust.


Some hon. members:: You are all wrong.
Oral Questions


Sheila Finestone: Fine. Will the Prime Minister today then, if I am so absolutely wrong, do the right thing and send a message to all Canadian children and to the advocates who are sitting here in the House and tell them where, when and how this convention will be signed?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the convention is not on the shelf of the Prime Minister. The convention has been proposed to the provinces as we said it would. The provinces are first responsible for children.
What the Prime Minister and I said is that as soon as the provinces have ratified or accepted the convention, it will be signed. We are still waiting for two provinces, one of which was recently involved in an election, and we are told that the provinces will deal quickly with the matter. I still say that the convention will be ratified before the end of the year.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, if the minister knows when the convention is going to be passed then political will should get it passed now.
The plight of the children of Canada is really staggering. One in six live in poverty, homelessness is at emergency levels, too many children still live in families that live below the poverty line, health conditions for our aboriginal children compare to that of the Third World, and this government's economic mismanagement is driving more people on to the bread lines.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. What concrete steps is he taking that will address and redress, right now, the crisis conditions faced by over one million Canadian children who are still living in poverty in this country.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will answer right now. This week I had four meetings with people dealing with children. I do not believe there is one member in this House who does not want to deal with the problems of children. It is a very serious one and must be addressed by all Canadians.
The member will recall that all departments of this government spend approximately $15 billion a year. We would like to do more and we will. I have already announced that the government will come forward with

October 30,1991
Oral Questions
a strategy before the end of the year. We will need the help of every Canadian.
I believe that Canadians understand that to be able to provide services to children we have to create the resources. I ask my friend to help me get the resources, starting with a good economy in this country.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in times of economic distress, children must be the last to suffer.
A year ago the Prime Minister said at the UN World Summit for Children: "Canada still has serious problems that affect children in many ways".
This morning on Parliament Hill, some 500 child symposium delegates told members of Parliament: "Child poverty in Canada is a national scandal".
Since a national child care program is crucial to any child poverty strategy, when will this government make good on this age old promise?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the hon. member I will repeat what I said to his predecessor. This government has a long-standing commitment to dealing with problems concerning children, not just daycare but also the whole problem of child sexual abuse, family violence and school drop-outs. I think this is a global problem.
So far, in terms of available resources, the government has gone as far as it could in allocating those resources, and it is committed to doing more in the future. But this cannot happen, Mr. Speaker -As I told the groups this morning, I refuse to make any promises because it all depends on our capacity to generate the necessary resources. And as I said before-since I was asked not to talk about interest rates-when interest rates are at 25 per cent, there are no available resources to take care of Canada's children.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the government knew its resources when it promised day care six years ago and several times since, but it did not fulfil the promise.
Another very sad fact is that aboriginal children in Canada live under horrific health and social standards, with an acutely high number of infant deaths and suicides.
What is the minister prepared to do today to eliminate these alarming problems? Will he allow Canada's children to become the lost generation?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity last summer to visit many reserves in Canada, particularly in the member's home province.
I totally agree with him that what is a problem for white people becomes a more difficult problem for aboriginal people in all parts of the country. That is why the health services branch of the department is working closely with the chiefs of the First Nations.
I asked the ministers of health of all provinces to be with me at a meeting in Winnipeg last September with leaders of the aboriginal communities to find a way to answer the health problems of children in particular. We put particular emphasis on children. Once again, it has to be done within the capacity we have. I am looking forward to continuing to work with Indian leaders to give all the relief we can to aboriginal children in Canada.


SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
South Africa has made significant strides in dismantling apartheid and perhaps now is the time to reconsider having normal trading relations with that country. Therefore, my question is this: when will the government lift trade sanctions?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to report that, as a result of efforts by this government through working with the Commonwealth, the sanctions policy with regard to South Africa has proven to be an effective one.
As a result of the progress made in South Africa, the Commonwealth heads of government two weeks ago agreed to an immediate removal of people to people sanctions and indeed, Canada has already done that.
October 30,1991

The trade and investment sanctions will be lifted when there are appropriate transitional mechanisms agreed to by all the parties. It is our hope that there will be an all-party conference in the near future, but we do not want to prejudge at this point what those transitional arrangements might be.
We are pleased to see some progress. We are looking for more, and once those transitional arrangements are in place, we will be happy to take further steps as outlined in the Commonwealth report.


RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
As the minister responsible for children, I would like to ask the minister a very simple question. Does the minister agree with his colleague, the Minister for International Trade, who last week claimed that no man, woman or child goes without adequate medical care, decent shelter or proper food in Canada, or does he believe the over 500 delegates at the Canada's children conference who told him today that it is a national scandal that there are over one million children living in poverty in Canada.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would agree that as long as there is one child in this country having a problem with poverty or violence, there is a problem. I agree with that. I said that on Monday and I repeated it this morning. But the fact of the matter is, we have to find the answers. The answers have to be based upon the fact that we have the capacity to provide even more than $15 billion a year by all departments of this government.
But I call on my friend to help me to find a way. He knows very well when 250,000 people lose their jobs in Ontario, it means more poor people, more poor children. If we can give these people a chance to find jobs in a good economy, we give a chance to the children of Canada.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that from the minister. Perhaps the next time he is sitting beside the Minister for
Oral Questions
International Trade in cabinet he could explain a few things to him and maybe we will see some solutions for Canada's children.
Later this year Canada will ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This convention commits Canada to recognizing "the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development."
The government has capped social assistance contributions for over half of Canada's poor, deindexed critical social programs, cut back education, health funding and equalization payments and reneged on its commitment regarding child care.
I ask the minister if he can explain to us how these measures will fulfil the commitments this government has undertaken under the UN convention.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I simply repeat the commitment I made at the United Nations, that we expect the convention to be ratified by the end of 1991. That is within this year. That was the undertaking I made on behalf of the Government of Canada and it will be respected.
One of the problems we have is to make sure it is accepted and implemented within areas of provincial jurisdiction. In Saskatchewan, for example, I believe we are still waiting for a response. I am sure that the new government, upon its swearing in, will deal with this on a priority basis. As soon as it signifies its intention to fully ratify the provisions that apply provincially, we will make certain the rest of it is done.
We view our commitment to children as an extremely high priority, not only for the government but for all members of the House. My hon. friend suggests that we have been cutting back. The Minister of Finance has just indicated, contrary to the contention, that transfer payments by the federal government to the provinces, transfers to children, to the elderly, to welfare and so on, have increased by 50 per cent in seven years. The total amount is some $12.5 billion.
I want to point out to my hon. friend, when he is talking about the problems of children, these are not because we have cut back-perhaps as a nation we haven't done enough-but we have increased dramati-

October 30,1991
Oral Questions
cally the contribution of this government to children; it is not because we have cut back.
We have increased funding, although as a nation obviously we have to do much more, and we will.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for either the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance.
It concerns the GST credit for 18 year olds. In the province of Alberta, and I assume all of Canada, an 18 year old is considered an adult. They can drive a car, they can go into debt, they can vote and they can pay taxes. However, they cannot collect the GST credit unless they are a parent or married.
Many young people are very independent by 18. They live on their own and try to make ends meet. The refusal to pay them the GST credit is a slap in the face, saying that they really aren't independent at all.
The quirk in this new goods and services tax is discriminatory based on age. Is the minister going to correct this quirk and allow all eligible 18 year olds to collect the GST credit?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the GST refund for people under the age of 19 is handled in exactly the same way as the federal sales tax refund was handled. To do what the hon. member suggests would be administratively very difficult if not impossible. As he knows, if they are claimed as a dependent living with their parents, they do qualify. If they are married and under the age of 19 they qualify for the GST rebate and if they have any children they qualify for that as well.
But I repeat, it would administratively difficult to alter the way in which it is being administered as it was under the FST.


HENRIETTE HADDAD
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it concerns the Canadian woman who has been held hostage in Lebanon for the last six years.
The minister said in a letter to me earlier this week that there is no proof that Mrs. Haddad was taken hostage. What about Lebanese press reports of her kidnapping on September 26, 1985? What about the four people who heard Nabih Berri, head of the Shi'ite militia, say his group was holding Mrs. Haddad? What about the three Lebanese hostages who said they saw Mrs. Haddad during their own captivity? And what about the medical doctor who was told she was held hostage?
How much proof does the Canadian government need before we will act on behalf of a Canadian citizen who has been held hostage for six years?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has been very, very concerned about Mrs. Haddad and has undertaken exhaustive inquiries as to her safety and whereabouts both through sending diplomatic notes to the government and through direct inquiries with a number of organizations within Lebanon.
There is simply some question as to how and where. There is no question about her disappearance at all and there is no question that this is a tragedy for the family. When this first happened the department worked very hard to establish her whereabouts and to establish if and how she was actually taken hostage by a particular group. We have made exhaustive inquiries. We have worked through every possible diplomatic level to try and aid both Mrs. Haddad and her family here.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not even put her on the international list of hostages.
Professor Humphrey, one of the world's leading scholars and for 20 years the director of the United Nations division of human rights, has called upon the Canadian government specifically to acknowledge that Mrs. Haddad is a hostage in Lebanon. I ask the minister to at least request the United Nations hostage negotiator to include her in the list of western hostages.
Will the minister ask that Mrs. Haddad be included in the list of western hostages?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, there are certain ways of dealing with this. The Canadian government has made inquiries and it has pursued this matter aggressively in every forum available to it. Immediately following the incident six years ago and recently, it is has been a continuing file, a file that is continually open for us in a
October 30, 1991

number of forums. We have also been in constant touch with the family.
I would like to be able to do more and we will continue to do everything we can. We are continuing to pursue this as a case that requires our very great sympathy, our concern and our action.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, at a time when 400,000 young Canadians are unemployed, the best this government can do is to offer the "Learning Well

Living Well" consultation paper asking Canadians for ideas.
The Economic Council made this observation in its annual report. I quote: "The problem of unemployment is cumulative. Young workers get trapped in a cycle of short-term, seasonal, insecure jobs and unemployment insurance dependencies and are unable to break away from it".
I ask the minister of employment this question. When is this government going to start learning well so that young Canadians can start living well?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, for the past two years we have defended and promoted in this House an employment strategy requiring intesified training. We have put in place partnership mechanisms with a view to achieving these objectives. Any delay that ensued must be blamed on the hon. member and members opposite who spent a whole year obstructing the passage of Bill C-21.
What we are trying to do with the programs we have, as quickly as possible, is give the requisite training to workers to prepare them for market globalization.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, if this government is serious about establishing a learning culture, then it must understand that education is a key
Oral Questions
component. In order for our young people to obtain an education, it must be accessible.
I ask the minister this question. Why has this government chosen to impose a 3 per cent tax on student loans? Why this attack on students who are in greatest need?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question time and time again in the House and I will repeat the same answer.
This program is some 27 years old. It is a program that has helped thousands of Canadians through the years. It is a program that we intend to maintain, but obviously it is a program we have to review. The review is under way with the provinces and we expect to be able to propose a document to this House in the next few months.


BANKRUPTCY
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for ACOA and I think the acting minister is in the House. I hope it is the Minister of Public Works, who I know will be fully aware of the situation involving the Keddy's hotels and motor inns in Atlantic Canada. On November 1, Keddy's is meeting in a bankruptcy proceeding and unless there is some bridge financing at least and some understanding with ACOA officials the whole situation will go into receivership. Over 1,000 to 1,200 direct employees at 11 motels will go down the drain.
Knowing the situation, knowing quite a bit of history of Keddy's, going back to the Hotel Nova Scotia in 1984-85, I am wondering if non-partisan, objective support from all sides would be a catalyst. Could the minister have his officials meet the Keddy's interests so that this situation will not end up in dire headlines, let alone the spin-off effect of all the other little industries that depend on this situation.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the interest of my colleague opposite. He is right, most of us from Atlantic Canada are aware of the situation regarding Mr. Keddy's organization. He suffered from severe competition. He is in a difficult position. I spoke with him this morning. I

October 30, 1991
Privilege
have spoken with colleagues. In all fairness I am not sure that at this stage, taking into account all of the circumstances, anything can be done.
We are willing to look at it again and see if at the last moment some help might be available. I would be less than honest in saying that we could give any guarantees at this moment.


INTEREST RATES
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my questions is for the minister of corporate and consumer affairs.
Yesterday the minister responded to the recommendation of a floating cap on credit card interest rates by telling consumers to go out and negotiate a personal loan. In other words, you are not my concern. You are the bank's concern. Go and let the foxes get at you.
I want to ask this minister right now who he is looking out for: the corporations or the consumers? Why is the minister continuing to be an apologist for corporations and not a defender of the interests of the consumers?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised. I am not alone in saying that putting a cap on that is not acceptable. Even the Consumers' Association of Canada is on side with that. It does not think it is the solution.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is especially important then to make the consumers aware of the fact that the credit card market is highly competitive. My colleague knows how committed I am to consumers, we were talking about this just last week.
You can go to your banker-something I would encourage everyone to do, as I said yesterday-who offers both credit cards and personal loans. Instead of buying goods on credit cards issued by department stores and other companies which charge interest rate between 19 and 28 per cent, consumers should take out a personal loan at 11 or 12 per cent, Mr. Speaker. I think we should
first increase consumers' awareness because we brought interest rates down to 8.5 per cent for their benefit. Consumers should take advantage of it.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
In light of the fact that obviously this minister has the interest of banks and financial institutions first on his agenda and consumers last, will the Prime Minister consider splitting this portfolio into two and appointing someone as consumer minister who would look out for the interests of consumers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the only interest that I have in listening to my hon. friend is to make sure that he does not get sufficiently exercised that he does damage to himself again.
We think he is a national asset and we want to keep him in the House of Commons. We do not want him to hurt himself.
I take very seriously my hon. friend's suggestion. In point of fact the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is also Minister of State for Agriculture and does a remarkable job in both portfolios, and I am thinking of giving him a third.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Frangois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I contacted the secretariat of the Special Joint Committee on the Government of Canada's Proposals for a Renewed Canada, and I asked them who paid the expenses of members who are not on the committee but who went to Prince Edward Island and Toronto. I was told that although these members were not members of the committee, the committee had decided in this particular instance to pay their expenses, without being authorized to do so by the House. When I asked whether, as a
October 30, 1991

member of the Bloc Quebecois, I could have the same privileges, I was told I should get in touch with the Joint Chairman of the Committee, Mrs. Dobbie, and that each case would be examined on its own merits.
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions of privilege. One is about the different classes of members we have here: those who are members of the committee and those members in this House who are entitled to follow the proceedings of the committee outside Ottawa, outside the precincts of Parliament, and have their transportation expenses, hotel bills, meals and sundry items all paid for. Other members who, like members the Bloc Quebecois, have a different ideology, would have to submit a request for approval by a steering committee of a committee of this House, with a majority government membership, which, I imagine, would judge our case according to our political ideology and perhaps also according to sex, age or any other consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I think a very important privilege and principle is at stake here. My role in this House and in committees of the House of Commons, including the Special Joint Committee, should in no way be dictated or appear to be dictated or influenced by the arbitrary rules of a steering committee controlled by this government.
In this connection, I would ask the Chair and the House of Commons to condemn this practice by the Special Joint Committee and prohibit this entirely arbitrary process, and decide that only members sitting on the committee, or their lawfully appointed replacements, are entitled to the committee's travel expenses. Or otherwise, that all members of this House, without exception, and without being subject to arbitrary decisions, should be allowed to be on these committees and take advantage of free travel. It should also be stated that all members are equal and have the same privileges and should never have to submit to the arbitrary decisions of a steering committee in an administrative matter like this.
Mr. Speaker, this brings me to the second part of my question of privilege which also involves points of order but is nevertheless a question of privilege. It concerns the legitimacy of expenses thus incurred by the Special Joint Committee on the Government of Canada's proposals for a renewed Canada. The committee, established on June 19, 1991 in this House, by a resolution of this House-you will recall the circumstances-cannot pay the expenses of members who are not members of
Privilege
the committee or replacements on this Special Joint Committee.
On September 24, 1991, the list of members was tabled. Further to a question of privilege that I raised the next day, the Chair ruled on September 27,1991, that the NDP was entitled to only one member on that committee, Mr. Nystrom, who had been appointed, and that the other two members had not been appointed legally and were to be removed from that list until the NDP provided the Clerk of the House with the names of two members who had the right to be there, and any substitutes for them. The NDP never followed up this ruling the Speaker made on September 27, 1991. Since then, the four members who had been previously designated by the NDP, illegally, continued to sit-which they have the right to do, I agree-but at least three of them also went to Prince Edward Island, all expenses paid from Canadian public funds, with no authorization of any kind given for that purpose. I think that is completely unjust and arbitrary.
Mr. Speaker, in these extremely difficult times for all Canadians, our constituents in Quebec are shocked by such waste of public money. Mr. Speaker, much stricter control must be shown in administering public funds. I ask that the work of the Special Joint Committee be suspended until these administrative and financial issues have been clarified. I ask the Chair to see whether the funds of the House of Commons were actually used to pay the expenses of members who were not entitled to it. You know very well, Mr. Speaker, as I do, and members have always known that it is a well-established principle in Canada that no member can receive money or services from the government or the House of Commons, except his salaiy which is already provided for, without a special order of the House or a ministerial order. I think that hon. members who accepted travel advances may have unintentionally put themselves-it is not a matter of honesty or dishonesty here-in an illegal situation. It could even affect their ability to sit in this House. Nevertheless, a decision must also be made as to who shall refund to the House of Commons these amounts the committee did not have the authority to pay out and how.
I would ask the Chair to consider very carefully the allegations I just made, based on information obtained from the very members of that committee and from the

October 30, 1991
Privilege
deputy clerk of the committee because I am literally flabbergasted.
Mr. Speaker, as you may recall, we from the Bloc Quebecois had requested to sit on this committee. The participation of the Parti Quebecois was not allowed because of its ideology. I suppose that funding will now be denied to the Canadian Economic Council now that it has spoken out for sovereignty-association. This kind of partisanship that does not have its place in the House of Commons.
In closing I will say to you that I feel my privileges, as a Member of Parliament, have been breached, that such incident will never cast a doubt over my commitment to independence in the minds of the people of Megantic- Compton-Stanstead and that any unauthorized expenses will have to be reimbursed. Mr. Speaker, you probably remember that we from the Bloc-


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in terms of commenting on some of the points made by the hon. member.
The hon. member seems to be objecting to the fact that he is not on this committee and that he, as a member of Parliament, being an equal of any other member of Parliament has the right to be on that committee. Carrying that to its logical conclusion, the only committee we can have around here is a 294 member committee, committee of the whole.
That is not the way we operate, of course. We have the recognition of the complexity of certain issues and the need to deal with many issues at the same time.
We have had for decades and decades, going back I do not know how long, the practice of assigning to committees special subjects for study. Of course, that is exactly what happened in terms of the constitutional papers and the special committee. In this case, a joint committee was set up.
Membership was established based on numerous precedents going back many years. It was dealt with no differently than any other committee. The hon. member seems to say that because he is a member of Parliament, equal to the others-we agree-that he should have his
travel expenses picked up if he chooses to travel with a committee.
Again, taking that to its logical extension, Mr. Speaker, any time a committee of this House were to travel to another country, for example, as happens frequently in terms of the studies they undertake, then every other member of the House has the right to go along.
I humbly suggest that would make it impossible for us to do anything. What is happening with the unity committee is precisely the same kind of thing that has happened in regard to committees of this House going back long before any of us were here and long before any of us were born.
There is no precedent being established here. It is established practice and I do not think the member's question of privilege has any basis.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, in ruling after ruling after ruling, yourself and other Speakers before you have determined that these kinds of interventions, although it is probably appropriate that they be heard, are matters which really are properly dealt with by the committee itself.
Certainly whatever arrangements the committee has arrived at in order to do its job properly, the committee has arrived at in the context of its own authority and this is not properly a matter for the House to consider as indeed so many other Speakers, including yourself, have ruled over the years.
The committee is its own master in this respect and it is not appropriate to be debating the arrangements that have been made in the committee on the floor of the House of Commons.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on this issue, even more so after hearing my colleague from Winnipeg Transcona.
The basic issue raised by the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead is whether members of this House who are not official members of the Joint Committee on the Constitution had their travel expenses refunded or not. We claim that New Democratic members who are not officially on the Joint Committee travelled with it at the expense of the House of Commons.
October 30, 1991

Mr. Speaker, other members, including the member for	Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, would have
wanted to go with the Joint Committee across the country but did not and could not have access to travel funds.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will go further than that. I think and I was told-I would like you to check these allegations-that the New Democratic caucus even tried to use a subterfuge by having its own members go as researchers, in contravention of the rules of this House. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I that they would be violating not only the practices but also the laws of this country.
The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead thus raises a very serious matter. Mr. Speaker, all members of this House know that special provisions are required for a member to accept a cheque other than those to which he is entitled. An order in council is required for all members to go and represent a minister at the opening of a social housing project. I remember that practice, Mr. Speaker, and it took an order in council.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the integrity and openness of this House, we ask whether any New Democratic members had their expenses refunded and whether they acted legally. If not, Mr. Speaker, we ask you to take strong measures immediately.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I think that the minister who spoke earlier, the House leader, totally missed the boat. His comments were not related to the two questions asked.
I rise because I am one of those who wrote to the co-chairs of that Committee last week, to ask them precisely the question asked today by the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead. I asked myself that question because I wanted to be involved and I was told, "Well no, Mr. Gauthier, you are not a member of the group. The six Liberal members have been appointed." So, I asked for the list of New democratic members, and I was told, "There are many of them but there is only one official member. The others take turns on the committee, on a regular basis." I asked, "Who pays for the travel expenses of these members?" and I was told, "I don't know."
I want to get an answer to those questions because it is important to know who is paying for this. While it is true
Point of Order
that committees are autonomous, it is also true, Mr. Speaker, that these committees must administer public funds in accordance with the strict guidelines of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons, which ensures that those funds are spent properly.
So, the first question is: Who paid and why was this money spent on trips, hotels, and other expenses made by people who are not members of a committee? The second question is: On what authority did the Committee base its decision to spend on that? Again, I would like to receive an answer by letter or here in this House, to satisfy the curiosity of an hon. member who also wanted to participate in those meetings but cannot because the Standing Orders do not allow it.
I believe that these questions are appropriate. The question is clear and I think that the government missed the boat. I would like to get an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened with some concern to the statements by the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, the Government House Leader, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona and, of course, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
Generally speaking, since the complaint has to do with the proceedings of a committee, this is not a problem that should be submitted to the Chair. However, in view of the circumstances and especially after having listened to those statements, it is probably appropriate for the Chair to consider these interventions or complaints, and it might be possible afterwards to give an opinion.
As I said, it is basically a problem that concerns the committee. However, in the circumstances, it may be that the problem has a wider scope. I would ask the hon. members to give me some time to take this under advisement and then to report to the House soon.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you if the Standing Orders allow the following. In the proceedings of the House of Commons for October 25, 1991, following Oral Questions, during Routine Proceedings, the Parliamentary Secretary to the

October 30,1991
Point of Order
Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons moved, and I quote:
That seven members and two staffers from the Standing Committee on Transport be authorized to travel to Europe from October 30 to November 9, 1991 to complete a study on high speed trains.
The hon. member for Shefford opposed this motion, Mr. Speaker, and the government House leader simply answered, and I quote:
Madam Speaker, if the Bloc Quebecois chooses to prevent this committee from proceeding on that travel, then I have no choice but to accept that at this point.
Mr. Speaker, barely ten minutes later, while my colleague from Shefford and myself had gone out for a few moments, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Ati-kokan, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, moved to give unanimous consent to this motion authorizing seven members of this House, that is four Conservatives, two Liberals and the mover, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan himself, to travel to Europe at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers.


Mr. Shefford:: Sixty thousand!


Gilles Rocheleau: Some $60,000 will be spent, Mr. Speaker.
My question is this: we were against this motion and the government House leader accepted the Bloc Quebecois position. Just minutes later, in our absence, the motion was brought back and passed surreptitiously with the consent of the three parties. Mr. Speaker, is it normal procedure to bring back a motion during the same sitting when opposition to it has been expressed?


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I can somewhat sympathize with the concern of the member that the House had made one decision and because there was not unanimous consent, the same issue was raised later that day and there was unanimous consent given.
Now, the Bloc is not a party of the House. One of the things the legitimate parties in this House have always done to make sure that the government or any individual party does not run roughshod over the House is to make sure we have a roster of people who are in the House.
Therefore, we find it is an obligation in our caucus to make sure that we have members here at all times, so that if the government gets up and introduces a motion
that requires unanimous consent, which we do not agree to, we are indeed here doing our duty in the House and able to express our disagreement.
I believe that if any group in the House feels that they want to be involved in an ongoing basis, they should follow a similar practice.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I need to hear the hon. member for Shefford, not that he would not put the position of he and his colleagues with great clarity.

I want to tell the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer that I appreciate his point. However, the hon. member for Churchill has described the situation quite clearly to the House. This is a matter which, of course, concerns all hon. members, because the House obviously has authority over the conduct of business in this House, and sometimes circumstances change.

There is no rule and there is no law that says that because the House has at one moment refused consent for something, it cannot change its mind and give consent.


An hon. member:: Call an election, call an election. [Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: It is not up to me to call an election! [English]


An hon. member:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member's frustration, but I have to say to all hon. members that the hon. member for Churchill has put the position very succinctly. It is necessary for somebody to be here all the time.


COMMENTS BY PRIME MINISTER-REPORT FOR RULING
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago, the Right Hon. Prime Minister used rather unparliamentary language in this House when he called our leader hypocritical and stupid. At that time, the Chair had taken those words under advisement in order to decide whether they were parliamentary or not. I would like to know if a decision has been made as to whether the words "hypocritical and stupid" are acceptable parliamentary language in this House. If a decision
October 30,1991

has not been made, when will the Chair ask the Prime Minister to retract those insults?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the Speaker is still taking it under consideration. It depends on the context in which those words were used and he will come back and give a ruling on it.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, this will not require unanimous consent.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to 54 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



FINANCE


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance dealing with Bill C-34, as amended.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings. ]



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a report that has a good deal to do with certain points of privilege raised earlier today.
I have the honour to present the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on House Management, pursuant to the order of the House of Commons dated June 19, 1991 and the Speaker's Ruling of September 27,1991.
Routine Proceedings
This report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-319, an act to Amend the Canada Elections Act (non-listed electors).


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, at the last election at least hundreds and perhaps thousands of otherwise eligible electors in my constituency of Edmonton East were denied the right to vote because their names did not get on the list of electors by voting day. Several showed up at the polls, as they can do in provincial elections, thinking that they could be sworn in at the poll and then vote and were of course denied that right.
This amounts to a routine disenfranchisement of electors on an administrative basis and is on that basis alone, I submit, unconstitutional. However, in an effort to do away with this grievance, this bill is presented. I am hoping the government itself will act in this regard before the next election because to leave the matter hanging will again inevitably result in the administrative disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Harvey moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-320, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service

October 30,1991
Routine Proceedings
Staff Relations Act (prohibition of strike and lockout in the Public Service).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, the thrust of my private member's bill will be to preclude any future strikes by the civil service. This will be achieved by declaring all government services essential.
There are thousands of hard working, loyal civil servants, but many Canadians are fed up with the attitude of the more militant civil servants. Civil servants enjoy fully indexed pensions, good salaries and relatively secure jobs, but every few years they hijack Canadians by calling a strike thereby causing harm and anxiety to thousands of Canadians.
My bill would remedy this problem and I am pleased that my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga South, is going to second my bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Attewell moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed to have been adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



MIDDLE EAST PEACE CONFERENCE

William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I think you will find unanimous consent to move the following motion. I move:
That this House express its sincere hope for a successful Middle East peace conference. It calls on all participants to be open, flexible and understanding of each others' interests and fears, and prays for all who sit at the peace table, the wisdom to combine justice, security and stability for the entire region.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition, I have the pleasure to second the motion. I think we want the principal players to know that other Parliaments around the world wish them success in this very historical conference. We hope that the outcome of this conference will bring long
lasting peace, security and safety for the peoples of all of those regions.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate the hon. member for tabling this motion. I believe that, for the whole international community, the Madrid Conference is an historic event. We hope that this vexing dispute, which has upset that part of the world for so long, will be settled. Of course, we urge all the parties to put aside their historical rivalries, for the sake of human dignity and the right of people to exist and manage their own lives. We hope this conference will bring positive results for the greater good of all humanity.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in discussing this motion with the member for Winnipeg Transcona, I do want to take a moment to compliment him on the motion and to say that, speaking on behalf of the government, we fully endorse the views expressed in this motion. We recognize that while this is seen as a miracle-we should see it that way-it is also the result of very difficult and painstaking work on behalf of many people around the world bringing opposite sides together.
We do pray that they will find a meaningful, lasting peace as a result of these meetings.


Mr. Leblanc:: Mr. Speaker, I support this motion because, for at least 45 years, Arabs and Jews have been trying with great difficulty to talk to each other.
I would like to congratulate those who were instrumental in setting up that committee. It is good to see people sit down together and discuss things. Of course, I hope that the results will be positive for peace in the world.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
October 30, 1991


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the Employment Equity Act requires that it be reviewed by a committee of the House of Commons.
Therefore, I have the consent motion for that. I move:
That pursuant to Section 13(1) of the Employment Equity Act, Chapter 31, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, a special committee of the House undertakes a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of this act and submits a report no later than May 1,1992, and
That the special committee be appointed at the latest five sitting days after the adoption of this motion, and
That the membership be composed of eight members.
That changes in membership of the committee be effective immediately after a notification, signed by the member acting as the Chief Whip of any recognized party has been filed with the Clerk of the Committee, and
That the said special committee shall have the power of a standing committee as per Standing Order 108(1).


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


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly ready to consider support in that motion; however, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if only the hon. members who will sit on the committee will have the right to travel with the committee, or if we will have a sort of free for all, where all the members of the New Democratic Party in particular, will also be able to travel with the committee.
Will the rules be the same ones that apply to the Constitutional Committee or will they be more strict in this case?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have given the Chair my copy of the motion.
As I recall, it was silent on the subject of travel as I do not think that was required by the committee.
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Again, the House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion for travel of the Standing Committee on Human Rights to the Akwesasne reserve:
That the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons and necessary staff be authorized to travel to the Akwesasne reserve November 19, 1991 for the purpose of holding public hearings pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(b)(ii).


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.



AUTHORIZATION TO VIDEOTAPE AKWESASNE HEARINGS

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I guess this is the day.
I would like to move:
That the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons be authorized to permit videotaping of its public hearings at the Akwesasne reserve on November 19,1991 pursuant to Standing Order 119(1).
Should they make it.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.

October 30, 1991
Routine Proceedings



JUSTICE AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I will try again.
I move:
That the Subcommittee on National Security of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General be authorized to travel to Toronto for the period beginning Thursday, November 7 to Sunday, November 10 in order to participate in a conference on matters pertaining to national security and that the necessary staff, the Clerk and a research officer do accompany the committee.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.


Albert Glen Cooper: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. We want to be certain that the members of the Bloc Quebecois understood that the motion we were trying to pass would send the subcommittee on human rights to visit a reserve in Quebec, the Akwesasne reserve. We just want to be certain that they understood that when they declined to give us unanimous consent.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. We knew this was another federal committee coming to interfere in Akwesasne, and we think Quebec is perfectly capable of looking after its own affairs. We don't need any interference by a federal committee.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to represent Akwesasne in this House. The reserve is partially in Ontario, partially in Quebec and partially in New York State. It is one of the areas of this country that needs our attention the most.
Shame on anyone who would not want members of Parliament to take care of the native people of Akwesasne. Shame on those people. I hope that you would seek unanimous consent again, Mr. Speaker, and that members who perhaps in a moment of ill thought could not figure this out will reconsider for the good of the native people living in the Mohawk community of Akwesasne. Those people who were afflicted a year ago with a terrible insurrection have been affected recently by a dispute between the Warrior Society and the band council in which homes were burned and much of the community was destroyed. Handicapped people and other disabled people in that community need us, whether they live on the Ontario side, the Quebec side or the New York side.
I would ask that our colleagues take that into account.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the comments of my friend and add that it is really unfortunate for the handicapped, not just on the Akwesasne reserve but in all of Canada. I gather this is a national conference which the committee wishes to attend to hear witnesses on the question of the disabled regarding the aboriginal community.
For individual members of this House, whether they call themselves Bloc Quebecois or whatever, to prevent that from occurring is utterly shameful.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Shefford. Would you like me to put the motion again?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that if hon. members are so committed to aboriginal matters, how come none of them came to see us about this meritorious trip? If they are so interested in aboriginal matters, why didn't they-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. If there are going to be any further negotiations they will have to be conducted behind the curtain. If you want to come back and put the motion that is fine. I think we should cariy on with the business of the day.
October 30,1991


PETITIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition, in accordance with the Standing Orders. This petition addresses the serious pollution problem in the Rideau River which flows into the Ottawa River not far from Parliament Hill.
The undersigned now avail themselves of their right to present a grievance common to your petitioners. They humbly sheweth that whereas our economic and social well-being depends on a clean and healthy environment; whereas past negligence with respect to the environment has had a disastrous impact on many communities, including pollution of our rivers and streams; therefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ask the federal government to act as equal partners with provincial and municipal authorities in order to implement an action plan for the clean-up and maintenance of the Rideau River.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions on firearms. The petitioners are residents of Ottawa and Orleans, and they humbly sheweth that the availability of firearms is a critical factor in cases of homicide, accidents and suicides; that there are many types of firearms readily available in Canada which are not required for legitimate purposes such as hunting and competitive shooting. Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass legislation now to prohibit possession of firearms by any person with a criminal record.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, having been unsuccessful to convince one or two members to give assistance to Akwesasne let me try my hand at a petition asking this House to assist with the terrible farming problems in all of Canada, particularly in Glengariy-Prescott-Russell. Aid from the Government of Canada is greatly needed because of the low prices of crops this year.
I am pleased to table this petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 of the House of Commons.
Routine Proceedings JUSTICE


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 and present a petition to the House of Commons regarding the murder of Nina DeVilliers last August. This incident exposed serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system. There are many vulnerable persons who have little protection under the current system. Women, children, and disabled persons are at particular risk.
Therefore petitioners from all over the metropolitan Toronto area request Parliament to recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society. They say that we must amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present this petition describing the serious situation presently raging in Yugoslavia.
Petitioners believe that terrorist activities are taking place. Our own Prime Minister has requested that the Security Council of the United Nations intervene and consider the use of peacekeeping forces. The petitioners call for justice and humanity to prevail and violence to cease. They also want Croatia and Slovenia recognized as independent and sovereign states without delay.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present with hundreds of signatures from people in my riding of Hamilton Mountain and other areas of Hamilton, Stoney Creek, and Ancaster. The petitioners ask that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against a person are serious and abhorrent to society.
They ask this government to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972, and the Parole Act accordingly.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
October 30, 1991
Point of Order
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 116 will be answered today.


Mr. Boudria: With respect to the calculation of costs for answering Order Paper
questions, (a) what was the cost of the calculation (b) who devised the
plan for the calculation (c) how much did it cost to devise the plan for
the calculation?


Albert Glen Cooper: As Government House Leader, the Minister has full responsibility for the ordering of government business in the House of Commons. Included in this overall responsibility are the supervision of replies to written questions and the process involved in replying to such questions.
In 1975, the then Leader of the Government in the House of Commons requested that, for a period of sue weeks, the cost of answering questions be provided to estimate the cost of producing government information through the parliamentary system.
The cost accounting system used (logging of time spent and salary of each individual) proved to be time consuming, unreliable and created delays in the process of answering questions as it was too elaborate and personal. The study produced an average cost of $60 per respondent. Some questions may have up to 120 respondents (all Departments, Agencies and Crown Corporations).
With the result, the government could estimate the approximate cost of producing government information for a Session or any period of time.
Ex.: 275 questions assigned to 625 Departments, Agencies and Crown Corporations 625 respondents X $60. = $37,500 (1975 cost)
Since then, only rough estimates have been released:
1979-$100. per respondent 1981-$125. per respondent
1986-$175. per respondent
Last spring, the Parliamentary Returns Division (PRD) of the Office of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was requested to set up a cost accounting system to identify time consuming questions
and determine their cost while minimizing the time and cost of the exercise.
Based on the 1975 experience, it was decided that respondents would only provide the approximate total number of hours/minutes spent to prepare each response. The total number of hours/minutes includes the approximate time spent on all preparation steps i.e.: assignment, research, preparation, editing, coordinating, typing, computer time, review, translation, approval, printing, etc.
The cost of answering is arrived by multiplying the total number of hours/minutes by the average hourly rate of the Public Service plus printing cost, if voluminous. The time to calculate the cost of answering a question takes only a few seconds.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I plan on being very brief but I would like to ask the Speaker to investigate something for me.
Earlier we heard the concerns raised by the Bloc Quebecois about the activities of members of Parliament relating specifically to a committee. I saw a demonstra-
October 30, 1991

Point of Order
tion of their concern about their individual rights being protected by the Speaker.
We as members of this House have for as long as I can remember paid great respect to the committees of this House. We feel they are an absolutely fundamental part of our process. We are all particularly proud of our membership on those committees and very proud of the work that those committees do.
On several occasions the Bloc has insisted upon its use of obstruction to prevent committees from doing their work.
I would ask that in the deliberations the Speaker is already considering on the matter of committees and expenditures by members on those committees while they travel that the Speaker would consider one other thing. That is that the hon. members who have been doing this represent one of 295 members of this House.
It would seem to me therefore to be logical that they should receive about every 295th speech, every 295th question, and every 295th statement. I would ask that the Speaker look at this issue at the same time as he is considering these other matters.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order on the same point.
I think that the parliamentary secretary is not serious when he makes a statement like that, especially because he tries to take measures against us, since from time to time, the parliamentary secretary, who is a little-has decided that he runs the House his way and that as soon as he asks for leave, all members should give unanimous consent, with apologies.
Mr. Speaker, you know that as members of this House, we do not have many privileges. You know that so far, we have not been allowed to attend parliamentary committees, even those we wanted to be on full time. Mr. Speaker, I think that the suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader is frivolous and contrary to the spirit of parliamentary reform.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think we should carry on the debate any further.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 52 NUCLEAR VESSELS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am in receipt of a notice of motion under Standing Orders 52 from the hon. member for Skeena.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 52 to request the adjournment of the House because I believe the House has the responsibility to debate thoroughly and to look into exactly what happened in terms of the three Orders in Council that were passed today, one in relation to U.S. and British propelled vessels passing through Canadian waters and to visit Canadian ports, the second the consent for U.S. and British vessels capable of carrying nuclear weapons to pass through Canadian waters and to visit Canadian ports, and the third is a consent Order in Council for U.S. nuclear propelled submarines, in particular the Trident nuclear submarines, to pass through Canadian waters in Dixon Entrance on their way to the new U.S. nuclear submarine base in southeast Alaska.
The reason that I very firmly believe that this is an issue that is deserving of an emergency debate is that the Order in Council technique that was used for these three Orders in Council was found on May 14 by the Federal Court of Canada, trial division, before Mr. Justice Allison Walsh to be illegal, and he struck down the use of that technique in terms of Alcan's Kemano project.
I think because the Minister of National Defence will be leaving Canada for the next two weeks, apparently shortly, it is important that this be-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Speaker has had a chance to look at the hon. member's application and at this time he does not quite feel that it is necessary for us to have an emergency debate. But that does not necessarily mean that at a future date the hon. member could not have an emergency debate in regard to his application.

October 30,1991
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blais that Bill C-22, an act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair has now had an opportunity to examine the proposed amendment and finds it to be in order. I will propose it to the House. Moved by Mr. Rodriguez, seconded by Mr. Whittaker:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor,
This House declines to give second reading to Bill C-22, an act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, as the economic climate makes this an inopportune time to impose a new tax on small and medium-sized businesses.
I believe we were finished with questions and comments. I will now go to the hon. member for Cardigan for 10 minutes plus five minutes questions and comments, and then return to the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest for debate.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I have had a chance to speak in debate with you in the Chair since your return, on behalf of my wife and three daughters whom you know very well I would like to welcome you back. I am sure they are very pleased to see you there today. I am also very pleased to participate in the debate today on Bill C-22, amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. Everyone agrees the bill is an improvement over what is in place now but there are still some problems.
The bill as it now stands provides no protection for the primary producers like the farmers and fishermen. The sad state of the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada is obvious in the number of processing plant bankruptcies.
The farming industry is going through some tough times and those people are going out of business as well.
The long and the short of the matter is that the economy is in such a mess because of this government's policies that we need a new Bankruptcy Act to deal with the situation.
I have fishermen in my riding who have lost thousands of dollars because the processor they dealt with went under. Fishermen sell their fish expecting to get paid for their work, but when fish companies go broke, they cannot collect a dime. This is just not acceptable.
In this bill there is a clause dealing with unpaid suppliers. It says that unpaid suppliers can go in after a company declares bankruptcy and retrieve their goods for up to 30 days. However, to do this a number of conditions must be met. The product must be in original condition and must be identifiable from other products.
For farmers and fishermen this is a very serious problem. Anyone who knows anything about fishing knows that you cannot tell one lobster from another in a crate. As well, lobsters that are processed are processed immediately, changing the condition of the lobster. Under the current proposals the fisherman would be out of luck and still would not be able to collect a cent. This is just not acceptable.
Similarly, in the farming industry there is no way I can tell a potato of the same variety that I grow from my neighbour's up the road who grows potatoes. All potatoes of the same variety as we well know look the same. In the fall a farmer usually sells his product to a single wholesaler or processor. It that company goes broke, the farmer cannot get anything back.
What many people do not realize is that a bankruptcy does not affect only one company or one person. In one processor bankruptcy a fisherman in my riding lost $30,000 and to a fisherman in my riding, that is a big loss and a lot of money. Fishermen have to pay their helpers, make payments on their boats, pay for bait and pay for many things. The $30,000 that was not paid to one fisherman ends up coming out of the pockets of many people. Thirty thousand dollars is a person's income for a year. In bankruptcy that is the same thing as losing your job.
These are the serious reasons why fishermen and farmers need protection. When a company goes bank-
October 30, 1991

rupt many people get hurt. For some time I have been trying to get some protection for farmers and fishermen who are affected by bankruptcies.
I wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans asking him to help fishermen. The best the minister said he could do was talk to his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and see if it could be put in the Bankruptcy Act revisions. That was almost a year ago. We now have the government's revisions and there is still no protection for farmers and fishermen.
I and my colleague from Dartmouth and other members of the Liberal Party have been trying to make changes to Bill C-22. An amendment has to be put forward that will allow fishermen to retrieve goods from a bankrupt company after the value has been added. This gives greater protection to fishermen. Giving fishermen and farmers a so-called super priority when it comes to selling off the assets of a bankrupt firm should be considered. These are two small things that would give primary producers greater protection.
I would like to give another example of a problem that can happen in bankruptcies. Let us consider a farmer who is having financial difficulties and obtains employment off of the farm. This farmer, possibly in November, December and January works out and goes on unemployment in January. He could receive the UI all year. Then let us say in November or December the bank moves in and sells his property. What is above capital gains on the sale is counted as income for this farmer. Now the farmer will not receive one nickel of the money. It goes against his debts. Revenue Canada will then send this farmer a bill after he has gone through the problem of bankruptcy, the heartache and the worry. He has gone through hell. When he wants to get his life in order and start a new business, revenue Canada says: "I want that money back". The simple thing is that man does not have that money. He has used the dollars he has received in UI to feed his wife and family.
This is one example. It is grossly unfair and it blocks the person from getting back into business and becoming a productive member of society, as of course all farmers wish to be.
In my view there should be some strong measures put in the legislation to protect the primary producers of
Government Orders
Canada. It is certainly unfair that a primary producer is generally the last person to collect a nickel in the bankruptcy.
The situation must change if fisherman or farmers are to receive any benefit from the Bankruptcy Act revisions. The bill goes a long way in improving bankruptcy processes in Canada. However, it does not give fishermen or farmers in my riding the protection they need. As I explained previously, there are so many things that can happen.
I hope the government will listen and make the proper changes in order to give the farmers and fishermen the proper protection they need under this new legislation.


Mr. Whittaker:: Mr. Speaker, on a point order. I would like to move at this time that the hon. member for Mississauga South be now heard.


Mr. Edwards:: Mr. Speaker, I believe you may wish to find that the motion is out of order. I understood you to have said that I would be heard following the intervention of our hon. friend from Cardigan.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This was a special few minutes for the hon. member because he has to catch a plane. I did recognize the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest after. It is now questions and comments and I do not think the hon. member can put his motion at this time.
If there are no questions or comments. Debate. The hon. member for Mississauga South on a question or comment.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member has taken a look at the wage protection fund that is proposed in this bill and if he thinks his constituents would be prepared to pay into a wage protection fund. I am thinking of his hospitals, municipalities and people who work in fields where obviously the organization is part of government directly or indirectly. They are not likely to go bankrupt. Does he think they will be happy to kick in? It is only 10 cents a week per person to start with but these things grow and grow.
I wonder if he had a conversation with people about that and if he has spoken to his small business community about that.

October 30,1991
Government Orders
For example, he has waxed about fishermen. I have not seen trustees or receivers appointed for fishermen. Perhaps he would enlighten us about that.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
Only 10 cents. It is very unfortunate when you impose a 10 cent tax. It automatically seems to become $10 then $50 and whatever. A prime example is inspection fees in the seed potato industry. We agree with wage protection if it comes out of the product that is liquidated. It should be a super priority. That is what we feel.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that Hansard for yesterday shows that when I was last on my feet, it was on questions and comments.
The clock should begin now on my opportunity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have taken that into consideration. I know that the hon. member was on questions and comments. This is debate. He has 20 minutes plus 10 minutes questions and comments.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I appreciate that clarification, and I am grateful for it.
I am very privileged to have an opportunity to rise before this House to speak in support of Bill C-22 which, as you know, introduces long awaited amendments to the Bankruptcy Act and other statutes.
Judging from the relatively strong consensus that emerged during pre-study that the proposed reform package represents a balanced approach to deal with the competing interests that arise in insolvency situations, I am confident that this Parliament will make every effort to ensure quick passage of Bill C-22 into law.
All members of this House recognize the over-arching responsibility which they have to update laws that impede economic growth and prosperity and to ensure that business and consumers are treated fairly in the marketplace.
Through Bill C-22 we have been given the opportunity to help build a stronger Canada, and it is an obligation we must accept with pride.
Before discussing these reforms, I would like to take a moment to place them in their proper context.
Since our election in 1984, this government has always espoused the position that to support and invigorate the economy, economic framework legislation has to be adapted to the needs of the modern marketplace.
That is why in the intervening years we have systematically sought to overhaul our economic framework legislation, those essential tools of commerce that set the ground rules for a fair, competitive and orderly marketplace.
For example, in almost every field within the purview of consumer and corporate affairs-copyright, trademark, corporations, competition, patent legislation and now bankruptcy-outdated and inadequate rules have been modernized and where necessary, new laws have been enacted.
We have taken these measures because we know for a fact that the interplay of market forces in a setting where there is a fair chance to compete is the foundation upon which a dynamic, prosperous economy can be built.
As a recent discussion paper prepared for the recently established prosperity secretariat makes clear: "Canada's long-term productivity and competitiveness depends on complimentary and coherent laws and regulations governing the domestic marketplace. Framework and regulatory policies must meet their objectives while, at the same time, enable firms to compete successfully at home and abroad''.
We also know that a healthy economy is a prerequisite for maintaining and improving the social safety net of which Canadians are so justifiably proud.
While there may not always have been unanimity about whether the right medicine was being administered, there has always been a consensus that thoughtful and firm action was warranted.
Bill C-22 represents a continuation of this ongoing process of reform. It is a thoughtful, firm piece of legislation designed to better protect the interests of wage earners and consumers, and to help preserve jobs by assisting viable businesses in financial trouble to get back on their feet.
As was evidenced during pre-study of these reforms, all members of this House have strong views about the
October 30, 1991

need to equip the marketplace with a relevant, fair and equitable set of rules that will support and invigorate it.
That is why in my presentation to you today I want to comment on certain aspects of the bill and on some of the issues raised in the report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations following its pre-study of this proposed legislation.

One of the main shortcomings of the existing Bankruptcy Act is the little protection it affords businesses in financial difficulty, and whatever little protection it does afford is not particularly fair or easily accessible.
Currently, the stay of procedings brought about by the filing of a proposal only protects the debtor against unsecured creditors such as suppliers or employees.
On the other hand, secured creditors such as banks, financial institutions, governments, equipment lessors, landlords, etc., remain free to claim the reimbursement of the debts or to exercise other remedies such as having a receiver appointed to realize their security interest.
For businesses trying to rationalize their operations or to restructure their debt, this type of unilateral action on the part of some creditors can make rationalization very difficult, if not impossible.

As legislators we have a far broader constituency to whom we must be accountable. That is the people of Canada. That is why we all share a responsibility to ensure that Bill C-22 achieves its myriad objectives quickly and effectively.
The vast majority of the recommendations suggested by the standing committee during pre-study are most welcome. In particular I can say to the hon. member for Cardigan that we welcome the recommendation concerning the situation of, as the hon. Flora Macdonald used to say, farmers and fishers. We can give a commitment that very soon, upon the proclamation of this act, a task force will be set in place to develop a consensus among all the stakeholders so that this problem can be properly addressed.
Government Orders
I wish to associate myself with the positive words of the minister yesterday when he congratulated the members of the standing committee for their excellent work during pre-study.
The recommendations suggested by the standing committee would have the effect of clarifying the rights, responsibilities and obligations of debtors, creditors and receivers in instances of bankruptcy and insolvency. They have been given full consideration by the minister. It is clear that many of them will significantly improve the bill.
The progressive approach to consumer bankruptcies that characterizes Bill C-22 reflects this government's concern that the emphasis on rehabilitation extend not just to business. The consumer provisions we are proposing, which will have the effect of providing individuals in financial difficulty with more breathing space in which to reorganize their affairs, are long awaited ones.
So too are the provisions that would allow a debtor to negotiate with creditors to pay less than the total amount of his or her debt owing and to reschedule payments over a longer period.
Faced with the alternative of forcing the debtor into personal bankruptcy and the likelihood of not seeing any compensation at all, most creditors will be glad for an option that provides some prospect for a return on their dollar. Should personal bankruptcy be the only real option open to the unfortunate debtor, our proposals would provide far easier access to affordable and expedient administrative procedures.
As the standing committee acknowledged during prestudy, these measures will make it easier for bankrupt individuals to get back on their reet and start contributing fully to society once more.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to touch on a rather controversial aspect of this long awaited reform of the Bankruptcy Act. I am referring, of course, to the wage payment protection. Needless to say that the existing legislation is not particularly fair to the workers.
In fact, not only do they find themselves out of a job following a bankruptcy, but more often than not they cannot get their former employer to pay them the wages owed to them and other benefits they are entitled to.

October 30,1991
Government Orders
The six previous attempts to reform this legislation over the past 20 years have all failed because we could never agree on things like the form this protection should take, its funding or under what jurisdiction it should come.
It is scandalous and quite intolerable that we have not finished talking and that workers are without any real protection. Workers have suffered too much until now and this situation has gone on long enough.
I call on my fellow members not to lose sight of this and not to let another opportunity to correct an injustice go by. Of course, everyone has a right to defend his ideas, but once the dust has settled, we could not claim victory unless the reform included adequate protection for workers.

On that note let me take a few moments to explain why I feel far more confident about the measures proposed in Bill C-22 than about other options that have been proposed. Earlier I mentioned that fairness and accessibility were important standards against which to assess Bill C-22.
The only other alternatives in the area of wage earner protection appear to me to be retrogressive when contrasted with what the government has proposed. The wage claim payment program guarantees all workers a minimum but realistic level of protection for the recovery of wages and other moneys owed to them when their employers go bankrupt. Faced with the bleak prospect of unemployment the last thing workers need is to have to spend time worrying about when and if they will see any of the moneys owed to them.
Financed by a 10 cent per person per week levy on payrolls the moneys collected would go into a fund that would guarantee workers receive the moneys they are owed fast and with a minimum of red tape. The program would be user friendly to both wage earners and businesses. The levy would be incorporated into existing unemployment insurance premium calculations and would therefore not add to the paper burden which industry faces.
Rather than accept the administratively simple procedure of creating a fund, some suggest that we should provide wage earners super priority on the remaining assets of the bankrupt firm for wages and other moneys owed to them up to a theoretical maximum level. The
notion of a super priority is not new. It has been extensively debated before both in Canada and in the European Community and has been found to be seriously wanting for several reasons.
The first is that it is neither sure nor is it prompt. Super priority assumes that there will be sufficient available assets remaining in the bankrupt firm to cover claims for wages and other moneys owed to employees. That is an increasingly tenuous prospect given the greater latitude Bill C-22 provides for unpaid suppliers to recoup their assets.
Assuming the bankrupt firm has sufficient assets to cover wages and other moneys owed, what happens if these assets are not liquid? It may take several months before the firm's assets are liquidated.
The fact remains that before extending a loan, a financial institution will insist on some sort of collateral. This will require the lender to estimate the market value of the assets of a firm, a tricky and often imprecise exercise particularly when perishable goods or partially processed manufactured goods are involved. The result of a policy of super priority would unquestionably be a significant restriction in the availability of credit as secured creditors compensate for the higher level of risk they will have to contend with. There are no ifs, ands or buts on this score.
Yesterday in this House the hon. member for Dartmouth suggested that super priority would have little impact on the availability of credit. He indicated that since the fund created by Bill C-22 would amount to between $60 million and $70 million the impact on credit would be $60 million to $70 million on a total of $150 billion credit available in Canada. At first glance this appears to be a convincing argument. Unfortunately it is incorrect.
In fact the credit impact would total only $60 million when we know which companies go bankrupt, but lenders cannot predict beforehand which companies these will be. If they knew they would provide no credit at all to those firms.
In reality the lenders would have to establish a formula to protect their investments across the board. Here is how they would do that. Under the plan espoused by the hon. member for Dartmouth wage earners would be eligible for a super priority over other creditors up to a maximum of $3,000. For example let us take a company of 100 employees. To calculate the potential liability created by super priority the lenders would multiply 100
October 30,1991

Government Orders
workers by $3,000 and come up with $300,000. That means that the first $300,000 of a company's assets would be unavailable to secured creditors in the event of insolvency. Even factoring in competition between lenders the total credit restriction for this hypothetical company would be at least $150,000 to $200,000. Under the wage claim payment program proposed in Bill C-22 the company would pay a levy of approximately $520 per year. That is $520 per year versus hundreds of thousands in credit restriction.
It is very clear which proposal would place a greater burden on businesses.
Indeed I recommend that all members of the House who support super priority read the 1986 report of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy and Insolvency, chaired by Gary Colter. It commented at some length on the legal and administrative murkiness of super priority, especially in light of the proliferation of innovative security instruments that have appeared over the past decade.
As Gary Colter put it: "In principle, super priority sounds very simple. However, it must be realized that there are many different types of security interests, and the allocation of the burden of paying wage claims among the various secured creditors is a complicated task. The courts will be clogged with cases attempting to determine the respective priorities of various classes of secured creditors".
I find it interesting that in his speech to the House yesterday the hon. member for Dartmouth invoked the name of Gary Colter as an expert on insolvency matters.
The hon. member quoted Mr. Colter as saying that the reforms to the Bankruptcy Act must above all be fair and equitable. I quite agree with those sentiments and also agree that Mr. Colter is one of the country's leading bankruptcy authorities. Why then does the hon. member for Dartmouth conveniently disregard Mr. Colter's clear warning about the tremendous unsuitability and danger of a super priority approach? One might suggest that the hon. member go back and read the entire report of the Colter committee.

An argument often used by advocates of super priority is that it is unfair to require companies and the federal, provincial and municipal governments which cannot go bankrupt to subsidize, in a sense, the companies that can go broke. They are also against having employees pay 10 cents a week. This argument makes no sense.
By agreeing to contribute, governments would knowingly agree to help lessen the tax burden on companies so that they can continue to create wealth and jobs. For example, asking employers to pay this very small amount is much better than asking all Canadians to do so, which would have been the case if we funded this program from the government's general revenues as some have asked us to do.
Furthermore, I am absolutely convinced that super priority would increase the risks for secured creditors, who would therefore tighten the credit requirements for businesses, especially labour-intensive ones.

In conclusion, I would like to quote very, very briefly from two communications recently received from two of the major stakeholders. First of all: "We do not believe it is necessary to reiterate the well-documented host of reasons for rejecting the recommendations of a super priority for wage claims. As you are aware, they include the very negative impact on credit availability for business, the difficulty in establishing a procedure to determine which assets of which secured creditor in an insolvency should bear the burden of the wage claim and the inability to pay wage claims quickly and efficiently where there is a delay in the realization of assets". That is from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
Finally, very briefly: "It is our view that in most bankruptcies the assets of the bankrupt firm are insufficient to meet most claims and raising wages to a super priority status would not guarantee either speed or certainty of payment. We remain unconvinced by the recommendations of the committee that elevating wages to a higher priority over the claims of other credits would guarantee speed and certainty of payment". That correspondence was in total agreement with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and was signed by Shirley Carr, president of the Canadian Labour Congress.

October 30, 1991
Government Orders


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the hon. member for allowing my colleague from Prince Edward Island to speak ahead of him and for the patience of the Chair in sorting out that new speaking order.
I do not really have a great deal to quarrel with in the interpretation of most of the issues in the Bankruptcy Act or Bill C-22 as put forward by my hon. colleague from Alberta.
I do have some difficulty in allowing him to sort of buy holus-bolus and swallow hook line and sinker the line from the Canadian financial institutions, most particularly the banks.
We have gone through this many times. I have spoken to the parliamentary secretary. I have spoken to officials in the department. I have spoken to the minister. I have indicated that the banks came in at the beginning of this whole process when we did pre-study and told us two things. There is another provision in here which is a very good provision and it is one that I support whole-heartedly. It is on revindication of goods.
We all remember it, anybody who was at that committee. The revindication process says that if goods are sold within 30 days of a bankruptcy the supplier of those goods has a right to go in and reclaim the goods.
Prior to this in the old bill those goods would have been there and they would not have been revindicated. They could not get them back. Those goods would have been part of the assets that were liquidated by the bank to realize on their security. That is what would happen.
We heard early on that the banks were concerned about two things. The first was that the revindication was going to cause a credit crunch. That is what the banks said. We told them that we did not believe them for a minute. We proved it to them through the hearings. We proved it to everybody who was there. We got officials in from Quebec and asked them how the civil law was being interpreted in Quebec because they have a revindication in the province of Quebec which perhaps does not go as far. The bankers told us two things. They told us that if we allowed revindication there would be a credit crunch. Second, they told us if we allowed a super priority there would be a credit crunch.
We quickly disrobed the bankers and saw them standing naked without anything to back them up. After we spoke to officials from Quebec we found out there was no credit crunch in Quebec on revindication. They dropped their objection and turned their full guns on super priority.
As quickly as they dropped their objections when they were found out to be not factual, the government, the minister, the parliamentary secretary and everybody else have swallowed that if we put in a super priority all of a sudden there will be a credit crunch there.
We cannot have it both ways. The banks were found not to be truthful in their threats of a credit crunch on revindication, and thank goodness for that because it is still in the bill and it is a very good proposal. What in the name of goodness would lead the parliamentary secretary to believe that the banks' ominous predictions of massive credit crunch are going to be indeed the case if we go through with super priority.
We are opposed on this side to a tax. The member opposite was opposed earlier in the year to a tax. I think most members of this House are opposed to a tax.
What I want to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary is: Why believe the banks now? We know it was not the case in revindication. We know that the credit crunch was not the result of basically a super priority or a deemed trust situation a dozen years ago on source deductions owing.
I would like to find out what magical crystal ball he has looked into and why he now believes the banks when his own department and his own minister did not believe the banks and their ominous warnings on revindication.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Dartmouth who has made such a good contribution to this debate and who did such outstanding work in the pre-study by the standing committee.
I want to say first of all that it was a pleasure to yield to the member for Cardigan who is a good friend and who represents a remarkable area of this country wherein lie the roots of my wife's family and which I know rather well. I envy him his return to that fabled island.
October 30, 1991

I am not sure my hon. friend was here to hear this yesterday, but I did respond to his reminder of the survey done by the CFIB of members of Parliament and their attitudes toward a tax in this regard. I will just summarize my response of yesterday by saying that we are all here to learn. One of the most wonderful things I have learned over the past few weeks since October 8 when I took an oath as parliamentary secretary is the lack of wisdom of super priority and the wisdom of a tax. We can all learn. We can be educated. The hon. member opposite in perhaps 20 years may have the opportunity to become a parliamentary secretary and may learn what I am talking about.
I believe the committee did not accept the idea that the banks would change their credit granting practices. Perhaps the committee should not have ignored what banks have done and are presently going to do with super priority for withholding. They have amended their margin formulas. Banks will always respond so as to best protect themselves. I do not think there will be any challenge to that truism around this House.
Credit may not be impacted in dealings with large corporations and multinationals. However, borrowers with less than the double a rating will undoubtedly face restrictions. Lenders will definitely take into account the impact of wage priority when fixing margin ratios, particularly for the riskiest and most vulnerable and labour intensive businesses.
The cost to such an employer of a reduced margin on credit availability would be much greater than $5.20 per employee per year. Furthermore, when a vulnerable borrower is up for credit review or given some financial difficulties, the lender requests that a viability study be performed by an independent third party account firm and such an accounting firm would see that the realization test applied in reviewing the credit should include a full reserve for wage liability, thus resulting in a cutback in credit to a business which terribly and precisely needs more credit and a break to survive temporary financial difficulties.
That would be the straw that breaks the camel's back for that particular business. That is not speculation. If the margining formula does not reserve for wage liability the viability report will do so at full values and exposure,
Government Orders
and this will result in a sudden reduction of credit from the borrowers most vulnerable and when the borrower needs the credit most.
As to my friend's point on competition among banks, banks are not competing on the basis of more relaxed credit granting policies. Banks are competing by offering new and better products and services, not by relaxing credit terms. Competition and maintenance of sound credit granting policies are not congruent concepts.
In conclusion, a key policy of the government is to contain and reduce expenditures in order to contain and reduce the federal deficit. It is hard to know how this kind of a recommendation would impact on that.
The concept of super priority has been rejected by just about all the stakeholders in the game, except for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and perhaps the Vancouver Board of Trade. All other groups, including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Federation of Labour, have indicated their strong preference for a fund over super priority.
Indeed, in the first few days of hearing, the hon. member for Mississauga South for one systematically asked each and every witness what they thought of super priority. Invariably the answer was that super priority would not work and would have a negative impact on credit availability and was not therefore the preferred option.
It is a total mystery contained in a conundrum within an enigma to me why the hon. member for Mississauga South who donated his not inconsiderable talents and wisdom to the work of this committee- as a contribution he offered himself into the work of the committee and I am sure that all who know and respect him appreciate that-came up with a recommendation for super priority in the face of such incontrovertible evidence.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the compliments given to me by the member for Edmonton. I hope he realizes that I have had something to do with banks over the past decade or so in the finance committee.
I want to tell him that I get along very well with the bankers and the trust officers and the people in the financial community. I know where they are coming from

October 30,1991
Government Orders
when they want to protect their interest because I am faced with lobbying from them all of the time.
When I understand their concerns, I understand them well. I am also able to judge the validity of the concerns. I think that my friend from Dartmouth probably has the situation in hand in a more appropriate fashion than the minister and his parliamentary secretary who seem to swallow the whole problem of the banks, holus-bolus, in full, in toto.
I cannot understand why they would do that when even my friend from Nickel Belt understands them, and understands them well. I want to tell the parliamentary secretary-he left-but I want to put it on the record that my friend from Nickel Belt gets along exceptionally well with the banks. He was sitting beside Helen Sinclair for the last period of time in the finance committee passing the Bank Act and the insurance act, and taking instructions and help from the bankers.
He knows them well. He understands them, and he knows where they are coming from. We all know where they are coming from. The fact of the matter is that there are a number of problems in bankruptcies. I want to go over them.
I was nominated as a critic for this party when we were in opposition. During the period 1982 to 1984, there was a great deal of negotiation in connection with a bankruptcy and insolvency act.
Part of the problem developed from the Landry commission that, like all of these commissions, decided to talk about some kind of a fund. After some considerable negotiation, it was agreed on all sides that Bill C-17 be presented with a super priority. That was moving along very well in committee until a certain leader decided to take a walk in the snow.
That led to a certain convention and that led to a certain political party that was then the government going to the country and finding their popularity was a mile wide and an inch deep when they swam in the swimming pool.
Consequently in 1984 that act died on the Order Paper. Unfortunately it is only now, many years later that we bring it up again.
There are five basic issues in a bankruptcy. First of all, there is the issue of receivers. Right now, if a receiver is appointed, there is no law. He walks in. He takes over under the terms of the security agreement. If the security agreement is breached, somebody can start a lawsuit, but essentially the receiver takes over under the terms of the security agreement.
There it is. The effect of this act is to bring receivers into the insolvency legislation. That is very important. It must be done and it is about time.
The second thing is that there has to be something done in our bankruptcy law that has been required for a long time to deal with reorganizations where companies are in deep financial trouble. Can they reorganize, can we have arrangements with creditors that work? This bill again attempts to do that and does it very well.
Some of the suggestions the committee gave will make it work even better, and I am sure the minister will accept those.
The third thing is the question of revindication. When a manufacturer or processor sells something and does not get paid, in the very short period between when he delivers the goods and insolvency or receivership of some kind, under this bill he is able to go and get his goods back if he can identify them and they have not been further processed. That is probably a good thing.
I want to point out that that is a super priority. That is a super priority. All right. Good super priority.
The third issue has been the question of Crown priorities. Over a period of time, the Crown has been bit by bit putting its nose into insolvency so that it can be first in line. The Crown wants to be a super priority on income tax, on unemployment insurance, on Canada Pension and on one fee after another.
The provinces have super priorities on Workers' Compensation premiums and everybody wants a priority there. Under Bill C-17, those priorities were given up by the Crown. The Crown became an ordinary creditor. Under this bill, only the federal Crown on income tax deductions and on UIC and on Canada Pension keeps its priorities. Now the provincial Crown gets shoved down to the basement but the federal Crown somehow decides to keep its super priority.

October 30, 1991

Then of course the question is what do we do with wages. The current act was passed in 1949 when there were no or very few general security agreements. Banks and creditors generally did not have floating charge security and so the problem did not arise. When people went bankrupt, the wage earners had a $500 preference when the estate of an insolvent person was put through bankruptcy.
The trouble is today we do not have bankruptcies. We have a situation where the secured creditor sends his receiver in and the receiver sells everything out. Of course it is stuck with a Crown priority. Then the receiver takes the money and there is nothing left for anybody.
What bankruptcy legislation is really trying to do is re-orient the priorities because in an insolvency there never is enough money to pay everybody. If there was enough money to pay everybody there would not be an insolvency. So this legislation and all bankruptcy and insolvency legislation deals with sorting out what is left and how you divide it.
The issue really is, how do you work out the questions of priority? The current situation is that the Crown comes first: super-priority. The second person to come first is the big bank, who has the security on it. I want to tell you someone else who might come first. It might be the shareholders who were smart enough to register a floating charge debenture themselves. As a lawyer on many occasions acting for a shareholder, I have gone in and sent my trustee in or my receiver in, seized the assets, wiped out the ordinary creditors and sold the assets to someone else.
That is not very nice. You know that a shareholder does not have to be a director and therefore is not responsible for wages. So right now under the current system, the person with that floating charge security can wind up ahead. After the Crown they were there. Okay.
What we should be doing is re-orienting the priorities. That is what this bill should be about. That is when we talk wages, it is what we are talking about. We are talking about re-orienting the priorities. It was the view of the committee that workers should come first. Workers ought to have something out of what is left in an insolvency, first. Then the view of the committee was
Government Orders
that the secured creditors should come, after revindication of early delivered goods. And then of course, eventually, the ordinary creditors come and the Crown would be an ordinary creditor.
That is what this is all about. This debate is about priorities. Who is to collect out of an amount of assets that are there? The view of the committee was that workers should come first. People who had a specific claim on a revindication should come in there and then the secured creditor should come on the floating charge claim. The view of the committee was that specific creditors who have specific charges like a first mortgage on a building or a lien on a specific piece of equipment ought to be able to take back their equipment or their building because they own it. Those who had floating charges against accounts receivable and unencumbered assets and stock in trade, the floating charge stuff that is secured by these floating security agreements, those agreements ought to be subject to these priorities.
That is really all we are talking about. The question really is: Is this question of looking after employees to be a social claim or a matter of social justice or something of this nature that perhaps the government ought to be involved in? Should we have the government creating a new social right? If your employer will not pay you, then you call upon the government in prayer and say: "Dear government, pay me". Is this the kind of social policy we ought to have?
This bill is a bill with a wage protection fund and is a social policy bill. Let us get is straight. It is a social policy bill. It says if you do not get paid, go to the government and get it. Do not get it out of the assets of the business. Go to the government and get the money. Is that the thing we really want? Do we really want to have further claims on the government? Is this the kind of social priority we want in social priority spending or would we rather have it in day care or in something else? Is this the social priority we should be setting up?
I suggest it is not. What do we do? We call it a wage protection fund. We say it is collected on the UIC, it is only collected from employers and it is only 10 cents a week and it is only a little bit. It reminds me of the baloney, it is a little bit now and a nice slice now. Bit by bit by bit, we make sure that Canada is unproductive.

October 30, 1991
Government Orders
What was this production yesterday about competition, competitiveness and prosperity? What was this all about? All about taxes on businesses. Only a dime a week, a dime a week, a dime a week. How many of us remember what the original contributions to Canada Pension were? How many of us remember what the original contributions to the unemployment insurance fund were? Does a dime a week not sound pretty easy? Maybe it was a little more.
I guess if we really think it is a social priority, if we really think social policy then this is a prime social policy and we should have a fund. What kind of a social policy is this bill? This is a social policy that only looks after some, not everyone, just some. Who are the some? They are the people who work for the companies, where there are enough assets in the till to hire a trustee or receiver. When we ask what these fellows earn it is sort of indicated that you could not get a receiver for less than $10,000 guarantee. So you had to have an asset or an estate of an insolvent person that was worth a few dollars in order to get a receiver or trustee appointed in the first place.
We are going to have social policy to look after the workers of insolvent estates where there is enough money in the estate that the bank or the person who has the security is prepared to pony up enough money up front to guarantee the trustee. Those are the very estates that there is enough money in to look after wages in almost every case, in almost every case. But these are the estates of bankrupts or insolvent people who are going to make sure that the creditor does not get hurt, that the state takes it up, that a fund takes it up, and who contributes to the fund? The little guy in business, who runs a business that when it gets into trouble does not have enough in assets to guarantee a trustee or a receiver $10,000.
What happens? Nobody puts it in bankruptcy, nobody puts in a receiver, and his employees, they get nothing. Over half the people who lose their wages as a result of an insolvency get zip. Here we have a tax that applies across the whole community. That is why it is only a dime a person. It applies across the whole community. That is all. It applies across the whole community but only
people who work for employers where there is enough in the insolvency to cover the cost of a trustee can make a claim.
If we sat back and said "well, the premium ought to be against those people whose employees would likely be able to claim", in other words big firms, I suspect you would find the premium not a dime but maybe more like a dollar a week, plus, plus, plus. So we have a peculiar situation.
The Colter commission was made up of people who were professionals in the bankruptcy business. Who were their clients? Usually big secured creditors: banks, trust companies, RoyNat, these people. Of course they would like this because it is easy to administer an estate if you do not have to worry about these nagging employees asking: "Where is my money?" You just say: "Well, go see the government and you will get paid". Of course it is good for them, of course it is good for them.
However, the issue is: Is this good social policy? Is this the kind of social justice this country should have? Is this the kind of industrial legislation we should have? Is this the way we ought to be going?
I say to this House: no, it is a time when the minister and this House paid attention to its committees. They went back on this legislation and redesigned it.
There are ways. The minister knows there are ways to recognize unemployment earlier than the day a person applies at the UIC office. Yes, you can anti-date claims. Yes you could do something, but surely not this way. Surely, this bill must not pass in its present form.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to a few things my hon. friend raised during his speech.
I appreciate the fact that he mentioned the committee looked at a few things like creditors in their takeover of assets, which he mentioned as a first point; the reorganization process; the revindication of goods; and the fact that we have reduced the Crown's priority. We have reduced it by a certain amount, all the money that is due to the Crown and not the money raised by the employers in trust, if I may. The deductions will stay there.
I have a question for the hon. member. This approach of super priority is very attractive. I discussed that with
October 30, 1991

my hon. friend from Dartmouth and my hon. friend from Nickel Belt. We looked at this in depth.
As my parliamentary secretary said, only one group before the committee that said they were in favour of the super priority. It was Mr. Bulloch's group. All the others were opposed; not only the Colter report but the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. It was not only a single position.
My question is very simple. When we are looking at the assets it is not that easy.

I would just like to look at one point. I have not been able to find an answer to that question because it renders this question of super priority inapplicable. The assets of a business bankrupt may include one, two, three or four buildings, accounts receivable, a deed of trust that covers some other goods, inventories, bank accounts and collateral. It is quite complex.
How would we split this up if super priority applied? How are we going to decide the share that would be owed to all those creditors if, in a business that employs 100 people, super priority took $200,000? In this case, Mr. Speaker, and that is an important issue, each business that would seek financing from the bank would be confronted with a banker who would take that into account, if he did not know whether the amount he will have to give for super priority to these employees will be taken from his building, the second mortgage, the first mortgage on the other building, accounts receivable or inventory. It is totally impractical.
In fact, this super priority already exists, following the amendments made in 1987 to the Department of National Revenue Act, but it is not being used because it is unworkable at the present time. The Department of National Revenue only uses the deemed trust and enhanced garnishment to recover funds from the accounts receivable.
So, I consider this inapplicable and I ask my colleague to explain briefly how we could possibly use a formula that is in itself unworkable. Imagine the number of lawsuits that the various creditors could bring against each other; it would take months, even years before an individual would be able to see the colour of his money.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, the fund that we propose, which will cost 10 cents per employee, will enable people to recover their money in about a month or five weeks.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his question. It is a very important question.
The issue is really what secured creditors would pay the super priority. When there are specific charges, for example a mortgage on real estate, a mortgage or a conditional sales contract on piece of machinery or a specific assignment of a specific receivable, clearly those specific assignments or specific agreements come first and are not subject to any priority, because the person who has those specific agreements has the right above the receiver or above the trustee in bankruptcy in the same manner as a landlord exercising his landlord's lien has a claim above the trustee or receiver.
The issue on which you claim here then is the floating charge type, unassigned or unspecifically assigned assets.
Since the last Bankruptcy Act, banks and other lenders to companies have found that they can register in Canada, though not in the United States. They can register floating charge security. Without getting any specific lien on any specific asset they claim a lien on all the stuff in the estate of the insolvent company or person that has not been specifically attached.
It is those assets that before those classes of security were available, and that class of security I want to again point out to the minister is not available generally in the United States where banks lend money, that are used as funds to attach. That is the very fund that the Government of Canada attaches, as the minister pointed out, when it goes after money it claims to be held in trust for unremitted income tax deductions and the like. The government says: "Well, you have not specifically assigned those receivables so we will seize the receivables, we will in a sense use the income tax garnishee putting us ahead of the receiver with respect to those receivables and get the money for us".
It is exactly that situation that we are dealing with here. We are dealing with this particular group of assets that are not specific assets, not specifically pledged, and not subject to landlord liens or anything. I guess they are subject to landlords' liens but usually the landlord is paid off because he gets his three months rent and that is the

October 30, 1991
Government Orders
end of it. Those are what we are talking about and that is the kind of thing that is the subject of any claim for priority. That is what ought to be used. That fund ought to be used to pay the wages. It should be used for wages first and if it cannot satisfy wages then that is the way it is. Wages should be first before paying off shareholders who happen to have debentures registered, or banks or lenders that happen to have floating securities on top of specific securities.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech by the hon. member for Mississauga South. It makes a lot of sense. That was the kind of atmosphere in which we discussed this bill in pre-study.
The member mentioned what the issues were. He mentioned a lot of issues. I want to ask him if he thinks that this is the time, given the state of the economy of the country, that any government should be introducing another tax on small and medium-sized businesses. We are talking about having to raise the unemployment insurance premiums in Januaiy so we can balance that account by $5 billion. Is this the time that we should be imposing another tax on small and medium-sized businesses in this country? Is it not a real fear that it will start at 10 cents but before you know it will be up to $5 a week per person.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I always have difficulty with a tax of any kind. What really sends shock waves up my spine is the specific provision in this act that calls it the imposition of a tax.
I think Canadians are fed up to their teeth with taxes right now. Our economy is certainly not strong in the sense that people feel good about things. The government says to employers: "Well, here is another levy, it is just a small levy, it is only another dime". It is not just another dime. Not only that, but it is a dime from a whole lot of people who are not going to collect or cannot collect or their employees cannot collect. Somewhere along the line government has to avoid that. My friend will remember that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce apparently thinks this wage protection fund is a great idea except it does not want to have any tax. It believes it ought to come out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce,
with Mr. Reid in charge, apparently thinks that out behind this place is a big orchard and any time you need some extra money you go out there and shake the tree again.
Members are starting to understand that there is not an unlimited capacity for business people or workers or anybody else to pay taxes. It is about time that we in this House started realizing that and we started priorizing our claims against the state. I am suggesting to this House that this particular wage protection fund is not a priority claim against the estate of Canada, the claim should be against the estate of insolvent companies.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Mississauga South is fully aware of the fact that the minister has seen fit to favour 15 of the 21 recommendations of the pre-study and whether he recognizes that this indeed is not a social policy and not a new social right.
The employers under this bill would pay into a fund. This would not be the government's money but the employees' money owed to them by their employers. Does the hon. member recognize that fact?
Finally, does the hon. member not recognize that with the scheme contained in this bill workers would come first, that they would be paid much more expeditiously than under any super priority scheme? Under super priority they might get nothing or might wait for months for any payment to come to them. Under this scheme they would receive their money and receive it expeditiously. Does the hon. member recognize that?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his question.
Clearly some workers will get their money. The parliamentary secretary ought to realize that only some workers will get their money. Those employees of a small business for which a trustee has not been hired or a receiver has not been employed will get nothing. Yet every small businessman in this country will pay, every hospital board will pay, every municipality will pay, and this federal government will pay. Why will it pay? It will pay a tax to a fund to protect workers or possibly to protect banks.
October 30, 1991

Perhaps the act should not be called the wage protection fund but the bank and secured creditors protection fund.


Nic Leblanc: Basically, Mr. Speaker, I agree with this bill, and I am somewhat reluctant to mention my experience as the owner of a small business for a number of years. Our problem was, we were doing the job for governments and unions. We had to collect income tax, unemployment insurance premiums, and so forth. People will say the premiums are not that high. In any case, I agree with the principle that employees must be protected when a company goes bankrupt. I always thought it was unfair when employees lost two or three or four weeks of pay after a bankruptcy, although they were supposed to be at the top of the list for any amounts released after a bankruptcy. I wonder, however, whether the government has considered a process or mechanism that would make it unnecessary to collect this new tax which would otherwise put just one more burden on small business.


An hon. member:: It's unemployment insurance!


Nic Leblanc: They say it's part of unemployment insurance. Perhaps the hon. member for Mississauga South would care to explain the procedure for collecting this new tax.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The government's intention apparently is to collect from the employer at the same time as it collects unemployment insurance an additional .024 cents per $100 of wages per week. That is said to come to about 10 cents. Maybe it is more than 10 cents but it may average 10 cents. It is supposed to be paid with the unemployment insurance remittances every month.
The problem of course is that when it is received it goes into a separate fund. While it may not increase the paper burden on the employer it certainly will create more government jobs and more arrangements for the payment of the fund. In other words a fairly extensive bureaucracy is required to look after the receipt of moneys that are paid out of the fund.
The real issue is whether that payment should be made by all employers or only some employers or only those employers which have operations large enough to have
Government Orders
the advantage of a receiver or a trustee if they were wound up.
Bearing in mind the fact that the cost of bankruptcy is so enormous and the cost of a receiver is quite substantial surely small business employers ought not to be included in this fund and surely hospitals and so on ought not to be included.
The issue is another fund. I want to assure the member that this is not an additional necessary burden of bureaucracy on the employer but certainly does add to the amount he pays and therefore is a tax on him. It adds to red tape in the government and the cost of paying out funds and administering it.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to compliment the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for the work he has done in presenting this bill and the tone he has presented during this debate over the last couple of days. It has been great that he has accepted 18 of the 22 amendments. It shows a willingness to work. It shows a willingness to listen. If we can just continue that tone for a little longer I think we can come up with a piece of legislation that will go a long way toward improving the productivity of this nation.
Yesterday in the House the Minister for International Trade released his paper on prosperity through competitiveness. Shortly into his speech on productivity he said the following: "Productivity is the heart of the issue and is essential to our prosperity. It supports our way of life. It puts food on our tables, schools and hospitals in our communities, roads across our great community, pay cheques in our pockets. That is why we are here today. We must find a way as a nation to improve our productivity. We must change the way we think, the way we work and the way we work together as a country and as a people".
I think that the member for Mississauga South was touching on something earlier today when he said: "Really this bill today is a bill about shifting our priorities".
If the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs could figure out a way to put the wage earner in a protected position in this bill, then he would go a long way in improving the productivity of this nation.
As this minister and all of us in this House know, right now we have a crisis of confidence in this country. We do have a productivity problem. Not only do we have two million people without jobs, but we have many people

October 30, 1991
Government Orders
with jobs who are nervous, wondering whether or not the companies they are working for are going to survive the next six, eight, ten months.
One of the things that is essential to the survival of a company is the productivity of the work force. It is the human capital. The banker does not really decide whether a company ultimately stays or dies. It can go a long way in that direction, but the most important thing is to have a galvanized work force, a work force that does not need to look over its shoulder, a work force that does not have to wony that: "My goodness, the next payroll. My cheque may not be there. If my company does not make it, I am out of pocket. I am stuck."
The minister should listen to the member for Mississauga South who has shown a lot of courage here today by giving constructive advice to his colleagues in government and he is saying: "Let us shift our priorities. Let us take that leap of faith".
I think that if the minister were to put a super priority on the labour force of this nation, that would go a long way in giving credibility to the paper that the Minister for International Trade released in this House yesterday.
You see, Mr. Minister, the problem that we have in this country right now is the trust factor. Very few people trust this productivity paper process. They think it is a bit of a public relations sham.
You are sitting in the House today. You have a bill that can affect the productivity of this nation probably more than most people realize. If you take that leap of faith and put the labour force of this country in a protected position, you will probably minimize the number of bankruptcies in the next few years.
I give you credit for cleaning up a piece of legislation that is 42 years old. You are three-quarters of the way there, but you have to address this point. Quite frankly, I think if you do not listen to my colleague from Halifax- Dartmouth who so succinctly presented the case for the work force of this nation yesterday as well as the member for Mississauga South, if you ignore that, then you are going to make the words of the Minister for International Trade yesterday in this House vulnerable. It is going to show that you are really not committed to innovation, you are really not committed to shifting your priorities.
If there was ever a time in this country to take a leap of faith in the work force of this nation, it is today. I think you have a very special, a very unique opportunity.
The second point that I want to address in this legislation is the tax. It is not the 10 cents per se or 10 cents per week per every employee on every pay cheque. It is the principle that you are opening up another tax, and it is the paper burden that goes with it.
There is a third point. I do not like the psychology of this, that every week you are as an employer, reminding yourself about this bankruptcy legislation. That 10 cent a week payment has a negative psychological effect. There is enough negative press in this country. There is enough bad news in this country. You do not need to be reminded every time you fill out a payroll that you are insuring against bankruptcy. That is a factor we have never discussed.
It seems to me that we are too concerned about the banking community in this country. It is time to slow down our thinking when it comes to the banking community's agenda. I do not think there is any one of us in this House over the last 18 months, whether it be friends or constituents who have not experienced a relationship with the banks.
As a medium-sized businessman who has talked to many other businessmen, the banks always have their position protected. Find me a bank today in this country that has taken some kind of leap of faith on a consistent basis. I am not suggesting that there are not bank managers who are not fair. But there is a banking policy, mostly presented to the branches coast to coast to coast which dictates that they want every nickel of their investment covered. They want every nickel of their loan covered. They want it guaranteed with homes. They want it guaranteed with insurance policies. They want triple security.
I do not think we should be letting the banking agenda of this country get another form of security. We should let the work force of this country control a little bit of the agenda and put the banks into a secondary position.
October 30, 1991

I do not believe that in any way, shape or form that there will be a credit crunch. The minister will know that three weeks ago we debated the reorganization of the Bank Act. One of the amendments to the Bank Act that was put forward was the new appeals system to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, whereby a client of a bank who does not feel he is being treated fairly, whether it is a small business or even a personal loan, could report that unfairness to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. That is a pretty serious amendment to the Bank Act.
If a bank's actions do not hold up with its customer, it will then be part of the annual report which will be tabled in this Parliament. I cannot imagine a bank in Canada that would not be sensitive to that kind of bad publicity. In other words, it will be the first time that banks are going to be sensitized to the fact that if they do not treat their customers fairly, they are going to be exposed by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. Therefore, I do not think we should really worry about a financial crunch.
It goes back to the point the member for Mississauga South made, that this is a bill about shifting our priorities. Our priorities, in my humble opinion, should first of all be to make sure that the payrolls, the workers are covered, God forbid, when bankruptcy happens.
The second position, of course, is to make sure that certain suppliers that have put goods into a company within a 30 day period of a bankruptcy proceeding, their goods are protected. I believe that is a good amendment. The government has accepted that and I applaud it. It will encourage suppliers which are working on fine lines, with just in time delivery type corporations, retailers, et cetera, that will encourage them not to withhold the shipment of goods because they basically know that as long as they are within the 30 day period their asset is protected under this new act. I think that is a solid amendment.
I want to go back to the fact that this country does not need any more taxes. It does not matter whether it is 10 cents a week per person, it is a tax. It is a bad symbol, it is a disincentive to productivity, it is a disincentive to the creativity that is needed to get the productivity of this country going and it sends out a bad signal.
Government Orders
I urge the minister to reconsider his position before we come back for third reading. I would ask him to show some faith in the work force of this country. He can show that faith by shifting the priority of protection from banks to the work force.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am touched by my colleague's kind words. I knew that the bad news would follow, but I nevertheless thank him for congratulating me. Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to clarify a number of comments that he made. I believe that with my colleagues, the New Democratic Party critics, the member for Nickel Belt, and the member for Dartmouth, we have worked very closely, precisely to try to find a solution to that issue.
It is never pleasant to propose a situation that takes money from employers. Incidentally, the recommendation that we made was suggested by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway who, in the debate in 1984, suggested exactly what the member for Nickel Belt is now suggesting that we go back to. The important thing though is that you have gone back to the position expressed by the hon. member for Mississauga, and I would like to know if you share the idea of a super priority that your party seems to have proposed.. It is an interesting idea at first glance, but do you also agree that it should apply strictly to accounts receivable or to assets that are not already subject to a lien, like security on some equipment, a vehicle or a building? If so, it would considerably limit the assets available.
I must inform the hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood that this right already exists for the Crown, the Department of Revenue and right now we can only recover about 60 per cent of the amounts owed to the government. If we were to replace the "super priority" that already exists for the Department of Revenue, we would of course have to say: "Move over; we are now establishing a new super priority for salaries." I would like my colleague to tell me how and where we would get the money, because if you change four quarters for a dollar, it is tantamount to giving with one hand and taking it back with the other, and the total amount will still not be covered.

October 30, 1991
Government Orders
I would also like the hon. member to elaborate on the fact, as he would admit-that many new businesses are in the service sector. Therefore, these businesses have no buildings; they have practically no valuable items. They usually only have a rented computer, a desk and two or three chairs. So, when these businesses go bankrupt, they have practically no goods. In that context, I would like my colleague to tell me how we could this money which, at the present time, is not in the hands of those businesses. The idea is commendable, but it is very important that we be able to give the money to workers who are waiting for their salaries. I would be grateful if you could clarify these points and tell me if you agree with the hon. member for Mississauga on that issue.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister was listening to the point the hon. member for Mississauga South was making. We are talking about a shifting of priorities. We are talking about showing faith in the work force of this country. We must remember that we are only talking about one payroll here. We are not talking about the fact that a payroll keeps going on and on and on. We are talking about wage protection.
I say unequivocally that all other suppliers including the Crown now move into a secondary position. The minister has to remember that if he puts these people out of work they are going to be on unemployment insurance, which is a draw on the Crown.
If you lose your job tomorrow and you go on unemployment insurance, where does the money come from? Why not reverse your approach and take a chance on the work force of this country, because I think in the end that will lead to productivity which might minimize the number of bankruptcies in this country. That is the whole point.
This government does not understand that to motivate a work force you have to show some fairness. You have to send out some signals of fairness. This bill, on that specific point, does not show that. The Minister for International Trade came into the House yesterday and talked about productivity, about going across the country and listening to what people would say about what will make us productive.
We have listened to our constituents. We have been listening to people and I know the minister has too. They say they want fairness in the tax system and this bill flies in the face of what the people are asking for: "Show some good will toward us, show some faith toward us", and that is the point. In order to get to that point, they are going to have to put the banks and the Crown behind the payroll.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood's speech. He is always very impressive and I am always very supportive of the things he says.
We have heard that this is a tax or a levy on businesses, but I want the hon. member to comment on the fact that this is not just a levy on businesses because school boards are going to pay it, hospital associations are going to pay it and municipalities are going to pay it. Where do municipalities, school boards and hospital associations get their money from? They get it from ordinary ratepayers.
I want the hon. member to comment on that because it is more than just a tax on employers that are a great big corporation, a small corporation or a medium size corporation. They are we the people, taxes on the people. They are really taxing people and I would like some comments on that.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I have wondered why the government was putting this tax on hospitals. There is only one thing that concerns me about this tax on hospitals. This government has been dismantling national institutions for the last seven years. There are many people who believe that the next national institution that is about to be dismantled is our national medicare system.
God forbid that this is sort of the advance party of privatization of the hospital system in this country. If we are to maintain our national medical system-and I will not even get in to the schools; let us just talk hospitals- this 10 cents a week on a hospital employee does not make any sense. The only way this would make any sense is if there were some intention of this government to get into the game of privatization of hospitals. There are many in this country who think that is their next step.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand here today and speak for some period of time on the bill before us, the Bankruptcy Act, and the wage payment act. I do it with
October 30, 1991

some feeling that there are accomplishments being made.
When we look at the act, originally it was an act that was passed in 1949. The act at that time took into consideration what was occurring coming out of the post-war years and thereafter. The wage payments were a maximum of $500 and these payments were based on the cost of living at that time.
We certainly know in looking at the cost of living index since 1949 and the upgrade that they used to do every 10 years in revamping the scale how things have changed in that period of time. In my own personal experience, I think about when I was 15 years old fighting fires for 75 cents an hour. The first job I had in a sawmill I remember getting paid $1.75 an hour. I left to work in a smelter and made $1.79 an hour. This was in the mid-1960s. I moved on to a high paying job in the pulp industry at $2.05 an hour.
You know the differences now. The mill workers now get paid $18 to $22 an hour. The smelter workers are slightly behind that but getting paid similar wages. That puts into perspective the type of wage that we were looking at in 1949 as opposed to the wages now in 1991.1 think the member for Nickel Belt gave some examples recently where he pointed out the broad variance in that $500 to now.
The present bill looks specifically at the amount of wages that should be topped up. It sets that limit at $2,000. In terms of 1949 dollars my friend has pointed out it falls far short. I believe the figures he came up with were something in the area of $5,000 to $6,000 would be more in line with the dollar from the 1949 area.
We see right off the bat that although this bill has looked at the wage payment, the upper limit that they have set under this bill leaves something to be desired. The bill over all with some exceptions, as pointed out by other speakers, is a bill that is needed and has been needed for some period of time. It has been pointed out throughout the course of this debate that there have been many attempts-I think there were seven attempts since 1974-to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
This minister has taken the bull by the horns this time around and brought in a bill that with slight modification can probably work this time around. I think the member for Nickel Belt, the member for Dartmouth and the member for Mississauga South have pointed out very
Government Orders
compellingly why the minister should listen to these changes. I believe it was the member for Calgary Southwest who talked about the reasons why super priority cannot work. It cannot work I say from the perspective of someone who has been in the labour force and has worked for the Department of Labour in employment standards. I have worked specifically on legislation dealing with payment of wages and lost wages and come up against bills such as the Bankruptcy Act, priorities and super priorities such as the priority of the federal Crown. I have also for 15 years been a member of the bar, a lawyer, and dealt with companies who are setting up, who have gone into receivership, who have been sent into receivership by the banks, and walkaways, as explained by the member for Mississauga South who have been unable to come up with sufficient assets to interest the trustee.
I think the member points out properly that in itself the trustees have a super priority or perhaps I should say they have a super sweet super priority. They do not go in unless they know there is money and under the act the trustee takes his or her money right off the top before secured creditors before the Crown creditors, the priority creditors, or before the unsecured creditors. Right up at the top, our super sweet super priority people, the trustees, get their money.
Yet under this bill I believe that one of the major flaws from my perspective and from that of my critic area, small business, is one that this minister should reconsider, super priority for wages.
I was a researcher for the provincial Department of Labour back in the 1970s for six or seven months in British Columbia. We constantly looked at ways of getting employees their wages.
We see the hardship that it causes and back then, almost 20 years ago, it was not uncommon to see wages owing well in excess of $2,000. Often when a company got into problems, one of the first thing it seemed to do was miss the payment deadline.
Often many of the employees were true to their company and had worked there for a number of years. Because of the employee-employer relationship, the loyalty that they felt toward their employer, they would use their savings over a week, two weeks, three week

October 30, 1991
Government Orders
period of time with the assurance from the employer that everything would be fine. It was a temporary rough period, but once the finances were in order everything would be okay and the employees would be paid.
Now with the wage change differences, those wages add up, and they add up rather rapidly. If you look at just the wage alone it does not take very much to get up over the $2,000 level when you are earning $500 or $800 a week and you have set back your wages over that period of time.
The employee, the average worker, cannot afford to give up that type of money.
I look at this particular proposal that the minister has put forward. On the top of it, 10 cents a week an employee does not seem to be that much of a hardship. But talk to the small business community, not just the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I had letters from Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing riding, some from my own riding, some from the maritimes, pointing out some of the problems that small business is having in this country and making a go of it. Certainly the minister has looked at the bankruptcy figures over the last year and a half. One of the government members has pointed out that things have improved over last year. It is an improvement over complete decimation of a small business community and although it is somewhat encouraging, we do not have a solid small business community. It does not point to that.
It points to major problems within the business community. Business people tell us, and have told me with some emphasis, that they are being taxed to death. The increase in UI was one of the nails in the coffin of small business.
The GST, in spite of what the Minister of National Revenue has told us, is not only hurting small business. Over the summer I spoke to presidents and board members of some major corporations within my riding. It is hurting them.
The monetary and fiscal policies of this government, the high interest rates and the high dollar rate are all hurting small business. Add, on top of fuel taxes et cetera, a further levy under this plan of the minister and
it simply starts to add up to the point where it becomes the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back.
Small business cannot take any more. It has looked hard for ways around it. It seems to me that the way out is a super priority. The Government of Ontario has set up a fund. It has looked at what it would cost and set up a fund of $175 million as a seed.
There is a proposal that this would bring in something like $61 million as the seed of the fund. The member for Mississauga South and the member for Nickel Belt have pointed out the problems that we have with the employees of the walkaways who do not have the money to go into bankruptcy or receivership.
The employees are hurt. We have a situation where if the government would examine core funding for a program it seems to me that it would protect the employees of the walkaways. It would protect those within the system so that as employees were placed out of work with moneys owing they could take money out of the fund immediately so that their families are not put into hardship. Their rights would then be subrogated to the federal government or the superintendent of bankruptcies, whoever administered the fund.
Through the subrogation their rights would then take priority over everybody including, and I walk on very thin ice here, the trustee in bankruptcy. The wages of the employees who have kept their employers going should have priority over all other creditors, whether they be preferred, secured or Crown creditors. Employees should come first.
I cannot emphasize enough that it is simply not good enough to say that employees will not have priority. That is something that should be looked at. It is something that should be looked at hard and fast. The rule as set out here simply sets up a fund that will be funded by an already overtaxed small business and business community. That is not good enough.
We must have a commitment from this government that the employees will be looked after in a manner that assures that they will be paid immediately and that the setting up of a fund for that payment will not hurt the business community by imposing further taxation.
October 30, 1991

We have heard today about the start of these taxes. In the First World War the federal income tax first came in as a temporary measure. Now look at the income taxes we have. Essentially the manufacturers' sales tax first came in as a temporary measure.
By the time it was done away with it was up to 13.5 per cent. It rose from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent under this government since 1984, arguably from 8 per cent as the 1 per cent increase that had already been legislated was implemented under this government in 1984.
It is very clear that taxes increase as people see needs increasing. The examples have been given. We have just seen another major increase in unemployment insurance premiums for both employees and employers. Canada Pension Plan has been increased and will continue to increase as the government sees that more money is needed, as more and more people in Canada need it because they are 65 years of age.
Things have a way of growing like Topsy. They start small. Once the foot is in the door there is a tendency to push that door open and barge through with bigger and bigger taxes on those who can least afford it.
I believe the future of our country is in the area of small and medium-sized businesses. We should be giving these communities a hand up instead of pushing them down and giving them a kick further down the step to oblivion.
This is the government's next step to push down the small business community. The minister points out that it is a very small amount. However those small amounts have a tendency to grow, as they have in the past and as they will in the future. We have to look at that end of it.
Let us look at some of the other issues about this bill. I would like to talk about the retroactivity aspect of it, while we wait for this bill. We do not want to hold the bill up unnecessarily but we do want to protect the wage earners, we do want to protect the business community. There is no consideration in this bill for retroactivity. If the bill kicks in it kicks in at the time of proclamation. That is a concern that could be built into the bill. The provisions of this bill could be made retroactive to at least the date of the tabling of the original bill to give some protection through that period of time.
A positive section of this bill is that of reorganization.
Government Orders
It is positive because it is a section that has been long required. All of us in law and business have run into situations where our clients, our business community or people in our business community have been put down and out as a result of the banks simply pulling the carpet for one reason or another, whether it be a political reason or something else.
For example during the early 1980 recession a fairly well-to-do and active business person in one of my communities was doing some fairly high risk investing. He was investing well and creating employment within the community. The banks got a little edgy and pulled the carpet. Luckily this gentleman had built up sufficient assets over the years and was able to come up with purchasers of some of his assets so he was able to bail himself out. Had he not been more careful in the past, as a result of learning through experience dealing with banks, we in our communities in the Okanagan would have lost a valuable member of the business community who to this day is continuing to develop condominiums and build buildings. He sees where the need is and steps in because he has the background. They would have done him in at that time.
The provision for reorganization opens up the gate for a few other people to to get into the system.
Over all the bill is one that we would like to support. However we see the necessity for some of those changes and see the necessity for that change in priority. We see the necessity to ensure that there is something to save people from the walkaways.
Also there is a necessity for some change in the revindication provisions for those who supply and, under the present system, could get left out in the cold.
I would like to be able to support this bill in whole. I implore the minister to consider making those changes so that I and my party can support him and the bankruptcy bill that is so dearly needed for the future.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments. Given that the member is a lawyer working in that area, as I have done over the years, we can appreciate how it works.

October 30, 1991
Government Orders
The member should maybe read the letter from the president of the Canadian Labour Congress as well. It may be interesting for him. He is not exactly in tune.
I realized something. The member talks about the walkaways. The committee in its pre-study addressed this point. We will all do our best to find a way. It is not only under federal jurisdiction therefore we have to be very careful. We all understood that, as far as I know.
We have addressed this concern, recommendation no. 3. It is acceptable and we are going to accept it.
He differs on where the super priority should be. The member for Mississauga mentioned that we should forget the secured creditors that already have a direct link with assets. He said the wage earners should come first, including secured creditors. I understand that. It is a major difference. We looked at the numbers.
We should mention that the super priority that the committee proposed and he agreed with includes not only super priority but a fund. As was said a few moments ago that will require a bureaucracy, red tape and so on. There will be another fund anyway, plus a super priority bureaucracy to look after it and put the system in place. It will be much worse than the 2 cents on the payroll. It is quite different.
He is the last but not the only one to have said that this 10 cents could grow after a few years, as the member for Nickel Belt mentioned. We should remember that we have an advisory board looking after the specific administration and monitoring it to ensure that the 10 cents fixed in the law will not change, unless we need to do that.
I must remind the hon. member that with super priority retroactivity is not practical. Even with the system we propose it is not possible. We cannot impose this small levy of 10 cents retroactively.
I would like to know how the member reconciles his proposal with the proposal of the member for Mississauga. They are not addressing the same assets.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the member for Mississauga South was speaking about the proposal of the committee which said that the Superintendent of Bankruptcies would levy the fee from the assets that would go into the fund.
I was saying that the government should look at seeding a special fund. Perhaps it could be built up after but the core funding, the core seed, would be put up front now by the government. If it did that it seems to me that retroactivity could be built into the bill. The fund would be there under what I envision as the super priority and the subrogation of the rights of the employees. Once he is paid out of this fund the employee would subrogate his rights to the superintendent. The superintendent would then have that super priority under the legislation that I envision to get the money back in.
If we extended it over so that we ensured that the walkaways were free and clear, that they got their money, there would be a deficit within that fund of some part that perhaps could be made up in the way that the member for Mississauga South and the committee have spoken about. However, the key funding would already be in place by the government and I would suggest probably that $100 million would do the job to start with, from the figures that I have seen.
That is what I am talking about there. I am talking parallel to what the member for Mississauga South and the committee are saying. I am expanding it a little to work in subrogation of rights of the employees to ensure that they are paid immediately. They do not have to wait. With those rights taken over by the minister or the superintendent it is ensured that the fund continues into perpetuity. There are not many that go into receivership or bankruptcy which do not have some assets. If we give that super priority the banks will have a bit less but we will have worked in protection for the employees.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I finally got recognized to straighten out the record a bit.
The minister has just asked a question of my hon. colleague from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. I do not want the record to be unclear about the work of the committee and it is a very important point.
There are some, including Shirley Carr of the Canadian Labour Congress, who perhaps have not read the document, certainly not the committee hearings, as closely as they should have. The committee was almost unanimous in its recommendation on super priority. We
October 30,1991

addressed two things which are constantly coming up: certainty of payment and immediacy of payment.
We put a number of proposals forward, any of which would have worked. The one we came up with was one whereby the trustee in bankruptcy or the receiver would be encouraged or compelled by legislation after verification of wage claims to go and borrow against the assets of the bankrupt firm to ensure that there was immediacy and certainty of payment. In the event that the assets may not have been sufficient to cover the amount borrowed against the assets, the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, the superintendent's office, would guarantee any shortfall.
Everybody asks how that would be funded. What we said, Mr. Speaker, if you would just give me one more second, at that point was that he could either adjust his fees upward or, if necessary, if there was some small shortfall since the government under its proposal was prepared to put in $3.6 million, the government could at least have followed that.
I wanted to clear the record because my hon. colleague from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt is quite correct in the second scenario he put forward. It is one that we examined and it is one that the government should look at as well.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make certain comments with respect to the legislation before the House.
First I would like to compliment the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for bringing forth this legislation. I wish he would pay attention. I know he does not get that many compliments and I can see I am still not gaining his attention.


An hon. member:: You have got him now.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: I just wanted to compliment him.


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: He is trying to convince his own people.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: I just wanted to compliment him on his courage to bring this legislation before the House. As we know bankruptcy law has been discussed many times before we got here. For some reason or other it has never failed to make the agenda.
More so I would like to compliment my colleague from Halifax-Dartmouth who has led our input into the changes and the considerations that we should be looking at with respect to bankruptcy law in Canada. I
Government Orders
certainly thank him on behalf of all of us for the very fine effort he has put forward. As the member for one of the areas in Toronto said earlier, most of the recommendations we on this side of the House have asked for have been implemented in this legislation.
We are talking about legislation that changes the law of Canada affecting the affairs of individuals and the affairs of corporations that find themselves in economic difficulty or financial distress in Canada. I thought it might be important in my submissions or my intervention in the House to talk about this legislation first from a historical perspective, as to how we got here looking at our economic climate and, second, from perhaps a conceptual basis and explain to our friend why I think it falls short. I would like to give him particular examples on how the present legislation falls short with the protections that we should afford the workers of Canada. I do not think the legislation before this House is strong enough to protect those particular interests.
We cannot discuss this bill without considering it in some form of historical perspective, particularly in the context of our North American mercantile economy. There were some fundamental decisions made by those who governed us in the early years following Confederation and some fundamental decisions made by our friends in the United States with respect to the economic future of their country. It is obvious that those early decisions were instrumental in the formation of a mercantile climate as to how each country would function economically. They were fundamental decisions that were made to dictate how the internal economic policies of each country would operate. There were some fundamental decisions made with respect to trade, some fundamental decisions with respect to capital and availability of capital, and some fundamental decisions with respect to the mercantile economy, credit and credit availability.
It is obvious those decisions have been made and basically began the formation of our country. The early decisions on mercantile policy and mercantile economy led very obviously to the vast differences we find today between the United States and Canada, having both started basically at the same place.
We see today that our friends in the United States opted to develop a country which enhances the economic climate. Accordingly they passed all necessary legislation to enhance that economic climate and allow workers to be protected and businesses to flourish. What do we see

October 30, 1991
Government Orders
when we compare Canadian legislation today with respect to their uniform commercial code and other pieces of legislation such as their security interest legislation that was passed so many years ago and we have just started to use in the last 10 years in some of the provinces of this country? Given the fact that they chose to have an economy that was vibrant and tuned into the business climate, we see that there is a difference between the economy of the United States and the economy of Canada.
That brings us to the legislation that is before the House today. It is one of those fundamental laws we have that shows that our economy has failed to compete. Bankruptcy legislation truly focuses what the laws are and were and what we are just starting to do.
Let us be realistic. Any mercantile legislation has two aspects as you approach and study it and eventually pass it. It provides protection for those within the system and it is important in any piece of legislation that it can and should provide the opportunity to create a climate for business venture. As we know today in the global economy, it should provide a climate that promotes the Canadian economy on an international basis.
When you consider this legislation as an aside and you think about what has happened in this House in the three short years that we have been here and your mind goes back to the trade deal that we first passed in 1988 in the very first sitting of this House, the word that kept coming through was harmonization. The success of trade depends on the harmonization in the United States and Canada. I am sure we will hear this as the trade deal with Mexico starts to take shape, not that we agree with it, but as we progress toward that.
The success of trade depends on harmonization of standards between our two countries. I want to broaden that because I am of the opinion that harmonization includes standards and in other areas includes the mercantile laws of the two countries. This fact in the negotiating process of dealing with the United States on a trade deal has been obviously overlooked by the government of the day to our detriment. We can see today the effects of this tragic oversight of not being able to harmonize the laws of our country to compete and make the Canadian businesses as competitive as the
American businesses. This has been one of the main factors why the trade deal is not working and why there is such a disparity in the amount of jobs that are being created.
Let me give an example of which I speak. It affects one of the very large industries in this country, it affects the airline industry in Canada. I am sure you will agree that the airline industry is not only fundamental to Canada's future, but it has been very important in the transportation policy of our country.
Some time ago, this government proposed an open skies policy for North America. In essence, the concept of open skies is that all of the airlines in the United States could fly into Canada and pick up passengers without the threat of cabotage. The two major airlines in Canada could fly into the United States and have a wide open competition for the U.S. market and for the Canadian market.
Through the transport committee at the time, we reviewed in great deal the concept of open skies and we travelled throughout Canada. We heard all kinds of submissions, brought it all back together and eventually submitted a report to the Minister of Transport for the House of Commons.
It was very interesting to note that on the very day that we submitted our report to the Minister of Transport on the open skies concept in Canada, Pan American Airlines in the United States filed for section 11 bankruptcy proceedings. This meant that airline, which was competing with Canadian airlines for Canadian traffic and for international traffic, filed for section 11 bankruptcy proceedings for unsecured credit and they put over $7 billion of unsecured credit aside so that it could be restructured and they could continue to operate. Pan American Airlines, from that day to today, has not missed a flight even though there is $7 billion of unsecured debt that is before the courts and in the process of being restructured.
During this same process, and staying with the airline industry, Eastern Airlines about two years prior to that had filed for section 11 bankruptcy protection. You know that at Ottawa airport, Eastern Airlines had a terminal and for two years competed with Canadian Airlines, Air Canada and other carriers. It also competed with Inter Air, the flight that was going between Toronto and Montreal and is no longer in business because it could not afford to pay its bills, as I understand it. I should check the authenticity of that statement as I do not wish to mislead. But I do not think Inter Air is in business any
October 30, 1991

longer. While we were competing in Canada, Eastern Airlines, under a section 11 bankruptcy proceeding, continued to compete in our Canadian markets while it was going through extensive debt restructuring.
Here we have two airlines based in the United States competing with Canadian airlines for the same markets. What does this mean with respect to our situation in Canada? How does the bankruptcy legislation affect our ability-and I get back to our mercantile position again- to compete vis-a-vis American competition, not only in airlines but in all other economic endeavours?
Under the present legislation what would happen if Air Canada or Canadian Airlines, our two major operating airlines, were not able to handle their unsecured debt, their unsecured creditors? I would doubt very much that those two airlines would be able to continue to exist on a competitive basis, or would continue to exist at all. We saw the competition in the United States under Eastern, which has finally closed three years after the fact, and what Pan Am is going through. That shows fairly clearly that a mercantile law passed by one country compared to a mercantile law and bankruptcy law in Canada failed to make Canadian corporations as competitive as the American corporations. I say harmonization should include the mercantile laws of both countries.
With that bit of historical perspective and some of the facts that have led us up to the legislation that is before us, we have now tried to harmonize the bankruptcy laws in Canada and the United States. Unfortunately, what we have before us is a piece of legislation that closely copies or parrots the legislation of the United States. I feel badly about that because certainly we in Canada can let our vision expand and say "here is what has been effective in other countries in the world with respect to this type of legislation, and how can we become better in Canada to make us more competitive and to protect our workers within our own country?"
We must understand that there are differences in our economies, differences in our sizes and differences in our lending institutions. Our lending institutions are more secure in Canada today than those in other countries of the world. The fact that our economy may be more important is resource based. We can be more
Government Orders
effective and develop a more progressive piece of legislation that would benefit not only our economic position within Canada, our economic position outside of Canada, but would provide a degree of safety for all of our workers who work within any business in Canada. We see on a constant basis that they are being hard done by when companies fail to respond to the burdens that are placed on them in a financial way.
When we discuss commercial competitiveness today I don't think we can look at bankruptcy legislation again in isolation. When this present legislation was brought into force what we see is the advent and the copying, as I said, from the uniform commercial code in the United States. It is what we call today and what we, those who practised some law before we came to this House, term the security interest and the personal property security law that has been adopted within the last eight or ten years in Ontario and other provinces in the country.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that when we start talking about personal property security or corporate security that it is the priority of the registration, the performance of the registration, the perfection of the registration and the registration itself. There was a phrase that was coined in our school, that when it comes to security legislation, the race goes to the swiftest.
We are faced with a dilemma. Prior to this legislation being operative in Canada, we were not faced with these security interests that cause us to have some concern with respect to the protection. However, we are trying to correct them.
Coupled with this security interest legislation, we can never discuss bankruptcy legislation without talking about the security that the chartered banks have available to them. I forget what the section is, but I think sections 142 and 144 of the Bank Act allow banks to take a security interest in all of the chattels of the business and all the merchandise that might come in as raw material. It can follow the progress of that material. The security interest applies as that material flows through to its final product and might follow right through until the final sale of the product to an individual. So that extended security interest is available to certain banks in the country which finance corporations.

October 30, 1991
Routine Proceedings
The security interests that I talk about, the personal security interests and the bank security interests, play a vital role in any bankruptcy proceedings. That is what I want to spend a few minutes on, Mr. Speaker, if I can.
Let me close by saying that the security interests that we have in the sale of a Crown corporation to a company called Route Canada Incorporated should teach us all a lesson in this House as to how employees in different small industries throughout Canada become affected because we do not have the proper legislation in place to protect smaller businesses or the workers.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that a Crown corporation was sold to a company called Route Canada Incorporated. Because of the ability of corporations today to bulletproof or boilerplate themselves, all of the assets of that corporation that went to Route Canada Incorporated were boilerplated. The assets went into other companies and were taken for the benefit of those who held a security interest in the real estate and the rolling assets. What we had left, Mr. Speaker, in Route Canada Incorporated was a shell corporation. There were no assets of the company but only the accounts receivable. It was a shell corporation that operated with hundreds of millions of dollars in sales and when it went down the tube 16 months later there were only two sections of this country that were hurt. The banks were not hurt. The Royal Trust Company was not hurt because it mortgaged the property. It had its own security interests in place. There were only two groups in this country which were hurt; the workers and the small businesses that supplied goods and services to Route Canada Incorporated. Many of those, I am told now, Mr. Speaker, have gone bankrupt because of the failure of Route Canada Incorporated.
Let me emphasize what has happened to the workers. It is a good point on which to end my submission to the House, Mr. Speaker.
What has happened to the workers is not only what this legislation calls for with respect to the wages that are earned on a weekly or bi-weekly or a monthly basis, it includes holiday pay, it includes benefit packages for which they have had to barter, it includes termination pay and it includes pension plans. This legislation falls
short of protecting the benefits for which the workers in this country have bargained. Employees who have worked for a company for 25,35 or 40 years will lose their benefits unless bankruptcy legislation protects those interests.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to go this far. I suggest to the government that it strengthen the legislation in this area to protect the workers of this country so we will never have another Route Canada fiasco.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek unanimous consent, I think you would find it for the purpose of moving the following motion.
I move:
That the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled persons and necessary staff, be authorized to travel to the Akwesasne Reserve on November 19, 1991, for the purpose of holding public hearings pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(b)(ii).
That was the motion that was moved earlier today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
October 30, 1991

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek unanimous consent you would find it for the approval of the following motion:
I move:
That the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, be authorized to permit videotaping of its public hearings at the Akwesasne Reserve on November 19, 1991, pursuant to Standing Order 119(1).


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blais that Bill C-22, an act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, and the amendment of Mr. Rodriguez.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions and comments.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your courtesy and I assure my friends opposite that I will be very brief with my one question.
I want to ask my hon. colleague for Thunder Bay-Nipigon one question relating to the Route Canada bankruptcy which he described so well.
Does the hon. member feel that the availability of super priority such as has been advocated by members of his party would have assisted the employees of Route Canada, and would he not agree that the wage protection plan as envisaged in Bill C-22 would do a far more
Government Orders
expeditious job providing certainty of wage compensation to those employees?


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question from my colleague. Yes, the legislation as it is presently written, would assist the former employees of Route Canada but only a little bit.
We are finding that the former employees of CNR who transferred to Route Canada Incorporated without benefit of the right to say if they wanted to go or not were assured that their contract rights with CNR would transfer to the new employer. Those contract rights, which included termination pay of one week's salary for every year worked, holiday pay, pension benefits, severance pay, and so on, were not compensated for in the bankruptcy. There were no assets left in Route Canada Incorporated to pay the employees what was rightfully due to them.
Super priority would have helped a little bit.


An hon. member:: Yes it would help.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: What was happening with those Route Canada employees, former CNR employees, is that most of them are out $25,000, $35,000 and $40,000 because of the long term of service they gave CNR. That is what is owed to them under the terms of the employment contract from Canada Labour, plus the union contract that was negotiated. It is their right and it is what they are entitled to and it is what CNR in the sale to Route Canada has forbidden these employees to collect.
That is the inequity. That is the injustice. That is what I would hope this legislation would correct.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate today on Bill C-22. First of all I want to congratulate the hon. member for Dartmouth who was the lead critic for our party and who, Mr. Speaker as you undoubtedly will remember from his remarks yesterday, demonstrated tremendous knowledge in this area, knowledge that he has acquired of course through studying this bill very carefully.
The bill we are dealing with has gone through an unusual process, and I will admit it. This whole business of pre-study is a novel one. I think it has been most beneficial and I recommend it to the government for future bills. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government listens to more of the advice of members when it tries this again. Actually I hope the government

October 30, 1991
Government Orders
listens to the advice of members even at this late hour in those areas where it has already indicated that it was not favourably disposed to listen to the advice of the members.
I see the parliamentary secretary across the way. I do not believe he participated in all of our deliberations because I believe he was a parliamentary secretary to another minister at the time. He will know because of his conversation with other members of this House of the tremendous level of unanimity that was displayed in our proceedings. Members on all sides of the House got together and formed quite an extraordinary consensus on a piece of government legislation. I do hope the member has noted that, as I am sure he has.
One thing our committee was unanimous on was this whole business of increasing the amount of wage earner protection from $2,000 to $3,000. That is fine, but our committee recommended that the payroll tax scheme be abandoned-that scheme of course is part of the bill- and that it be replaced instead with a form of super priority whereby the wages of employees in the event of a bankruptcy or liquidation would have priority over virtually everything else.
panies that have gone under. In other words, you could go in and take funds out of this pool, pay the employees, liquidate the assets and replenish that fund afterward. I believe that is something the parliamentary secretary should realize. I think it is very important for all of us.
Let us look at who is against super priority. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is against super priority. It is virtually against everything except abolishing social programs and stuff like that.
I have here a letter that was sent to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs dated October 11. It says in the second paragraph: "In particular, there is one recommendation to which we are totally opposed, namely the suggested method of super priority to fund a wage protection program". Interestingly enough this same group was also against the payroll deduction, which leads me to believe that it is against the protection for workers in any way, shape or form.
Who is the other group against this? The bankers. By coincidence these are the same bankers of course who were not that long ago against another provision of that bill, namely that of revindication of goods.
I noted that the parliamentary secretary responded to a question from my hon. colleague from Thunder Bay- Nipigon by saying that in the case of Route Canada a super priority would not have helped the employees. I do not know if it would have helped them in all cases, but he has to remember how we proposed to go ahead with this scheme.
First of all, the scheme is kind of a two-step affair. What we proposed, at least as a committee doing the pre-study, was that there would be a super priority. The effect of that of course is first to remove this payroll burden on small and medium sized businesses, on all business and all employers actually. Second, there would be a fund to guard against any shortfall, that fund to be paid for by consolidated revenue. With the combination of these two obviously the employees of Route Canada would have been covered.
If the parliamentary secretary has read our recommendations carefully, he will recognize there are two components to that. The reason we want to have it that way is twofold. One is to cover the shortfalls and the second is to ensure expeditious payments to employees of com-

Bankers led us to believe, at least that is what they tried to do, Mr. Speaker, that, if a supplier could go and retrieve the goods supplied he has not been paid for, within 30 days of the bankruptcy, this would make the cost of the loan go up.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, as a member from Quebec, a similar provision already exists in the Quebec Civil Code. Members asked the bankers-and I was the first one to do so: "Must we conclude, therefore, that the interest rate on a commercial loan is higher in Quebec than elsewhere?" "No, they answered." The bankers were forced to admit that it was not the case. So, we asked them this: "If it is not higher in Quebec right now-in a jurisdiction where a similar, not absolutely identical, but similar provision exists to protect suppliers-why should we believe you when you say that this provision to authorize suppliers to go and retrieve goods would have such an effect elsewhere in the country?" Naturally, we dabbled for a couple more minutes, but we did not get an answer for the simple reason that there is none to give.

October 30, 1991

Government Orders
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that all bankers want is not to do anything that could increase the risk even marginally. It would seem that, in the event of a bankruptcy, it is alright for everyone else to loose anything, but that bankers can take absolutely no chance.

Let us compare what I have just said about bankers and the Chamber of Commerce that are against the super priority with the following letter that I have received. It reads:
Dear Mr. Boudria:
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business wishes to express our congratulations for your recent work on the parliamentary committee studying the bankruptcy legislation.
The decision to recommend a super priority of wage claims rather than the payroll tax is certainly welcome by the small business community.
That letter is signed by Bill Parsons, director of national affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
I say to the minister: He has the bankers on one side and the Chamber of Commerce, although I always have difficulty understanding where it is coming from most of the time, and on the other side he has the Canadian Federation of Independent Business telling us that this unanimous recommendation of our committee to have a super priority is the right approach, that it is the right way to go. That is the recommendation we have.
Furthermore, on the premiums, this whole business of a payroll tax, I bring to your attention a letter which was sent to our committee by His Worship A1 Duerr, mayor of the city of Calgary. It says:
The city of Calgary and all other municipalities will be liable for paying this tax because it is extremely unlikely that the city of Calgary or any other municipality in Canada will ever go bankrupt. No municipality should be required to pay this tax-
The letter goes on to describe how this tax is unfair against municipal governments. Hospitals have made the same kind of representation. I have indicated to the minister that small business has made that kind of representation favouring super priority over a payroll tax.
The minister should look at this again. It will be going to committee very soon. We only have a dozen or so more speakers and then it will be going to committee. It is at that time that the minister should consider and reconsider what he has indicated, at least verbally, that he is not willing to consider that kind of an amendment.
This is not just an amendment proposed by one far-out member of the opposition, if that is what someone on the government side thinks. This is a unanimous recommendation of our committee. Government members, opposition members, members of the third party, everyone was unanimous about that provision. The minister and his parliamentary secretary should remember that.
Had it been merely a recommendation from the Liberal Party that in itself would have been good enough. However, in the unlikely event that the government thought this might have been a purely partisan motion, it was not. It was one that was bipartisan, made by both sides of the House. It enjoyed the unanimous support of everyone on our committee.
There are several other provisions that our committee addressed in this pre-study. For instance we addressed a recommendation that the government investigate ways to reimburse arrears of wages of employees whose employers are insolvent and have walked away from their business where bankruptcy receivership or liquidation has not been initiated.
One of the problems is that there are instances where someone just physically leaves everything there. In many cases, there is also a little environmental disaster, such as a bunch of barrels of chemicals that were buried or some other mess left behind when the people walk away. There is a tremendous concern for anyone to petition an organization like that into bankruptcy. If you do, what happens if you inherit those assets and the mess that is there which you might have to clean up.
Incidentally there was another recommendation by our committee regarding environmental cleanups. Our committee was very concerned and wanted any environmental disaster or mess to be cleared up as soon as possible.

October 30, 1991
Government Orders
However, we do not think that the employees or anyone else petitioning someone into bankruptcy in order to seize the assets should be forced to pay the cost of environmental cleanup in order to be able to access their owed wages. After all their owed wages are just that, they are wages that are owed to them. That is one other area that our committee addressed, again with a remarkable degree of unanimity.
We were talking about this whole business of unpaid suppliers. Our committee unanimously approved of the government's plan for the revindication of goods. However, upon looking at it, we came to the conclusion that the plan in the bill does not work. It is a technical flaw in the bill because there is a 30-day provision for revindication of goods but someone has 10 days after the bankruptcy or forced liquidation to actually initiate that claim.
That is fine except that in the cases of receivership there is also a possibility for the owner of the insolvent organization to file a proposal in order to try and keep it going. If that happens those two dates work together and the revindication of goods could be nullified 100 per cent of the time. While not changing what the government wants to do, we have provided a number of dates and a number of steps which actually cause this procedure to work. We invite the government to look at it. I know it is studying it. I think the officials in the department have agreed with us that the bill as presently worded will not work and that we need some sort of amendment such as the one we have offered or another one that is slightly different, not necessarily married to that principle, that will actually make it work.
There is another concern as well with the 10 day period. My colleague from Dartmouth and I have looked at this and have actually come up with a scenario in which during a 10 day period, depending on the time of the year, there are actually only three working days.
I invite the minister to look at that, particularly the Christmas period. If a company were to become insolvent just a few days, or one day, before Christmas, the 10 day period in some years may in fact have only three days. How could anyone get organized to revindicate goods or do anything else that must be done in the 10 day period?
The revindication of goods provision is only one of the provisions that has that 10 day feature. There are a number of others as well.
We bring that to the attention of the minister but our report has addressed that in a number of places and his officials should examine that.
We are trying to be constructive in our approach. I think all members want this new bill to work, if and when we do get it. We want wage earners to be protected. We want suppliers to be able to revindicate their goods so they do not come out the losers, as they do now.

And of course, the minister himself represents an agricultural riding and is also the Minister of State for Agriculture. He must know that some farmers sell their whole annual production in a single sale; that is, one fine day, a truck comes and takes everything produced in a year, corn from one farm, livestock from another, and so on. Much of the year's income could be from a single transaction. If, for example, a truck took all of a farmer's cattle to the slaughterhouse, which went broke the next day, he should be able to go and see his cattle on location and of course reclaim what is his. In that regard, we all agree with what the minister intends to do. Of course, we want the procedure to work even better. The minister is himself a lawyer and represents a Quebec riding and as I said earlier, he knows very well that such a measure exists in certain cases in Quebec's Civil Code. We want Canadians who live in other parts of the country to enjoy the same or even better protection.

I must express disappointment with the position of the minister and the government that it does not want to abolish Crown priorities.
This is a modem way of looking at this bill. If we are going to do this right we should be giving the priority to the employees not to the tax collector. At least that should not be the first priority.
There is a proviso to what I am going to say and the minister should pay attention to it very closely. We said in our recommendation that an unpaid debt to the Crown should not be utilized against a third party.
October 30,1991

If an employee has withholdings of his or her income tax and the employer does not pay them to the Crown, that should not be a deemed debt on the part of the employee. We do not want the employee to be put out because the employer stole, ran away with, or otherwise did not give credit for collected income taxes, unemployment insurance premiums, Canada Pension Plan deductions, or what have you from the employees in question.
With that I will conclude my comments. One of my colleagues wants to contribute as well to this debate. She is our critic for financial institutions and is a far greater expert on this than I could ever hope to be. I want to again tell the minister that we want to work in co-operation with him. However the minister should understand that we are talking about unanimous recommendations and an unanimous report by our committee.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member, who raised some important points. I think it would be useful to consider them one by one.
Earlier, he mentioned the revindication of goods, which I would call a major element of this reform. Under the Bankruptcy Act, suppliers of equipment or goods will be able to recover those goods within a given period of time. This provision, which already exists in Quebec and has been in effect for about ten years, is expected to work satisfactorily.
The hon. member mentioned the impact this might have, now the holiday season is approaching. Of course, we will always have this kind of problem. I practised law, and lawyers know how this works. Often people come to the office on a Friday afternoon at a quarter past three and ask us to start proceedings, because the deadline is at midnight. This kind of thing happens every day. I think lawyers everywhere have had that experience. We would all prefer to stay away from the office on Friday afternoon. So it is hard to find a formula to deal with extreme cases.
In the case of farmers, the hon. member must know- and I think he does because he was actively involved in the committee's proceedings-that members of the New
Government Orders
Democratic Party and members of my own party agreed to look for a way to do this. It is very complex, because of the problem for farm producers. Yes, I have a rural riding. In fact, the same applies to fishermen. They deliver goods, and five minutes later, those goods are processed to protect them, and so forth. We are going to try to find a way, in a relatively short time, and not just the government, because we intend to invite people, including farm producers, fishermen and processors, to look at how we could find a formula that works. Finding a formula is not enough. It has to work.
I heard some comments about abolishing the priority of the Crown. I think we agree that the Crown's position should be changed somewhat, in fairness to other creditors. The problem is, and the hon. member will understand because I heard him say so on the radio a while ago, that if we use or diminish the priority of the Crown, the latter, which would already be acting generously by losing about $25 million, would, for instance, by withdrawing its present priority over accounts receivable, lose another $50 million. We would have to find the money somewhere else, Mr. Speaker. That is more or less the problem we face.
It is not enough to say there is a problem and remove this priority, because the $50 million will have to be made up by the taxpayers. We will have to find this amount somewhere else. That is why we prefer to proceed with the reduction as tabled.
I was rather surprised by the hon. member's comments, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to ask him about this. Recently, during an interview on the CBC on September 7, I almost had the impression, and I am of course joking, that the hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell had crossed the floor, because his comments on the radio were so supportive of the bill, and he put up such an intelligent defence that I thought -The hon. member said, and I quote:

There is no good time for a tax after all. However, as the hon. member for Portage-Interlake has said, this involves a relatively small amount of money, six dollars and some cents a year per employee.

That was one comment, and here is the other one:

October 30, 1991
Government Orders

I do not think it has some of the negatives that some people pretend are there. It is a small amount and could benefit some of the same people who are going to make the contributions.

Those comments were made by my hon. friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell while answering questions about peoples concerns with a tax. So I would like my colleague to tell me if he has changed his mind since, because when I heard him say those things a few weeks ago, I thought his comments rang true. I thought his remarks made sense. I was glad to see that one of my friends on the other side understood the problems that we had and that we had no choice. You even mentioned that employees would be involved, since we would only pay 90 per cent, and that there would be some sharing by employers and employees. I thought this approach was constructive and positive, much simpler and much more practical than super priority.
Therefore, I would like to get the hon. member's opinion on this, since his comments were very positive. I would like to know where he stands today.


Don Boudria: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, the minister has just said that I agreed with the member for Portage- Interlake. All members, Felix and I, opposition members, third party members and his own colleagues were unanimous in our decision. Yes, I did agree with the hon. member for Portage-Interlake, but not on what the minister is saying we did. I invite him to read the report.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have consulted with both the parliamentary secretary and the New Democratic Party to determine if there was unanimous consent not to see seven o'clock until after my colleague from Malpeque has had an opportunity to participate in the debate. I think, if the Speaker consults the House, he would find that there is such consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent for the suggestion of the hon. member for Dartmouth to give more time to the member for Malpeque?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, there have been such discussions. It is my understanding that the hon. member for Malpeque has a short speech of perhaps 10 minutes. We would be prepared to give consent for her to deliver that speech now. We would not want to encroach unduly on Private Members' Hour and we hope that the vote at the end of that hour can still be held on time.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate this evening. This bill is one that is certainly overdue. As we know the legislation on the books now was presented in 1949. It is time that we had new bankruptcy legislation.
I know that this bill covers many areas. This evening, since I am limited to 10 minutes, I will try to stay within that timeframe and address three of the areas under this legislation.
The first I want to talk about is wage earner protection. The situation right now pertaining to the legislation of 1949 is that employees of a company that goes bankrupt have a legitimate claim for $500 in unpaid wages out of the assets of that bankrupt company. There are a lot of problems with that. Certainly $500 does not represent very much today. That figure was set in 1949 and simply today, 42 years later, that amount is inadequate.
The second is that according to statistics only 72 per cent of employees did not collect even their $500. I am sure that all members have at one time or another talked to constituents who have been in a situation where a company has gone bankrupt, a company for which they have worked for maybe a year, five years or ten years. All of a sudden it goes bankrupt and they cannot get the wages due to them. Certainly we are seeing that more and more these days.
Last week statistics came out from Statistics Canada which showed that bankruptcies in Atlantic Canada increased 62 per cent over September of last year. In this climate, if an employee loses his job today because a
October 30,1991

company goes bankrupt, it is very difficult for him to find another. In fact it is practically impossible in some cases.
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, losing your job and on top of that not being able to collect wages which really you are entitled to. That is the situation that we have under the present legislation. I feel it is extremely important that wage earners be protected, and I am delighted that this legislation has come forward.
I certainly have some concerns about what the government is proposing, because what it is talking about is a tax on employers of approximately 10 cents a week per employee up to $2,000 for unpaid wages. What we have here is a government imposing another tax on small business and certainly we know that small business today cannot stand any more taxes. I mentioned earlier the bankruptcy rate that came out last week. It showed that in Atlantic Canada our bankruptcies have gone up 62 per cent this September over the same month last year.
The government may say: "Well, it is a small amount. It is only an average of 10 cents". That is how all taxes start. They start small like income tax and unemployment insurance which last year went up 24 per cent and there are indications we are going to see another increase this January 1. Here we have another tax being inflicted on small business. Not only that, think of the paperwork that this is going to cause. As I talk to small business owners, that is one of the main complaints they have: the amount of paperwork this government has inflicted upon them.
The committee also recommended that that amount would go to $3,000. In other words if a company goes bankrupt an employee can claim up to $3,000. The approach I am proposing here has certainly been proposed by the consumer and corporate affairs committee and by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They realize that this is a better method than imposing a tax on small business.
I think we all know that Canadians have been taxed enough. How does the federal government ever expect small business to lead us out of this recession if it continues to slow down the potential growth with even more taxation?
What has been proposed here is that the employees would have super priorities. That of course would take care of the old problem we have where companies go
Government Orders
bankrupt and there is not enough money there to pay the employees because they would have super priority. They would be in a preferred position for up to $3,000. If the money were not there, it could come out of a back-up fund. I recommend that the minister strongly consider this proposal that has been put forward by the committee on consumer and corporate affairs.
Another area of improvement in this bill concerns unpaid suppliers. As the situation is now, suppliers who sell goods to companies that go bankrupt have very little recourse. Often they simply do not get paid. Under Bill C-22 goods delivered to a company within 30 days or within the 30 days that the company goes bankrupt may be repossessed under certain conditions. One of those conditions is that the goods not be altered in any way.
One of the drawbacks of that certainly is in the case, for example of agricultural products. If a dairy farmer supplies milk to a dairy and that milk goes into cheese there is no way the dairy farmer can go in and take back the milk. The same problem is true with fishermen. If they sell their lobster to a canning factory and that factory goes bankrupt, there is no way they can go in and take back their lobster.
Last January the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs received a letter from the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association which certainly outlined their concern about this very problem. I am not going to take the time to read this letter, but they expressed very eloquently their concern. Here we are nine months later and there really does not seem to be any indication by this government that it is going to try to deal with this problem.
I certainly support the recommendation of the consumer and corporate affairs committee that the government examine this flaw and try to come to grips with it because it is extremely important for the fishermen and the farmers not only in my province but all across this country.
Mr. Speaker, I know that my time is up. I want to thank you for allowing me to put those remarks on the record this evening. I again say I am pleased that we are discussing legislation which is replacing the old act. I certainly believe in the objectives that have been put forth to help consumers and companies avoid bankrupt-

October 30,1991
Private Members' Business
cy, to try to find a better balance between the creditors and the debtors, and to help avoid the red tape.
As I say I have concerns about the legislation. I have not had ample time to go into them in detail this evening. I hope at a later date I will have that opportunity. I certainly look forward to seeing the amendments that the committee will come up with when it goes to the consumer and corporate affairs committee. Hopefully they will improve the legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed in today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 7, 1991, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harvard (p. 2805).
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a few remarks on the motion presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James. By the way, I wish to congratulate my colleague from Manitoba who was kind and thoughtful enough to present this motion to correct a serious shortcoming in our tax collection system, one that penalizes the elderly.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, people who hold more than one paid job and those who receive a pension must pay income tax quarterly; they must estimate their annual income and then determine the amount to pay every quarter.
At first glance, this may not seem to be a problem. However, it often happens that they underestimate the amount payable or are late making their payment. In such situations, Revenue Canada imposes heavy penalties and charges high interest.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Winnipeg St. James said in his speech on September 26, seniors in this country do not have the choice they deserve. Is it not obvious that these citizens worked long and hard for their retirement and that they should have the choice not to pay their income tax in four quarterly instalments? The law says that seniors and the self-employed who owe more than $1,000 in income tax must pay quarterly instalments on the estimated annual amount.
Furthermore, the payment deadlines must be strictly respected and the income estimates for the following year must be reliable. It should be mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that the quarterly instalments are supposed to even things out and prevent one group in society from receiving special treatment over another. Unfortunately, for many people, this compromise is ineffective and unfair. Seniors often overestimate and pay too big instalments because they are unable to predict their income.
Like everyone else, they are affected by changes in interest rates. Therefore, they do not know what their income for the year will be. They cannot break it down quarterly.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we in this House should show some compassion and flexibility towards our nation's seniors. Therefore I do not think that it would really be too expensive for the government to allow them to pay their income tax once a year.
The option of a single payment could eliminate the guessing game for seniors and the need for Revenue Canada to constantly examine their accounts.

The purpose of the motion presented by my colleague from Winnipeg-St. James is very simple. It is to allow senior citizens in our country to make one payment on their income tax rather than the quarterly system that is now in place.
I believe if we examine the motion of the hon. member from Manitoba, we will find that it is a very just one. It is a motion that allows flexibility in the Income Tax Act. It is a motion that shows that we have some social conscience. I believe it is important that we, as parliamentarians, listen to our citizens out there and guarantee that when we feel there is an injustice in the system that we will make sure that injustice is rectified as soon as possible. I would say, Mr. Speaker, to go a little further
October 30, 1991

in examining the Income Tax Act that there are many problems with it and no doubt it has to be brought up to speed as soon as possible.
Looking at this one particular one we could say that the motion has a lot of common sense and I would like to read a few things about the motion.
The Income Tax Act as it now stands forces people, senior citizens, to pay income tax on income they have not yet seen. Bonds and other investments do not mature until the fall quite often and they are still forced to pay tax on them in March. Paying quarterly means paying on income that they have not yet received. Thus they are losing interest on money paid in advance while Revenue Canada collects interest on it.
Another point that should be made while speaking about this is that quite often if there is a miscalculation and the senior citizen has not contributed the right amount, a little less than what they should have contributed, they are not assisted in any way, shape or form. They are told simply in a form letter. There is no reminder. It is straightforward. Give us the interest you owe us, period. Pay up, in other words. We do not want to hear from you again. Just pay up.
I would hope-I do not plan to speak much longer, Mr. Speaker-that hon. members here this evening will support the motion we have before us and when we look at senior citizens across Canada we have, and I am sure every member will agree, we know that they have contributed a great amount to our society in the past and continue to do so.
In closing, I would like to say that another injustice that should be corrected is the $1,000 interest free per year that was removed from the Income Tax Act a couple of years ago. That should be allowed for senior citizens. They should be allowed to earn $1,000 of interest per year. I would hope that in the very near future that the government and members here will see the light and allow senior citizens to earn $1,000 of interest without being taxed on that interest. I think it is very important. I think that most members would agree with that. I find it very difficult to understands why members would not agree to make those changes and make representation to the minister in question.
Private Members' Business
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing me this time to speak toward the motion.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, indeed this evening it is a pleasure to rise on this particular motion having been the seniors critic for the federal New Democratic Party up until approximately a year ago, and having taken an interest in seniors for most of my lifetime, that interest certainly continues, Mr. Speaker.
I can say without doubt at all this motion, while perhaps needing some refinement, is a way that we can assist our senior citizens in making things easier for them. The motion reads that the government should consider the advisability of changing the collection of the income tax as it affects citizens whose income is not taxed at source so that senior citizens who are required to pay income tax in four quarterly instalments will be permitted to pay only one annual instalment.
What I have found over the number of years since I was a child delivering newspapers to seniors is that one of the difficulties that some seniors have is the difficulty with bureaucracy, the difficulty with keeping dates that perhaps some others find rather easy, the difficulty in keeping track of and properly looking after their money.
What the government has done in requiring them as of 1990 to pay quarterly instalments is add one more problem into the lives of seniors who have, many of them, active lives and who do not need any more of this bureaucratic problem to murky the water for them.
I think the member for Edmonton Northwest, now the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, suggested when this bill was before the House on September 26 that while he did not disagree with the thrust of the bill, he would suggest that there were senior citizens who made sufficient income who could afford and should in fact be paying quarterly instalments.
I have no difficulty with that and I would agree with the member that perhaps a refinement to this particular motion might be setting a top-up limit. It might be on the earning amount below which level you only have to pay an annual instalment. It could be in the tax payable amount, above which limit you would pay quarterly and

October 30,1991
Private Members' Business
below which limit you would only need to make an annual payment.
It seems to me that by setting an amount such as that, you catch those who are well able to afford to pay their taxes in instalments. In fact as we look at it in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, some of those with tax collection problems should probably be paying those instalments. If they have income on interest and pensions that tax payable is $15,000 or $20,000 a year, it seems to me that those people can well afford to pay their taxes.
I think the major thrust should be a simplification of the system as suggested by the member for Winnipeg- St. James. We should ensure that for the vast majority of seniors who make just enough to get by on in this world and are often still below the poverty line, their taxation qualification and their taxation requirements be made much simpler.
It seems to me that an annual instalment is not going to make that much difference. It makes it simpler, it makes it easier, because once a year these people know as of April 30 they must file their income tax returns. They know they must complete the necessary forms in order to qualify for guaranteed annual income supplements, guaranteed income supplements and this type of thing.
They are used to doing the paperwork at that time of year. But they are not used to, and I believe should not have to each quarter try to figure out well, what investment have I got, what amount of money is that investment making for me. Goodness knows, we know how the interest rates climb up and down. Some years you may invest your money if you are very fortunate at 11 per cent, 11.5 per cent, 12 per cent, and other years you may be much less fortunate and end up with your money at 6.5 per cent to 7.5 per cent.
You have to watch this and do your calculations and try to ante up the required amount. I know from listening to the speeches of other members throughout the course of this debate and from my own experience speaking with seniors within my own riding that the penalty provisions of this for seniors and others not filing their quarterly instalments on time are another step, another road block if you will, in the way of seniors.
I look at the over-all effect of the taxation. We should be trying to make it easier for people to pay their taxes,
to encourage them to pay their taxes. I mean, we talk to seniors and we talk to others and over the course of years since income tax was imposed back in the First World War, people have always tried to work out ways so they do not have to pay the-and I quote-"tax man" as much each year. I believe that has become part of what we all look at, regardless of age, in trying to work out ways of avoiding the payment of taxation. When talking to a number of seniors this summer I ran into situations where seniors were investing their money at low or no interest rates in order to get out of paying income tax at all. In this way they do not run into the quarterly instalment provisions. In some cases they were investing their money at low or no income rates in order to ensure that they continue to get the guaranteed income supplement.
It seems to me that instead of making it more difficult for them and penalizing them by adding interest and penalty charges when they do not pay their quarterly income tax instalments, we should be making it easier for them and encouraging them and explaining to them that if they pay their taxes they can assist all Canadians. The government should be saying to them: "We will make it easier for you to ante up your taxation at the end of the year in one simple form, but we will also teach you, if you do not already know, that it is to your advantage to invest your money at high interest rates, paying the tax and taking the balance and putting it in your pocket".
What I have found is that the government does not do that. Some people are confused by the complicated tax rules. When you look at some of the pamphlets that are sent out and the instructions in them, it is confusing. Some of the wording of these pamphlets is sort of ridiculous with respect to this particular provision within the tax, which says "You may be required to pay your taxes for 1990 by quarterly instalments". To my way of thinking, "may" is not mandatory, it is optional. It makes sense that they do not have to, that there is another option and yet if they do not they are penalized.
The thrust of what I want to say in concluding is that we should be making it easier over all, for not only seniors but all Canadians to pay their taxes, but particularly for those who are in their golden years we should ensure that things are made easy for them and that they are not made more complicated, as this provision within the Income Tax Act is. I implore this government to pay attention to the member's motion and pay attention to
October 30,1991

what has been said in this debate, that there is a better way to make things easier for our seniors in Canada.
Let us do it for them and let us do it now by supporting this motion.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight in this debate. I congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James, for this good motion.
Maybe not everybody in the House has been approached by constituents about this particular hardship in the Income Tax Act, but I have had people approach me. I just want to say that some study by this House should be allowed on this motion. I say that because if the minister and his officials had put a level of income tax owed that one would have to pay quarterly on anything above that level, you might not have seen the hardships that have developed since.
This motion pertains mainly to seniors, but there are special cases too where there is an amount of money put away in a banking institution which comes due only once a year. Perhaps it only gives a return of a thousand or a couple of thousand dollars in interest, which should not force the person to pay quarterly instalments.
The idea of quarterly instalments I can see for those who have a large income coming in, but for someone who has perhaps $20,000 and is getting 10 per cent interest on it at the bank, it does not make sense to make them pay taxes quarterly. It does not make sense to make them go to the bank and change the arrangements from a yearly term deposit to a quarterly term deposit. They are going to lose money. They are not going to get the best value as the higher income people can who would perhaps fit that category.
I have spoken to the department. Some of the officials feel that perhaps it should be looked at. It definitely was not meant to catch the people who earn income at the lower income levels.
The other thing I want to say about this is there are special cases who are not seniors, widows perhaps, people living on very low income and getting interest back from their investments that are not high enough or
Private Members' Business
they should be below a level that they have to do it on a quarterly basis.
I want to say that the way it was done is an affront. People did not realize they had to pay quarterly. They get a notice and it says: "You should have made instalment payments in 1990. Since this is the first time you have been notified of this requirement we did not charge you interest", that was for 1990, "If you need to make instalment payments in 1991", that is the first confusion, "your first payment is due 30 days from the date of the notice".
All of their banking arrangements that have been done for a year and this is the first time they get notice. They have to borrow or they have to break that investment in order to pay quarterly. Further it says: "We will send you more information about instalment requirements shortly". It goes on, and this is the part that really gets me: "Your balance payable includes interest on arrears which is compounded daily at a prescribed rate and calculated from the due date of your balance to the date of this notice".
This is the first time probably this senior or this special case had this happen and automatically runs to a bank, takes out their investment and the government is going to get less on the taxable return because there will be less income from that investment.
It makes no sense at the lower income level to force a person to pay quarterly. I say force, because this is the next notice that this person got: "We have processed your application form for the GST credit that you submitted with your 1990 income tax return". The GST credit is to help lower income people through the 7 per cent GST. It goes on: "We have calculated your GST credit as shown below. Your yearly entitlement to the GST credit is shown", as such and such a line, "and it is payable to you now. However, the amount of x dollars payable now has been applied to the income tax account to reduce or eliminate the balance owing. If the balance has been paid, we will send the remaining credit".
Look at all the red tape that this government has imposed on a senior citizen who has a couple of thousand dollars or under of interest or in one of the cases I have, a special case, where there was under $2,000 owing and they have to either break that investment, in order to get

October 30,1991
Private Members' Business
their GST back as well as not have the arrears payable on something they only found out that was due. It is crazy.
On that note, I will allow my colleague from Winnipeg-St. Boniface to finish with my time.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to stand in the House tonight to address the motion which perhaps for the purpose of the viewers I should explain. It is basically to reduce the amount of red tape, give a choice if you wish, to seniors who now have to pay quarterly instalments providing they need to pay $1,000 of income tax. This is a laudable initiative and I want to commend my colleague, the member for Winnipeg-St. James, for his sensitivity towards seniors. He has recognized, as many other members have, that our seniors have built this country.

They built this country. Today we have what they left to us and I believe that it is up to us, as parliamentarians, to try to make life easier and simpler for them. We now have this splendid opportunity to do just that.
I received telephone calls as well as letters, and people have come to see me, in my office in Winnipeg, on that issue. To some, it is annoying because it shows a certain lack of sensitivity towards them, even though this was not necessarily intentional. These people used to pay taxes at the end of the year, and now they are faced with a new system. This creates some confusion. Sometimes they forget, sometimes they underestimate their income and this creates all kinds of problems and headaches. There is simply no reason for that to happen.
I just want to say that I, as the member of Parliament for St. Boniface, support this motion.

As far as I am concerned, this type of question should not necessarily be in the House of Commons simply because it makes so much sense. It needs to be looked at and it should be looked at immediately. It should be rectified.

It seems to me that this could be easily rectified by experts in the field, so that it would not even be necessary for the House to spend time on this.
This proposal should not require a long debate, because it makes so much sense that we should simply go ahead with it. We know that our seniors deserve that kind of consideration.

I would like to propose that while we are looking for this kind of consideration for seniors, we should extend the net a bit. What about other citizens today who are similarly affected, who could profit from this kind of review and who might benefit from some changes in the act so that they too can reduce the amount of paperwork. The government may also reduce its red tape and somehow we can do this more easily than has been the case in the past.
What we really want to do is give people a choice, un simple choix. We are not saying it should be done one way or the other. There are a number of ways this can be done. Our job surely should be to reach out and respond as sensitively as possible to all of those particular needs of seniors and others if appropriate. It is appropriate in certain cases. I am thinking of small business persons and other individuals in Canadian society.
I believe it would reduce bureaucracy. Certainly it would reduce the work of those who have to fill in those forms continually and who are frustrated by over-estimations or under-estimations of revenue, who receive those letters that are processed by computers that are sometimes very insensitive, rather rude and upset people a great deal.
At the very minimum-and I hope it is not the way we are going to go-we must at least look at the limit of income tax that is now paid and ensure that a whole lot of other people do not unnecessarily fill in those forms that take up so much time and are not terribly productive.
While we are doing that, I would hope that we might look at other types of reform. I am really suggesting that this committee of finance has a great deal of work to do. Not only can it look at this, but I think it should and I support it.
At the same time they might want to extend their mandate and, perhaps, set up some new objectives and look at the tremendous amount of taxation they have imposed on the middle class of Canada, which is really the motor of our economic infrastructure in this country.
October 30,1991

It is really the group that contributes so much and because of the over-taxation, that motor is not running well right now. That is one objective.
I would hope that they might also look at another difficulty I have addressed, the difference between married and unmarried couples, where the unmarried couples get more deductions than married couples. I am not looking to lower the unmarried couples' reductions. I would simply like the married couples' reductions to be at the same level.
Likewise, another discriminatory practice they should be looking at is the question of parents who choose to stay at home to raise their children and those who have their children, at least part of the day, brought to a day care and receive care and a receipt that they can use as a deduction. That is a contradiction and is unfortunate and discriminatory. I would hope that in the process of looking at this they might extend their mandate, set up more objectives and review a number of difficulties that we find.
I would suggest that it is time then to come to the end of this debate, at least very, very shortly. Let us fix this thing now, as well as others that need attention. I am delighted that we have support, as I understand it, from all parties. There is a willingness to go forward, to address this, study it and come up with some remedies. Hopefully those remedies will be in line with the comments that have been made this evening, not only by me but by my colleagues from both opposition parties.
I would hope that this can then proceed to committee so it can get the study and attention it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by asking my colleagues to find solutions, as soon as possible, not only to this problem, but to the others that I enumerated and to many more that need attention.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate on motion 484 standing in the name of Mr. Harvard, the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of changing the collection of income tax as
Private Members' Business
it affects citizens whose income is not taxed at source so that senior
citizens who are required to pay income tax in four quarterly
instalments will be permitted to pay only one annual instalment.
Mr. Speaker, this concerns me because some 7,500 of my constituents are so-called senior citizens and I hear their comments having to pay quaterly instalments.

I have had numerous representations from constituents on this matter, senior citizens all of them, who have had little experience with the obligation of the employers to send the usual deductions at source to the Government of Canada. These people are not used to this system and are surprised and sometimes very upset that even though they have low incomes, that is below $20,000-1 am not talking about rich people I am talking about people who live with incomes that are less than $20,000-they have to, because of the system, anticipate the income they are going to make in a year and send Revenue Canada quarterly payments.
The income tax regulations are there for all of us to obey. They do not question the law, they question the process more than the appropriateness of paying income tax. They do not question the fact that they have to pay their share. They have paid it all their lives and they intend to continue.
The difficulty is that many of my constituents happen to be at this time of the year waiting for their cheque from the investment they made last year in Canada Savings Bonds, for example, which are paid once a year. They have GICs which are paid once a year. The income comes in a lump sum once a year but they still have to anticipate paying income tax every quarter. That creates problems.
We know what it is to have to administer a budget. For these people there are sometimes difficulties arising from the fact that the insurance on their homes or their furniture or the public liabilities that they like to keep are due.
They also have other bills, credit cards, God knows. Things that you and I have to cope with on a daily basis or on a monthly basis appear to be a charge upon their ability to pay, and they have to budget. They find that difficult because their income is not a monthly income any more. It is not an income which has been taxed, because the employer took away some of the deductions that were normally required.

October 30, 1991
Private Members' Business
They have to anticipate. For most people in retirement if they underestimate the payments or if they are late in making their payments, they are penalized. They do not understand that.
In a case-I do not want to read the lady's name because I think it would be revealing personal information-that happened on October 11 of this year, just a week ago or so, a lady whose income bracket was below $20,000 was penalized because she failed to make the quarterly income tax payments on time. Now Revenue Canada is saying: "Not only are we going to penalize you but we are taking the moneys that you owe us from the instalments you are making now".
In other words she is trying to put in place a system of paying whatever she owes. However, they are taxing not only her past failure to meet the required timeframes and deducting that from her actual payments which are in keeping with what she has been told is adequate. It makes it difficult.
Senior people sometimes think-I believe that they are right-that the system is not operating in a way that is just for them. We should possibly look at the advisability, because that is what the motion calls for, of changing the collection of income tax as it affects citizens whose income is not taxed at source.
I would possibly be one of those who would propose or suggest during study in committee that we should put a ceiling on the taxable income so that the rich do not get any benefit. I do not see any reason why those who have high earnings should be favoured by this measure.
I do believe sincerely that in the lower brackets, the lower two quintiles, that we should possibly be considerate of the situation and allow these senior citizens to make one payment once a year at income tax time on the income earned during the year.
The debate has been very interesting. I have read most of it and have followed it attentively. I know most members are in favour of this position and I want to congratulate the member for Winnipeg-St. James for bringing this to the House.
I think it is a simple measure of justice, a simple measure of equity, and a simple measure of fairness for our senior citizens that would help them to avoid having to make decisions that would possibly jeopardize their financial situation.
I believe there is a disposition before this House today which is in keeping with our Canadian way of life. These citizens have earned their keep, they have proven to us Canadians that they are indeed, in my view anyway, not looking for special consideration but looking for fairness. In view of the importance of this matter I would like to move a motion at this time. I am seeking unanimous consent to do this and I would like to put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that you seek unanimous consent for the following motion:
That Motion No. 484 in the name of the hon. member for
Winnipeg-St. James be withdrawn and the subject matter be
referred to the Standing Committee on Finance for study.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no unanimous consent. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, just before I start I wonder if you would be able to give me an indication of how much time we have just on a point of order. Is it four minutes? How much time do we have available?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There are only three minutes left in debate.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I guess I probably used up two minutes finding out I had three minutes left.
In any case, very briefly, we in the New Democratic Party want to register our support for the motion presented by the member for Winnipeg. I think it is an important one given the contribution that seniors have to Canada, the extra effort they always make in their communities. Certainly I think it is an important measure on the part of the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada to ensure that in the case of taxation policy every effort is made to make their lives as easy as possible.
This motion presented by the member would change the current requirements that the collection of income tax is done on a quarterly basis. As I say, it is an
October 30,1991

important motion and certainly we offer our full support to that motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 7.54 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 93 the time provided for debate has expired.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it 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):: Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, since this vote will be taken during Private Members' Business, I think it would perhaps be appropriate for the Chair to proceed by row instead of by party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to have the vote taken row by row?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 51)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Boudria
Flis	Gardiner
Gauthier	Harvard
Hopkins	Hunter
Jordan	Plamondon
Proud	Rideout
Saint-Julien	Whittaker-14
Private Members' Business

Members
Anderson	Bertrand
Bird	Bjornson
Blais	Brightwell
Cardiff	Chadwick
Champagne (Champlain)	Charest
Chartrand	Dick
Dobbie	Duplessis
Fee	Felt ham
Ferland	Fontaine
Fretz	Friesen
Guilbault	Gustafson
Halliday	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hawkes	Hicks
Hogue	Holtmann
Homer	Hudon
Jacques	Joncas
Kempling	Layton
Littlechild	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacKay	Malone
McCreath	Merrithew
Mitges	Plourde
Porter	Redway
Reid	Richardson
Robitaille	Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)	Sobeski
Soetens	Tardif
Thacker	Thompson
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)	Van De Walle
Vien	Vincent-58


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Milliken	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to object to this procedure. The bell rang for less than five minutes. I just arrived from Vancouver; I was at a meeting. There are other members around. I see the member for Skeena. There is a member across there from the Fraser Valley.
We wanted to vote on this matter and we were not given sufficient time to get over here to vote. Had I been able to vote, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please.

I may simply remind the hon. member that the Order Paper indicated this was a votable motion, and I do not think anyone in this House was taken by surprise.
The hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur.

October 30, 1991
Private Members' Business
[English\


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise an objection as well on a point of order.
I spoke in favour of the motion this evening. I returned to my office to do some work and I was waiting for the vote. It was supposed to have been a 15-minute bell; it was a 5-minute bell. As you know my office is in the Wellington Building and there are no buses running from Wellington in the evening. I got here and the vote had already started so I did not participate in the vote, although some members who arrived after me did vote against the motion.
I would like to say that had I been here on time-and had there been a 15-minute bell I would have been-I would have voted in favour of this motion as any sensible person would have.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, members who were not present in the Chamber may not have realized that the mover of the motion attempted to withdraw the motion and move the subject matter to the finance committee. That takes unanimous consent. Unanimous consent was not given. One member present in the Chamber refused that consent.


An hon. member:: Who was it?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: But I do understand, Mr. Speaker, I have had consultations with members of the finance committee, they do have the power to examine the subject matter and they will indeed be examining the subject matter as the mover of the motion proposed.


Mr. Volpe:: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I would have wanted to be here for the vote as well. I was caught in the same dilemma as many of my other colleagues who found that the bell was a rather short one. I also would have wanted to have spoken in favour of this motion. I had the opportunity to do neither.
Had I been here on time, I would have voted in favour of this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Before entertaining further points of order, I may remind hon. members that according to long-standing practice here in the House, when a vote is scheduled, the bells shall ring for not more than fifteen minutes, and when the two Whips enter the House and indicate to the Chair that members are ready to vote, the Chair has no alternative but to proceed with the vote. That is what happened this evening.
It being 8.10 p.m, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 31, 1991