1991-10-02

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, the double standard of the government has once again fallen upon us.
This time the government has taken away the fundamental right of collective bargaining for over 110,000 workers by invoking back to work legislation for the Public Service.
With this action the government is ignoring impartial reports of several conciliation boards. It is acknowledging, however, that it is bargaining in bad faith. It is disregarding the laws of the land for its own purpose, all of this from a Prime Minister who said that he wanted civil labour-management relations.
Where is the justice in all this? Where is the justice? A day after the last budget announced the wage freeze, managers got their bonuses and the workers got nothing? Indeed, some managers in departments like John Crow of the Bank of Canada who are supposed to be leading the fight against the deficit have publicly stated that they are not obliged to follow any budgetaiy measures and that they would only consider them.
This government likes to talk about fairness, competitiveness, and the need to work together and yet does nothing about it. As most other industrialized countries are forging the necessary links for co-operation between government and labour, this government is seeking confrontation.
All of this is in the face of a report that says: "Canada for the second year running is the least competitive G-7 country". Perhaps this is so because we have the least competent government.


FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, Babcock Industries Canada, a subsidiary of FKI, has announced reorganization plans which include the closure of a cable manufacturing plant in Arkansas and changes in Michigan. At least one product line and 50 jobs will be transferred from the U.S. to the Dominion Controls plant in Stratford.
The decision to place new work in Stratford was heavily influenced by the skilled, efficient work force in that plant. The company expects to be better positioned to supply more efficiently its customers with all product lines.
We have heard much of the negative effects of the free trade agreement and the revised auto pact. I am very pleased that this announcement is still another positive effect joining two others in my area which I can quickly mention: the doubling of space at FAG Bearings in Stratford, and the location of the Hays Dana plant in St. Marys near Stratford.
The free trade agreement is delivering jobs to Canada.


FRASER RIVER
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the Fraser River in British Columbia continues to be under pressure from pollutants and water diversion projects. This government has the nerve to appeal a court order requiring an environmental assessment of the Kemano Project and would appear to be delaying a comprehensive report on the health of the river.

Earlier reports have resulted in groundfish advisories and native elders have been found with poisoned tissues. The major report studying the state of dioxin contamination of the river from the upper watershed near Prince George down to the estuary is six months late and may not be released until 1992.
The health of the Fraser River is too important to delay. We have to clean up the river now.


COUP IN HAITI
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, just a few months ago, a legitimate government was put in place in Haiti following clean and democratic elections. The coup mounted by General Cedras which forced president Aristide into exile yesterday, is but a savage encroachment on the basic rights of the Haitian people. This coup, Mr. Speaker, must be condemned vigorously. The international community, led by Canada, must spare no effort to restore the democratic government duly elected by the people of Haiti.
Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House are duty bound to support any move or action to enable the Haitian people to get back their president, their democratic system and the freedom they are entitled to.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, since this government came to power seven years ago it has cut almost every program imaginable. It has cut UI and it has cut old age pensions with the clawback, but the worst cuts of all have come in the area of medicare.
The federal government is abandoning its commitment to medicare by shifting billions and billions of dollars in taxes on to the provinces. Smaller provinces like Prince Edward Island simply do not have the population to support the increases in taxation.
The government is forcing the provinces to choose between high taxation or reductions in medical services. The country can no longer tolerate the cuts in medicare.
Last week the Prime Minister said that the opponents to national unity would have criticized the Lord's Prayer. I would suggest that if the Lord's Prayer were health care this government would have cut it in half already.


WORLD SUMMIT FOR CHILDREN
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a year ago at the World Summit for Children world leaders met and pledged to help children around the globe.
On this first anniversary I would like to invite you to participate in the Keeping the Promise Campaign from September 27 to October 4. The campaign is serving to ensure that the promises made during the summit are kept. Although some progress has been made there is still a long way to go.
Every day 40,000 children die from malnutrition and disease around the world. Many schools and places of worship around the globe have planned events for this campaign from September 27. Events will be taking place in Ottawa to commemorate the week.
I urge everyone to join in the effort to create a better world for future generations.


TRIBUTE TO LOUIS LABERGE
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, today is a special day for the Quebec labour movement, a break, a time-out to give everyone a chance to pay tribute to one of the greats of trade unionism in Quebec, in Canada and even in America, as far as I am concerned. I am referring to Louis Laberge.
Mr. Laberge has been a guiding light for all those concerned with the greater welfare of the workers. His contribution to the shaping of the Quebec society has been unquestionably gigantic. I did not always agree with what my friend Louis said, especially during the 1970s, when he had his mind set on bringing down the system. I am sure that all the members of this House will want to join me in thanking Mr. Laberge for his unswerving commitment to the cause of organized labour and wish him all the best in his new career which can only match the stature of the man.
October 2, 1991


ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, the process of constitutional renewal in Canada will be expressed in many ways and will always require the highest motives of all groups in our society.
One example of that process and those motives was demonstrated in New Brunswick this summer when those who are devoted to the Atlantic salmon resource were challenged with the vital issue of its conservation.
As I mentioned yesterday, conflicts and tensions run deep on this issue and could easily have erupted into confrontation and chaos. Instead a direction of consultation and communication was chosen, involving all concerned in the quest for a new vision for the Atlantic salmon.
The minister advised yesterday that a conference will now be convened to define that vision. I wish to pay sincere tribute and respect to all who are working to resolve this issue successfully: sports anglers, commercial fishermen, native people and governments alike.


GUN CONTROL
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the tricks of the government whip, who tried to appoint to the legislative committee on Bill C-17 Conservative MP's that oppose the firearms control were brought through light. Mr. Speaker, these members of Parliament do not reflect the opinion of the majority of Quebecers who demand a more strict gun control. Therefore, why does the government persist with this form of obstruction?
Mr. Speaker, rather than trying to improve the bill on firearms, every effort made by these members is aimed at weakening that legislation. When will the government understand that Canadians want a control on firearms? And when will the Conservative members finally take
into account the wishes of the population, who demands such a control?


JUSTICE
Mr. Garth Tbrner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, a 19-year old woman from Burlington, Ontario was murdered some weeks ago and her body was found hundreds of kilometres away near the side of Highway 401.
This was a cruel and tragic death, especially because tougher criminal justice laws in Canada could perhaps have prevented it.
I rise in support of a petition supporting the parents of Nina de Villiers, a petition calling for important changes to the justice system and one which has been sent to all our offices.
In part it reads:
This House should be aware that sentencing in crimes of violence
does not appropriately reflect society's abhorrence of violence in
order to act as a true deterrent, and to protect the public by removal
of the offender from society.
It also indicates that the statutes governing the criminal justice system in Canada must be revised to reflect societal attitudes.
I will sign this petition. For the sake of a life which could have been saved, I implore other hon. members to do the same.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, we have to make it absolutely clear to the regressive military junta in Haiti that we will not recognize their ugly coup. We will not work with them. We will not co-operate with them.
After a long struggle, the people of Haiti were able to elect their own president last February and for six months he has been trying to establish democracy and social justice in this unfortunate country.
Only last week he made an impassioned address to the United Nations which set forth his goals for his country

October 2, 1991
and his people. We have to tell the Toutons Macoutes that their day is over. The people of Haiti and the world have had enough of their tyranny and oppression.


COUP IN HAITI
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish, on behalf of the members of the Montreal caucus, namely: Mr. Pierre Cadieux, Mr. Gilbert Chartrand, Mr. Jean Corbeil, Mrs. Marie Gibeau, Mr. Pierre Hogue, Mrs. Carole Jacques, Mr. Allan Koury, Mr. Robert Layton, Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin and Mr. Geny Weiner, to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us to denounce the intolerable situation that prevails in Haiti. And, while reiterating our support to the Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, who adopted a clear position on behalf of the Government of Canada, we want to offer our support and our prayers to all our fellow Canadians of Haitian origin, as well as to the Haitian people as a whole.


JUSTICE
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the de Villiers family of Burlington, Ontario, whose daughter Nina was abducted and murdered in August, is calling upon this government to amend the Criminal Code, the Bail Reform Act of 1972, and the Parole Act.
As a result of the tremendous grass root reaction in support of this tightening of the criminal justice system, a petition has been prepared, of which approximately 1,000 copies have already been distributed across the country. This petition has been sent to every member of Parliament for circulation to their constituencies, if they so choose.
This is not a partisan issue. It is a people issue. I urge all members of this House to support the de Villiers family, all victims of violent crime, and all Canadians in their request for a thorough review of the Criminal Code by circulating this petition and showing this government that the status quo is no longer acceptable.


RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF HAITIAN PEOPLE
Mrs. Carole Jacques (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate our government for the position it has taken so that the fundamental rights of the Haitian people are respected, as well as for taking the necessary action to help restore the legitimate government that was elected in a democratic fashion, and its president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
Congratulations to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and to the Minister for External Relations for having suspended our bilateral aid of $15 million.
[Editor's note: The Hon. Member speaks in creole.]


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, according to yesterday's newspapers, the government is planning to start calling upon the smartest minds in Canada to tell it what to do. Thus this government reminds us that it does not have a mind of its own. What is more, it does not know how to mind the shop.
Mindful of that fact, Canadians have had it with this regime, so much so that the mindless Tories have made up their mind to call on the smartest minds of the nation to tell them what to do.
Mind boggling, Mr. Speaker. Mind you, I have a mind of my own about what the government should do and Canadians all join me in the same frame of mind in saying: "Resign. We won't mind".


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, labour relations is an important factor in determining Canada's competitiveness in the global economic community.
Most fair-minded Canadians will agree that to be competitive, it is important for governments and industry to be effective. Both labour and management are key elements in achieving effectiveness, not only in the public sector but also in the private sector. What is needed is a new relationship in which both labour and
October 2, 1991

management share the accountability as well as the decision making.
Unions cannot have authority without accountability. Management cannot assume accountability without corresponding authority. Unions should invest the millions of dollars in strike funds into company shares. Workers should be encouraged to share in the losses as well as the profits.
Let us work together for better labour relations. Let us all work together for a stronger Canada.


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, despite what the last member said and despite the unjust attitude and contempt the Conservative government has shown to federal government employees, the Public Service Alliance held a large peaceful demonstration on Parliament Hill today.
Yet, while demonstrators were singing the government tried to provoke a confrontation. As the hour-long demonstration was coming to an end, riot police were paraded out. Daryl Bean and the alliance leadership asked the members to resist the temptation to react. They listened to their leadership.
The question that must be asked is: Why did the government deliberately try to provoke a confrontation?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['On Wednesday, September 18, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands rose on a point of order concerning the answers provided by the government to written questions placed on the Order Paper, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 39, and printed in Debates of Tuesday, September 17.\nHe brought to the attention of the House the inclusion in those answers of statements of the amount of time required to prepare each answer and the approximate cost of providing the reply. In his presentation the hon. member noted that such material was extraneous to the question and argued that it should not be included in the answer.', 'At the time, very helpful interventions were made by the Government House Leader and his Parliamentary Secretary, as well as the hon. members for South West Nova and for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.', "Standing Order 39 states the procedure for dealing with Questions on the Order Paper. The portion of the\nSpeaker's Ruling\nStanding Order relevant to the present situation reads as follows and I quote:\n-in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same; and in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.\nIn reviewing the provisions of the Standing Order as well as its history, it is interesting to note that generally the problems with this rule which have arisen in the past have been with the wording and nature of questions, rather than with answers.", 'This is why the Clerk of the House is charged with the task of examining notices of questions to ensure that they meet the requirements of Standing Order 39(1) before they are placed on the Notice Paper. They are scrutinized as to the correctness of their form and content.', 'As noted in the annotated Standing Orders on page 126, the principles guiding the Clerk are that no argument or opinion is to be offered nor any irrelevant fact stated in the question. This is ensured the primary purpose of such questions as stated in the Standing Orders, that is, the seeking of information from the ministry relating to public affairs.', 'The requirements that questions presented offer no argument or opinion, nor any other facts except as may be necessary, were extended to the replies to questions in 1906. This was done expressly to ensure that the process remained an exchange of information rather than becoming an opportunity for debate.', 'Therefore, in the present circumstances, since the type of information referred to by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is not germane to the information requested, I would ask the hon. government House leader and his parliamentary secretary to review carefully the replies provided by the ministry to be published in the Debates to ensure that, in future, all such answers conform to the provisions of Standing Order 39.', 'October 2, 1991\nRoutine Proceedings']
Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In 1986 the government, under pressure by the Americans, imposed a 15 per cent tax on Canadian softwood lumber exports. In spite of the free trade deal, signed more than two years ago, the government took off this tax only a month ago, last month. Now the Americans are threatening to retaliate with a new 15 per cent tax on Canadian lumber.
Oral Questions
We understand that the Prime Minister discussed this problem while he was with the President of the United States in Kennebunkport in the month of August. We would like to know from the Prime Minister, if he discussed that with the president, what kind of commitment he received from the President of the United States?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I informed the President of the United States of our intention to terminate the MOU, that all of the requirements had been satisfied, that the Canadian national interest and the requirements of international trade law justified the decision, and that the Government of Canada proposed to implement it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the answen given by the Prime Minister is not satisfactory because, at this time, as the Prime Minister is well aware, they had managed in Quebec to bring the tax down from 15 per cent to 3.5 per cent. Every night on television they show plants being closed in this sector, in the Lac-Saint-Jean area and the Gaspe, in Mauricie, in Abitibi and the Eastern Townships. Can the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that there will be no new 15 per cent tax that would create absolute havoc in the lumber industry in the province of Quebec?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, we believe that the memorandum of understanding has served its purpose. It provided some relief from a very emotional trade dispute at the time that the MOU came on.
We have seen the provinces during this period put in a number of replacement measures to reduce or, in some cases, eliminate the export tax itself. Now we believe that it is time to get the trade and softwood lumber products back on to the normalized trade relationships, and that is our intention right now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we would like to know from the government if it has a commitment from the President of the United States when the question was raised with him in August,

October 2, 1991
Oral Questions
because under American trade law article 301 requests the approval of the President before acting.
We would like to know from this government if it has discussed that with the President of the United States and if it has received any commitment from the United States that it would not close down the softwood industry in Canada from sea to sea?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, he did discuss it with the President. I have discussed it on a number of occasions with the U.S. trade representative, with the Secretary of Commerce. It is our best judgement that there will not be a 301 response.
We believe that there could be other responses designed to get the trade and softwood lumber products on to a normal trade basis. There are no guarantees in this business, but our best judgement is that there will not be a 301, and that is the basis on which we moved when we announced our intentions.



Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Canadian farmers are still looking for straight answers from this government on the crucial issue of emergency assistance. When the Minister of Agriculture was in Rosetown, Saskatchewan, attending a protest rally he said nothing about this issue, but after the rally he told the media that he had no intention of providing emergency aid to farmers. He has never been that blunt on the floor of the House of Commons.
Farmers want the truth and they want it now. It is time that this government showed some integrity on the issue and gave a straight answer. What is it?
Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and
Oilseeds)): Mr. Speaker, we have been meeting with farmers. There is a meeting at the end of the week in Winnipeg, in fact it starts today, the Third Line of Defence Committee, to assess the problem. We are going to wait until that committee comes with its report.
The other question that farmers are asking is that if we want to help farmers keep some income, why did that member's party vote against sending people back to work, which would keep grain flowing in international markets?


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, my question again is for the Prime Minister. His government likes to talk about what the government has done for farmers, but there is one fact it never mentions and that fact is that last year alone it slashed payments to farmers by more than $1 billion and that was a time when grain was plummeting to new lows.
Farmers are wanting back what has been taken away from them. They want fairness and only a callous government would not understand that.
I want to know what this government is going to do today.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that farmers view this government as being callous when it comes to dealing with farmers. The amount of support that we have provided for farmers has been a record amount and most farmers know that, but we also know as a government and farmers know that there is no amount of money that is going to solve this problem for good. The real solution is going to come if we can get some sanity back into international trade patterns. We are working very hard on that. In the meantime, we are going to do the very best we can, as I have said before, to support our farmers to get to through this very difficult time.
I would suggest that if all of us want to support our farmers, and the indication in the House is that we all want to support them, we should support legislation to put grain handlers back to work so that we can see that our grain continues to flow so that farmers have income.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance.
The Economic Council today released studies that show that unemployment has been getting worse in Canada, that it has been hurting people for longer periods and that it has been falling harder on poor regions and groups in our country. Yet, yesterday, the Governor the Bank of Canada in Montreal argued that
October 2, 1991

his policies should ignore unemployment and focus exclusively on price stability.
Will the government recognize that unemployment is a problem in this country? Will it recognize that it must tell John Crow to follow the laws of this land that set up the Bank of Canada and help get people back to work.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that is an inaccurate and unfortunate interpretation of Mr. Crow's remarks.
In order to have sustainable growth you must have price stability. History will tell you that. The evidence is very clear insofar as the economies of Germany and Japan are concerned. When you have price stability you have sustainable growth, high levels of growth and high levels of job creation. That is a policy we are following and that is a policy that is working.
We have already seen interest rates come down by 5.5 percentage points because we have been able to contain the fires of inflation. The two go hand in hand.
When the hon. member talks about the difficulties, and we share those difficulties, I remind him as was reported today in The Ottawa Citizen: "We note that the world economy is at its worst since 1945. This is the first time, according to the United Nations that since 1945 total production and income of all the countries in the world will decline. Canada is included in that unfortunately, but we are well on the road to recovery and we will have sustainable recovery in 1992".


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same minister. John Crow's high dollar policy has not only created high unemployment, but has artificially reduced the export price of grains and oilseeds.
Will the government admit its responsibility to make certain that farmers have stable incomes instead of a drop of over a billion dollars which it is expecting them to absorb in their net farm income for the crop year just completed.
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I remind the hon. member, and I am sure he is aware of this, that the average level of the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the American dollar has been 92.6 cents average over the last 40 years. To suggest that 88 cents is a high dollar is not necessarily correct in terms of historical averages.
I am sure the hon. member also knows that it is the fiscal problem and the productivity problem that have to be addressed as part of curing the economic ills we face.
As my colleague has indicated, this government has been veiy generous in support of the agriculture industry. It will continue to be generous during this difficult period of time they are facing, going through a trade war that has been unknown in the history of this country.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: My final supplementary is to the minister of trade. Two separate studies, one in this country and one by economists in the U.K., show that in the subsidy free world that Canada and the U.S. are advocating at the GATT, world prices for grain would, and I quote: "rise up to 12 per cent". On $2 wheat that is 24 cents. Is this the government's final solution. Is this how it thinks it is going to solve the farm problem, with 24 cent wheat?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is very well aware of the position that we have taken in the trade negotiations.
We have been strongly against the substantial export subsidies as well as the lack of access, both of which are problems for our farmers in dealing with the European market.
Our strong belief is that if we can get agreement through the multilateral trade negotiations to reduce those export subsidies, and open up access to the European market, we can do a great deal to address the plight of the farmers to date.
That is the position that we have taken in the negotiations as they relate to export subsidies and market access, and we will continue to fight hard for that.

October 2, 1991
Oral Questions HAITI


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has said that Canada would not rule out any means, including military intervention, to restore the democratic government in Haiti.
As the Prime Minister well knows when we joined the OAS, Canada especially opted out of the collective security provisions of the OAS charter. In other words, we have exempted ourselves from any military obligations.
What policy is it that Canada intends to follow? Will we meet with the foreign ministers at the OAS today? Is Canada going to be proposing direct intervention, economic sanctions and diplomatic expulsion?
I think Canadians want to know explicitly what it is that Canada is talking about and proposing.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why my hon. friend is so exercised.
Last night on television, he seemed to be saying that he endorsed fully the position that I had taken yesterday, and indicated that the opposition, much to my pleasant surprise, would support if need be armed intervention to restore democracy.
That represented quite a departure from a position taken in this House in different circumstances by the opposition, and it is not one that this government has yet taken.
What we have said, in my conversations with President Aristide last night, the President of Venezuela, the Prime Minister of Jamaica and the President of the United States, is that the Government of Canada will work with our allies at the United Nations and the Organization of American States. What we want is quite simple.
We want the thugs who have usurped power in Haiti out and we want the democratically elected president back in.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, all it shows is that once again the Prime
Minister is falling into the trap of selective viewing and seeing only what he wants to see.
The real issue is what means is Canada proposing? What means is Canada going to the OAS Council this afternoon and suggesting be used to restore democracy?
If he was listening carefully yesterday, he would know that my real question is will Parliament have the right to debate and decide any direct intervention by Canada before it takes place.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the last time we consulted my hon. friends in regard to direct intervention around the world, they said no. The first shot and the policy of the Liberal Party was to bring the troops home.
Our friends down there said that it was neutrality all the way. We said that we would stand up and send troops to defend the United Nations. I can tell my hon. friend that we are working for a peaceful solution.
The Minister of External Affairs will be in Washington this afternoon before the OAS and proposing a peaceful solution.


Lloyd Axworthy: What is it?


Mr. Speaker:: The question has been asked. The right hon. Prime Minister is on his feet, wishing to answer it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to my hon. friend that the Minister of External Affairs will be in Washington to put forward the Canadian position at five o'clock this afternoon.
I spoke with President Aristide last night who expressed his gratitude for the fact that the Canadian government and the people of Canada were strongly supporting his return to power in Haiti, to which he had been democratically elected.
That is the position that we will pursue with our friends and allies at the OAS and at the United Nations. We hope that that peaceful attitude will prevail.


Lloyd Axworthy: You are dancing in the wind.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says that I am dancing around. When the dance was called the last time, I knew who to dance with and my hon. friend stood on the sideline.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
October 2, 1991


WAGE EQUITY
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The Canadian Human Rights Commission is still hearing wage equity cases against the government, while the same government is challenging the Commission's right to settle these cases.
On the subject of wage equity, the Human Rights Commissioner said not long ago that the government should keep its word, and I quote: "Put your money where your mouth is". When will the minister stop fighting equality for women? When will he establish genuine wage equity?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the hon. member that since this government came to power, tremendous progress has been made. The Liberal Party talks about wage equity, but one wonders where they have been all these years. It was not the Liberals who voted in 1990 to spend $317,000,000 on wage equity. It was not the Liberals who annually set aside $81 million to assist the catching up process. It was this government that put on the table, in front of Daryl Bean, an opportunity to incorporate these amounts in the basic salary, which would make it possible for women to upgrade both their pensions and future increases.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, with my supplementary question I would like to remind the minister that pay equity is not a gift, it is not a bargaining chip, it is a right.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Marlene Catterall: Equalization payments can be withdrawn at any time far short of what is required. They do not mean equal pension benefits and equal death benefits. They do not mean equality in many domains and I ask when the government will stop its tokenism and give women salaries to which they have a right.


Gilles Loiselle: Well, well, well, Mr. Speaker. I am being enlightened every day. If this is a
Oral Questions
right, where were you all these years on that side of the House?
If we are seeking clarification in front of the tribunal, it is because we have a fair disagreement on the interpretation of principles adopted by this House that are not, in our view, similar to those that are put in place by the commission. We are seeking clarification, nothing else. Meanwhile the cases are being dealt with diligently.


SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In a secret memo dated September 3, the Prime Minister's Office warned to expect severe criticism of the cabinet decision to give blanket prior consent for U.S. nuclear submarines to transit internal Canadian waters at Dixon Entrance as the only access route to their new underwater Alaska base.
Since the internal assessment of this cabinet decision has now been completed, will the Prime Minister explain why he is approving this U.S. military project in the face of seven illegal seizures of Canadian fishing vessels in the same Canadian waters by the U.S. military over the last three months.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, let me just say that our long-standing position as a government is that the waters of the Dixon Entrance are internal waters of Canada and that position remains unaltered.
The waters are subject to Canadian sovereignty and will continue to be subject to Canadian sovereignty.
There are discussions we have been having with the United States. These discussions are ongoing and at this point it is inappropriate for me to comment any further than that.


THE ENVIRONMENT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of the Environment. In a separate secret memo dated September 11-

October 2, 1991
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena has the floor. The hon. member for Skeena will put his question.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, we know why these guys are at 15 per cent. In a secret memo dated September 11 Justice warns not to make public the use of an Order in Council to avoid a public environmental assessment of the risks of nuclear submarine accidents on the health and property of British Columbians.
Since the minister knows that this abusive cabinet process was found illegal in the Kemano case earlier this year, why has the Minister of the Environment chosen to deny British Columbians the right to publicly assess the nuclear and accident risks of this project?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the hon. member found a decoder ring in his cereal box.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister will give his answer.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister for International Trade indicated that there are ongoing discussions on this issue and that is the case. As we deal with it, we will also deal with the environmental considerations depending on how the issue is presented to us as a government.


POVERTY
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Today in Canada more than one million children live in poverty. In relation to the top industrialized nations of the world, Canada is next to the bottom of the list in terms of our child poverty rates. Children are our country's future.
Canada's signature on the UN convention on the rights of the child is important, but what is this government doing today to provide the basic needs of food, shelter and clothing to our one million destitute Canadian children?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the statement of my hon. friend is, of course, very misleading. The fact of the matter is-


An hon. member:: It is not.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -very misleading and false, let me add.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is. Of the 187 nations at the United Nations, to suggest that Canadian children rank at the bottom of the heap is a misstatement of fact and my hon. friend knows it. In the interest of honesty, I know that she will want to withdraw that statement. It is not the case.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: She is nodding her approval.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have made very serious progress on what is a substantial problem ranging from doubling the child care expense deduction for pre-school children, creating a special initiatives fund and a new supplement to the child tax credit. The child tax credit was increased by 50 per cent starting in 1986. It is prepaid for low income families. Thx discounting has been curbed. The GST tax credit includes a benefit for up to $100 per child. The government launched initiatives to counter family violence, help enforce maintenance orders, established a missing children's registry and curbed child sexual abuse.
I think my hon. friend, who is very interested in this very important program, knows that the government and the people of Canada have made substantial progress in this important area. I know with her-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland on a supplementary.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister.
The fact is that there are still more than one million children living in poverty in this country. I will be happy to provide the Prime Minister with the statistics about where we stand in relation to the top industrialized nations.
According to the 1991 UN Development Program report, Canada's international social sector aid directed to the poor is less than 5 per cent of our aid expenditure. After last year's UN summit for children, our credibility is at stake.
October 2, 1991

Will the Prime Minister tell us today how, since September, 1990, CIDA policy changes demonstrate increased and additional resource commitment to the world's children?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. friend, in the interests of the House being able to take a look at it, to table the data to which she referred. We will take a careful look at it.
It would be very surprising, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the United Nations has just surveyed 160 nations in the world and found that on an objective set of criteria pursuant to the human condition, education, and that involves children, Canada is the second best place in the entire world to live. That repudiates very eloquently those facts and figures.
Mr. Speaker, we have taken a very important lead in regard to the protection of children. We have a long way to go. But in regard to the implementation of the convention of the United Nations, we are asking all of the provinces to make sure that their laws are in keeping with this so that we can ratify it, as I indicated to the United Nations, by the end of 1991.
But I do not think that anyone is helped, least of all the children of Canada to whom we owe so much, by stating misleading information like that.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I want to indulge the Prime Minister's need for ensuring that the people of Canada have full and complete information.
In his supplementary question, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether or not the Prime Minister had discussed with the President of the United States a threatened retaliation by the United States to impose a new 15 per cent import tax on Canadian softwood lumber.
The Prime Minister knows that the Canadian export tax is being lifted within a matter of days. He knows that industry and government sources in the U.S. have threatened a new U.S. tax. He knows that that power lies
Oral Questions
in the hands of the President of the United States through Article 301.
The Prime Minister has spoken to the President. Has he received an assurance that Article 301 will not be invoked and that there will be no new import tax imposed on Canadian softwood lumber going to the United States?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question. Let me try again and maybe the hon. member will take in the answer.
We have had extensive discussions with the United States; the Prime Minister with the President and myself with other members of the administration, as well as officials in the United States government.
We have a range of options on the table which are being pressed by various interests in the United States. My hon. friend is very well aware, I am sure, that the industry and some members of Congress have been pretty exercised by the action we have taken to establish the trade in softwood lumber on a normal basis, not subject to these rules where we have to go to Washington and knock on their door and ask for permission to change.
There are options on the table, some of which include a 301; but it is our best judgment-and as I said in my earlier answer there are no guarantees on this-there will not be a 301 action, that we will deal with this in other forms and ways that will put the trade in softwood lumber back on track.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Prime Minister, we do not want the judgment of the minister; we want to know, Prime Minister, from you-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will put his question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Prime Minister knows that only the President, not Congress, not the U.S. industry, not interested members of the public, but only the President can invoke Article 301. Has the President assured the Prime Minister that the President will not invoke Article

October 2, 1991
Oral Questions
301 of the U.S. trade act and harm, at a very desperate time, the Canadian softwood lumber industry?
In the interest of all the information that the Prime Minister says he wants, will he tell the House and tell the people of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. friend. I have already indicated to him that I conveyed to the President of the United States our view and our position, that the MOU was going to be terminated because, in our judgment, all of the conditions in regard to it had been fulfilled and it would be unfair and unacceptable for the Canadian industry to further sustain any of these burdens.
That was a decision of the Government of Canada. We executed that decision as we said we would. The President of the United States is responsible for the decisions of his administration and I am sure he will take whatever-


John Harvard: No commitment.
Some lion, members: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all hon. members know that we do the best we can during a 45-minute period to get as many members on their feet as possible. It makes it more difficult for the Chair when answers are interrupted by even good-natured heckling because of course it brings about a further response which extends time. I am sure hon. members will keep that in mind.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
Yesterday the leader of the Assembly of First Nations said there would be a one-month boycott by his organization of the national unity debate, with a request that the government come back with a proposal that is more acceptable to the assembly on aboriginal issues.
In light of the importance of a resolution of aboriginal concerns to the success of the package on constitutional issues, I want to ask the minister whether or not he is in a position today to announce that, first, there will be a
substantive change on aboriginal issues pertaining to self-government, and second, a shortening of the 10-year time limit for the resolution of the aboriginal self-government issue.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada put forward a very serious proposal, going farther than any government has before with regard to self-government for aboriginal people.
I will be very happy to have that proposal discussed before the special joint committee, and improved if possible. The Assembly of First Nations, through its national chief, has a different view, insisting upon the reference to the words "inherent rights." I believe it is in the interests of all of us if the Assembly of First Nations will bring their position to the committee directly, and the national chief come and make his case. My recommendation to him, for what that is worth to him, is that it would be better for him to do that sooner rather than later.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister.
The rejection of an inherent right to self-government resulted in the failure of the first ministers' process on aboriginal self-government four years ago. The refusal to deal with aboriginal issues in the Meech Lake Accord resulted in the rejection of that accord last year.
Is the minister willing to risk another failure in the current round of constitutional proposals by refusing to consider aboriginal self-government as an inherent right?


Charles Joseph Clark: I am in a non-partisan mode, Mr. Speaker, so let me simply say that my recollection of events differs from that of my hon. friend.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that proposals should not be changed before they are discussed. We have a proposal before a special joint committee of this House of Commons and the Senate. It is a place where discussion can occur. I would hope that the Assembly of First Nations, along with the Metis National Council, the Inuit Tapirisat, other aboriginal organizations, and all other interested Canadians will come to the committee
October 2, 1991

directly and make their case to the committee and not ask that things be changed before there is discussion.


COUP IN HAITI
Jean-Pierre Hogue: Mr. Speaker, there was a coup in Haiti against the elected government of President Aristide.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister of Canada on the position he has taken in this respect.
Mr. Speaker, my question is as follows and it is directed to the Prime Minister: Is he prepared to repeat to the House, the Haitian community and Canadians across this country, what he has done and what he intends to do to ensure that the situation gets back to normal in Haiti and President Aristide is reinstated as the democratically elected president?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to President Aristide last night. He is more determined than ever to resume the presidential mandate he was given by the people of Haiti. I also discussed the situation in Haiti with President Bush, the President of Venezuela and the Prime Minister of Jamaica. They all share my feelings of outrage at this coup. They are all determined to see the government elected by the Haitian people reinstated. Canada's objective, Mr. Speaker, is quite simple: We want the general, the dictator, to leave and President Aristide to be reinstated as the democratically elected president of Haiti.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Canadian entrepreneurs are encouraged to export in order to survive. Today we see that the dollar has gone up again. We see that there is almost a 5.5 per cent spread between U.S. treasury bills and our treasury bills. Surely to goodness there is enough room to send a signal
Oral Questions
to the governor of the Bank of Canada to lower interest rates so this country can start exporting again.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is incorrect. There is about a 2.7 per cent spread on three-month bills and that is the one that is followed. The hon. member knows that interest rates have come down and the spreads have narrowed. That should be a good sign.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The spread is still large enough that there is enough room to manoeuvre on those interest rates. Bankruptcies over the last year are up 21 per cent. Canadian companies are fleeing this country. When are you going to announce some kind of a national action plan to allow these exporters to become competitive and stay alive in this country and not leave?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is true there have been a rash of bankruptcies, but I remind the hon. member that they have levelled off. Growth is reoccurring in the economy. The United States in the last quarter was still in a recession. As I indicated, this is the worst situation in the world since 1945. Canada cannot be immune from the world. It is a combination of issues that have to be taken into consideration.
We are concentrating on attempting to get the fundamentals right. Fiscal consolidation and control of inflation are the keys to sustainable recovery, sustainable growth and price stability. That will create a buoyant economy with job creation and the kind of economic activity we will seen right across the country from sea to sea to sea.


QUEBEC'S CULTURAL SOVEREIGNTY
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Two areas in which Quebec expected powers to be transferred were culture and communications. The federal proposals ignored these demands although they were confirmed by a number of commissions, including Laurendeau-Dun-ton, Pepin-Robarts, Macdonald, Belanger-Campeau

Oral Questions
and many more. Only yesterday, two of Mr. Bourassa's cabinet ministers, Mrs. Frulla-Hebert and Mr. Cannon, said the federal government's offer was unacceptable, and Mr. Bourassa himself is seeking full cultural sovereignty for Quebec.
My question is as follows: How can the government keep talking about a genuine renewal of federalism, when it ignores Quebec's historical demands as formulated by Jean Lesage and Robert Bourassa?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend a very warm welcome to my hon. friend, after a friendly evening spent with Preston Manning.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentions certain problems that some Quebecers have with some provisions, but he should not get all worked up about it. In the field of culture, the main provision that my friend mentioned, one Quebecer yesterday called it a very interesting and rewarding approach-Jacques Pari-zeau.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Bouchard: We all have friends, Mr. Speaker. Jacques Parizeau is my friend now and I can tell you that Mr. Manning is a veiy civilized man with whom one can disagree but still respect him.
Now Quebecers, from Robert Bourassa-


An hon. member:: I object!


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will wait until order is restored, perhaps.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has the floor.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, now that Quebecers from Robert Bourassa to Jean Campeau and Claude Beland have rejected the federal offer that sought to take over Quebec's important economic levers and the government is preparing to change its proposal, it must nevertheless realize that a real reform necessarily involves the transfer of powers. What is the government waiting for to make the massive transfer of powers
demanded by the report of the federalist party in power in Quebec, the Allaire Report?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have seen everything. The hon. member is now defending federalism again!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Leader of the Opposition asks me whether he will be an ambassador a second time. No!


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now, I could change my mind, depending on the place. The hon. member seems to be quite impressed by people like Jean Campeau and Claude Beland, who are very nice Quebecers and speak in favour of my friend's new proposal, because he was a great defender of federalism when he was here barely a year and a half ago. Now Mr. Beland and Jean Campeau have become his allies, and rightly so because they are great Quebecers. I could also tell him about Claude Castonguay, Alain Dubuc and Claude Beauchamp.I could also tell him about Roger D. Landry, a great Quebecer and a great Canadian who never changes his thinking as he would change his shirt.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


DE HAVILLAND
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, today the European community announced that it was preventing the takeover of de Havilland by the French and Italian governments. For the last six months there has been tremendous uncertainty about the future of de Havilland. De Havilland has-


Mr. Speaker:: Given the time, I would ask the hon. member to put the question very clearly and very succinctly.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Will the minister tell Canadians and give them the certainty that de Havilland and its 4,300 workers need? Will it commit today to ensuring the future of de Havilland and its workers? Will it commit to ensuring that de Havilland continues as a leading aircraft manufacturer in the world?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is put. The minister may wish to reply.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the hon. member knows that that is a question which is impossible to answer today, on a day that the European Commission has said that it will not let A and A go ahead with the acquisition.
My hon. friend has been against this acquisition right from the start, and now he is standing up on his hind legs trying to look like a defender of de Havilland when he has been-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Terrebonne on a single question, a very short one.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, in a statement made yesterday evening, the President of the Public Service Alliance clearly stated his intention not to comply with the special legislation and to continue the strike from within. He even said something even more serious, that this strike would only end with the fall or disappearance of the present government.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Following these statements, how does he see future labour relations within the federal Public Service, and does he think that the threats made by Mr. Bean are totally unacceptable and will jeopardize the loyalty and efficiency of the federal civil servants to their primary employer, namely the taxpayer?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, when one is lucky enough to live in a democratic country such as ours, that democracy is an based upon the premises that everybody complies with the law and I assume that every civil servant will indeed comply with the legislation.
I regret that Mr. Bean made those statements. He has been fighting an election campaign since the Budget. I can't help it. As for me, rather than wage an election campaign, I travelled to just about every city in this country to meet with civil servants and try to explain our
Tributes
policy to them. I am sorry that Mr. Bean made those statements.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of a working group on newly emerging democracies of the Interparliamentary Union.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate tomorrow an opposition day.


THE LATE FRED WILLIAMS
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, veterans and their families lost a great friend last week with the death of Fred Williams. Mr. Williams was Dominion President of Canada's largest service organization, the Royal Canadian Legion.

I say philanthropic organization because this is undoubtedly what the Legion is, since it serves the veterans and their survivors by helping them obtain disability pensions and other benefits. The Legion serves thousands of communities throughout Canada and its deeds of charity are past counting.

Comrades such as Fred Williams are the reason the 600,000-member legion continues to be such a force for good in our country. He was generous with his time and generous with his heart. He was a Newfoundlander who served in the Royal Navy from 1940 to 1946. While he served under the British flag in those years during the Second World War, he fought hard for Canada, especially in recent months.

Tributes
Under the leadership of Fred Williams, the Royal Canadian Legion launched a vigorous and an inspirational campaign for national unity in this country, because legion members have known for many years that this country is worth fighting for. Fred Williams reminded them of that and he leaves them as he leaves us to carry on the fight.

Personally, I will miss his advice, his company and his good humour. He always maintained an optimistic view of life, even though his health had been failing for several months.

On a personal level, I will miss his helpful advice, his excellent company, and his effervescent good humour. He had an optimistic outlook on life at all times in spite of being in failing health with cancer for many months.
I am sure that as we mourn him all his legion comrades will be consoled by the thought that at the time of his death he had achieved what he always had as a great ambition, that is the leadership of the organization he loved, the Royal Canadian Legion. Fred Williams was a proud Newfoundlander and a great Canadian. He will be missed by all who knew him.
The sympathy of the government, the party on this side of the House and certainly my Department of Veterans Affairs Canada goes out to his wife Elizabeth and the rest of his family at this time.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition I rise today to join in the tribute to the late Fred Williams.
Fred Williams was a man who distinguished himself by a lifetime of service. As a member of the Royal Navy during World War II his contribution, like that of thousands of other Newfoundlanders, meant much to the victory the allies achieved.
After the war, as a Newfoundlander and as a Canadian since 1949 his good work continued. He served for many years as a member and most recently as Dominion Command President of the Royal Canadian Legion.
Fred Williams, through his work over the years, stands as a shining example of the Legion's motto: We Care.
Canada has a proud tradition of caring for its veterans and much of the legislation which has come forward over the years has been at the urging of the Royal Canadian Legion and people like the late Mr. Williams.
Even up to the time of his death Mr. Williams was working on the Canadian Unity Program which may prove to be one of his and the Legion's greatest challenges and greatest legacies.
To the family of the late Fred Williams and to the Royal Canadian Legion, my party and I extend our sincere sympathy. Though he is gone, those things for which he stood and the ideals for which he strove will live on. His living memorial will be the work he did with the Legion, and though he will be sadly missed, he will be long remembered.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister and welcome him back from a very good mission to Sicily and Italy in remembrance of our veterans who are still there. I want to thank him for his tribute to Mr. Fred Williams, the late President of the Royal Canadian Legion whom I did not have the privilege of knowing, but as a Legion member I had many fellow Legion members express to me their high regard for him.
I can say one thing: in my years in this place there have been a few times when we have made a major accomplishment to redress former wrongs. While Mr. Williams was President of the Royal Canadian Legion, he led it into fully supporting the declaring of merchant seamen as full veterans, like any other veteran of any of the Armed Forces. That will be an everlasting momento to Mr. Williams as well as the Legion and disabled vets, all of whom support such a move.
I join with the minister and my colleague from the Official Opposition and on behalf of my party and myself in extending our condolences and best wishes to his wife and family. We know, in its real tradition, the Legion will do its best to find someone to fill his shoes.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few personal words to the statements made by our Minister of Veterans Affairs and representatives of the opposition parties here today, since I knew Fred Williams and his family for many years.

He has an outstanding record in the life of Newfoundland and of Canada and achieved the great eminence of becoming the Dominion President of the Royal Canadian Legion.
Mr. Williams spent the whole of World War II in naval service, carrying on the great tradition of Newfoundlanders with respect to the sea. I also know well his family and, in particular his daughter, Councillor Wendy Williams, who started a career in public life.
I would like to extend to Mrs. Williams, and members of the family, my condolences and regrets and the gratitude I feel that I knew such a fine character as Fred Williams. I had the pleasure of knowing him and seeing his good work during his many years in working for veterans and veterans affairs.
 * *


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: On Wednesday, September 18, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands rose on a point of order concerning the answers provided by the government to written questions placed on the Order Paper, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 39, and printed in Debates of Tuesday, September 17.
He brought to the attention of the House the inclusion in those answers of statements of the amount of time required to prepare each answer and the approximate cost of providing the reply. In his presentation the hon. member noted that such material was extraneous to the question and argued that it should not be included in the answer.

At the time, very helpful interventions were made by the Government House Leader and his Parliamentary Secretary, as well as the hon. members for South West Nova and for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.

Standing Order 39 states the procedure for dealing with Questions on the Order Paper. The portion of the
Speaker's Ruling
Standing Order relevant to the present situation reads as follows and I quote:
-in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same; and in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.
In reviewing the provisions of the Standing Order as well as its history, it is interesting to note that generally the problems with this rule which have arisen in the past have been with the wording and nature of questions, rather than with answers.

This is why the Clerk of the House is charged with the task of examining notices of questions to ensure that they meet the requirements of Standing Order 39(1) before they are placed on the Notice Paper. They are scrutinized as to the correctness of their form and content.

As noted in the annotated Standing Orders on page 126, the principles guiding the Clerk are that no argument or opinion is to be offered nor any irrelevant fact stated in the question. This is ensured the primary purpose of such questions as stated in the Standing Orders, that is, the seeking of information from the ministry relating to public affairs.

The requirements that questions presented offer no argument or opinion, nor any other facts except as may be necessary, were extended to the replies to questions in 1906. This was done expressly to ensure that the process remained an exchange of information rather than becoming an opportunity for debate.

Therefore, in the present circumstances, since the type of information referred to by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is not germane to the information requested, I would ask the hon. government House leader and his parliamentary secretary to review carefully the replies provided by the ministry to be published in the Debates to ensure that, in future, all such answers conform to the provisions of Standing Order 39.

October 2, 1991
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table in both official languages the 1990 annual report of the Co-operative Energy Corporation and the annual report of the Columbia River Treaty Engineering Board to the governments of the United States and Canada for the period of October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1990.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, in 1985 Prime Minister Mulroney of Canada and former Prime Minister Nakasone of Japan, with the good offices of the Speaker of Canada, initiated the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Association.
I am pleased to report today that the association has flourished and completed exchanges between the Parliament of Canada and the Diet of Japan on an annual basis.
This report which I am tabling today deals with the second annual meeting held in Japan this past June. Canadian delegates brought to the discussion table many important bilateral issues, including the SPF lumber issue, driftnet fishing, as well as agricultural, trade and investment issues.
We will continue to raise these issues. Also, we were pleased to accomplish a cultural exchange between Japan and Canada and we are working to establish a program to exchange young leaders between the Parliament of Canada and the Diet of Japan.
This report details some of these activities and I am very pleased and proud to present it to the House today.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on House Management regarding the selection of votable items among Private Members' Business. Pursuant to Standing Order 92(2), this report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.


HOUSE MANAGEMENT-TENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the tenth report of the Standing Committee on House Management.


NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS-FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs on Canada's Merchant Marines.
The Merchant Marines were vital to World War II. More than 70 Canadian ships were sunk at sea and the death rate in the Merchant Marines was nearly 10 per cent compared to 4 per cent in all other forces. They were under military command and discipline. They were frequently attacked and under-protected. Much has been done to advance the plight of the Merchant Marines over the past 15 years.
The Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs believes that if the recommendations of this report are followed that justice will have been significantly advanced and the role of the Merchant Marines in the defence of freedom will finally have been recognized.
We commend our recommendations to the government.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
October 2, 1991


ENDANGERED SPECIES AND BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ACT
Robert Lloyd Wenman: for leave to introduce Bill C-303, an act respecting endangered species and biological diversity.
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill to protect endangered species is a historic occasion for the House of Commons because this is the first time that a major bill of this kind has been introduced.
The bill seeks to call upon the resources of other bills, like those in the United States, but it is based instead not on species specific protection but instead in terms of the protection of the habitat, recognizing that one of better ways to protect endangered species is to enhance or intensify the biological diversity of their habitat.
I believe this bill will receive a good hearing in the House of Commons. I believe that it is in its place a bit early and its concepts are far-reaching, but I am sure that it will find the light of day in the interests of this very important subject to many Canadian naturalists, in fact to the whole chain of life in the globe.


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

Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-304, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Canada Post Corporation).
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to declare Canada Post Corporation an essential service and thereby outlaw any further strikes.
I have great respect for the men and women who work for Canada Post, but Canadians should never again have to endure the anguish and economic hardships which were inflicted on so many people during the recent Canada Post strike. Regardless of Chief Justice Gold's mediation decision, I believe members of this House should pass this bill.
Routine Proceedings
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague Alan Redway of Don Valley East for supporting this bill.


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

Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-305, an act respecting the award of the Victoria Cross.
He said: Madam Speaker, since the Crimean War, the Victoria Cross has been the highest military award given in the British Commonwealth. It is the most prestigious military decoration ever given to Canadians.
However, when the former government brought in new Canadian orders of bravery in 1972, the Victoria Cross was omitted, and as a result, can no longer be awarded in Canada. Unfortunately, it did not even establish a suitable award for gallantry in the face of the enemy to replace the Victoria Cross.
This bill would restore the Victoria Cross as the highest Canadian accolade for an act of valour in the face of the enemy. The Victoria Cross would be awarded by the Governor General as the Queen's representative in Canada on the advice of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and it would restore the special place of the Victoria Cross in Canadian gallantry awards.


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

Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry):: Madam Speaker, I move:
That three members and two recherchers from the Standing
Committee on Transport be authorized to travel to Winnipeg on
October 9 and 10, 1991 in order to attend the conference on the
transport of grain.


Mr. Lapierre:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

October 2, 1991
Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Shef-ford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I know that this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. What I find difficult to understand is that we had started a practice whereby we had the budgets for these different trips. Now we get a motion like this out of the blue. I am willing to give my approval, but I would like to see the budgets tabled, as was done by other members who requested the same kind of authority to travel. I believe it is useful to see the amount of expenses for such trips.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his comments. I am sure that they will be taken into consideration.
Does the House give the hon. parliamentary secretary leave to move his motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Champlain have another motion?


Michel Champagne: Yes, Madam Speaker. First, I would like to thank my colleague and assure him that the figures and expenditures will be tabled later.


REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Michel Champagne: Madam Speaker, I think that you will find unanimous consent to move the following motion:
That the Orders respectively adopted on Monday, September 30, 1991, on Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan and Bill C-21, an act relating to the accounting of certain payments for the servicing and reduction of the debt of Canada and on Tuesday, June 18, 1991 on Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 1991, to refer the said bills to Legislative Committee F be discharged and that the said three bills stand referred instead to the Standing Committee on Finance.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to present this motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: 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


PETITIONS
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of many Canadians from southwestern Ontario, from towns such as Thames-ville, Alvinston, Croton, Wallaceburg, Kippen, Londes-borough and so on.
They want to join with the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture, which unanimously passed a motion on August 29, 1991 calling on the Government of Canada to provide this summer, this year, a third line of defence for cash assistance on an emergency basis so as to provide the same net level of support that would have been provided under the Gross Revenue Insurance Program and Net Income Stabilization Account had they been in place for the 1991 crop year.
This being one of the worst years for the agricultural communities both in terms of crop and in terms of cash flow, the petitioners call on the House of Commons and Parliament to encourage this government to provide such assistance as proposed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture last August 29.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 too have the honour of tabling the following petition of the undersigned residents living right across Ontario.
They present the following grievance: Whereas those eastern Europeans who entered Canada and are currently registered in either the Bill C-84 or the Bill C-55 refugee claims process have been prejudiced by the delay in the processing of their claims, and whereas those
October 2, 1991

refugee claimants who although successfully established in Canada are being refused landing at the pre-inquiry humanitarian and compassionate reviews, these petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to request the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Secretary of State for External Affairs to accept all persons registered in the refugee backlog who are established in Canada for landed immigrant status at their pre-inquiry humanitarian and compassionate reviews.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, recognizing the report that was just tabled in the House by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, I have a petition to present from 50 residents of my constituency.
They call on the Parliament of Canada to recognize the critically important contribution made to the defence of Canada and the victory of allied forces by Canada's merchant seamen, that merchant seamen faced grave risks in carrying out their duties, that many lost their lives or were injured, and that these risks were equivalent to those taken by other Canadian forces.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to request that the government designate Canada's merchant seamen as veterans of World War II, extending all benefits accorded to veterans of the regular forces.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, my colleague from York West and I are introducing petitions concerning illiteracy in Canada.
Whereas Canada wishes to remain internationally competitive and keep its status as a first-class country, and whereas Canada wishes to have capable, knowledgeable workers who will be able to maintain Canada's competitiveness, whereas Canada wishes to reduce its rate of functional illiteracy, which is now 38 per cent, so as to better train these workers, for these reasons taxpayers from Quebec and Ontario want Parliament to urge the government to promote and encourage the establishment of national education standards, in consul-
Routine Proceedings
tation with the provincial governments, education professionals, managers and workers, parents, young people, volunteer organizations and ordinary citizens.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 would like to present a total of 28 petitions with over 1,000 signatures from people all across Canada who humbly pray and petition the House of Commons to take a serious look at the trend the government is setting with respect to collective bargaining.
Considering the fact that this House has had to bring in back to work legislation, and the fact that collective bargaining in this country is now in a very difficult position, these signatures represent those who would like Parliament to reject the imposition of wage controls and reaffirm support for free collective bargaining for Canadian workers all across this country.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Madam Speaker, I also suggest that all notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices of motion stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

October 2, 1991
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am in receipt of a notice of motion under Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Labrador.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, today I seek leave of the House to move its adjournment for the purpose of discussing an urgent matter requiring immediate consideration, that is the urgent and pressing need of fishermen and their families in Labrador and Newfoundland for food and heat because of their complete inability to purchase these necessities as a result of the complete lack of income due to the worst ice conditions in living memory and a total collapse of the inshore fishery.
This is an unusual situation. It is not something that happens every year. These are the worst ice conditions in history. It is a complete failure. There are fishermen in my riding, and on the island of Newfoundland now, who have basic human rights denied. Food and heat are basic human rights according to the United Nations.
I submit that this is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, an emergency upon which this House should focus its attention and the government should focus its attention with a view to providing an aid package immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Labrador. I would like to assure him, the House, and anyone who is listening to us at this time that we are all aware that there are extraordinary conditions in Newfoundland and Labrador at this time. Unfortunately there are also very difficult problems in other parts of the country.
Although I am quite aware of those problems and quite sympathetic to the problems to which the hon. member was referring, I do not think it would be appropriate today to adjourn the House and have such a debate.
I hope it will come to this House shortly. I know that an opposition day, for example, has been declared for tomorrow and I too hope that we will be discussing this
problem and ways to help these people in a very short while. I thank the hon. member.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, September 26, consideration of the motions that Bill C-19, an act respecting banks and banking; Bill C-28, an act respecting insurance companies and fraternal benefit societies; and Bill C-34, an act to revise and amend the law governing co-operative credit associations and to provide for related and consequential matters, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When these bills were last debated, the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River had the floor. In his absence, we will now resume debate.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss the second reading of Bill C-19, the new Bank Act and Bill C-28, the new insurance act.
We on this side of the House support this legislation in principle. However we have to examine the banking and insurance industries which have been waiting for a long time for these pieces of legislation.
The government has been dragging its feet for six solid years. For six years this government had held the banking and insurance institutions at bay. Let us examine this government action on these particular items.
October 2, 1991

Reform started in 1985 with the green paper, followed in 1986 by a blue paper. In September 1990, this government released a white paper on financial reform. It is only now after six solid long years that this government finally dragged itself into this House and is looking to finally start debating some of the actual legislation.
For too long this government has been holding the bank and federally regulated Canadian institutions at bay. They are outraged. This is gross negligence. This has to come to an end.
Our financial institutions are thirsting and must be given new powers they need to compete in new global business environments. We must also strive to ensure that Canadian consumers are well served and that the strength of the Canadian financial sector is not only protected but enhanced.
This government's slowness also has been damaging and is not helping our financial institutions compete and bring forward necessary reform to protect depositors.
Until Bill C-28 the new insurance legislation becomes law, insurance companies will continue to have to make complex legal arrangements to accomplish things which the old act allows but makes very difficult.
One can spend a great length of time discussing both Bill C-19 and Bill C-28 in detail. Together these two acts are over 800 pages and each is over an inch thick.
I want to briefly explore the various arguments received from various groups and individuals that banks should be able to retail insurance through their branches. On one side, it could be cheaper and more convenient for the consumers.
On the other side, people are saying that there are 170 companies, and 20,000 agents who could lose their jobs. There is something that we have to balance here. We have to look at it very carefully. We have to weigh the
20,000	jobs against the jobs that could be created. Will these jobs be sincerely lost or will these jobs be shifted from the insurance to the banks?
Government Orders
I have talked with many bankers and I have talked with many insurance agents. They give me different views. I, as a normal Canadian, would think that if I am given any opportunity to compete I might save some money. People are saying that they might save to the tune of thousands of dollars per year.
Let us explore these possibilities. An average Canadian family has two or three cars in a home. The insurance on these vehicles and the house could be to the tune of about $1,500 to $2,000. If I, as an ordinary Canadian, can have the opportunity to save $200 or $300 by going to an institution such as a bank, why should I not be given that opportunity.
This proposal is one that needs extensive examination.
Another issue given in this definition that we on this side of the House are quite surprised with is when the American Express was granted its foreign bank licence. AMEX clearly is not a bank in the United States. However this government said that AMEX met its legal definition of a bank.
It is also very important to examine when AMEX was given its bank regulations or the right to become a bank. Why was it given that particular right? We saw the ads in 1988. AMEX was in support of free trade and the government held the carrot and said: "You support free trade and we are going to give you your Bank Act." And the government did. On November 21, 1988, election day, AMEX was given the right to become a bank.
The government misled the Canadian public. It led us down a garden path. Free trade will be good for you. I am not going to go into discussing the details because we see the result daily. We are losing jobs to south of the border and now we are about to engage in something altogether different.
Now this government wants us to engage in a new free trade agreement. It wants to broaden, to create a bigger speck. It wants us to get into a free trade deal with the U.S. and Mexico. There are those people who say: "If you do not get on board you will be left behind". There are other people who say: "We need to deal with Mexico".
Well let us examine those possibilities. Do we need a free trade deal with Mexico? Can we compete? Do we need to compete with 86 cents per hour? Do we need to compete with a country which has environmental protection at the bottom of the pits? Americans as recently as

October 2, 1991
Government Orders
yesterday were screaming and yelling that they do not want to get into this free trade deal with Mexico.
Why should we be hoodwinked by this government? Why should we even look at the possibility of free trade with Mexico? They are saying: "Look at the European experience. Look at what the European common market has brought to the countries of Europe".
There are differences here. The European experience is something altogether different from the North American experience. In Europe, if you are a citizen of one country and you have a red passport, you can travel and work in another country. However in North America, if you are a citizen of Canada you cannot travel and work in the United States or vice versa.
Yet the President of Mexico said yesterday that if you do not get into this free trade deal, you are going to have millions of young men migrating to Canada and the United States looking for work. Do we have to accept those millions of young men coming up to our shores for work? No, Madam Speaker, we do not have to. However, daily we are losing jobs to south of the border.
While the government has not yet revealed its strategies for these negotiations, it seems clear that foreign countries will demand similar treatment to that received by the Americans under free trade. They will demand similar treatment to the AMEX bank.
We on this side of the House want to state once again that the government might not use the straight negotiations to weaken the competitive position of the Canadian financial institution. Should we participate in these talks? There are some members of this House who say that we should be at the negotiating table.
I talked to over 14,000 of my constituents over last summer. Ninety-two per cent of my constituents said we do not need free trade with Mexico. We do not need to participate in these talks. If we participate we are going to weaken the financial position of our country and our financial commitment to our people. We will be looking very closely at the two bills as they go to the finance committee.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my colleague a couple of questions. I appreciate his participation in this debate about changing the Bank Act. His riding, like mine is going through a lot of economic pain
right now. Many of the small and medium sized businesses in his constituency are finding it very difficult.
He spoke a little bit about American Express. We have all talked about American Express when debating this bill at second reading.
I said in this House last Friday that maybe we should give American Express the opportunity to see whether or not it does fulfil the requirement of being a normal chartered bank. Maybe we should invite American Express to come to the committee between second and third reading. It might be interesting to put these questions before them. That is one point I would like to raise with my colleague.
There is a perception in the community right now that the major financial institutions, banks like the Bank of Nova Scotia, TD and the Bank of Montreal are almost like a cartel. We know they are not a cartel, but there is a perceived sense that the banking institutions are a cartel.
I am supporting the amendment to this bill to include insurance companies. It is my belief that this is going to foster more competition. The NDP does not share my view on this but I have yet to be convinced that their view is correct.
Does the member not think it would be a good thing to include the insurance companies in the financial institutions format, where they can lend money to small and medium sized businesses. This would expand the options of opportunity for the smaller guys who tend to be closed down completely if they are turned down at one of the major banks.
I would like to have his thoughts on that.


Jim Karygiannis: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood for sharing his concerns with us. We all have small businesses in our ridings, from the mom and pop operations in the rural ridings to the comer store or Mac's Milk. They are all going through a crunch. They are going to the banks and saying: "Mr. Banker, can you lend me some money so I can go through this six months of recession". The government tells us we are through the recession-


An hon. member:: Three years of recession.


Jim Karygiannis: Well, the government says six more months and we are going to be out of it, hopefully, but I totally disbelieve that. The banks are seeing the numbers and they are saying: "Hold on. So much you owe, so much are liabilities, so much are assets. Forget it". If we were to give this opportunity to other institutions, to the
October 2, 1991

insurance companies, maybe they will have a more flexible approach to lending money.
It is a good opportunity for us to examine it and I think it has certain merits.


Mr. Marchi:: Madam Speaker, I too would like to compliment my colleague on the remarks he made a few moments ago. He alluded to the fact, and my friend from Broadview-Greenwood mentioned it as well, of the pain and the hurt felt by the small business network across the country. We always hear the rhetoric from all sides at various points of government tenure, that the small business is the engine of economic growth, that the small business is the engine of technology, and if we take care of the small business sector, then the entrepreneurship and the development of ideas will flourish. If you are a small business person in this country, there is very little left in the budget, very little said in the budget that is aimed at that sector.
The hon. member talked about the business sector and the economy. While we are talking about banks and lending institutions, what does he think about the fact that while interest rates have been falling and perhaps are lower than they were during the 1981-82 crunch, is it not a fact that Canadians are not in a position to ask for loans because they are not working. People do not have jobs and when people do not have jobs it is pretty tough approaching any bank or any trust company or any firm.
I am just wondering what he is hearing from some of the constituents and business people in his part of Scarborough with respect to the lack of jobs inhibiting people going to their lending institutions.


Jim Karygiannis: Madam Speaker, we all receive phone calls constantly. I know the members of the government also receive calls. If they do not wish to answer them, that is a different story.


Mr. Lewis:: Name one.


Jim Karygiannis: I know for a fact that I even get calls from Barrie and as far away as Penetang about businesses that are in trouble, in pain.
These small businesses have to carry an inventory. They have to go to their bankers and say: "My sales last
Government Orders
year were not as healthy as I anticipated. I have to pay the factory that supplied me. Will you please lend me money?" The banker looks at the figures and says: "Just a minute". He puts down the numbers and says: "I don't think you are viable. Sorry, I am not going to lend you money". This small businessman turns around and says to the factory: "I'm sorry, I used to pay in 30 days but not any more. Now we are going to go to 120 days or maybe 180 or 360.1 will pay you next year". The manufacturer is going to say: "I don't have enough money to make more. Therefore I am going to lay people off".
It is a vicious circle. The small engine that gets this country moving is the 80 per cent of the businesses that are small businesses, businesses less than $2 million, which means a family business and maybe one or two of the kids or a business and one or two employees. What stability do these businesses have? What future can these businesses look at? They cannot go to the bank to finance and bring in new inventory. They cannot order from the manufacturer.
This circle breaks down. It brings the small business to its knees. It brings whole industries to its knees. What do we hear? Closure, after closure, after closure. Where are they going? Down south.
Yet this reckless government wants to take us upon another expedition on free trade with Mexico. We are going to be the great saviours of North America. At the cost of our children, the future of our kids' jobs, the Prime Minister wants to provide jobs at 85 cents an hour to the Mexicans.
I want no part of this because I think charity begins at home. I think the future of my kids and the future of Canadian kids comes first.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, in talking about lending institutions, the government says: "Go to the chartered banks and if you cannot go to the chartered banks, we have the Federal Business Development Bank". I would be very interested to hear the experiences of business people in the east end of Toronto or Toronto in general as to what they say about the Federal Business Development Bank. Clearly it is not the answer but I would be very interested in hearing the hon. member.

October 2, 1991
Government Orders


Jim Karygiannis: Very quickly, Madam Speaker, the bank says: "If you have no collateral, forget it. Go to a bank. If the bank won't touch it, then we won't touch it. If the bank won't touch you, we will look at you", and when they look at you, they say: "No. Clearly, no". It is a failure.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, as my colleague stated a little earlier, we are very much interested in the fact that the government has finally come through with the proposed reform legislation. In fact, for the benefit of those who might be watching us now, this bill has been called for by the financial institutions for a number of years. In my view it could not have arrived at a better time than now, especially considering the financial situation of our country. One of the ways to begin on the road to recovery is to clean house and put things in order.
The Liberals will be supporting this legislation, so it will go to second reading because we are very much interested in what is in the bill. Also, at the same time we truly believe that going to committee will be the best forum for both industry and consumers to make their cases known.
Canadians know that billions and billions of dollars every day change hands in the banking industry, both at the Canadian level and the international level. When one looks at the objectives of the proposed legislation we see a lot of good things, at least in the reform end of things. First, we see a benefit to the consumer by increasing competition in the variety of services offered by the financial institutions, whether we are talking about the banking industry or whether we are talking about the insurance companies. We would like to see in the bill, as we believe it is part of the proposal, enhanced protection for depositors as well as policy holders. As a result of that we would not see the kind of situation we have seen with the collapse of a variety of financial institutions over the past few years.
It is interesting to note that in comparing our industry to other industries around the world we do not necessarily do too badly. In fact, we have a very clean-cut industry compared to that of other countries in the western hemisphere.
Having said that, obviously we are interested in seeing improvement and resolving many of the outstanding issues, in particular the question of jurisdiction.
We see, as part of this legislation, a way to strengthen the ability of Canadian financial institutions to compete at home and abroad. At a time when the whole area of competition is entering a new phase as a result of globalization it is extremely important for us to prepare our industry so it will be equipped to compete internationally as well as regionally. More than anything, this proposal is a way to lay the groundwork for discussion with the provinces so we can deal with the whole question of harmonization. You know, Madam Speaker, probably more than anyone else, about the difficulties we face with the mobility of goods and services, not only within the provinces themselves but from one province to the next and therefore from within the country to other countries abroad.
To deal with all of those objectives the government, as well as the House in general, has to consult. That process of consultation has begun. Obviously by going to committee we will have a chance for even more consultation.
There are quite a few interesting items in the bill. One point is particularly interesting, and that is the question of regulating the industry.
In an ideal situation living in a democracy anybody, providing he or she is making a lawful profit, should be entitled to deal in the kind of business he or she wants, providing the law allows them to do so.
When it comes to a question of jurisdiction the banks want to get involved in the sale of insurance. They want to get involved in the rental of cars and the insurance companies want to get involved in the question of deposit and opening accounts for consumers and vice versa.
I am sure legislators would love to see the industry resolve this question itself and come to us with an agreement, that they all agree on what needs to be done. That would have made our life a lot easier.
Unfortunately this question has not been resolved by the industry. That is why we are in the situation we are in.
October 2, 1991

Many of the points in this particular act are well thought out. I would like to mention some of those amendments to the proposed act or the points that are in the act. Point number one is a requirement to disclose services charged by banks. That is a very good and interesting point.
The second point concerns the power to make regulations relating to the disclosure of the networking situation. That is a very interesting point also.
The phasing out of the current reserve requirement and the draft regulations on insurance, which are similar to those relating to trust and loan companies, limit a bank's ability to offer insurance advice and restrict the promotion and solicitation of insurance business and branches.
Banks will continue to be able to market credit, related insurance and travel insurance. That is a very interesting amendment to the legislation.
One cannot help but stray a little bit from the question before us. As I indicated earlier we are supporting it in principle so that it can go to committee.
While I was doing a little research I was quite alarmed by what I found out concerning the question of the state of both our consumers and our businesses. They are, in the final analysis, the depositors in the banks.
Banks do well when they have consumers depositing money and when they have businesses depositing money. Examining statistics since 1985 one would not be able to be anything but somewhat shocked that in 1985 there were in excess of 19,000 consumers, potential depositors, who went bankrupt. There were 8,663 businesses that went under. A whopping total of 28,415 groups of individuals and businesses went bankrupt in 1985.
In 1986-again as a result in many cases of government policy, whether monetary policy or general policy relating to full employment-there were in excess of 21,000 consumers and in excess of 8,500 businesses, a total of 30,267 businesses and individuals, which went bankrupt. Those people could have been depositors in our banking system. Those people could have been full fledged producers in our society.
In 1987 there were in excess of 24,000 consumers and 7,600 businesses, a total of 33,848 businesses and consumers, who went bankrupt. In 1988 we had a total of 33,848 consumers and businesses that went bankrupt. In
Government Orders
1989 we had in excess of 37,866 both consumers and businesses that went bankrupt. In 1990 we had in excess of 54,424 both businesses and individuals who went bankrupt.
Those are the kinds of statistics that are cause for alarm to our financial institutions, the private sector and society. They should also be cause for alarm to the government.
There is no question that this increase in bankruptcies has affected the banking industry and the insurance industry. I would suggest that maybe it is time for the government to sit down and have a look at the way we do things. Have a look at the blueprint for the future and see what needs to be done in order to get the economy back on track.
The way the government has been approaching this question is not necessarily the best way. It is one way but we are going to pay the price. There are other ways so that Canadians can benefit.
Obviously attacking the public servant is not the way to revitalize the economy, regain consumer and business confidence, and get the banking and insurance industries back on track. The only way we will have a blueprint for the future of Canada is by developing some sort of policy that would commit the government to full employment.
By doing that, I would suggest, we would be able to get the economy back on track and help industry and consumers. There is no question that what is needed is a proper industrial strategy, in consultation with industry, the business sector, the investment sector and the banking sector.
It is time that we set up the strategy for the future. Over the last five, six or eight years there have been reactionary solutions, not action in the sense of a proper strategic plan.
This particular act is a step in the right direction. There is no question that it is going to solve many long outstanding issues in the industrial sector. But we have to do more than introduce legislation. We have to move forward with a strategy that will increase, as I indicated earlier, the confidence of the consumers and businesses. Then we will see more investment in the Canadian economy and more businesses coming from abroad to invest in our society. Then we can ensure that there is something for everyone, without robbing Peter to pay

October 2, 1991
Government Orders
Paul, without cutting services we provide to the community, and without increasing taxes.
I will go on to indicate that without proper long-term strategy this whole question of economic renewal is going to be ill conceived by both industry and the consumer at large.
On that note I would like to say that we are very fortunate to have the kinds of institutions we have in our society. I was quite impressed by a statement made in The Ottawa Citizen today by Helen Sinclair, president of the Canadian Bankers' Association, when she alluded to the fact that our banking industry is in good hands. Surely our banking industry is in good hands.
There is one item which I think the government should look at very closely, and that is the licensing of banks that are not licensed at home. This particular issue, I think, is cause for grief both within our caucus and the industry itself.
On that note, I would like to entertain some questions from both sides of the House.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend from Ottawa Centre for articulating not only his concerns in relation to the banking industry and the economic directions into which this country seems to be heading, but clearly articulating them on behalf of constituents from his riding to whom he is indeed very close.
The hon. member mentioned that what we need is an industrial strategy in this country, a strategy that certainly does not look backward but looks forward with a sense of strength and a sense of vision. I am just wondering if he can perhaps take a moment and share some of the concerns from an economic viewpoint that he has been getting and experiencing not only in his riding but in his travels across the country.
Why does he believe that the government has not moved on an economic industrial strategy, considering that back in 1984 the Prime Minister boasted that one of the reasons that he was elected, one of the reasons that he was standing and one of the reasons that his government was successful was that it was going to bring economic prosperity across the country? Yet, as he knows and my colleagues know on this side of the House,
we have never been through as bad and as demoralizing a recession as the one we are presently engaged in.
I look forward to hearing from my friend on these matters.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a very well put question. There is no question about it, my colleague is very well informed. That is why he is alluding to the fact that there is somehow-I really should not say a lack of vision because we all see, we all know-a lack of ability. I do not think there is the ability there. Maybe the will is there but there is a lack of ability.
What needs to be done in fact is to set up a policy. That policy should be a long-term one. There is a need to set up a strategy and that strategy has to be a long-term one.
I think more than anything that if one looks at the economic situation we are faced with, one would have to admit it does hinder the ability of anyone to move with any kind of a program. If we go back four or five years as it has been indicated in many of the Prime Minister's speeches, the question of research and development, the question of education, and the question of working in partnership with the private sector, are all good statements. But unfortunately, the actions of the government have not matched the statements of the government.
One cannot help but look at the areas, for instance, of employment and training. In his February speech the Prime Minister spoke about the fact that there is a need for a global approach to this whole question of training and retraining our work force so we can be competitive on the international scene.
I could not help but almost jump up when I looked at the constitutional proposals. I was somewhat puzzled to see that particular item was going to be handed over to the provinces. One would suggest that one of the most valuable resources in our society is manpower, our work force. The training and retraining of our work force are being passed to the provinces so they can deal with them.
How do you expect the have not provinces of Atlantic Canada or western Canada or certain other parts of our country that do not have the money or the resources to invest in the retraining of their work forces to do so? What will happen as a result of that? Not only will it increase the regional disparity between the provinces, but we will not be able to compete internationally. The
October 2, 1991

disadvantaged in our society will be even more disadvantaged, because there will be no standards whereby all of the provinces have to supply the minimum standard. Let us assume for a moment that there is going to be a standard to go along with employment training. The money in the fund would have to come from somewhere and that somewhere would have to be, in the circumstances we are in ourselves, the federal government.
There is no doubt in my mind, it does not matter how we slice it, that if we are really committed to increased productivity in the future, if we are really committed to getting this country out of the economic misfortune it is in, we have to employ a strategy which looks first at our work force, our most valuable resource which is the human resource.
We are now seeing in the actions of the government the abandonment of the statement made by the Prime Minister over and over again during the past four or five years. It is my hope that as this whole debate on the constitutional question evolves the government, as well as the provinces, will come to terms with the question of human resources. Not only the mobility of the work force between provinces is important. The retraining of the work force is far more important than its mobility.
That is one important point the government should look at very closely.
To answer the question asked by my hon. colleague there is a need for a policy. That policy must be matched with funds. Those funds have to go toward research and development and toward education. That is the only way we can get ourselves into the 21st century in good shape.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. friend. I know that he and his colleagues in the Liberal Party have worked very hard on their industrial strategy. They have been successful in keeping it under wraps for some seven years now. I wonder if my hon. friend would take this opportunity-it is a good time, a slow news day as a result of Question Period-to enlighten not only the government but probably the entire country on the Liberal strategy which has taken seven years to develop
Government Orders
and has not yet been leaked out of the Liberal caucus, as so many other things have.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I am thrilled that the hon. minister has given me this opportunity to talk about the Liberal platform.
I want to talk about the past because my colleague has brought up what the Liberals have done. In the majority of the years we had a Liberal government, we had good times. Canadians did not go hungry. We have only to compare the record and look at the number of unfortunate events which have happened to Canadians over the past eight years and compare them to the previous eight years. Canadians could come to the conclusion fairly quickly that Tory times are bad times and Liberal times are good times.
If anything our government of the past had, and our government in the future will have, a full commitment to employment. One of the points articulated by Mr. Chretien, the leader of our Party, over and over again is that at least with a Liberal government we will not be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
We will be introducing a policy taking into consideration the future of Canadians. We will be introducing policies to look after the interests of the people. We will be introducing policies to put this country into the 21st century in good shape. We will be addressing the questions of retraining, education, and full employment. We will certainly never allow a deterioration in the state of our social programs such as we are seeing now. We will never attack the underprivileged. We will never rob a single mother of her savings which help to carry her into the next month. We will never go after those who cannot defend themselves, and certainly we will not deal with the public servants the way this government has dealt. We will not attack the public servants. We will not attack over 55,000 public servants who make under $27,000 without giving them a penny increase, with the exception of the $500 the government proposed. Five hundred dollars was taken away from those people because if they had not been off the job many of them would have earned in excess of $1,500. The government has not given them anything.
Certainly it is not vision to attack your public servants, your own employees.

October 2, 1991
Government Orders
I would like to remind the minister of something he said yesterday. He said: "The federal government is the biggest and largest employer in the country". It is. When you are the biggest and the largest employer in the country you have to set a good example in dealing with your own employees, in dealing with the people who work for you. Certainly you do not rob them. You do not rob Peter in order to give to Paul.
The only way to deal with this whole question of economic renewal is by increasing productivity, not by going after the public servants. The hon. minister knows that once we have a Liberal government in place we will deal with the question and in a lot more effective way than the present government is dealing with it. I am sure all my colleagues agree with me and they are clapping.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the three bills before us today. There are three or four bills that this government has introduced after a long period of consultation which effectively restructure and try to modernize our financial institutions.
I will speak briefly to each of the three bills before us today. The Liberal Party supports the introduction of these three bills. We are waiting for them to go to committee quickly, as soon as the speeches are finished today, so that the committee can have plenty of time to look at the technical application of the legislation and hopefully, after listening to witnesses, it will be able to recommend some positive changes to this legislation.
As consumer and corporate affairs critic I am pleased to see, first of all, that this package of legislation, these three bills, opens up the financial institutions to more competition. I for one believe that the consumers' interests are always better served when there is viable competition in the marketplace. These three bills certainly do that. To a certain extent it opens it up a bit. It allows insurance companies to now make loans. It changes the way banks do some of their business. It does not allow them to get into automobile leasing. It does not allow the banks to get directly into insurance. However, it opens it up and allows the banks, if they so choose, to purchase insurance companies.
It also affects the Co-operative Credit Association Act. There are amendments to that act which I think are very progressive.
We live in a country that affords an unusual amount of protection to banks. We live in a country where many times we have seen successive governments come forward and listen to the banks' interests and perhaps not always listen to the interests of consumers. I can say that with some certainty because there is currently a pre-study on the government's bankruptcy legislation. The Canadian banking institution, as highly regulated as it is, is probably one of the most effective lobbies in this country. Any change or potential change to legislation that may affect their profitability is going to be challenged by the banks.
When the banks saw these changes being introduced in these four acts- actually the Trust Act has already been dealt with-they had some concerns because the closed shop they basically were allowed to operate out of, highly regulated by legislation, was being opened up.
I want to commend the government for taking this step because I know it must have been difficult. It has taken a long time to get these reforms put before the House. It has taken a long time and it has taken a lot of lobbying efforts and a bit of spine as well to come forward with the changes we see in these three acts today.
In the Co-operative Credit Association Act, I am extremely pleased to see that they are now going to have the ability to act almost as if they were a bank, but a bank with a heart. The co-operative movement in Canada is a movement we should all be proud of. Personally, I am very proud of the co-operative movement because it had its birthplace in my home province of Nova Scotia. The co-operative movement is very strong in Nova Scotia in the co-operative credit union movement and it is active in agriculture.
The Coady Institute at St. Francis Xavier University is a great example of Canadian brilliance and genius. It takes individuals from Third World Countries and trains them to help themselves, not just to take handouts. It teaches them the co-operative movement and how each one helping another is the way that communities develop.
October 2, 1991

This act affects one of those components of the co-operative movement and that is the credit unions. Up until now the credit unions basically served the interests of their members. Because it is a membership-based institution, it had some difficulty because by law they were not permitted to go forward and raise capital through equity. They were only permitted to raise money through debt and through memberships.
The regulations that existed prior to this bill literally hamstrung the potential effectiveness of the co-operative movement through the credit unions or through the caisse populaires. This bill goes in the right direction in trying to correct that and allow the credit unions, if they so choose, to have another avenue to raise money so they can be competitive in some of the smaller and even in some of the larger areas. They can be competitive with those large banks that have had way too much protection for much, much too long.
Those movements are positive ones that I certainly support. There are some problems though. I am disturbed about an article that appeared today in The Ottawa Citizen. Everybody here wants to ensure that when we put through legislation, particularly legislation that is as long overdue as these three pieces of legislation, we do it right. Time and time again we have seen that there are special interests involved in such areas as the banking communities or the insurance industry or consumers or labour. When you change a complex piece of infrastructure in our economy, it is going to have a negative effect on somebody. Not everyone will like the changes that go forward.
When we do have the stamina to go through this gruelling process of trying to put better legislation through the House, we had better make sure we do it right.
As I said previously the article appearing in the The Ottawa Citizen today concerns me greatly. Helen Sinclair, President of the Canadian Banker's Association, is quoted as expressing some concerns that this new Bank Act that we are debating today may already be outdated. She says that we should seriously look at firming up some of the regulatory requirement such as the reporting and accounting practices of banks so that we do not get into a
Government Orders
situation such as we have had with the Bank of Credit and Commerce.
It is good that we have a spirit of co-operation here. Normally when bills come forward, governments do not want to change one comma or change a sentence. But the co-operative approach on this bill, which is the right approach-


An hon. member:: We should do it more often.


Ronald MacDonald: We should do it a lot more often. This place would be a lot more relevant to Canadians if we did that.
I hope the approach on this bill will continue into committee stage and the government and all members will look at some of these things that are coming forward, most recently the one by Helen Sinclair, and put amendments forward to close those particular loopholes.
There are some other problems and I do not know that they are fully addressed. I am certainly not an expert when it comes to the banking institutions in this country. All I know is that I owe them a heck of a lot of money and I pay too high an interest rate on it. That is about it.
I am not a high financier but I will tell you something, Madam Speaker. I get a little concerned. Look back and see what happened with American Express. When governments, political parties or whatever start interfering in our financial institutions and start to manipulate and interpret regulations that are meant to be there to provide some stability and certainty in our financial institutions and to perhaps benefit some of their friends, I think that that is very, very dangerous.
We have the situation, Madam Speaker,-you are very well aware of it-of American Express. American Express in the United States does not qualify in its own country as a bank. It should not qualify in Canada. Canadian banking institutions and any other institutions that may wish to become a bank have to live by certain criteria. Their criteria are very rigorous. They are meant to be there to protect the depositors. They are there to be sure that the stability that we seek to put into our financial institutions is maintained.
American Express made a call in the dead of night and on election day in 1988, knowing full well that to grant American Express the distinction of being a Canadian bank was completely contrary, 100 per cent contrary, to the intent of all of the regulations and contrary to the

October 2, 1991
Government Orders
Bank Act, nevertheless this government perhaps because it owed a favour back to American Express, passed it. The minister signed it and said: "Yes, you are okay. You can be a bank." That very type of thing has to be made absolutely impossible in the Bank Act.
We have to make sure that when we give regulatory and discretionary authority to a minister, that discretionary authority will not be abused by that minister for whatever special interest he seeks to keep happy.
I am not so sure that the bill goes far enough quite honestly in ensuring that that does not happen. The last thing that we need in this country are pieces of legislation regulating the infrastructure in our financial institutions in our marketplace that can be easily manipulated by those who do not quite understand the complexity of those pieces of legislation and will use some vague sections for their own political gain. That is something that we have to ensure does not happen again.
There are a couple of other things I want to speak to on these acts and it deals generally with financial institutions. We have just gone through a period of record bankruptcies across Canada. They are record bankruptcies.
The last figures that came out told us that so far this year there are over 50,000 bankruptcies. With every single bankruptcy we have to be very, very careful that we do not just see it as another statistic. Each one of those statistics has a face. Many of those faces have families and those families have dreams.
Each and every time that a small business goes out of business or an individual has to declare personal bankruptcy, it is not just a paper death. In many cases you are seeing the life, the aspirations and the future of individuals crushed. You are seeing the mom and pop shop, a comer store operation that has just had its credit line pulled by the bank because sales were down because of the government induced recession. The bank was getting a little worried and pulled the credit line.
It is not just a little bit of money. An individual might be 55 or 58 years of age. Perhaps they have invested their entire life in that small venture and they are proud of it. They do not just work in the store. They probably also work with the Kiwanis or the Kinsmen, or maybe
they work with the Boy Scouts or the Girl Guides. They contribute to their community.
When that happens you have destroyed their capacity to participate fully in their community. You have destroyed them and they cannot pick it up at 50 or 55. Many cannot pick it up at 20 or 25.
When we see these pieces of financial reform coming in, we have to say: Does that address that? Are the banks sometimes a little too quick to pull the rug out? Do they forget sometimes that, yes, you might have had six months of hard luck but you had 22 years of good management?
So, any amendments or any bills that come in here that compel those financial institutions to be more competitive, and more sensitive as well, I fully support. Competition is a wonderful thing. Competition is a great thing. I remember a few years ago in Nova Scotia when deregulation allowed for other than Bell Telephone or MT&T to have the sole monopoly on the sale and leasing of telephone equipment. Maritime Tel & Tel is a wonderful company. It is a wonderful company in Nova Scotia and it is a great corporate citizen of that province. But immediately when competition was allowed in, Maritime Tel & Tel had to scramble and it had to become better at what it does, namely to provide service to the public. And that is what competition does.
So, the consumer should be well served by these pieces of legislation that are currently before us.
We have to make sure because whenever you tamper with the financial institutions in this country, you have to be very very sure because one of the minor adjustments that you meant to make may have consequences that are very disastrous once it is in practice and once the lawyers get at it and the accountants get at it and the bankers get at it, and those types of things.
One of the things that our party would like to look at, and I think there is a provision in the Bank Act that it be reviewed in 1997, is moving that up a little sooner. We would like to see some type of ongoing consultation, some ongoing assessment as well, as to whether or not the reforms that we seek to implement through this
October 2, 1991

legislation are actually coming through in the community-
The last thing I wish to say, and again it deals with consumers, is that these three pieces of legislation put in some consumer protection. How many times when dealing with the big banks do people feel that they have been ripped off? I feel it all the time when I go in, although I have got a pretty good banker at home. I don't want him to be watching this and think I am talking about him. I certainly am not.


An hon. member:: What was his name again?


Ronald MacDonald: What happens, Madam Speaker, is many times people feel-and it may be proper, it may not-that they have not been done right by a bank or an institution. The worst thing that can happen is for them not to have an avenue in which to explore their complaint. Many, many times there might be, out of 50 complaints, one that is founded or there might be 49. I don't know.
What these pieces of legislation does is allow for a process to be established. It actually legislates that a process be established. That process will handle consumer complaints. If the consumer is still not satisfied with the answers they get through the financial institutions, these acts allow them to complain to the superintendent. The superintendent in turn does not have any legislative rights of remedy. They really cannot do very much. But what they can do is file a report on these complaints, and hopefully the power of having negative press, negative publicity when they file a report or file a report with Parliament, will be enough to ensure that the consumers' interests are looked after by these large financial institutions. I think that is one of the most progressive pieces of this legislation because it actually sets in place a process. In and of itself it may not look like very much, but if we look at what has happened other times that these types of processes have been put up, they have been successful.
In conclusion, I would like to say that our party, the Liberal Party, supports changes to our financial institutions. We support opening up more competition, and we also support any measures that the government would put forward that would ensure that the interests of the
Government Orders
consumer are paramount and that processes are put in place to ensure that the consumer has a say as well.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech. He said that his party was supporting the bill at second reading and will look for some changes in the committee.
In his speech, the member did not touch on one of the very grave concerns that depositors and Canadians should have in general and that is the ownership of financial institutions. Banks now are very strictly controlled with respect to the amount of ownership any individual or group of individuals can own. It is 10 per cent.
Recently we have noticed that the financial institutions that have had the greatest difficulty have been the trust companies where close ownership has led to abuses. If you were to sit in on the committee, you would have heard the Superintendent of Financial Institutions explaining and saying that we only have guidelines with respect to all kinds of things, we have been unable to properly keep track of these operations. Yet now in these bills what we are doing is we are opening up the cages of the zoo and we are letting a lot of commingling go on. So I think there is a concern.
In the United States when deregulation came in, in the short run it resulted in many financial institutions, but in the long run there was a melt down. We are going along the same path. Insurance companies can own trust companies, banks can own insurance companies and they can own each other.
I want to tell you, the biggest insurance company in this country is not nearly as big as a bank. All the time they talked, when they came as witnesses before the committee, they were talking about global competition. They are not so interested in what goes on Canada, they now want to become big players international. Their focus is on the globe not at home. If you think small businesses and medium sized businesses have had a rough time in getting loans, wait till these sumo wrestlers get their focus on the world because that is where the focus is, it is global.
The member did not touch on this ownership, the possibility that one morning you will wake up and there will be only one financial institution in the country, and that is when they start setting the price.

Government Orders
I only have to raise with you, Madam Speaker, the lack of any kind of competition that would bring credit card interest rates down.
I want to tell you that when it gets to that stage of the game there is going to be no competition at all. In the short run, maybe, but in the long run it will be a melt down.
I ask the member, since he did not comment on ownership, to comment on ownership.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, let us be fair here. My hon. colleague and I see eye to eye on many, many, many things, but in this particular instance what he is talking about is that the changes that have taken place may end up in one single financial institution one morning at some point in the future and, of course, that would be absolutely disastrous. What we have now are the five majors and they are really the cartel. We are looking at a situation right now which is not terribly positive. I do not think that the Canadian banking institutions, as they currently stand, are near competitive enough. They all offer the same thing. It is a monopoly times five right now.
I firmly believe that the bills that are before us need some work and I said that in my presentation. I said that when it gets to committee, we will have to examine each and everyone of these things, and they are very complex. I do not pretend to understand half of them. I do not pretend to understand one-third of them. But we will hear witnesses at committee and we will have the experts and hopefully we will have a research staff. I am sure that by the time we finish the process all of those issues will be dealt with.
On the matter of ownership, when you are dealing with our financial institutions, because of the tremendous clout that they have in this country, it concerns me greatly. Is the hon. member saying that he believes this legislation does not address the problem of too concentrated an ownership of trust companies? Am I correct that that is what he is talking about?
I think what we should do in this particular case, because it is a valid concern, is to ensure the ownership of our financial institutions because of the influence that they wield in this country. We have to make sure that the ownership is watered down enough so that we are not going to get the intermingling and commingling of two or
three of the owners and in effect perhaps affect the marketplace in a very negative way.
I would be satisfied if the government could convince me when we get to the committee stage that those questions should be answered. They should be put. I am sure with the spirit of co-operation that we are seeing on this type of a bill, just like we are seeing on the bankruptcy bill, that if there is good logic to put those changes forward, the government will see the value of that logic and will institute those amendments.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: I was wondering if the member from the Liberal Party who is fully informed about this would realize that public hearings in the finance committee last fall dealing with Bill C-83 and dealing with the white paper that forms the basis of this bill were held and we heard a great number of witnesses. All of those witnesses made comment with respect to the bill and alterations were made on these bills. They have been drafted and redrafted in accordance with hearings held over about a 10 year period.
Having had the benefit of seeing all of those reports of these hearings before the finance committee, and having studied the matter thorough, if the member could just quickly in a word or two tell us the exact amendments his party wants to put forward to change and alter these bills.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I think the questioner is being a bit mischievous. Of course, I am aware that there has been tremendous work done over the last number of years to put this bill together. I would never claim to have the expertise on financial matters that the hon. member has. He is a former chair of the finance committee.


An hon. member:: He is the only one who warned us about the $10 billion tax grab.


Ronald MacDonald: That is exactly right. He is the only member opposite who warned us of the $10 billion tax grab on the GST. You can see, Madam Speaker, that he got his just rewards for that one from the gang opposite.
The Liberal Party's position on this bill is that when we go back into committee, we are going to review the comments that have been made both in the House and outside of this Chamber in the public, and we will be recommending appropriate amendments. I am not the
October 2, 1991

critic for financial institutions. I am the critic for consumer and corporate affairs.
What I have indicated is from our party's perspective, consumer and corporate affairs, that I believe that this legislation goes a significant distance in reforming our financial institutions so that we have a better regulated financial marketplace out there and also that we are instilling some elements of consumer protection and competition as well.
I can fully understand the member opposite wanting to find out what our amendments will be. Suffice it to say that the amendments will be based on fact and the amendments will be based on a true desire to have better legislation passed through this place.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Madam Speaker, I have a very short statement. The hon. member made reference to AMEX which was a deal that was made by the present government with American Express in the waning hours before the last election.
Like him, I want to go on record that I believe that this was a deal cooked up with the United States so that the American banks could get into Canada, this particular bank could and also start selling insurance. I think that this has put the cat among the pigeons as it were.
I do have a very direct question. The hon. member was speaking very directly to the many bankruptcies here in Canada. One gigantic bankruptcy which I believe cost the government, and therefore the people of Canada, billions of dollars was the bankruptcy of Northland Bank.
The hon. member has not dealt with that one specifically. I wonder if he might enlighten us as to not only his thoughts but the thoughts of our party about the federal government bailing out these huge, if I can call them, conglomerates at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very thoughtful question. In dealing with the area of bankruptcy we have to remember that the it is a very complex situation. Currently the Liberal Party is working diligently to try to ensure that the current pre-study under way on another piece of legislation dealing with those types of reforms
Government Orders
will address and try to strike a new balance between all interested parties.
The difficulty we have at this time is that governments fail to take steps when steps should be taken. They fail to modernize legislation. They fail to stand up to some of the big lobbyists and big pressure groups and change legislation to ensure that there is fairness, to ensure that the loopholes are straightened out, to ensure that regulations are put in place to effectively standardize an industry like the financial industry. The government has some responsibility. No matter how much we may dislike it, if the government caused the problem by its negligence and inability to act, it has some responsibility to clean up the mess. That is what happened in that particular case.
I keep saying unfortunately because it may be all right to say that the government failed to act and had been warned about many problems and loopholes that could have been and should have been closed. It is unfortunate that when it has to fess up and clean up the milk it has spilled it has always been paid for by the taxpayers of Canada.
In answer to his question if governments do the right thing taxpayers will not have to do the wrong thing, that is pay for government's mistakes.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, this is a very complex series of bills and I am not going to attempt to define any particular part of the bill. I do want to make a few remarks because banks are not giving Canadians the kind of service which they should be able to expect.
Most Canadians hope that the next time the Bank Act is brought up and reviewed some of the power of the banks will be curtailed. They hope that the small entrepreneur, homeowner, farmer, small businessman, or simply someone who owns a home can be sure they will not be put in as great a disadvantage in dealing with the bank as in the past.
There is no doubt in the eyes of the public in Canada that the banks are seen to be almost in a position where they are unassailable. Consequently the person dealing with them feels very weak and unable to deal with these large corporations.

Government Orders
Does this series of bills allow the small entrepreneur, the small businessman or the farmer to feel more confidence in dealing with financial institutions? The answer is patently no. It does not.
Possibly, as suggested in these bills, there is a need to rearrange or restructure the whole financial system. Maybe it all needs to be reviewed. However, the aim of the review should be the empowerment of the people who use these institutions not to increase the powers of the financial institutions.
We all want and need financial institutions which are secure. These bills do not in my mind, or in the minds of people who have looked at them thoroughly, ensure that there will be no further financial disasters affecting the small depositor or the small entrepreneur.
These bills are part of a corporate agenda, or I could say possibly a Conservative agenda, which puts the economy more into the hands of the financial institutions than it is right now. For instance, if someone wanted to start farming-although that might be a bad example because at the moment only a fool would get himself involved in farming-or start a small business, they would borrow the money. The idea is that they should be able to pay back the money and make some profit on it.
The only institution that is guaranteed a profit from the person's efforts is not them-because they are working hard at it or are a good manager-but the bank or the financial institution which has the security of return. It gets everything if they miss a payment.
As I said, farming is not a good example-and during the present recession even a small business is not a good example-but the same situation can be outlined in almost any entrepreneurial venture. Only the money lender gets anything out of it.
The financial institutions which are supposed to be the pillars of our economy are not helping our economy. In most cases they are leeching off the entrepreneurial efforts and work of the people who are trying to make a living.
This government's solution in these bills has been to undermine the traditional pillars, to reduce the number of players and put in place a few megafinancial supermarkets which will then have more and more power in more and more areas of the financial world.
From experience, this would seem similar to what happened in the grocery business. We used to have lots of grocery stores around, small enterprises which worked well and provided a living for the people who operated them. We now have supermarkets which have eliminated all these small and efficient operations. These have been eliminated.
The same thing is happening in farming. The larger and sometimes less efficient operator is gradually eliminating the smaller operator, which is a living for many people. The government is also doing in this case what it has already done to the airline industry. It has deregulated it so that size becomes the main instrument of success, not service, not how well the company serves people, not what it has done to help the economy. The size of the institution is the basis of its success.
Deregulation means legal requirements and constraints are deleted or substantially loosened on a particular venture. This allows and works toward greater reliance on corporate self-regulation and good will.
Actually, what it does foster is some kind of a corporate tyranny. As the corporation gets bigger, has its fingers in more pies, and covers more of the structure of the financial world, it is able to affect our economy and each of us much more than it has in the past. Turning to a large organization which has a dominance in its particular field, there is a recognition that in many cases the larger the corporation the less efficient it becomes. Because these corporations are large and have a considerable amount of power, the cost of these inefficiencies is then charged to the consumer. They get away with it because there are no corporations in place to compete.
Financial institutions do not have an unblemished record of purity. In fact, from the experience of failure over the past few years of trust companies and banks, we know that conflict of interests and self-dealing have been the common reason for the failure of some of those institutions. It seems very logical that the projected structure will further exacerbate this situation so the possibility of misuse of the financial instruments becomes more likely and less detectable with fewer regulations, larger institutions, blurred areas of responsibility, and unclear ownership requirements. This opens up the possibility of self-interest being covered up when it is
October 2, 1991

much more difficult to examine the operations of the institutions. They are not required by law to present before the public their methods of operation.
I question the global competition which the banks, trust companies and insurance companies say is so important for them to survive. Is it so important to our economy? Is it important to the individual on the street? Is it important to us when we insure our car or house? Is it important to the majority of Canadians?
After all, good government is possible only with the consent of the majority. The majority of people should be served by changes to these institutions. We suggest that this is not entirely what is happening.
These bills are going to committee. I hope the committees will look at them and change them so that they will protect the consumer, the client, and the small entrepreneur from the financial institutions, instead of the other way around. I hope that the committees will look at these bills and ensure that what happens in these bills-the changes made to the institutions, the allowing of the relationship between these institutions-protects the consumer, protects the small entrepreneur, and protects the individuals who use them most and does not allow these institutions to take unfair advantage.
My father used to go to the city and say: "I wonder why it is that all the big buildings in this city are owned by the banks or the insurance companies. It must be because they take more out of our pockets than anybody else does". I think he still thinks that is true. The government has a responsibility to protect the general consumer from that kind of situation.
The effect of the changes in the Bank Act the last few times has been to provide less protection than before. As a farmer I know, for instance, that there was a time when if I bought a combine the only collateral required for that combine was the combine itself. Five years later the Bank Act was changed so that the collateral could be the combine and anything I produced on my farm.
Under the present Bank Act if I fail to pay, the bank or the financial corporation can take my combine, anything I produce and my land. That is the kind of change that has happened in the last few bank acts. It gives less and less protection to the people who need it the most. It
Government Orders
gives protection to the people who have the power: the corporations.
The size of the institution is not as important as security. It is not as important as supervision. It is not as important as the government deciding to do what is best. We should not be changing these acts to protect the financial corporations or make it possible for them to make more profits. We should be changing these acts to ensure that the economy and the individuals who drive the economy are protected from large corporations which do not have, in our experience, a great many scruples when it comes to dealing with people.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member with interest. He spoke a great deal about the safety for depositors. Certainly that is one of the main concerns of our party about this financial institution legislation. We do not want to happen in this country what has happened in the United States.
I would like to clarify one thing the hon. member said in his speech. He talked about safety. Is he suggesting that this legislation before us today does not give depositors more protection than they presently have?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: As I said at the beginning of my remarks, these are complex bills and I have no intention of defining what is in these bills. I am trying to suggest that in the past changes in the legislation made by this House have been brokered by the banks or the financial institutions. Their powers have been increased at the expense of the consumer, not only concerning lending, borrowing and the structure that is in place but also the ability of the institution to use those funds in ways which might endanger the deposit of the individual.


An hon. member:: Standard Trust is an example.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: There are many examples in the last while of this happening. I am not sure if the guarantees in these bills are any better. It is our responsibility as legislators to be sure that they are and ensure the positions taken are not those dictated by the financial institutions but those that are best for the people we represent. They are not those financial institutions.

October 2, 1991
Government Orders
Maybe that side of the House represents financial institutions but not this side of the House.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order and I believe there is consent. Earlier today in Question Period I was asking a question of the Prime Minister and I said that I would table documents which would corroborate my statement.
The Prime Minister perhaps misinterpreted what I was saying or did not hear correctly because I was talking about the rate of child poverty and Canada's place in relation to the top industrialized nations of the world. I said that Canada stands next to the bottom on the list.
I am tabling in the House today a report from the Canadian Council on Social Development which corroborates my statement, statements from our own Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology report tabled here in the House in January of this year called "Children in Poverty: Toward a Better Future". There is also an article in the National Institute of Nutrition report.
I am happy and pleased to table these documents to corroborate my statement. If the Prime Minister did misinterpret my question I hope that he will apologize.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. member have consent to table these documents?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask my colleague a question because he made a very fine speech. I wanted to ask him about the whole matter of financial institutions marketing insurance through their branches. I wonder if from his Saskatchewan experience he can comment on whether the credit unions in Saskatchewan marketing auto insurance, life insurance and other casualty insurance through their branches.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: There is a certain amount of relationship between credit unions and co-op insurance corporations, but the actual sale of insurance by the credit union is not legal and therefore does not go on.
However, it is my belief that there is no harm in financial institutions such as banks and trust companies selling insurance as long as they are selling insurance as a service and not as a profitable endeavour, that is as
long as they are not part of the ownership of the insurance company that is doing it.
I say this because insurance is required by law on automobiles and in a number of situations. It is very easy for a corporation which lends you money to buy a house to insist that it also sells you insurance on that house and by that process take advantage of the fact that it is providing you with the funds to buy the house.
I think as long as that can be protected I have no real concerns about the relationship of the sale of insurance. I do have some concerns about the ownership of the corporation by the bank or the lending institution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before resuming debate, I wish to advise the members that the period of five hours for 20-minutes speeches is now over. We will now hear 10-minutes speeches, without questions and comments. The hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls has the floor.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to put a couple of comments on the record during the closing moments of second reading of these bills that are before the House.
I was thinking that perhaps the most important consideration that the House of Commons should make in dealing with the Bank Act and dealing with financial institutions is the consideration of the effect of the Bank Act on Canadians, and I mean ordinary Canadians.
I was dealing with a problem just the other day where people who were laid off from a mining operation in the community of Buchans in Newfoundland found themselves in the situation where the separation pay that they had received, their pension funds, all of a sudden were being deducted from their federal government cheques, their MYLAP cheques.
What had happened was this: The federal government had passed a law that said those funds could no longer be rolled in RRSPs. Those people out there who had been laid off from the company, they didn't know anything about that. They did not know. Then of course the banks and the insurance companies said that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and neither is it. They were informed
October 2, 1991

after several months that what they had to do was put those funds into a trust fund.
The insurance companies and the banks did not inform them of what had transpired in the House of Commons that affected the moneys being sent out by the insurance companies to the banks. In other words, nobody thought to have a look at those people whom they were supposed to be serving as banks, as financial institutions, to point out to them that a simple change could have saved them an awful lot of money.
Well now, of course, it is too late. Those funds are gone. I know it is a bit complicated. It is difficult to simplify it even in speaking to the people concerned, but believe me there should have been a mechanism which said that the insurance companies and the banks involved had to inform those people that the law had changed and of the way to arrange things financially so that they would not be penalized.
Members stood up in this House not too long ago from the province of British Columbia. They were complaining about the fact that the banks were sending out letters to fishermen in that province about the moneys that were owed under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act which came to an end in this Chamber a couple of years ago. In other words, when they get a loan now it is under the Small Businesses Loans Act.
The same letters that were received by those fishermen in the province of British Columbia were received by the fishermen in the province of Quebec on the north shore. The same letters were received in the province of New Brunswick, in the province of Nova Scotia, in the province of Prince Edward Island, and in the province of Newfoundland.
What it was was this: the banks had sent a letter to each person who had defaulted on loans eight and ten years ago that were guaranteed by the federal government and for which all collection proceedings had gone ahead. They had lost perhaps their boats, their nets, or whatever was put up as collateral. The banks were writing a letter on behalf of the federal Department of Finance to collect money on behalf of the federal government.
Government Orders
What a cosy relationship that was. Was there a finder's fee? They were acting as a collection agency. Were they getting paid? No, they were not. They were not getting paid. They were not being given a finder's fee. They paid for the stamp that went to every single person who had defaulted eight and ten years ago on loans telling them that the federal government wanted them to pay up on the money that it had paid to the banks because the federal government had guaranteed the loan in the first place. What a cosy relationship, a relationship that should not be there, that these acts of Parliament should prohibit.
I suppose we are getting into a new age, an age where transactions are not done with cash, not done with cheques, not done with money any more, but done with banking cards. I noticed the other day that the federal government has embarked on an experimental program with the banks in Canada to issue people who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits with a card, a banking card, with a 97K memory, whatever that means. The individual would be able to go to a bank and, instead of going into an unemployment insurance office and filling out forms or mailing forms in, they would be able to utilize a machine in the bank that would give them credit on this card.
Two cities are now being selected to try out this new system of disbursing money to individuals through the unemployment insurance scheme. Of course it requires the co-operation of banks because the banks would operate the machine and a credit would be registered when the individual used that card. They are calling it the smart card. That to my way of thinking was devised by some computer whiz somewhere in a federal government agency for people to use cards where there are no banking machines.
How many banking machines are there in our high unemployment areas of Canada? The Privacy Commissioner has looked at this experiment, given it his okay, and said that as long as the rest of the memory on the card is not being used for other purposes or is not an invasion of privacy into a person's bank account, then it is okay to use it.
I have spent many years in this Chamber. I have spent many of those years dealing with problems associated with people getting money and then having to pay it back after the fact, back to this federal government.

October 2, 1991
Government Orders
I can tell you now, Mr. Speaker, that the number of problems associated with people filling out that unemployment insurance form is going to multiply, because now somebody will be expected to go with a card into a bank and on that card will be their credit. They can then take that card and use it as a credit card anywhere in our society, based on what? Based on the information that was fed into a computer.
The minister who approved that of course is the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I have one final bit of advice for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Instead of issuing smart cards to unemployed people, we should be issuing a get smart card to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should defer to the hon. member from the city of Toronto on the basis that I could probably learn quite a bit from him and therefore raise the level of erudition of the speech I am about to make.
Anyway, what we have here is the continuation of the whole corporate agenda which we saw exposed in its whole rotten being most vividly on election day, as someone has already indicated, November 21, 1988. Can you think of a more important day or a more significant day for the American non-banks to be able to come into Canada and operate as banks?
What we have here is a corporate agenda in spades, starting on November 21, 1988, election day. Shame on the government for having done it at least in the western part of Canada which is sometimes a problem with us. It established a mandate to do so simply on the basis of an Order in Council from the government of the previous election and continued on as arrogantly from that time into this time. Experience has shown us since that time that what came forth so vividly on election day was the beginning of a series of tragedies for Canada.
We have the experience of the free trade deal, which is the over-all deregulation, the umbrella deregulation scheme for the corporate agenda, having been hived off in the intervening time in Parliament through deregulation of airlines and trucking and, of course, changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, where the government is no longer involved. Of course we need to have a level playing field and that would be so unfair to our poor American cousins south of the border. It would
constitute an unfair trading practice vis-a-vis our commercial trading and financial dealings with them.
Let us look at one example of deregulation that has still not been completed. Maybe we should refer to a couple of them, airlines and trucking. Airline deregulation is not complete yet. It would certainly surprise me, hearing the rumblings coming from across the House, if the American airlines are not granted cabotage, which means they could bring passengers into Canada from the United States. There are so few American airlines of course, compared to Canadian ones. I should not even say that. It has come to the point where you cannot make any kind of a joke in this House for fear it is taken the wrong way.
Of course there are many more airlines in the United States and of course they are going to be bringing passengers in here and once cabotage is allowed, they are going to be demanding it. Any sort of limitation on our part is going to be strongly resisted, no longer by the government of the United States. The American airlines will be pleased enough to carry that on for Carla Hills and Company on their own.
Unfortunately when we hear rumours with regard to what has happened in Canada with deregulation, they usually come true. The rumours are that in all probability, one and perhaps even both of Canada's airlines may simply disappear from commerce in Canada.
The rumblings of Air Canada making some kind of an arrangement with one of the American airlines, U.S. Air, I think, is certainly disconcerting.
Without belabouring the point and referring to the trucking industry, we all are very well aware of the demonstrations late last spring and early summer of the Canadian truckers. They came to Ottawa to tiy to make representations to Parliament and to the opposition. They got a good reception from us but received a very negative reception from the government. Of course they had to repeat their actions within the last week or two in order to tiy to get the government's attention insofar as their plight is concerned.
I heard a reference in the House but I am not sure if it was in Question Period or not, just in the last couple of days, that 60 per cent of cross-border trucking was still carried on by Canadian truckers. Those are certainly old figures because it has almost turned entirely around -60 per cent of the cross-border trucking used to be done by Canadian trucks, now it is the other way around. The number of Canadian trucks involved in cross-border
October 2, 1991

trucking is diminishing very, very rapidly. The last figure I heard was 60-40 in favour of the Americans.
The point is this. We have this experience as far as deregulation is concerned in other industries and there is no reason why we should have any confidence in this government or in anything they do as far as helping Canadian business, industry or financial services are concerned. Speaking of those institutions themselves, I realize they were talking here about banking and financial institutions. The Canadian financial institutions are ostensibly heavily regulated even now and look at the changes to the Bank Act as being something which deregulates them and provides for less regulation. The experience of the Canadian financial institution is bad enough. It does not matter whether you think of the banks and their extremely high and atrocious rates of interest they charge on their credit cards. The rates they charge on bank credit cards are usurious. For what it is worth, I guess we ought to give the finance ministers a bit of credit for having brought the interest rate down as much as they have. But we also ought to really get on the case of the finance ministers as we were, and on this finance minister, for not doing everything he can to bring the interest rates which those financial institutions charge the Canadian consumer down.
We have the atrocious example out west, and I know there are examples in the east, of Principal Trust that is provincially and federally regulated. Those people who put their trust in Principal Trust have suffered enormous financial loss.
We are going to deregulate. This will not only eventually affect Canadian institutions, but if American Express is any example, American institutions which find their way into Canada as well. I am sure there are other financial institutions in the states which would take great exception, umbrage even, at not being able to come into Canada as American Express has done.
We could go on and on. There is a tremendous amount of danger in the banks getting into the insurance business. We do not have any problems with banks selling insurance for other companies if they, in their branches, want to sell for the Co-operator's, the Sask Mutual Insurance, or whatever and why not Saskatchewan government insurance as well. That is fine. But for banks to own the insurance company is something which would be absolutely intolerable.
Government Orders
Those kinds of examples can go on and on. We have the example of Eaton's and The Bay having joint financial services, which seems to be a bit of a conflict of interest in itself. We would certainly be at a great disadvantage as Canadians if, in addition to that, they were also able to form a trust company and then form a bank. It seems to me that what we would eventually have is a coming together of almost all the financial institutions in the country, whatever their shape or form, into one. That is the main danger and something we have to guard against.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Essex-Windsor. Debate, a 10-minute speech only, without questions or comments.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Saskatoon has talked about the problems which our legislation at this stage presents with respect to regulating foreign banks. I want to talk very briefly about the case of one of the most serious gaps which has been demonstrated by the case of the Bank of Credit and Commerce Canada.
The Bank of Credit and Commerce Canada, or BCCI Canada as I am going to refer to it, is of course the Canadian branch of the large international bank which became noted, to quote a CIA memorandum from 1986, as the "Bank of Crooks and Criminals". It was a bank which operated throughout the world in a way which is now quite clear in retrospect, was fraudulent virtually from the bottom up.
It was a bank which has now been charged in the United States in a number of different jurisdictions with fraudulently controlling American banks in states where it had been refused a bank licence itself. It has been identified as the bank of choice for money laundering by those engaged in drug dealing and other criminal activities throughout the world.
BCCI, in short, is an example of the worst excesses of the capitalist system world-wide. BCCI operated here in Canada through a series of eight bank branches across this country. It did so despite the fact that the Canadian Bankers' Association wrote formally to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and spoke informally on a number of occasions before that to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, suggesting that this was a bank which because of its associations and its reputations

Government Orders
throughout the world, did not have any right to be able to operate as a bank here in this country.
You might think, Mr. Speaker, that this was an unusual event for the CBA to take such a position. We asked the Canadian Bankers' Association in fact on Monday night if it had ever taken such a position before with respect to a member institution of its association. The answer: "No, we have never taken such a position."
They took that position in 1984 having communicated the position verbally before 1984 and despite that, the regulators in this country did nothing to stop that bank's operations in Canada. We also heard testimony on Monday night which indicated that RCMP investigations had taken place with reference to this bank in 1988 and
1989.
These RCMP investigations had led the officers involved to communicate with the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, OSFI, and had led those officers to tell OSFI of certain activities which they had discovered with respect to BCCI. Nothing happened. Nothing happened to stop this bank from continuing to receive deposits.
This bank was finally closed down on July 5 of this year, not because of something that emerged in Canada but because of international action co-ordinated by the Bank of England. The $107 million in deposits was immediately frozen for those depositors in this country who had relied on the regulation which was being undertaken of this bank.
Of that $107 million in deposits, only $20 million was covered by deposit insurance. That money has gone back to depositors, the $20 million.
That leaves something in the order of $87 million which depositors in good faith put into this bank and have very little chance of obtaining.
You might ask what this has to do with the bills in front of us. When the Canadian Bankers' Association testified before us on Monday night at the Standing Committee on Finance, it made a direct connection to Bill C-19, the revisions to the Bank Act. It indicates that there is no reference, and I am quoting here directly from the Canadian Bankers' Association, in the current act to the required regulatory standards of a foreign bank applicant.
The association goes on to say that under Bill C-19, applicants will not even have to be regulated financial institutions in their home jurisdiction. Government policy will be that any institutions which are, "primarily engaged in the business of providing financial services" will qualify it to apply for a Schedule II bank licence. Also from the CBA, "There is no reference to indicate to bank regulation or indeed a requirement that the applicant be a regulated financial institution of any kind."
They go on, Mr. Speaker, and this is perhaps the most damaging comment from the CBA with respect to this bill, to say: "Last March, well before the demise of BCCI, we advised the finance committee that in our view the entry rules for Schedule II banks proposed in Bill C-19 do not represent sound public policy."
The president of the CBA went on to say: "In my view these recommendations for change take on new urgency in light of the BCCI failure."
What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is something extraordinary. We have an international conspiracy involved in BCCI which even the Canadian Bankers' Association, of which BCCI was a member, concludes leads to without doubt the recognition that the regulatory authority that we have established for foreign banks in this country is not sound public policy. Even the bankers say it is not sound public policy. How the government of this country can expect people in Canada to accept a piece of legislation like this, given the very sad experience of the depositors in the BCCI in Canada, and given the very harsh judgment of the Canadian bankers themselves with respect to this regulation of foreign banks, frankly, is beyond me.
BCCI is an international scandal. Ultimately the case of BCCI in Canada will be seen as a regulatory scandal. I think that this bill coming before us like this, not closing the loopholes on banks like BCCI in the future, is as much of a scandal to this House.
I therefore hope very much that responsible members of this House will recognize the gaps in this legislation, recognize that foreign banks are being given far too much of a free hand, recognize the dangers which the BCCI case so clearly demonstrates. Therefore, we will reject this legislation that is in front of us. I hope very much that not just those of us in the New Democratic
October 2, 1991

Party, but those throughout the entire House will see that we do not need more examples of BCCI and the loss of depositors' money in the future. We will reject these pieces of legislation.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to stand in the House today to address these various pieces of legislation that deal with banks, co-operatives, credit associations, trust and insurance companies.
After having done considerable research and talked to people who are quite knowledgeable about this type of initiative, it seems to me that this package of legislation is a reasonable effort. It is a small step into the future, to make us more competitive, to bring about some greater degree of rationality to banks, trust companies, insurance companies and others. Hopefully it will permit additional flexibility in terms of the services offered to Canadians by banks, trust companies and insurance companies.
The major intent of this legislation is to ascertain that there is a similar range of services available to customers from those various institutions so that it is more competitive and hopefully the consumer will profit from that.
Insurance companies will now be able to own banks and trust companies and banks own insurance and trust companies. Banks will now be able to get into financial leasing and information processing companies. Hopefully that will bring about greater competition that will profit all Canadians.
I note, as well, that insurance companies will be able to lend money. Knowing the price that we have to pay today with high interest rates, it will permit those rates to drop and all Canadian consumers will profit.
When one looks at this legislation which covers hundreds of pages, actually hundreds of sections, one wonders what it is that one must do as a member of Parliament to attempt to ensure that Canadians are protected.
Government Orders
One of the questions that I want to raise is the following. What will government do with banks, trust and insurance companies to inform the Canadian public regarding what is happening? To ensure that when this bill becomes law that they understand the advantages, the disadvantages and the difficulties?

You no doubt know that it is extremely complicated. Even after speaking to many people and reading and considering this information, I admit that there are technicalities which are very hard to understand.
So I earnestly hope that the government will make a serious effort with these institutions to inform the general public.

My party supports this legislation in principle. However, we have a number of concerns, which will be raised in committee. I have heard a number of issues raised today by both opposition parties. The place to correct those is in committee. I would hope, as well, that the committee will be such that it will permit us to raise those issues and permit members to come to grips with them and bring about solutions so that in the end, when we have finished the process, we do have as fine a package as we can have.
A number of colleagues have noted that it is really high time that we come to grips with those kinds of issues, because it has been some 50 years or so since this legislation has been updated, but they have not said it in a negative kind of way.
It makes it increasingly difficult for us to compete in Canada. It makes it that much more difficult as well to compete on the international level. It is high time that we came to grips with this, because it will improve our competitiveness. It will I hope protect the depositors.
I cannot help but note that if this legislation had been in place there are a number of Canadians who would not have suffered the financial losses they have. I am referring, of course, to the failure of certain banks and trust companies. They would be better off today.

Government Orders

Because they would have been better protected, I hope. And frankly, if we could have proceeded sooner, hundreds, maybe thousands, of Canadians would have benefited from it.

Also there would have been fewer games played, and I do not use that in a pejorative sense. There was at least one insurance company which wanted to buy a trust company but because of the current legislation on the books, it had to buy it through a holding company. It was trying to get around the rules, and I understand its desire to do that. But now it can be up front; now insurance companies can in fact go forward and do so.
Hopefully when this package is finally restructured, refined, polished in committee, we can have a strengthening of the soundness of these institutions upon which Canadians depend.
I note one change which I am pleased with; one-third of the board of directors must not be affiliated with the company. I think that is a positive move.
I notice as well procedures for conflicts of interest. For example, an audit committee will be established which will deal with the auditor's report and any particular difficulties that emanate from that report. There will be a conduct review committee which will prevent selfdealing, where a director may have influence which could benefit him or her. It will prevent that kind of unacceptable practice.
Most important, however, is the consumer's complaint section. This section, I might add, is as a result of the Liberal amendment, and I am very pleased with that, will permit consumers to raise questions concerning service charges on accounts. A farmer, if he or she faces foreclosure, can go to the consumer complaints office and in fact to the superintendent if necessary.
There will also be an annual report where there will be a section on complaints, where those complaints will be described briefly and where it will be noted the kinds of successes that have been had in resolving those kinds of complaints.

I think that is progress. Mind you, some problems
remain. It is not perfect, but I think it is progress, especially if it can be further improved in committee.

The whole question of ownership, the percentage of a company that one can own according to the current legislation and what will happen with the new legislation is something that we have to look at very veiy carefully. Are the percentages correct? Are they too limited? Are they too generous? What are the implications of those changes? What about the current percentages? If my memory serves me correctly, you have to own at least 51 per cent or no more than 10 per cent of another institution. Will that prevent joint ventures, which is a very common way of acquiring another institution?
As well, you will note that the banks cannot go further into the insurance market. While there are some positives there, we have to ask ourselves is that best for Canadians? Is this good for Canadians? Is it better for Canadians?
We have to realize that banks are powerful institutions and if they were to proceed in that area, I understand that they could in fact destabilize the insurance industry. There could be tied selling, that is you do not get a mortgage unless, or you get a mortgage if, and that could be a dangerous practice. They could, in fact, implement very low prices for certain services and they could then have a monopoly and then control that. That would be bad for Canadians. So there are pluses and minuses on both sides of those particular issues.
When we talk about the life annuity market, we have to be veiy careful because while it is a life insurance company only now, as Canadians grow older, as they convert various plans into life annuities, as they must under certain circumstances, would it be wise to have banks involved so that we as aging Canadians can get better deals?
The whole notion of being involved or not involved in leasing is another question that needs to be looked at very, very carefully.
I want to address the question of foreign banks in Canada. The bank must be a bank in its home country before it can qualify according to the current legislation, the legislation before us. Why was American Express admitted?
October 2, 1991

AMEX is not a bank. Why was it let in? Some people suggest that because it supported the government significantly with respect to the Canada-U.S. trade agreement that it might have got preferential treatment. Whether it did or not is not the major issue. The issue is: What will happen to other companies that are of a very similar nature? Will they be asking to get in? If so, will they be denied? Do we want non-banks?
There are large financial institutions in the United States and in other places that could in fact be trying to get into the Canadian financial market. The fundamental question is do we want that?
Another issue is: Should the Minister of Finance be able to decide who qualifies as a foreign bank in order to get into Canada's financial market? I cannot help but note that because of the GATT negotiations, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade with other countries, that they may see a precedent that they may want to take advantage of and that may open up a whole new avenue to other financial institutions wanting to get into Canada.
Perhaps a final point before I sum up very quickly. There is still a duplication of federal and provincial rules, regulations, legislation and what have you between the trust companies and banks. I think this needs to be looked at because this kind of duplication obviously does not lead to greater efficiency.

Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying again that in principle we support the bill before us today. Nevertheless, we wish to improve it when it is considered in committee. I think it is a step forward.

I would hope that out of this, we would get the following: First, more protection for the consumer; better deals for the consumer in terms of those services that are required and I would hope, as well, that we can in fact become more competitive in the positive sense. That is, we as Canadians can get better protection, more services and still be competitive at the international level.
Government Orders


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker,
I too would like to join in with some of my colleagues, especially those on this side of the House in this party who have spoken so eloquently on some of the pitfalls in the legislation even though as a party in principle we are supporting it at second reading so that we can get it before a committee.
You have seen some of the pitfalls of this legislation. It is legislation that is designed, as my colleague from Dartmouth indicated earlier, specifically to set new financial infrastructure for a new economic order in this country.
In establishing that new financial infrastructure, we have got to maintain first and foremost very well in perspective the people for whom it is designed. It is designed not only for depositors as members of the NDP have said, but also for the borrowers, the consumers, the small businessman, the individual who is under attack today as a result of government policies and mismanagement of the highest order never before seen in this country.
I guess what I am saying is what we should be addressing is not only the over-all financial infrastructure but the scope of its dimensions. Where should it be going? What should it be addressing? If nothing else, it should be addressing the crux of many problems.
Many small businesses throughout Canada, in particular in my home province of Ontario and more specifically in the city of Toronto, are prone to say that banks and other lenders in times that are good, in times of prosperity, are the first ones to offer moneys and to say: "Let's be partners. Invest. Expand."
The moment that things fall apart, banks are the first ones to pull back and to leave the small businessman, the investor, the entrepreneur who is short on cash flow with a bank that demands its note, and demands it yesterday.
What has happened is that we have seen throughout all of Canada an increase in bankruptcies of an obscene order. They are of obscene order. We have never seen such bankruptcies at that rate ever in Canada.
I noticed today that the Minister of Finance, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister for Privatization all stood before us in this House and said:

October 2, 1991
Government Orders
"Oh yes, but there is a steadying trend, in fact, we do not have as many bankruptcies this last month as we have had in the past several months".
There are not that many more businesses available to go bankrupt. What is happening as well is that all of us as Canadian taxpayers are being turned into financiers in short order. What happens is that the moment there is a bankruptcy declared, Revenue Canada needs to get its share. There are some moneys that have not been paid that are owing to Revenue Canada, to the Minister of Revenue, and what happens is that the taxpayer ends up on the short end of a deal as well. We end up paying twice: first, for having lost our businesses and jobs available through it, and second, because our taxes have not been paid.
We have to take a look at what these acts are going to do by way of establishing incentives for our entrepreneurs. Small businessmen, entrepreneurs of all sizes need access to capital. They need to establish working capital as they anticipate growing cash flow.
I do not know whether this series of legislation is going to address that, but one of the things the government must address is the fact that these acts cannot operate in a vacuum. They have to establish appropriate economic policies that allow the Canadian entrepreneur to have access to capital on an equal basis, no matter in what province he or she chooses to operate.
For example, I have a company, the Hercules Food Equipment, Limited, in Toronto, Ontario, in my own city which bemoans the fact that just over the course of the year, it has lost over 50 per cent of all fabricators of food equipment in the stainless steel industry. Over 50 per cent, Mr. Speaker. It points out the fact that unfortunately, thanks to government policies, not only in encouraging the transmigration of some of these industries over into the southern part of our borders in the northeastern United States, but that government policies seem to misdirected and pitting one province against another, and unfairly pitting one Canadian against another. They faxed me a list of 28 public projects that the stainless steel producing industry for food processing has been unable to secure in the southern Ontario area, but have gone to another area, to companies that locate in Quebec.
There is nothing wrong with that because Canadians are Canadians no matter where they go, but the fact of the matter is that what we have is an economic policy that encourages movement southward. Why do I say it encourages movement southward. When we signed that free trade agreement, we did not get the security we needed to ensure that the playing field would be level. We have New York state, Ohio and other Great Lakes states that are providing our manufacturers with kinds of tax incentives on capital equipment, on property, on subsidies to employees, and as well on the general operations that we cannot afford here in Canada.
Our federal government has not addressed that at all. In fact, not only has it not addressed that, but we see Canadian companies going south in droves. Just last year, 83 Canadian companies set up shop in the Buffalo area alone. Buffalo used to be a joke in southern Ontario. It is now a nemesis for all of us.
My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood said there is a waiting list of Canadian companies that number in the thousands to locate in Buffalo. Last year my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood will know that Canadian companies invested $263 million in Buffalo alone, $263 million at a time when all of our Canadian manufacturers, Canadian employees or prospective employees are looking for that kind of cash flow.
To what is that due? Nothing else other than a Canadian federal government that is unwilling to seize the responsibility that lies on its shoulders. It is a responsibility that says that what we have to do is have an overall global strategy that involves reforming all of our financial institutions, an industrial strategy that ensures that government incentives are at least equal to those that are provided south of our border, or at least are equitable from province to province so that we do not have competing interests from Quebec or from Ontario, but rather that we be co-operative and complementary.


An hon. member:: It is called a retreat from government.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Of course it is a retreat from government.
It is shocking in fact that over the course of this last year this retreat from government-


Dennis Joseph Mills: They no longer want to govern.
October 2, 1991


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood says this government no longer wants to govern. The reason we can say that and say it with such assurance, although it is unfortunately a rather bitter sort of assurance, is that we have over the course we of this last year just in the Toronto area alone an increase of over 63 per cent unemployment.
In Toronto, which used to be wealthy, there are
226,000	unemployed. In my own riding of 600 manufacturers that were in operation in 1988, there are barely 100 operating today, barely 100, and they are not even operating a full 40-hour week.
Statistics Canada and other independent sources point to the nature of the destruction of our economy perpetrated by government policy. They point in fact to the kinds of layoffs in the province of Ontario, a rich manufacturing base once that provided needed tax revenues to fund all kinds of social programs throughout this country.
Well, what has happened? Over the course of last year alone, just last year, the number of permanent jobs lost as a result of the transfer of manufacturing south and elsewhere increased at such proportions that compared to 1982, when we last had a recession, the number and percentage of permanent jobs that were lost is 66. Two out of every three jobs lost is a permanent job, one that will not come back, one that paid well, and one that can no longer be replaced.
By comparison, in 1982 when things were bad only one out of every five was a permanent type of job.
In the legislation that we are going to be considering when we go to committee, we will be looking for those kinds of guarantees and this deregulation of the financial system, the financial infrastructure of our country to ensure that those changes that the government is proposing are going to work to the advantage of the borrower. They are going to work to the advantage of the small business person, the individual who is going to be the backbone of the regrowth in this economy if, in fact, we can be optimistic.
The other thing we will be looking for is an assurance that government policies will be widespread and will not take sector by sector, but will have a global view.
Government Orders
I thank you for that, Mr. Speaker, and so do all of those businesses which are looking for new directions in government today and especially a direction that abandons all of this mismanagement of the past.


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin this afternoon by thanking the member for Nickel Belt. He is our critic and he keeps our caucus informed on the many changes that are proposed in these four bills. The reason I want to thank him this afternoon is that this morning I was cursing him because as I walked into my office, yet again there was another thick file from our critic on these four bills. I was trying to read through it and pick up what had been done in committee and what was proposed in each particular piece of legislation, the comments, the critiques that have been put forward, and it struck me as I went through the material that I have at least access to this information. Most of us, as Canadians, do not.
In a technical sense I suppose you could say these are not secret documents. They are public documents. They are matters which are available to the public, but then again is it a reasonable assumption that the public can go through all these little differences that are being proposed in these four bills, understand, for example, all the fine nuances between a bank not being able to sell insurance but being able to set up an insurance company. What is the difference?
That, I think, is one of the hallmarks of the Canadian financial institutions. Canadians have always assumed that if it looks like a bank, smells like a bank, and when they go in there they are made line up, then it must be a bank. When you read the fine print you find out it is not a bank. It is something else.
Canadians have had a summer where there has been a healthy amount of newspaper copy written about something that was called a bank but really was not a bank. It did not have proper credentials in its own country but was set up and operating here as a bank. Even embassies were using this bank, but that bank somehow had some wrong connections. There was enough juiciness around that one that I suppose Canadians aware that maybe not all banks are the same, maybe not all lending institutions are the same. Most of us, I am sure, when we started our working lives were ever so grateful when the manager at the local bank said: "Yes, we are going to give you that loan for a new car". We were just so grateful that we

Government Orders
were such good credit risks that a bank would lend us money that we forgot to read the fine print.
Later on in life we found out why it is that lending institutions are just overjoyed to give you a really long-term mortgage on a house. Some time in your life you probably sat down and figured out just exactly how much of this money that you pay each month to a lending institution pays off the principal of the debt and how much of it goes into juice to the lending institution. The first time you do that most Canadians are absolutely shocked that this nice, warm, friendly, trusting person who arranged all of these financial transactions for you that made you feel so good, so much a part of the Canadian economy, had just ripped you for about 20 years of your life.
After a while you kind of begin to understand: Let us all read the fine print here, let us just try to figure out who is doing whom a favour.
I must say that in dealing with lending institutions these days I find, just as a general simplification, there seems to be a little more aura of laying out the facts before you. I recall when somebody sold me my first insurance policy. As a matter of fact this one was supposed to get my kids through university. That is a noble thing. I thought that was a great idea: "Why do we not invest in our children's future? This is wonderful. Are these companies not great to be putting out this kind of a policy that will help me when my child is 18 years of age? I do not have to worry about a college education. The money is in the bank".
It is a good thing I did not quite follow all of that line because I subsequently found out that if I had taken that money to a piggy bank I would have been just about as well off as buying that life insurance policy. Nobody bothered to explain that to me at the time, and the person who sold me the policy was not an evil person. They did not catch me in the backyard with a billy club. They came in and sat down at my kitchen table and explained: "Isn't this a wonderful thing to do?" Well of course it is. Investing in your children's future is what all of us want to do. That is part of my concern about these bills.
Most Canadians have an assumption in terms of the great Canadian tradition that the government is going to be around, that there will be an agency to regulate and it will be an outside agency. It will not be self-regulation. Most Canadians understand that a financial institution is
in business to make money. That is what they are going to do as best they can, following the laws of the land to the letter and sometimes a little past the letter and sometimes a little to the left of the letter and sometimes a little right of the letter. The purpose of the exercise is clearly stated: to make money as legally as they can with the help of a whole lot of really good lawyers, a lot of accountants, a lot of smart tax people, and some friends on the government side.
That is my concern in a nutshell about what is happening here. It is not that on the surface of it, it looks like a lot of evil deeds. But when one gets into the detail of what is being proposed here, that age old assumption that Canadians have had that their financial institutions are well and thoroughly regulated by an independent party is out the window. There were those of us who got a little pious over things like the savings and loans scandals in the United States. We were concerned that here were lending institutions that started out in the United States of America a long time ago with a very simply idea of offering a little diversity for the financing of houses. They offered a little opportunity for ordinary people to get mortgage money in a way that had not been done previously. That really good idea, that gem of a thought somehow wound up in the hands of people who were so greedy that it did not bother them that they were mortgaging properties to values that were astronomical. Commercial investment opportunities that were worth $50 million wound up being mortgaged to the tune of a $200 million.
How did that happen? That happened very simply because there was not in place a regulatory agency independent of those handling the money. That is part of my concern with what is being proposed here. I think all of us rightfully made the assumption that Canadian financial institutions were somehow distinctively Canadian, regulated by an independent agency, would do us no wrong, were safe things and all that stuff about our deposits being insured to a certain extent. People do not read those last few words in that line: to a certain extent, to a maximum, in some circumstances. People had better learn to read that.
Most of us who have been in public life for a while have had someone come into our offices-and this is the irony, especially for a New Democrat-who was certainly not a political ally but told us about a friend of theirs who
October 2, 1991

got them into an investment with a particular kind of company. Since this was the great free enterprise system at work and since their friend had initiated all of the proceeding-had got them into it, took all their life savings and put them into this institution-they somehow assumed that in Canada this could not go wrong.
The tragedy of course is that it has gone wrong. Many times many of us have sat in our constituency offices with someone who was not a political ally crying because the system that they purported to be very much theirs had ruined their lives. People are beginning now to understand that this is a pretty complicated business.
The federal government regulates, writes legislation in this regard. The provincial governments write legislation in similar matters. We are now going into a constitutional proposal that is going to mix that rather nicely and maybe have an economic council that has an influence and an impact on all that.
Here is the problem. When governments at all levels say "what shall we do", they do not drag in the consumers by the thousands. That is perhaps impractical. What they do is they turn to people working in the industry and they say: "What changes shall we make that would make the industry more competitive"-read that to mean makes more money-"or more efficient?" Read that to mean pays out less money.
We must understand what is going on here. This is pretty basic stuff. These are all legitimate questions to be asking, but one does not always ask those who are in the business to be one's sole advisors on what a government should be, on what things a government should do, on what kind of regulations a government should put in place, on what kind of laws a government should write. That is the flaw that I find in the legislation that is before this evening.
I know that most Canadians probably are not listening to this debate. Most of them will probably never read these bills. Most of them may not be followers of Business Week and all of the financial critiques that have been put together on these four bills. Canadians had better become aware that there is a major change under way in those things that are loosely called financial institutions and most of us would call banks. I pray that they do not become aware of those changes in my
Government Orders
constituency office when something awful has happened to them, no matter who they might be.
That is precisely the danger in what is being proposed here this afternoon. It requires an immense amount of study, an immense amount of research, and the players are dictating the rules. That is never a good way to proceed.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words on this bill before we get on to the next one.
We are in a new age and certainly there are new requirements in the banking business in this country if we are going to be competitive. If we do not give the small business community of this nation a better banking policy, it is not going to continue to be the biggest employer in Canada and the economy of this nation is going to suffer still more.
What small businesses need today more than anything else is working capital. Without that they cannot progress. Without that they cannot keep their employees. Without that they cannot continue to build and maintain their present facilities so that they are ready to meet the new economy when the recession is over.
I had a meeting during the course of the last year with several business people from the resource based industries. The local bank was after them the moment that the 15 per cent export tax went on softwood lumber. The bank sent a man into a certain branch and he continued to phone those business people who had loans there and demanded the money. It was totally an unfair situation.
What was going on south of the border at that time? The American banks and trust companies saw that 15 per cent tax on softwood lumber as a great ploy for them to move in, and they started loaning money and offering money to their resource based industries. They improved their sawmilling capacity, their planing mills and their lumber industry in general. They had better equipment, did a better job. As a result they took the Canadian market away from Canadian business people in Canada.
They even sold lumber back into Canada, cheaper than we could sell it to the United States. Those northern industries in the U.S. took over markets in the United States as far south as Tennessee from business people in Canada. That is not fairness.

October 2, 1991
Government Orders
Yet a Canadian bank moved in on those very people, the sawmill industry. It had worked with them for decades and never had a problem. That is how loyal the banking system of this nation is to small business in this country.
It is time that this Parliament of Canada starts passing banking bills. I have been in this House for some time and I cannot remember a banking bill ever being passed in this House in favour of the consumer or the business people of the country. We have a sound banking system, but it is sound because the people out there are being crucified as soon as the economy begins a downturn.
When the economy is good everybody wants to lend money to the business community, to consumers; banks have all kinds of money to give out. As soon as the economy turns bad they turn on those customers.
Banks sometimes even encourage them to borrow. Banks encouraged farmers to borrow several years ago and got many of them into trouble. Today we have a farm crisis in this country and the banks do not even want to look at it.
Someone mentioned bankruptcies in this country. It is no wonder that we have bankruptcies with the challenges that small business people and others are facing out there. This Parliament of Canada owes it to those people, who are the biggest employers in this country, to bring in some banking legislation to give them some protection in difficult times such as now.
A lot has been said in this House in the last number of months about the downturn of the economy and the slow economy in places like Montreal and Toronto. People find that astounding because these two urban centres of Canada are usually very much on the upswing. There is a big reason why those two major cities in Canada are having trouble and it has never really been talked about. The economy of the regions of this country is in difficult straits. Because those two major urban centres do not have the healthy economies of the regions of the country to draw on ,they are suffering a downturn in their own economies.
As long as we have banking legislation in this country which allows banks to impose their authority, their demands on the business community of this country, all we are doing is promoting a greater and greater recession the moment there is a downturn in the economy.
I was appalled at the treatment a group of forest industries in my riding received from their local bank. The banker they dealt with had no mercy.
It is rather amusing. I phoned the head office of the bank and it was turned over to its regional officer working out of Ottawa. He came in as a trouble-shooter. That is exactly what he was. Two days before we had that meeting with the rep from that bank and with the sawmilling people in the area, the local banker disappeared from the scene. He was hauled out because he had created bad relations and bad spirit in the surrounding community for the bank.
I am simply going to leave this thought with the House, and it certainly should be discussed when this bill is in committee.
We should be coming up with some legislation in this House that is going to protect the business community of this country, the small businessman and those people who employ the largest number of people coast to coast to coast in Canada.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I guess I would like to add my voice from the far west coast in this debate on the Canadian banking system and the proposals that we have before us to change the financial institutions in Canada, to open them up and to take over each other's business.
I guess I am a little concerned about this legislation as well. I do hope that these bills form the basis of a discussion that can take place when it is referred to committee across Canada. I think the parliamentarians, especially on the government side, will find out that in drafting this legislation they have been listening to a very narrow range of opinion in this country. If they open the debate within the committee that handles this legislation, they are going to get a very different message from people across the country as to how they would like their financial institutions to act and how they would like financial institutions to serve the people of this country.
Canadian banks have traditionally been among the most powerful financial institutions on the globe. It is strange that in a country with a population of 20 million to 30 million we have banks that rank among the most powerful banks on earth in terms of the assets they
October 2, 1991

control and the power they exert in business around the world.
It is hard to explain when you consider the size of our population and the actual deposit base that they have to work from. One of the reasons for that and one of the reasons for the power of the banking system in this country is that they have been able to exert a great deal of power and control over this very institution in which we stand.
They donate to the two main political parties in this country, and they influence how those political parties deal with banking legislation. They have close contacts and interlocking contacts with the corporate sector in this country. They influence the business of this country to a great extent through those interlocking contacts.
They have the power to influence banking policy and it is clear that that influence has been exerted in this legislation. It is clear to see that the bankers, the insurance companies, the trust company executives, and the financial institutions have had a great deal to say about the legislation that is before us now.
The American Express example that our friend from the Liberal Party mentioned was probably an exception that proved the rule. This is one that the Canadian Banking Association was opposed to, but it is one of the very few times when it attempted to influence the government. It has not been successful in influencing it in exactly the way it wanted.
In fact, what the member suggested is precisely what happened. When the Prime Minister was concerned that his party was going to lose the last election, that his Conservatives would end up out of government and the free trade policy on which they had hung their hat was going to be defeated by Canadians, he called upon one of his cronies in the American Express system from the United States and that person recruited a great deal of funding and a great deal of support both in Canada and in the United States.
They advertised in the major media across the country and began to turn the tide in the last election in favour of the Conservatives, and the Prime Minister's cronies in the United States got their reward: they got the Conservative government re-elected and they got their free trade policy.
Government Orders
American Express also got its reward. On the eve of the election it got a charter to set up a bank in Canada, even though it is not a banking corporation in the country in which it originates, the United States.
That is a way in which banking policy can be influenced in this country, by applying political influence on behalf of the government in power. There is no question that the banks do that.
The banks' influence on government has also come in other ways and in other fields. For example, I have been in banks all across this country and talked to trade unionists about their success in organizing chartered banks. Across this country the number of banks which are organized and have unionized staff can probably be counted on the fingers of both hands.
That is because banks have been able to impose their influence on provincial and federal governments to ensure that it is extremely difficult to organize the workers in chartered banks so that they cannot form unions, cannot organize and bargain collectively, and cannot set up grievance procedures in order to protect themselves and secure their jobs.
Banks are the most patriarchal employers in this country. They are the most medieval in terms of the standards they impose on their employees. In general, bank managers are male, upper middle class, elderly, with a particular point of view about the country and its economy. They tend to appoint as their staff members people who have the same characteristics and the same beliefs.
For example, we have federal employment equity legislation in this country governing companies that operate within the federal jurisdiction, among which are the chartered banks. Yet for some reason the current government refuses to put teeth in that employment equity legislation. That would require the corporations operating within their jurisdiction to actually bring about employment equity within their organizations.
The banks have been among the worst in terms of hiring women and promoting women to management positions. They have been among the worst in terms of hiring aboriginal people. In appointing aboriginal people to management positions, banks have been among the worst. In incorporating the handicapped and the dis-

October 2, 1991
Government Orders
abled, banks have been among the worst. That is because they have been able to influence and persuade government because of their power over government to leave the teeth out of the employment equity legislation.
The same thing applies to pay equity legislation. Women who are employed in the chartered banks tend to be employed in jobs that are extremely low paying relative to the jobs occupied by men in the chartered bank system. Again this is an area that is within the federal jurisdiction. Yet there is absolutely no legislation to protect those women or to incorporate pay equity in the chartered banks and financial institutions that come under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
All of these things have been a result of the banks' ability to exert power over the federal government. Things have been absolutely the opposite of the way they should be. Instead of being the regulated, banks are actually the regulators which are regulating the federal government. It is not the other way around.
I do not think, as my colleague suggested, that customers of chartered banks are going to be secure until they feel secure that the federal government is actually regulating the chartered banks and imposing tough regulations with teeth.
I would like to close by talking about income tax legislation. In the average year the bank tellers working on the floors of those chartered banks pay more income tax to this Parliament than the banks do themselves, despite the horrendous profits those banks are making. The burden of taxation in this country has been totally distorted and totally turned on its head.
It is to be expected that in a country like this there would be no representation without taxation. Yet the banks have more representation in this country, despite the fact they pay no tax, than the tellers who work in those banks without the protection of labour laws, without the protection of trade unions, without the protection of employment equity legislation, without the protection of pay equity legislation. Even though they pay more tax to support the government of this country, they appear to have no representation in the drafting of legislation with respect to financial institutions.
I support my colleague who is voting against this legislation. I hope that when it goes into committee that the discussion will be wide ranging and that we will not listen to that narrow range of people who appear to have had influence in drafting this legislation. I hope that we will listen to all of the Canadian people in terms of the concerns that they have about their banks and institutions, and I hope that having heard those concerns the government will be prepared to pull and redraft this legislation.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to order adopted Wednesday, September 25, 1991, the question is on the motion of the Minister of Finance for second reading and referral to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-19, an Act respecting banks and banking.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to order adopted Wednesdy, September 25, 1991, the next question is on the motion of the Minister of State (Finance) for second reading and referral to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-28, an Act respecting insurance companies and fraternal benefit societies.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursant to order adopted Wednesday, September 25, 1991, the next question is on the motion of the Minister of State (Finance) for second reading and referral to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-34, an Act to revise and amend the law governing cooperative credit associations and to provide for related and consequential matters.
!

*
October 2, 1991

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
[English ]


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Harvie Andre: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the House would agree to suspend this sitting until seven o'clock at the commencement of Private Members' Business. Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The sitting of the House is suspended until 7 p.m.
At 6.41 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 7.03 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 11, consider of the motion of Mr. Blaikie that Bill C-204, an act to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act (ending development and exportation of prescribed items and substances) be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee D.
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have a plethora of information here and I am going to have to put it in a brief form.
When I spoke last I was saying that in Canada we go to great lengths to be positive when we are building something. We have some tremendous achievements in this country, but once we achieve them we seem to want to tear them apart. This bill that is before us, Bill C-204,
Private Members' Business
is designed to phase out the generation of electricity by nuclear power in Canada.
I am unreservedly and totally opposed to this bill, because I think it is terrible. In the 1950s Canada produced an Arrow aircraft which was considered to be the best in the world. We had a change of government and by 1960 the plane had been cancelled. It would still have been a good plane today and Canada lost that technology.
It is unfair in this debate for people to talk about nuclear weapons in the same tone that they use when they talk about nuclear energy. That is not fair. It is dishonest debating.
Sometimes we have to go outside our own country in order to find people who are proud of our achievements. For example, when the Challenger space shuttle needed repairs, where did they go? They went to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which had been known for good production and technology over the years. They were known for their Candu reactor, which has never had an accident and was equipped with many safety features, even for human error. That has never come out.
The United States came to Canada, to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Atomic Energy of Canada made the O-ring for the Challenger space shuttle and it has been successful ever since. Again we had to go outside our country to be recognized.
Other people compare Chernobyl and the Russian reactor to the Candu reactor. That is absolutely dishonest politics. There is no comparison between the two. The Russians built their systems without any safety features built into them and they got the problem they deserved. Here in Canada the reason why our Candu reactors are so expensive is that we have built safety devices into them and we have never had an accident.
We sometimes think that the only thing you get radiation from around here is the nuclear industry. I am reminded of the story-and it is not just a story; it is a fact of life-where daughter number one, for example, wanted to work in Toronto at the top of the CN tower for the summer or go to the Darlington nuclear plant. Experts will tell you that she would get a greater radiation dose at the top of the CN tower in Toronto than she would have had at the Darlington nuclear plant

Private Members' Business
because of the safety features built into Darlington. Of course in nature, the higher you go in space the more radiation you get. That is why stewardesses who are pregnant are not allowed to go on long flights at certain times during their pregnancy. It is a safety measure. That is nature.
There are many countries in this world that have taken Canada's lead. They do not have the same kind of reactor we have. Here is an example. In France, 74.5 per cent of France's electrical power is generated by nuclear power. In Belgium, 60.1 per cent; the Republic of Korea, 49.1 per cent; in Sweden, 45.9 per cent. Sweden is a country that decided it might phase out the nuclear option too and it is already reconsidering that option.
If Canada is going to get its debt under control then it needs to have a buoyant economy creating wealth. It is not a given right that Canada's traditional wealth creating industries, that is our resources, will continue to perform as they have in the past. Nor is it true that our manufacturing and agricultural industries can compete internationally. The assets we have which can give us a competitive edge are the abundant energy resources of oil, natural gas, coal, hydro, nuclear and biomass, to name a few.
I want to say here that as an educator I am absolutely astounded at the uninformed opinion that is being projected by those who speak negatively about nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Scare tactics are being used and it is totally unfair to the integrity of this debate in Canada. Christopher Columbus was warned by a similar mentality that if he travelled too far out to sea he would fall off the end of the world. If such were the case, the Ontario voters would probably be sending the NDP Government of Ontario on a long voyage tomorrow morning.
In summing up, I want to say that wise decisions will promote success; poor ones will guarantee failure. If this bill ever sees the light of day in legislation, then we have failed and the nation has failed.
In Ontario alone, which is the heartland of industry in all of Canada, 53 per cent of hydroelectric power will be produced by nuclear power when Darlington comes on stream. We are seeing an attack on our capacity to produce jobs and on industrial growth down the road in Canadian history. The greatest asset we have in this nation ig cheap energy. With all the other things we have
to compete with in this world tomorrow and the next day after, we are going to need a long-term solid base for industry in this country. That solid base is going to be cheap energy.
In closing, I want to say that the nuclear generation of power is safe in that it does not spew gasses out into the environment. It is one of the safest things going.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to carry on with the second reading debate of Bill C-204, a bill introduced by my colleague from Winnipeg Transcona.
I invite our viewers tonight to read his speech of June 11 of this year given with the introduction of this bill. It does give a comprehensive overview of the entire issue.
As I am limited in time I will focus only on two aspects of the nuclear phase out: the economic aspect and the environmental. We are often told that the two should be linked. It is those two aspects I have chosen to focus my comments on.
I am going to start with the economic argument because increasingly this government seems to be instituting a philosophy of economic determinism, that is economics determines its policy. I invite people to understand that the economics of the nuclear industry is bad economics.
Federal tax dollars have funded the development of nuclear technology. It has been estimated in a study published by the Economic Council of Canada that $19 billion-that is billion with a b in 1990 dollars-was given in federal subsidies, including grants for research and development, loan guarantees and bailouts for prototype reactors and heavy water plants. "It is doubtful", the Economic Council of Canada states in this study, "that these costs will never be recovered".
If we are talking about economic determinism this is bad economics. We are never going to get our money back for the investment we make.
The Canadian nuclear industry does rely on government subsidies to stay alive. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited continues to receive over $200 million each year from Canadian taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, you and I and all those other people out there are funding the nuclear industry whether we like it or not.
This is in contravention of what I think most Canadians want. The previous government in 1979, under the then Prime Minister, the current Minister responsible
October 2, 1991

for Constitutional Affairs, promised a public inquiry into the nuclear industry. Just prior to the 1984 election there was a promise of a public inquiry into the nuclear industry. Again, in 1989 the then Minister of the Environment, who is now currently the head of the Bloc Quebecois, and the current Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources promised a public review of nuclear power. We have not yet had it.
This bill, Bill C-204, is our chance to have a public debate at long last on the nuclear industry. We also have to know what the economic costs are. In terms of capital costs nuclear plants are extremely expensive to build. The cost of the Darlington nuclear station is estimated at about $2.5 billion. Hydro's newest estimate for Darlington is about $12.8 billion. It is not just the cost in dollars that we have to talk about, it is the environmental cost. That is what I want to talk about now, and particularly the issue of high level nuclear waste.
Inside every nuclear reactor, hundreds of radioactive substances are created, substances that did not exist before nuclear technology was developed. They are among the most toxic materials known to science. No one knows how to dispose of them.
Spent nuclear fuel is so radioactive that it can never be handled by human hands. It must be handled by robotic equipment. Spent nuclear fuel will remain unapproachable for several centuries and extremely toxic for hundreds of thousands of years.
Nuclear wastes are also deadly in another way. They contain the raw material for nuclear weapons. Plutonium is the key ingredient in nuclear bombs. Through a process of reprocessing plutonium can be separated from spent fuel. The nuclear industry supports reprocessing because plutonium can also be used to fuel reactors.
Although the Canadian government has not approved commercial scale reprocessing AECL, funded by our tax dollars, has promoted it and practised it on a small scale.
Over 17,000 tonnes of used nuclear fuel bundles are now being stored at reactor sites in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. Canada is being put forward as a nuclear waste disposal site for the world. Both Japan and
Private Members' Business
the United States have helped finance AECUs disposal research.
A former energy minister wrote in 1984 that disposing of nuclear wastes from other countries could offer considerable commercial benefits. I want a public debate on this issue because the Canadian taxpayers do not know what their tax dollars are being used for. If they knew there would be an outcry of monumental proportions.
AECL has spent over 10 years attempting to prove that deep disposal in a geologic repository is the answer to high level nuclear waste. AECL has spent hundreds of millions of dollars attempting to confirm a single solution, a deep geological repository for nuclear waste.
There is a more fundamental problem with Canada's nuclear waste disposal program. It has been conceived and implemented by individuals and institutions committed to the preservation of the nuclear industry. We only hear one side of the issue. AECL's mandate is to promote the use of nuclear power in Canada and abroad. Its interests would not be served by demonstrating the weakness of the concept of deep geological disposal or by admitting that not enough is known to reach a scientific verdict.
This issue has been before this House many times. A 1988 report of the federal Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry entitled The Eleventh Hour, a very aptly named report, recommended unanimously that a moratorium on the construction of nuclear power plants in Canada should be imposed until the people of Canada have agreed on an acceptable solution to the problem of the disposal of high level radioactive waste. That has not yet occurred.
This is what we have before us now. If this bill passes second reading it will then go to committee, which will have the ability to call witnesses, both experts and representatives of organizations. The nuclear industry will be there. We are not afraid to debate them. We encourage the debate. We encourage the forum so that Canadian taxpayers can know what their tax dollars are being used for.
I challenge the government and the Liberal members opposite because the New Democratic Party is the only party with a nuclear phase-out policy.

Private Members' Business
As a member of the Commons committee of the environment that participated in an 18 month study of global climate change and made a report in March of this year entitled "Out of Balance: The Risk of Irreversible Climate Change", it has been demonstrated in that report that this nuclear power is uneconomic, immoral and a waste of the taxpayers' dollars. Alternative energy is the way to go.
I encourage the viewers tonight to read the comments of my colleague from Winnipeg Transcona and I challenge the government and the Liberals to pass this bill at second reading so we can call the government to account for the way they spend taxpayers' money.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I hope we have Point Lepreau II before we are done and that is one of the reasons that I am pleased to speak about this.
I would, first of all, like to say how pleased I am to follow the previous speaker who was my colleague on the environment committee when we did the study on global warming which made reference to the use of nuclear power. I do not have the exact words at the end of that report, but they were words to the effect that nuclear power does have a place and does deserve further examination and did not draw any uneconomic conclusions at all.
Some of the NDP-introduced witnesses would have you believe that, but I am going to quote a witness here in a few minutes that makes the different point.
The proposed Bill C-204, as I understand it, will prevent the Atomic Energy Control Board from issuing any new licences related to almost all aspects of the nuclear industry in Canada for the next 50 years. It will, if passed, have serious effects on Canada's economy, its environment, the general health of its population and its standing in the international community.
The economic impact is expressed in terms of the fact that the nuclear industry in Canada presently provides well in excess of 30,000 jobs for Canadians. Their efforts serve through corporations and utilities to contribute $3.6 billion or more in economic activity to the Canadian economy each year and this contribution will obviously decline dramatically if the resolution contained in Bill C-204 is passed.
In terms of environmental impact, I would like to speak briefly, as I have in the environment committee in the past. Global warming in particular is a phenomenon that I think we all agree is caused by the emissions of carbon dioxide generally resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. The greatest threat in terms of the burning of fossil fuels in the foreseeable half century in the world will come from the development of huge coal resources in places like China and India.
The Canadian nuclear technology has the potential to supplant that coal production with a benign source of energy that will in fact make a very dramatic intrusion on the potential for global warming in the years ahead.
It seems to me that we have got to address the environmental issue, not from the fear of a nuclear accident. That is a fear that we all would have. I would like to elaborate for a few minutes about the fact that those fears perhaps are not as justified as they may seem. The real fear, in my view, in the world is global warming, in environmental terms and in terms of this debate. When it comes right down to confronting the probability of global warming, if we do not get the emissions of carbon dioxide under control, confronting that reality with the perceived risk even of a nuclear accident, I believe that the prospects for nuclear development and the Canadian record for safety and technological excellence far outweigh any of the risks that are involved.
I want to quote, almost verbatim, from an address from Dr. Robin Armstrong, the present president of the University of New Brunswick, previously the Dean of Science at the University of Toronto and one of Canada's top physicists. He says that the discussion of nuclear power reactors often generates more heat than light. The issues that are most often raised concerning nuclear power are three in number, the possibility of a catastrophic accident, the effect of radiation leakage on the population living in the vicinity and the ultimate disposal of the spent fuel.
In the more than 30 years, he says, that nuclear power reactors have been operating in North America, there has not been a single catastrophic accident. The most serious accident was at Three Mile Island. The containment design of the building there prevented any significant release of radiation.
October 2, 1991

In the case of Chernobyl in Ukraine as one of the hon. members has already mentioned, that accident, that design and the lack of precautions in its design and management were so profound as to not be comparable to the Canadian safety record and not represent really an example at all. The Russian example is really a red herring.
Over the past two decades, a vast quantity of research has been done to evaluate reactor safety. The risk to the public is defined as being very small, not zero but very, very small.
He quantifies these in the form of a risk assessment analysis. For an individual in this Chamber tonight, the probability of developing a fatal cancer as a result of a serious accident at the Lepreau 1 station which the hon. member has mentioned in New Brunswick is 2,000 times less than the probability of developing one as a result of exposure to the radiation from the radio elements naturally present in the environment.
That is what he means as "not significant". Therefore, if you accept the validity of that kind of risk assessment analysis, you can conclude that there really is no risk of a catastrophic accident from western style nuclear power reactor.
With respect to the issue of the disposal of high level wastes from nuclear reactors, these must be considered in relation to the relatively small amounts of waste material created by a nuclear power station. The methods for disposal are well known, and the principles of the technology have been the study of very intensive research.
The waste is placed in sealed corrosion resistant containers very deep within stable rock formations. Studies have shown that radioactive material moves extremely slowly through rock and in fact hundreds, indeed thousands of times slower than the groundwater through the same material.
Therefore, even if the containers were eventually breached, no significant amount of radiation would reach the surface. The fact is that after a time of only 500 years, the health hazard posed by the fission products created for one kilogram of the uranium waste is the same as the health hazard of radioactivity of the same amount of uranium occurring naturally in the earth's crust. The conclusion is that the waste disposal problem has been solved.
Private Members' Business
In the few minutes remaining, I want to draw another analogy and that is a policy analogy related to Sweden. It is interesting to observe that in 1980, a referendum in Sweden determined that a policy for the phasing out of nuclear power by the year 2010 should be declared, endorsed and implemented.
It was decided that starting in 1995, the first of the operating nuclear power plants should be taken out of service and decommissioned. It was only when they tried to establish what alternatives should be used to replace the 41 per cent of the country's electricity generation being produced by nuclear plants that the difficulties really became apparent to the decision makers.
The problem replacing the nuclear capacity was compounded by two other decisions taken by the Swedish government. One was not to increase the carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuels and the other was not to use any of Sweden's untapped rivers to produce hydropower.
Sweden also, of course, wanted to remain competitive in terms of its export industries to the world. Today, the government has abandoned that plan to phase out the first nuclear plant in 1995, and the industrial unions are reputed to have played a strong role in that decision.
It just goes to show that the resolution such as has been introduced here in Bill C-204 and the resolutions such as have been proposed by my colleagues in the NDP are not sustainable. The facts are that nuclear power does have a place. I hope eventually that it has a place in New Brunswick.
I must say that as a New Brunswicker, I am very distressed to see that our government has delayed its commitment to the AECL proposal. It looks as though the nuclear plant, the Candu III reactor that represented such a regional opportunity for the modular manufacturing of nuclear equipment for years and years to come may very well have gone to Saskatchewan, and I would be veiy interested in the position taken by the Saskatchewan NDP with respect to nuclear power now that it is in the midst of a major election campaign which the polls indicate it is intended to win.
I would not want to wish the people of Saskatchewan any bad luck. It would be enough bad luck if they got an NDP government, but it would be intensified bad luck if that NDP government made the decision to ultimately

October 2, 1991
Private Members' Business
discontinue the initiative the present Government of Saskatchewan has introduced.
Perhaps in the fullness of time the province of New Brunswick will yet be the beneficiary of NDP policy.
[Translation\


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I will now recognize the hon. member for Algoma and, the next time it is the Liberals' turn, the hon. member for Davenport.
The hon. member for Algoma.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-204. It is a private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona in which he proposes to phase out nuclear energy in this country.
The hon. member of course does not live in the province of Ontario, which is something like 50 per cent to 60 per cent dependent on nuclear energy for our primary source of base power generation. It is interesting that parties talk about phasing out nuclear energy when they are in opposition. Certainly Mr. Peterson in Ontario talked vaguely about that when he was in the opposition; he was not going to complete the Darlington generating station. When he came to power and looked at today's realities, not only the economic realities but the environmental realities, suddenly he decided that he would complete the Darlington electrical generating stations.
It is interesting, after hearing from the NDP member from British Columbia, that Mr. Rae, the current premier of Ontario, had the same policy when he was in opposition. Now that he is premier of the province he is spending $2 billion or $3 billion to complete the two final phases of the Darlington electrical generating station, which involves some 900 megawatts for each one of those four stations. It is interesting that he is completing those stations.
The question is whether you have responsibility or not. This bill does not examine the responsible management of our resources, the realities facing the Ontario government or the ability of the Ontario hydroelectrical generating agency to provide electrical energy for the province of Ontario. It has placed before the people of
Ontario a plan for the next 25 years which proposes a number of alternatives.
The number one alternative is conservation. I do not think there is anybody in this House, in Canada, or any political party who believes that conservation is the best means of saving electrical energy, whether it is the retrofitting of our industry, a new design of light bulbs or whatever techniques are used.
That is the number one alternative put forward in the Ontario Hydro plan. It goes on to say that we must determine how much acid rain we want to create by using coal fired generating stations as our base station, how much we want to contribute to the greenhouse effect. It continues to say that if we reach a limit in that direction then the balance must be nuclear.

There are alternatives, such as small hydro sites, but hydro sites have an environmental cost as well. There is a whole generation generally classed in with conservation. For the Government of Canada to say "okay, Ontario, you may be 60 per cent dependent on nuclear energy, but we are stopping the licensing of any nuclear generating stations", surely that would be presumptuous and certainly not in keeping with a responsible way to develop the resource.
The argument is put forward by those who sponsored this bill that maybe we do not really want to do away with nuclear energy or phase it out; maybe we just want to have a public debate. I believe that the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources of the House of Commons did a major study back in 1987 and 1988. Its report was entitled Nuclear Energy: Unmasking the Mystery. It heard from dozens and dozens of witnesses.
The people from the NDP who sponsor this resolution tonight should read this report. It is a broad based report. It is not a fire and brimstone report. It talks about the advantages and disadvantages on all sides, but generally it comes down supporting the use of nuclear power as a source of electrical energy, as some of the most successful economies in the world are using. I speak especially of Japan and West Germany. Their main source of base power supply is nuclear energy.
We do not only have this document, which was a broad based study by a committee of this House. It is not as if the House of Commons is going to sit in Committee of

the Whole if this bill were to be passed. It will be returned to a committee, probably this committee. Someone can ask if parliamentary committees really do have the capacity to pay interveners and all that and how much time do members have to do a really thorough study?
That argument can be made. A study is taking place in the province of Ontario by a royal commission, a commission under the Environmental Assessment Act, dealing with both the needs and demand. It is an environmental study. It is not talking about abstracts. It is talking about the province of Ontario, which during the next 25 years has to replace 25 per cent of its electrical generating capacity. There are literally hundreds of interveners. There are some from my constituency and some from other areas on both sides of the issue of nuclear energy. It is sponsored by the Ontario government to put its best arguments forward on how we provide electrical energy for the province of Ontario.
Shall it be coal? Shall it be nuclear energy? Will it be small hydro sites? Will it be natural gas turbine fired engines? I mean all those things will be sorted out.
It will take about two years to do the demand study. How much of this demand over the next 25 years is real? How much of it can be done by conservation? How much can be done by co-generation? How much can be done in every way?
It goes on from there to how it can be done in an environmentally proper way. I do not think any study that could be done by this House of Commons will ever be as thorough as that study. It is going to take the next four years, but it is not dealing with the abstract. It is dealing with the power needs of the heartland of this nation, of the heartland of Ontario which is dependent on nuclear energy. If there is a better way to do it, I am sure that that royal commission will come up with it.
For this House of Commons to adopt this bill when we have a massive study, unprecedented in the history of this country, taking place in Ontario, would be pre-emptive. I would not say it would be irresponsible, but I think it would be only supernumerary to the very kind of study which is going to be done by that group which has a responsibility not just to look at the matter in abstract
Royal Assent
but to keep the power supply and the lights on and the industry in the province of Ontario operating.
I think that to pass this resolution and pre-empt something that is being done on a much larger scale and in a much more thorough way would not be in the best interests of the House or the country.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed C-29, an Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada and to amend another Act in relation thereto, without amendment.



ROYAL ASSENT

["It being eight o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1)."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
October 2, 1991 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Frank Iaccabucci, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 2nd day of October, 1991, at 7.50 p.m. for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to a bill.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

October 2, 1991
Private Members' Business
And being returned:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-29, an Act respecting compensation in the public sector of
Canada and to amend another Act in relation thereto-Chap. 29.
Bill S-4, an Act to amend the Act of incorporation of the
University of Emmanuel College.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could get consent from the House to extend private members' hour for the time that is left.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Hon. members have heard the motion of the hon. member for Timis-kaming that the House continue sitting until 8.12 p.m. to make up for the time taken up by the royal assent.

Does the House give unanimous consent to the motion that the House extend the hour until 8.12 p.m.?


Mr. Blaikie:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would have been glad to have been able to agree to this before if someone had suggested it, but the fact of the matter is that there were people intending to speak who, because they had no idea that this was going to come, have now left. I think it would be unfair to them to extend the hour.
As I understand it, if there is no unanimous agreement the House will adjourn at 8 p.m. and the time that was taken up by going to the Senate for Royal assent will be carried over and added to the third hour. It may actually require a portion of a fourth hour in order to deal with the time that we lost here tonight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no unanimous consent. The debate will therefore be resumed until 8 p.m. The hon. member for Calgary Southwest.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blaikie that Bill C-204, an act to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act (ending development and exportation of prescribed items and substances) be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee D.
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to underline my total support and commitment to Canada's nuclear program.
The benefits are substantial and indeed are needed for security and diversity of energy supply. They are also needed in environmental protection and industrial development. Nuclear energy will clearly have an important role in Canada and will into the future.
Maintaining the nuclear power option is vital to our interests and vital for the society in general. What is interesting is to take a look at the western sedimentary basin which produces most of our light and medium gravity crude. Those reserves, as we are well aware, are depleting right now. We also know that oil is priced between $20 and $22 a barrel U.S. and at that price it is not economical to develop frontier and synthetic crude.
As we see our oil reserves being depleted we know that the energy supply for future development for electrical generation is very much in doubt and nuclear can play a main role.
I must add with regard to the environment that the impact of burning larger amounts of fossil fuels and the emissions that will be spewn into the air are an extreme public hazard. It also is a huge economic cost to add scrubbers to some of the large stacks that we have.
October 2, 1991

The implications are that carbon dioxide accumulation within the earth's atmosphere is extremely damaging and has the potential to change the climate.
Another thing that we all have to consider is that Canada is an industrial based country and the nuclear industry has over 30,000 people employed as a direct consequence of this industry. It is most important that- and I realize that most of these jobs are in the province of Ontario-this country maintain its industrial base and maintain the variety of sources that we have to generate electricity in this country. The Atomic Energy Control Board is the federal regulatory agency and it oversees all application development throughout this country with regard to nuclear energy.
Atomic Energy Canada Limited is the Crown owned corporation that promotes the use of nuclear energy and it is known around the world for its superb Candu reactors. They are considered the safest reactors in the world, mainly because of the containment system. It is unfair and it is misleading to compare our Candu reactor with the reactor that was in place at Chernobyl. That was a graphite based reactor and it was a man-made disaster. It is unfair and misleading to scare the people of Canada in that regard.
Private Members' Business
We know perfectly well that Canada has nuclear reactors generating electricity in Ontario and 53 per cent of Ontario's electricity is derived from nuclear energy. We also have reactors in Quebec as well as New Brunswick.
It is very, very important to look around the world. I was very fortunate to chair the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources in 1988 when we did an extremely intensive study on nuclear energy. Indeed we not only studied it in Canada and the United States but we studied it in Sweden, France and West Germany. There is no doubt about it, nuclear energy is the energy of the future and we must maintain and support Atomic Energy Canada Limited.
We cannot use tunnel vision. There is absolutely no way. We have to examine all the issues at stake. Yes, we will study it very carefully. But nuclear energy for the generation of electricity is absolutely necessary and it will go forth in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being eight o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 3, 1991