1991-11-19

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the third report of the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.
It is my duty to inform the House that this report contains a resolution pursuant to Standing Order 123 for the disallowance of sections 8, 13, 14 and 15 of the Indian health regulations, chapter 955 of the 1978 Consolidated Regulations of Canada. The text of the section subject to disallowance is included in Appendix A to this report.
Pursuant to Standing Order 35(1), I would like to give a succinct explanation of the procedure here. In the view of the committee the Indian health regulations contain provisions not authorized by the legislation passed by Parliament, as well as provisions that derogate from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Furthermore, the joint committee believes these same provisions contravene its scrutiny criterion No. 9 as they trespass unduly on the rights and liberties and its scrutiny criterion No. 10 in that they make the rights and liberties of the person unduly dependent on administrative discretion and are not consistent with the rules of natural justice.
These provisions would authorize government officials to order the arrest, detention and forcible medical treatment of Canadian citizens without judicial authorization.
Other provisions provide officials with an unfettered right of entry into private residences and with the
authority to order the destruction of premises without prior notice.
Faced with the reluctance of responsible departments to revoke these regulations, the committee which I have the privilege to chair with Senator Norman Grimard and my colleague, the hon. member for Red Deer, has no choice but to resolve that these regulations be revoked.


JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
In accordance with its order of reference of Friday, October 4, 1991, your committee has considered Bill C-30, an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning mental disorder and to amend the National Defence Act and the Young Offenders Act in consequence thereof, and has agreed to report it with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-324, an act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms).


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


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to send a powerful message of deterrence to anyone thinking of taking a gun along to commit a crime.
This bill would toughen section 85 of the Criminal Code, the section which makes it an offence to use a firearm while committing a crime. The minimum mandatory sentence would be increased from one to five years for a first offence and raised from three to eight years for any subsequent offences.

November 19, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Under this bill there would be no eligibility for parole. The bill also specifically prevents a mandatory sentence from having any impact on the sentence imposed for the other offence. The bill specifically requires the consent of the provincial Attorney General before any section 85 charge could be withdrawn or plea bargained away.
This idea is not new. It was proposed by former Prime Minister of Canada John Diefenbaker. I have talked to many police chiefs across Canada who are enthusiastic about this bill and wish it well.


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


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
The first is on behalf of a number of residents of the city of Kamloops, British Columbia. They urge the government to consider maintaining proper financial support for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to enable the RCMP to fulfil its mandate and role as the only visible police force for communities across British Columbia and of course remain as a viable symbol of Canadian unity at this critical time in our history.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition to present.
The petitioners are from a number of western Canadian communities but primarily from British Columbia. They point out a number of concerns regarding the bid by Unitel to compete with Canada's telephone companies in long distance services.
They are concerned about the possibility of increased local costs and ask that the Minister of Communications hold information hearings in our communities before deciding the fate of Canada's telecommunications system. They acknowledge of course that cabinet would have the final decision if there is an appeal.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a third petition to present on another topic. It is from residents of Kamloops, Vernon, Kelowna and other communities throughout the Okanagan Valley.
They point out their concern regarding a proposal to dam the North Thompson River at Valemount. That is a tributary of the Fraser River. The proponent wants to divert part of the river into the United States and eventually into the San Diego, California area.
They are simply calling upon the Government of Canada to state that it will not permit this project to proceed.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you and the House of Commons today a petition on education.

I have several petitioners here who point out that the government speaks about learning culture and about competitiveness, but what does it do? There have been cuts of almost half a billion dollars this year. This is quite apart from the impact of the goods and services tax on a number of services and products that the students need, as well as the 3 per cent administrative fee.
They deplore the government's actions and would like to see the government take a pro-active stance and give some leadership.

I support this petition and I promise to try to do what I can to help bring it about.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 200 Canadians from Saskatchewan communities such as Gainsborough, Oxbow, Domremy, Shaunavon, Weyburn, Moose Jaw, and Nova Scotia communities such as Wolfville and Falmouth and Westfield, New Brunswick.
November 19, 1991

These people are saying enough is enough when it comes to the erosion of the rural way of life, particularly the closure of rural post offices.
They are calling on Parliament to support Canada's rural way of life, to support the maintenance of rural post offices and postal services, and to reject the Conservative government's agenda of cutbacks and closures.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard (Roberval) that Bill C-39, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Family Allowances Act and the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee B.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Ottawa South has the floor for 14 minutes.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, as I was about to complete my remarks last night, I was explaining that many people of my generation are afraid that this pension system will not continue until our old age. In fact, I support this bill because it is very important for us to have confidence that when we reach that age.
Government Orders
we will be entitled to receive benefits from the pension program.

I think it is essential to the maintenance of the Canadian system of social benefits, the entire network, that all Canadians believe they have a stake in the functioning and the long-term health of each of these programs, be it the Canada Pension Plan, medicare, old age security benefits and so on. The confidence must exist that no matter who you are, where you live in Canada or what your current economic condition is, you can contribute to these plans confident that they will benefit you in the long term as well.
That is the essence of the social contract which historically we as Canadians have been capable of building. I think it is crucial to the ongoing existence of our social programs as part of our framework.
I do want to use this occasion to make some comments, however, about my concerns about the increased reliance at all levels of government on payroll taxes and on other taxes that are not related to profitability as they apply to businesses in Canada.
The Canada Pension Plan of course was established at a time when payroll taxes were very much the exception rather than the rule. We understand that this system of employer-employee contributions to a funded pay as you go plan that is actuarially sound is essentially part of our system. However in the meantime since the 1960s the increased importance of payroll taxes, particularly in Canada compared to the United States, is becoming a problem especially for small and medium sized firms.
A study of taxation for small firms prepared by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business about this time last year entitled Taxing Ourselves to Death highlighted this concern. Let me quote from that report, which says that total payroll and local taxes which are not proportional to profitability account for about 30 per cent of the total tax burden for large firms in most jurisdictions, compared to more than 60 per cent for small businesses. Taxation studies in Ontario and five states were part of this study and put small businesses at a serious disadvantage in this respect, especially at times like the present when profits are low.

November 19, 1991
Government Orders
There are two points here. When you look at the burden of payroll taxes on small firms you have to include, of course, the Canada Pension Plan employer contributions we are discussing in this legislation.
Small firms are also confronted with payroll taxes based on the number of employees and the payrolls they provide with respect to unemployment insurance contributions. We have an indication in this House that the employer contributions are about to be increased significantly as well.
In the provinces there is the imposition of workmen's compensation premiums on firms, again based not on profitability, but on the payroll that is supported by the firm. In several provinces, particularly in Ontario, the cost of the health program is funded by employers through an employer tax. The employer health tax in Ontario is a payroll tax.
Therefore, the combination of all of these taxes, plus municipal tax rates which again are not related to a firm's profitability, impose an onerous burden, especially on small and medium-sized business.
Setting aside municipal taxes for a moment, when you impose heavier payroll taxes what you are essentially doing is encouraging firms to limit the number of people that they employ. In many cases, depending on what an employee's wage level is, it is better for a firm to encourage its existing staff to work overtime, to work longer hours, than to hire a new employee. The moment you bring the new employee through the door, you have an increased tax and paper burden that you have to bear.
Canada at the present time is struggling with unemployment rates well over 10 per cent. We have almost 1.5 million Canadians unemployed. Concerned as I am about the actuarial soundness of the Canada Pension Plan, it seems to me that it would be wise for this or any other government at the provincial level to look for ways to mitigate the burden of payroll taxes at a time when unemployment is such an acute problem.
Second, as the quotation from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business points out, this burden is disproportionately heavy on small and medium-sized firms. For example, if we look at the Ontario Premiers Council study done a couple of years ago at Canada in the world and the need for Canadian firms to compete internationally, the conclusion we have to come to is that
we are constantly struggling with the question of how we take our small firms and grow them into medium-sized firms, how we take our medium-sized firms and grow them into large international trading concerns. That should be our objective. The government wants consultation on prosperity. It seems to me that these studies have already been done and that is what they tell us.
If that is what we want to do and if that is what we need to accomplish in order to ensure the continuing prosperity of the people of our country, why would we simultaneously be devising tax systems that negatively affect just the kind of firms we are trying to make grow. We are shooting ourselves in the foot with our continued reliance on payroll taxes as a method of paying our costs as we go along. I wanted to express that concern.
Another concern that I have about the Canada Pension Plan is the use that the fund itself has historically been put to and continues to be put to in Canada. Unlike the province of Quebec that established its own pension fund as part of the Quebec Pension Plan, now operated by the Caisse de Depot in Quebec, the Canada Pension Plan has used its resources, not to grow them as well as possible, but essentially to lend money at preferred rates to the provinces of Canada. That may have made sense at the time, but when you contrast the effect that the Caisse de Depot has had in Quebec with what has occurred as a result of the investments made by the Canada Pension Plan, frankly the federal plan comes up short. I think that Quebec has demonstrated to us what a mixed economy can really accomplish.
If you take a government plan, and use it as an engine of growth in the economy, some amazing things can be achieved. The existence and the subsequent growth of many well-established Quebec firms as international competitors is in no small part due to the role that has been played over the last decades by the Caisse de Depot.
In Canada we have taken the contributions of employers and employees to the Canada Pension Plan, put them aside in a fund and generally loaned the money to provincial governments at slightly less than market rates.
It has been fine for the provincial governments and I suppose the theory is that since the loans are made available in proportion to the contributions made to the plan that really the contributors are benefiting through somewhat lower provincial tax rates at the time the loans are being made.

Since we are here today to discuss the soundness of this plan, you have to wonder whether the kind of mixed policy objective that gives a bit of saving today very indirectly through perhaps a mitigation of provincial taxes is really worth while in the long run when what we should really be doing is saying: "Let's set this fund aside. Let's ensure that it does as well as possibly can be for the benefit of the contributors and the right to entitlement in the future". That seems to me a better approach.
I would urge the government to take it upon itself to look again at some of the basic principles that have been applied in the development of the CPP and its operation over the last two and a half decades and ask some fundamental questions.
Perhaps now is the time to begin moving away from that investment approach and to look to establishing at least a hybrid system in which part of the fund is invested in growth investments to the benefit not only of the contributors and future beneficiaries of the fund but also to the Canadian economy in which investment of this sort could well be used.
We have in Canada a tendency to suffer from a lack of research and development. We have difficulty raising investment capital particularly for Canadian firms that will do a great deal of research and development. Our performance of R and D has lagged behind our major competitors internationally, partly because our economy has been so heavily based upon resources and second, on branch plants, generally branches of U.S. firms which do their research close to head office.
What an opportunity we have with the vast resource that is flowing into the Canada Pension Plan to provide capital for the performance of future looking research and development for the benefit of Canada and also I believe for the benefit ultimately of the contributors and the beneficiaries of the Canada Pension Plan. Why are we not looking at some of these ideas?
My time is completed but I think it is not enough just to pass this legislation and pat ourselves on the back and say: "Fine, we're making the CPP sound for the baby boom generation. They're going to collect it after all".
Government Orders
Now is the opportunity to look closely at how we are doing things in this country and question all of the assumptions of the past and look now for ways to do things better and differently.


Mr. Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assini-boia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and direct a question to my hon. friend from Ottawa South.
First I want to congratulate him for his spirited defence of the RRSP regime last evening and I certainly want to associate myself fully with his remarks in that regard.
I feel there is perhaps an omission within Bill C-39. It relates to the plight of disabled Canadians who have contributed, through their earnings, to the Canada Pension Plan fund and who are obliged to leave their employment as a result of the disability but who are unaware of the possibility of receiving a disability pension, Believe it or not, there are still some Canadians in that position. They are unaware of the possibility of securing the benefit themselves and have not heard about it from medical people or from nurses or from friends or from family. By the time they do learn of the opportunity their entitlement is dissolved or has expired as a result of the application of the test of recency rules which I think require that a person contribute two of the last three years, five of the last ten. If the disabled person has not applied for CPP in that timeframe they simply are out of the picture.
Bill C-39 goes part way. It gives an opportunity to those people who could not apply as a direct result of their incapacity to have an application made for them. Then in the discretion of the minister the application can, in essence, be backdated to the time of the disability. However, that is only for people who are under an incapacity.
I have a concern about those other Canadians who are genuinely disabled but who simply did not know about the availability of the disability pension. I wonder if my hon. friend would be supportive of an amendment to try to open up this provision of the act to enable those few Canadians who were unaware of their opportunity to have the right to have their application backdated.

Government Orders


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has arisen also in my experience of constituency work. There have been individuals who either were unaware, or for whatever reason, did not get their applications filed in a timely fashion. I have always thought that the CPP rules were strangely arbitrary when you compare them, for example, to the rules which apply to veterans benefits. The administration of veterans disability programs has been exceedingly generous in allowing veterans to come forward to make disability claims many years after war service, upon demonstration of medical evidence that the injuries suffered were as a result of war service.
Another incongruity, for example, is between the disability provisions of CPP and those of the government's own superannuation plans. I have encountered situations where people were approved for superannuation disability benefits but not for CPP benefits, although you would think the payer is essentially the same entity and the tests of eligibility should correspond.
It seems to me that an extension of a rigid time formula that restricts people from what they are entitled to receive is not a fair way to administer the plan. The only benefit of a time limit is the ability to evaluate the evidence and that can be overcome provided there are conditions imposed which ensure that when a person makes a claim, their claim relates to a disability that arose during the time of eligibility. It is simply a bridging mechanism to allow people to backdate their claims upon satisfactory evidence of when the disability arose. So I would support that notion entirely.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend the first part of my time in addressing the general aspects of Bill C-39 which I support. I would like to spend the latter part of my time in pointing out where I think some improvements might in fact be made.
Bill C-39 proposes a number of changes to the Canada Pension Plan. I think the most significant of them is the one to ensure the long-term stability of the plan and to increase the amount of the children's benefits. The opportunity to discuss the social safety net and the position of the Canada Pension Plan in that net is always welcomed.
The Canada Pension Plan is a program which has in the past served Canadians very well. I believe it will continue to do so in the future. It is a key component of
the retirement income system in the country. Along with other elements of the pension benefits system, it has been a part of pension reform in recent years.
The first tier or level of the retirement income system in Canada is the Old Age Security Program, which provides the basic old age pension to seniors. It also includes the income tested guaranteed income supplement for low income pensioners, the income tested spousal allowance for 60 to 64 year old spouses of pensioners, and the allowance for widowed spouses for all low income widowed persons in this near elderly group.
In short, the OAS program provides a minimum income guarantee to more than 3.1 million senior citizens in this country. Of these, 1.4 million are also receiving the GIS low income supplement.
The second tier of the retirement system in this country is the Canada Pension Plan. This not only provides retirement income but also includes income protection for plan members and their dependent families in the event of disability and/or death.
The Canada Pension Plan plays a key role in providing a limited replacement of earnings for employed and self-employed earners up to a ceiling related to the average wage. In 1991 almost 1.9 million Canadians are receiving retirement pensions under the CPP. Another
600,000	are receiving similar benefits under the companion Quebec Pension Plan.
The third tier of Canada's retirement income system is composed of private sector arrangements which include employer sponsored pension and insurance plans, RRSPs and other private savings and investments.
One of the thrusts of this government has been to try to encourage greater self-reliance among all Canadians. It is for that reason the government has encouraged the use of private investment vehicles and particularly registered retirement savings plans. RRSPs have been available for a number of years and the proportion of Canadian workers contributing to them has increased significantly in recent years.
To support the personal retirement income objectives of Canadians further the government has made changes to the Income Tax Act effective with the 1991 taxation year. This allows for increases in the cash limits for tax deductible RRSP contributions. For example, in 1991 the RRSP limit is $11,500 or 18 per cent of eligible earnings, whichever is the lesser.
November 19, 1991

With respect to the Old Age Security Program I think it is commendable that despite the difficult financial circumstances and the requirement to pay so much in the way of service charges on the accumulated national debt the benefit payments under this program including the GIS and the spousal and widowed person's allowances have remained fully indexed.
In 1989 the government did introduce the tax back of Old Age Security benefits as part of its deficit reduction strategy, but this taxing back applies only to those Canadians with taxable income in excess of $50,000. The phase-out takes place in those income levels between $50,000 and $75,000 of taxable income.
In 1984 the maximum GIS rate for single pensioners was increased by $50 a month. Another major policy initiative under the OAS program was the introduction of the allowance for widowed spouses in 1985.
It is also important to point out that the low income elderly were protected from any adverse impact of the goods and services tax introduced this year. Not only were the monthly GIS payments to these pensioners fully indexed, but GIS recipients also received the quarterly GST credit.
The Canada Pension Plan back in 1987 was the subject of a number of major amendments. It included a provision for flexible retirement which allowed CPP members to take actuarially adjusted retirement pensions at any time from ages 60 to 70. There was also the introduction of the pension sharing provision between spouses which allowed for the sharing of retirement pensions earned by each spouse during the marriage.
There was also the introduction of the comprehensive financing agenda which will ensure the plan's long-term solvency. Today we are seeing the effective application of this provision in the financing amendments which are at the heart of this bill.
Other improvements at the time included expansion of the credit splitting provisions of the plan and a substantial increase in disability benefits.
What is referred to by the minister as a minor amendment is an important one. What it would do is
Government Orders
protect the rights of those incapacitated contributors who cannot act on their own behalf and thus may not have applied in time for any Canada Pension Plan benefit. The indication is that this class of amendment has a minimal effect on cost but would clarify legislation, simplify its application and allow payment of benefits where eligibility is not currently possible.
It is in this area that I believe strongly that some improvements could be made to the bill. In this country there are several hundred and perhaps several thousand Canadians who contributed during the course of their employment to the Canada Pension Plan and had to leave their employment as a result of physical or mental disability.
Despite all of the elaborate devices for notification and despite the fact that most of us would view that eligibility as common knowledge, the fact nevertheless remains that there are some Canadians who would qualify for the disability pension but simply did not apply in time. They have therefore been denied the opportunity to receive the kind of coverage which they deserve, to which they are entitled and for which they paid through their contributions.
I am going to take the liberty of referring once again in this House to a particular constituent of mine who has kindly authorized me to use her name. She is Mrs. Donna Sinclair of Swift Current, Saskatchewan. I suspect the situation of Mrs. Sinclair is similar to that of a number of other Canadians who should be able to participate and who should be able to receive a disability pension.
Mrs. Sinclair paid into the Canada Pension Plan from its inception back in 1966. She paid in for 11 of the 13 years between 1966 and 1978. She became disabled through diabetes. It is pretty clear that it was a disability. Unfortunately one of her legs was amputated in 1978. This precluded her further ability to work. Somehow it was not until 1987 some eight or nine years later that she became aware of the fact that she may well have been entitled to a disability pension. At that time she applied and she was barred by the test of recency rules which were alluded to previously.

November 19, 1991
Government Orders
Despite the fact that during her working time she had contributed 11 out of 13 years and had worked pretty well continuously, she became eligible because of the passage of time and because she did not know that she became eligible. No one had brought it to her attention. I think members on all sides have a handful of these situations. I believe it is a situation that cries out for redress.
It is not that it has not been mentioned before. I believe it has been raised in this House on a number of occasions. I know that it was raised during the adjournment debate in October 1989 when I referred specifically to Mrs. Sinclair's case. At that time the response of the parliamentary secretary to the minister was that the hon. member knew that his request to open the act to make amendments involved a process which was complex and required considerable time. Major changes to the CPP require the approval of two-thirds of the provinces having two-thirds of the Canadian population as well as the approval of Parliament. However he says: "I assure the hon. member that should the act be reopened his recommendations will be taken into consideration". That was in October 1989.
In June 1989 a question was put to the then Minister of National Health and Welfare. He indicated among other things that the government had no current intention of reopening the Canada Pension Plan Act but that should that arise they would certainly take into consideration the recommendations of the hon. gentleman.
In the meantime it is obvious that the act has been reopened. Presumably there have been discussions with the provinces. I am not sure what has happened to the plight of these people. I do not think there are a great many of them but I believe their situation cries out for redress.
There was a report made to the Minister of National Health and Welfare by the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Board in May 1990. That advisory body did make a statement in its wisdom. It is not a lengthy report. It is just six pages in length. The matter of the late applications was dealt with very briefly. I quote from page 4:
Given that the disability benefit is intended to replace lost earnings, that the recency retroactivity provisions are generous and that most individuals apply within the time allowed, the committee did not see that there was any need to liberalize the provisions.
With the greatest respect I find myself in disagreement with this conclusion. The fact that most individuals apply within the time allowed certainly does not solve the problem for those who through no fault of their own simply did not know about the opportunity and did not apply. It seems to me that the whole thrust of our social safety net is to ensure a certain level of income for people who have contributed. This woman and many others in her position have contributed to the system, and I think are deserving of receiving benefits from it.
I want to congratulate the government for acting on one of the recommendations, that the act be amended to grant late applicants the right to appeal on the basis they were incapable of applying for the disability benefit within the normal time limit. That is certainly beyond question. The person may have been unable to apply because of a mental incapacity. Perhaps they were in a coma or whatever. Clearly someone ought to be able to apply on their behalf. I think that Canadians would find that fair and reasonable.
I suggest that the same consideration should be granted to all of those disabled Canadians who were disabled at the time of leaving their employment. In fact they left their employment as a result of the disability and simply did not know about the opportunity. Through the passage of time and the application of these test of recency rules they became ineligible. I think the situation cries out for attention and I see no better time than the present. What I want to do is urge the government to consider an amendment. Failing that I want to encourage the committee to entertain an amendment to widen this provision to allow for retroactivity in terms of application.
I do not believe for a moment that the number of Canadians involved are large but I think that the need of those particular people certainly is great. They have paid into the plan and there is absolutely no reason why they should not be entitled to be able to qualify upon the appropriate proof.
To return again to the Sinclair case, I might add that I believe this government did make a procedural change in 1985 which resulted in notice going out to potential Canada Pension Plan applicants advising them of their rights and advising them of the opportunity. Unfortunately, this was not in existence prior to 1985. So there was no way that these people would know other than I
November 19, 1991

guess through the work place, through advice from neighbours, friends, medical people and so on. In spite of a fairly elaborate system of notice, it is clear that there are still people who fall through the cracks, if you like, people who would otherwise qualify but for the passage of time. I would again like to strongly urge the consideration of this House on an amendment in that regard.
I should point out that the suggestion has been made that that the matter could be dealt with through Private Members' Business, but with all due respect, I think not. Several members have had bills and motions in the hopper, but as you know, Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a game of chance. They may or may not be drawn for debate. They may or may not receive five hours of attention. They may or may not come to a vote.
I commend the hon. member for Don Valley East who has Bill C-280 on the table at the present time which would at least widen the opportunity for disabled people to apply. It would I believe lengthen the time and change the test of recency rules. The likelihood of that coming forward into a votable position is slim.
I think the time to deal with this matter is now. It is in front of the House and I detect sympathy on all sides for the position. It is not a big ticket item in terms of finances and I believe it calls for attention.
I would just like to conclude my remarks by saying that on balance, certainly I find the bill to be commendable and supportable. The increase in the child benefits is I think laudable. Making the Canada Pension Plan fiscally sound in future years I think is an absolute necessity.
All in all, I commend the minister for bringing forward these amendments but with the addendum that I think the matter of disabled Canadians does need attention. I do not think it is enough just to say that those who are incapacitated and incapable of making an application should be considered. I think all of those Canadians who were disabled, left their work as a result of disability, paid into the system, should have the opportunity to benefit by it.
Government Orders


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind comments about my Private Member's Bill C-280, and also to thank him very much for his remarks indicating that he feels this particular bill, C-39, should be amended to include those provisions relating to the limitation period on disability pensions under the Canada Pension Plan. He and I have had a great many difficulties raised with us by constituents and I know all members of the House have as well.
I was interested particularly in his remarks that he had been told that when the bill was reopened this provision would be dealt with, the limitation period on disability pensions. I was told that same thing back in 1985. The hon. member was told in 1989. Just recently I was told again that the next time there was another round of Canada Pension Plan amendments, the government would be pleased to put this forward and this time finally deal with it.
I understand that my office was contacted just this morning and the staff of the minister is going to be meeting with me tomorrow. I am sure they will be urging me again to wait for the next round. I do not think that is good enough, especially after seven or eight years of waiting now.
I want to ask the hon. member if he believes that one of the reasons that Canadians have lost confidence in politicians, have lost confidence in members of Parliament and have lost confidence in government is because of situations like this where all of us are inclined to listen to departmental staff, listen to ministers' staffs, wait, wait, wait for things that never come about, things which then the staff says were the fault of some other minister's staff and not their fault, just wait until the next time and things will be different. Does the hon. member agree with me that this is one of the Bbig reasons why Canadians are losing confidence with the political process?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to disagree with the position put by my colleague from Don Valley East.
I think part of the problem is that governments tend to do the big ticket items quite well, but there are a number of the little things that perhaps are left aside or are not considered important enough or perhaps fall in the cracks.

November 19, 1991
Government Orders
The number of people who would be affected by this minor amendment to the Canada Pension Plan legislation is probably in the hundreds or perhaps a few thousand. It is not a big ticket item at all. I think all that is required is the will to bring it forward for discussion.
It may well be that in a succession of ministers, that Mr. Epp, Mr. Beatty and, of course, our present minister, and I do not particularly fault them, but ministers come and go, members of Parliament come and go, but I think that bureaucracy tends to stay. They are the people who wrote the speeches and wrote the responses for the parliamentary secretary and said: "Yes, it will be dealt with". They are the ones who are here on an ongoing basis. But the fact is that when it comes time they, for whatever reasons, apparently choose not to deal with it.
I agree with the hon. member that putting it off is not good enough. I strongly urge members on all sides to seize this opportunity now in order to redress this problem. If it is not done now, it is quite clear that it will be put off again and again and again. The bureaucracy may view it as something small and it does not matter, there are only a few hundred people and it is not that important, but for those few hundred people it is awfully important. I think for Canadians generally it is important that the principles and the integrity of our social safety net be insured and that those benefits be available for all. It is not good enough for the bureaucrats and for the departmental people to hide out behind the regulations.
Just with reference to Mrs. Sinclair and her case that I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the fact is that she did appeal the denial, as is her right, to a tribunal composed of three people, the government representative, her own representative and a chairperson. Indeed those three people earlier this year unanimously said: "Yes, of course this woman should qualify." They cited charter reasons and they cited simple justice, if you like. But, of course, the departmental people, the bureaucrats in their wisdom have seen fit to appeal this. It is not good enough that the lay board said that of course the woman should qualify. Our bureaucrats are out there saying: "Well here is the rule, the test of recency, and by gosh the fact that you paid in and the fact that you are disabled and the fact that you need this means not a damn thing".
It is pretty clear that the bureaucrats are going to say: "Well here is this Pension Plan Advisory Board report and there is this problem, budgetary problems and all the rest of it". They will find a million excuses, but the fact remains that there is a woman out there, I guess there are hundreds of Canadians out there who have paid in, are disabled, have a need, who are entitled and who should receive the benefits. The bureaucrats are not going to get those benefits to them. It is up to the elected representatives of the Canadian people in this place to ensure that it happens.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, speaking of rights, since those who have contributed have developed an inherent right to the plan, whether they are claiming disability benefits or the simple retirement pension plan benefits, would the member agree that as a matter of right, when a contributor has failed to file in time he should not be penalized. The automatic penalty is the interest on the benefits that the contributor has lost, but the inherent right to get those benefits must always be with the contributor and therefore the statutory limit as to the date of application perhaps is archaic and has to be abolished completely.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I didn't realize I was supposed to give the hon. member a chance to ask his question. Now I understand.
The first comment I want to make is that I am a little sensitive to the fact that it is easy for politicians to blame the civil service for lack of action. It is a very convenient scapegoat.
I have some sensitivity there. In fact, I have often said that it is unfortunate that we do not appreciate the quality of the civil servant. Perhaps we do not use them as well as we might in order to get the kinds of things that we want done.
Translation]


November 19, 1991

Very often, we fail to articulate what it is that we want done in terms that the civil service can in fact follow up on. I just wanted to make that point because I think that the civil service is too often maligned.
I am pleased to be able to stand in the House today to talk about an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Family Allowances Act and the Old Age Security Act. What is in fact being done here? First of all, the major goal appears to be one where you want to ensure that there is solvency in this particular plan. I have no particular difficulties with that, but I want to probe it just a bit.
Second, there will be more benefits for children, and I am absolutely delighted. I think it is something that should have happened some time ago. Thank goodness it is about to happen.
There will be some additional provisions, and I applaud that as well, for incapacitated or disabled Canadians. I think there needs to be more work done in that area. At the very least, these Canadians-the others as well-need to know in very clear, simple language what it is that is available to them.
Those particular provisions are often extremely confusing. They are described in language that is not terribly clear. I am not suggesting that people are intentionally doing that. It is a reality and I hope we could come to grips with that.
The notion of credit splitting is something that is past due. I am pleased that this is in fact happening now. I think it is a positive measure. Of course, there is administrative streamlining.
While I see that as a potential benefit, I am always a little suspicious that when we administratively streamline something there may be some other motivation there, for example, to see whether or not we can move funds about from one program to another. If it is to save money but not at the expense of Canadians that need it, then I applaud it. If it has additional motivations, then I am not at all pleased.
Let me address the question of solvency because I think it is an extremely important one. In fact, it appears to be the major goal of the government with respect to this particular project. It is to ensure that this particular
Government Orders
plan will be self-sufficient, that there will not be any deficits and that it will be able to pay for itself.
When the government suggests that this needs to be done now, it gives three reasons. It is because, it says, of declining birth rates, diminishing worker productivity and early retirement. These are all realities, but at the same time it does not go any further and I am not surprised.
It has not talked about the unemployed people in Canada, the almost 1.5 million who are not in a position to be able to contribute to this fund. It has not talked about the difficulties in the economy which has not only created unemployed Canadians, but has also brought about a downsizing to the economy and has given many Canadians very little choice but to take early retirement.
Those are other reasons why this particular program finds itself short of funds. It has in fact been caused in part by the mismanagement of the national economy by the government. I do not say that unkindly. I think if one looks at the facts in a very rational kind of way, one will know that that is exactly true.
I want to review why the government is doing this. It is to ensure the continued good health of the Canada Pension Plan and for the provision of increased benefits for 170,000 children of deceased plan participants and benefits that will grow from $113 to $148 a month. I think that is very positive, and I applaud those measures.
I also want to point out, and I do not do so maliciously, that this is another tax. Whether you like it or not, you, I and many others will have to pay more. Therefore, it is another tax.
An interesting observation was made in February 1991 by Stewart MacLeod of the Thomson News Service. He pointed out that this kind of tax, this kind of user fee, was the third most important source of revenue for government today after income tax and sales tax. You can cloak it in all kinds of neat phrases and what have you, but it is still a tax and it should in fact be admitted that this is so. As I pointed out, it is the third most important source of revenue in Canada today.
The other observation I want make is as follows. [Translation]
We have no guarantees at all that this increase in contribution rates will be enough. No one can guarantee

November 19, 1991
Government Orders
that. In fact, we realize this increase may not be enough and that there may be further major problems with financing.
As you know, the provinces borrow money at a preferential rate, and they will continue to do so. If we consider the preferential rate enjoyed by the provinces, it is clear this also tends to reduce the amount of money available to the fund and in no way contributes to its stability.

I really feel very strongly that there needs to be an over-all review of this whole plan including this plan in terms of the other social programs available to Canadians. Of course the appropriate question would be why.
Let me quote from an article that I think makes the point most eloquently. It says, and I want to quote it directly: "We believe it is fundamentally wrong that a public pension program set up to cover the entire paid labour force is incapable of producing benefits large enough to keep most of its beneficiaries out of poverty". That is from the pension reform report of the National Council on Welfare of last February.
That is the major issue. This particular pension plan does not address a number of the actual issues that exist in Canada today. Let us talk briefly about that social scene.

Right here in Canada, about five million people live in poverty. Most of them are women, and one million are children. We know that today two million Canadians are on welfare, and that 1.8 million Canadians, including a high percentage of children will be fed by food banks. If I remember correctly, the proportion of children and young people is around 40 per cent.
At this very moment, nearly 1.5 million people are unemployed. How will these people be affected by these adjustments?

I think we have to realize that the assumptions have changed since this program was put afoot, since it was set up. Therefore we need to re-examine it right from the very beginning and some of the realities we have to deal with.
For example, there are more early retirements today. Perhaps it is as a result of a faltering economy or changing lifestyles and demographics or combinations thereof. There are fewer births than there were. Immigration patterns have changed. Work force patterns have changed.
Therefore I think it is absolutely essential to look at this particular program to see if it is as sound as it might be, not only from a financial perspective but in terms of responding to the needs of Canadians, and to see how it dovetails, how it fits with the other social programs in Canada so that we can have as effective a program as possible to respond to the real needs of Canadians.
Let me just make a few more points. I think all of us would admit-and I believe all members who have spoken today from all parties have indicated it-that these plans are still not doing a good enough job. They are in fact meeting a lot of needs of a lot of Canadians and that is very important. Surely our purpose in government is to continue to perfect those plans, to ensure that we have removed the glitches, to make them better than what they were and continue to improve upon them.
The question I would like to ask is: Where is the study that has examined all of the various situations which have been brought to the attention of the government and have been referred to in some of the addresses today. They identify some of the real difficulties that Canadians are having. Therefore, where is the response to this study?

Unfortunately, there is no such study, and the adjustments being made now, favourable though they may be, fail to focus on the real problems facing Canadians today.

I would have thought that one of the first things we would have done is ensure the solvency of this particular program, that we would have identified Canadians throughout the land who are experiencing difficulties, and that we would have brought about remedial procedures in order to correct those particular limitations. That is sadly lacking and it is really unfortunate. I would hope in the near future that something might be done.

What we really need in Canada is an examination of this plan. We need to examine its fundamental assumptions. We need to come to grips with new realities. We need to look at it in juxtaposition to other programs. We need to make, it seems to me, two commitments that are fundamental. The first commitment is that we want adequate protection for all Canadians who need this kind of assistance. I think all of us would say that. We need to debate openly the amount of protection and the kind of protection that Canadians should enjoy. Of course we need to make a commitment to have solvent plan.
Mr. Speaker, you and I both know that investments today will in fact make sure that happens in the future. However, I am really quite concerned about investments that perhaps do not address the realities of today or tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may give a brief summary. First of all, I welcome certain changes, up to a point. I think financial stability is absolutely essential. I approve of certain administrative changes, but I want to make it quite clear that I hope the purpose of these changes is to simplify procedures, not to take advantage of people or situations.
There are other measures that are excellent, and I am very pleased about that. But I repeat, it is extremely important to take a close look at the real problems I just identified and ensure there is a plan that will deal with these problems. Otherwise we may go on like this for a couple of years, making adjustments here and there without really finding a solution to the real problems the program is expected to deal with.

I am pleased that I have had an opportunity to say a few words about these important changes. Once again I think it is important to re-examine it from the very basis to ensure that it does the job that it needs to do, to examine the assumptions, the new realities, and to come forward with a commitment, a commitment from all parliamentarians that we need to address the financial and real needs of Canadians. We need to do it in a
Government Orders
responsible financial kind of way, but that should not prevent us from going forward now.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from St. Boniface for a well laid out presentation.
I would like to put on the record that I support the bill in principle first of all because it is attempting to ensure the good health of the Canada Pension Plan. It also has increased the benefits for children of deceased plan participants.
However I do have some concerns like my hon. colleague. I want to mention them and perhaps ask my colleague if he could comment on them. One of the areas of concern is that the citizens of Canada are fed up with paying more taxes. That goes for all classes of society. In this case when we look at increased premiums for the Canada Pension Plan, it is a form of another tax.
I would hope that the committee when it re-examines this bill will look at the impact of increased costs on modest and low income workers.
Another area we forget about quite often is the small business community, the small business sector across Canada that is feeling the pinch now and is faced with many expenses, especially in this time of recession. We see an increase in UIC premiums which again is another form of tax. Now we are talking about increases in Canada Pension Plan premiums. I believe we have to take that into account and make some recommendations to help these special sectors of our Canadian economy.
Another point I would like to make is perhaps one the hon. member did make. I would like him to reinforce it for us. It concerns the management of the fund. I think Canadians have to feel confident that the Canada Pension Plan is a well managed fund. I hope the hon. member would mention additional points on that issue.
I have a personal concern. Since becoming a member of Parliament I have been involved with a number of cases with respect to applications for disability pensions. I find that there seems to be a lack of compassion in the interpretation of the rules, a lack of flexibility, and a lack of definition with regard to the disability criteria clause dealing with prolonged and severe disability. I was

November 19, 1991
Government Orders
hoping that the government would address this issue in Bill C-39, but I guess it does not intend to do that.
I would also ask my hon. colleague to comment on whether he feels there should be no penalty for early retirement and that there should be no statutory limit on the date of application. I certainly feel very strongly with regard to those two items.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised a number of questions, and I thank him for each and every one of them.
First of all, turning to the well managed plan, it is absolutely essential. Otherwise we would lose confidence. Of course a loss of confidence is what I think could probably undermine it quite apart from insolvency. We need to ensure that the people managing it are doing so with openness and that the sharing of information is a reality. We as Canadians must have confidence that when the time comes for us and others to retire the situation will be as we have been led to believe it will be. That is a very important point.
I appreciate as well the reference to low and modest income earners and small business people, because it will impact significantly upon them. There is no doubt about that. I think we have to be particularly sensitive to them as well as to the middle class which in a sense is the motor of an economy such as ours. However, it has been so crushed by tax after tax, well over 30 right now, that that motor is not running well. Of course therein lies some of our problems, our economic instability, our unemployment and other kinds of difficulties as well.
The point is well taken. This is another tax. As I mentioned before, this is the third most important source of revenue for governments today. In other words, it raises more money than a number of other sources, only surpassed by income and sales taxes. It is a tax. We can cloak it in whatever kind of language we want, put little ribbons on it or what have you, but it is a tax that will affect all Canadians. Because the tax impositions have been so significant and so numerous during the last few years definitely there is some real concern.
The lack of definitions is a particularly good point as well. The member is quite right. It has perhaps been my greatest challenge as a member of Parliament in terms of
cases that I handle. I think it is easy to blame the bureaucracy, but the politicians who are in power know that this is a problem. They should tell the bureaucrats to come up with definitions that they can examine as people who govern and then say whether it is right or wrong or whether they need some additional work done.
I am a little worried about the cop-out that is being exercised here. We know some of those problems. People on the government side know what some of those problems are. Therefore I think it is very important for them to get the people to define, identify the problems, bring forward solutions and then choose them.
I have two other very quick reactions. Turning to no penalty for early retirement, I think that is something we should look at for the entire Canadian population. It would require some additional investments on the part of the worker. I applaud that in a philosophical sense. I would have to look at it very carefully. Certainly I think it should be available for Canadians. I would obviously like to see it solved.
One final point I believe is the question of retroactive benefits. It is one of the problems we have today. I met an 81-year old gentleman who did not know he was entitled to a certain program, and he got retroactive benefits for three years. He could have received them for 15, 16 or more years. I met a war widow who found out that she was entitled to two particular financial programs. She got retroactive benefits for one year in one instance and I think for three years in the other. It does not matter. She had been without that kind of support for 20 years. She had lost her house, raised her children and had a whole lot of difficulties.
I do not think it is fair to say to Canadians who were not aware of this-because some of them are not in a good enough state of health to be aware-that they have to pay the penalty. I think they should be entitled to it.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to take part in the debate on Bill C-39, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Family Allowances Act and the Old Age Security Act.
November 19, 1991

I would like to start by congratulating more specifically my colleague from Winnipeg North who led off the debate on this bill for the Liberals. He did an excellent job, as always, Mr. Speaker.
Bill C-39, introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, is an ambitious and complex piece of legislation, as pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who gave his analysis of the bill while explaining our party's position. Since my speaking time is limited, I would prefer to comment on some of the highlights of this bill.
The purpose of this bill is to make a number of changes in the Canada Pension Plan. The government tells us it has to raise contribution rates for employers and employees to ensure that the Canada Pension Plan fund is maintained at a satisfactory level. According to the government, these changes are intended to improve the financial position of the plan. At the present time, the contribution rate for employers and employees is 4.6 per cent. Under the proposed legislation, the government intends to double this contribution by the year 2011.
Mr. Speaker, you and I are both from the province of Quebec. I represent the riding of Saint-Leonard, and of course we have our own pension plan: the Quebec Pension Plan. However, the changes proposed in this bill will also oblige the Quebec government to raise the contribution rate in its own plan. In fact, I think it has already announced that it intends to do just that. As I was saying, even if we in Quebec do not have the Canada Pension Plan but our own Quebec Pension Plan, what we are doing here will be extremely important for Quebec.
The government is increasing the contribution rate for several reasons. Some of them I support. Of course, we have to ensure the Canada Pension Plan remains financially sound. But here again, and I repeat what I said yesterday in referring to unemployment insurance premiums, we have another tax increase. I agree, this is about the Canada Pension Plan, the Quebec Pension Plan and the Family Allowances Act, not unemployment insurance, but the problem is the same. Every time we raise the contribution rate for the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan or unemployment insurance, we increase the tax burden on workers and
Government Orders
employers. Considering the current state of the economy, such increases are difficult to justify.
The government says that the unemployed do not receive benefits under the plan and are thus not affected by these increases. That is true. But we must not forget that at the same time, the unemployed do not contribute to the plan because the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan are based on wage earnings.
So those who do not work do not contribute to this program. The present economic situation has not helped the Canada Pension Plan. As the government admitted yesterday, the unemployment insurance fund is running a huge deficit because of the recession. More people are receiving unemployment insurance benefits, but fewer are contributing because the contribution system is based on work. People who do not work do not contribute to the plan and neither do employers so that automatically puts the plan in difficulty.
When the minister tells us that the economic situation is not to blame for higher rates, I do not quite agree with him, because the economic situation has a direct effect on the pension plan.
The Conservative government is responsible for the economic slump. I am not the only one saying that; Canadian leaders have also said so. It is because of the monetary policy, the GST, the free trade treaty with the United States. The government must shoulder its responsibilities. When things go well, the government takes every opportunity to rise in this House to say so. But today it must face up to its responsibilities. It is responsible for having to raise contributions to the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans. The government should have presented Canadians with economic policies to keep these pension funds and the whole economy alive, instead of having so many bankruptcies. The bankruptcy statistics show that it is completely out of control, that unemployment is rising and that we have a financial problem.
I have still not talked about where small and mediumsized businesses fit into this. Imagine what it will do to small and medium-sized businesses. An analysis of all sectors of the economy and of self-employed workers shows that 50 per cent of workers in Canada work in small and medium-sized businesses; 92.7 per cent of the businesses in Canada fit into that category, since they

November 19, 1991
Government Orders
have fewer than 50 employees; 97.2 of businesses have 100 employees or less.
So when you add the increase that the Minister of National Health and Welfare imposed on us to the 7.1 per cent increase that the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced yesterday for unemployment insurance premiums, you realize that it is a very heavy burden at a time when everyone-workers, employers, small business people-is trying to revive the economy. Everybody is doing all they can to keep at least the existing jobs and to create new ones. We know that small and medium-sized businesses create 80 per cent of the jobs.
Since yesterday the comments from all quarters, management or labour, tell us that this is not the right time-it is time to encourage people to create jobs. If we want to encourage job creation, knowing that small and medium-sized businesses create 80 per cent of our jobs, that is precisely the sector that cannot pay such increases, that cannot afford them. That is why I say the timing is wrong. It is not the right time for an increase.
Of course I must admit that I agree with some things in the bill. For example, Bill C-39 proposes a $35 increase in benefits for dependent children of deceased or disabled contributors. There are some 170,000 children of deceased or disabled contributors in the country and no one can criticize an effort to help them in these difficult times.
Therefore, I do not want to give the impression that I am only criticizing. When the government does good things, I say so and I congratulate them. I also believe, and my colleague from Winnipeg North has said the same thing, as well as all my other colleagues who participated in this debate, that it is not true that the opposition only criticizes the government, because we also point out the good things it does. Unfortunately, the government does not do enough good things.
We are now trying to get out of a recession and it is not by imposing new taxes or by increasing existing ones that we will do that.
As I was saying, this bill has some good points but it is yet another tax at a bad time. The employers and workers of the country are the driving force of our
economy, but their purchasing power is continually being eroded, thus keeping our economy in a recession. In 1991 alone, there has been the GST, a 24 per cent increase in unemployment insurance premiums, and many other taxes, duties and fees. There are many hidden taxes. If one wants to apply to the immigration office for a relative to come to Canada, it costs $250 just to open the file. That is another tax.
It all adds up to quite a lot. I for one seriously wonder if the government's advisers really think about it, because the whole monetary policy of the government is aimed at reducing inflation. If we look at what causes inflation and eliminate everything produced, everything necessary, we realize that our inflation is caused by taxes. So on the one hand, the government keeps the dollar and interest rates high-of course now they are coming down, and I agree, but before going down, they went up and we must not forget that. The government brought the dollar and interest rates up and now it is bringing them down. After putting us in an untenable economic situation, it has now started to lower interest rates, yet we have said for a long time that these rates must come down.
Monetary policy was used to bring down inflation, but you cannot do that by penalizing businesses and consumers with taxes, because these taxes only serve to bring the inflation rate up. Therefore, there is a contradiction in the government's economic policies and I hope that advisers and the government itself will look at this situation, will stop taxing Canadians and instead try to help them out of this economic slump. Then we will be able to look at all our social programs to keep them sound, because nobody is opposed to keeping this pension plan healthy.
We of course support this bill in principle, as I said, but we nevertheless want to review it thoroughly in committee in order to find solutions and propose amendments. I also submit to my colleague from Winnipeg North that perhaps we could look at the issue of disability pensions in Canada. I represent the riding of Saint-Leonard and I imagine, Mr. Speaker, that your riding like mine and the ridings of other hon. members across the country have to deal with disability cases. Under our system you must literally be at death's door to be eligible for a disability pension in Canada.
[DOT]'.ftA'
November 19, 1991

If a young person has a medical problem that keeps him from working, he has a lot of time ahead of him, but if sick or disabled person has reached a certain age there are problems. I remember the case of a 55-year-old man in my riding-at 60 you are eligible for pension plan benefits, even though the amount is reduced-who underwent a major operation and the doctor told him, he was a construction worker: "You will no longer be able to work in construction. You must find lighter work." Less strenuous, Mr. Speaker? How is someone who worked all his life in the construction industry going to find a less strenuous job?
The doctor says in his report that this person is ill and cannot work in the construction industry, but he doesn't say he is unfit to work. Automatically this means he does not qualify for and does not get his disability pension, which creates a very real financial problem for the family. It means he won't be able to keep his children in college or university.
I think we should take this opportunity to consider how we could improve the whole issue of disability and the CPP, because this is very important. I would say that 25 per cent of the cases I have in my riding concern disability pensions. Of course, there are a number of cases of work-related accidents which come under provincial jurisdiction. As I said earlier, in Quebec we have our own Quebec Pension Plan, but if certain changes are made in the federal plan, Quebec's provincial plan will certainly follow suit. In fact, when Quebec made pensions available starting at the age of 60, the federal government had not yet done so but subsequently took Quebec's lead.
As far as we are concerned, at the federal level, we should take a look at the whole issue of disability. This is very important in the kind of society we have today, because when we get a little older, we are told: You can't do your job any more because of an accident or because of illness, but you could work at another job. When you consider how competitive the labour market is today, once you get to be a certain age it is a lot harder. So we should let these people have a disability pension. Some people may be able to do less strenuous work, part time, to help the family budget and keep their children in university or college, since our young people need a good education.
There is a whole series of social programs we have to review and we must do so as soon as possible.

I do not know how much time I have left. I probably
Government Orders
have three minutes. I will try to summarize for my English speaking electors and constituents in my riding of St. Leonard even though in Quebec we have our own Quebec Pension Plan.
We are talking here about the Canada Pension Plan and increasing the premiums that employees and employers have to pay. We want to ensure that the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec plan stays alive for a long time so that when the time comes we can all get our pensions. It is important and I agree that we should make sure that the program is alive and well financed.
Because of the economic situation that we are in I believe that the government should freeze premiums until we are in a better economic situation. The Quebec government has already indicated it will follow and freeze its premiums as well.
Yesterday's announcement of a 7.1 per cent increase in UI premiums will affect small businesses. Ninety per cent of businesses in Canada are small businesses. They will be affected very much. This will definitely not help them get out of the recession and create the jobs that we need so badly to get all the country out of the recession.
I would also like to talk about the disability part of the plan. There are a lot of people who through accident or sickness at age 50 or 55 hear the doctor say: "You cannot do the same work any more. Maybe you can do a light job". Taking into consideration the job market situation, it is very hard for a person of 50 or 55 years to adjust to a change of job when he has a physical disability.
In those cases we should look at the possibilities of allowing those people who are in need and suffering to get a disability pension before the age of 60. Then they can continue to look after their families and children who might be in college or university.
Thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker. I realize my time has expired.

November 19, 1991
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee B.
Mrs. Sparrow:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I may ask my colleagues in the House if there would be an opportunity to waive the 48-hour notice for the legislative committee to hold its first meeting.
Bill C-39 is going to go to a legislative committee and then the 48 hours puts us at a disadvantage. Potential witnesses that the parties would care to invite must be notified. If there were agreement and if the committee were struck through you, Mr. Speaker, perhaps through a combination of all three parties we could waive the 48-hour notice.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I will take into consideration the request of the member. Maybe we can have a discussion. There is a possibility that there is no problem, but I think the best way to proceed is through the Whips of the three parties.


Mr. Parker:: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to rise with regard to where this bill is going and how we are going to handle it. We have had some discussion. We have discussed it within our caucus and within our committees. We would like to see it go to a legislative committee as recommended. If they prefer to have a discussion with our House leader we have no objection to that.


TELESAT CANADA REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)) moved: that Bill C-38, an act to provide for the continuance of Telesat Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the disposal of the shares therein of Her Majesty in right of Canada, be read a second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to start debate on Bill C-38, an act that will enable the government to sell its shares in Telesat Canada.
Before speaking on the specifics of the legislation I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the government's privatization program and, within that context, the reason for our decision to sell the government's Telesat shares.
At the outset I think it is important to point out that Telesat Canada is not a Crown corporation. It is a mixed enterprise with public and private ownership. Therefore the sale of the government shares in the company is not technically a privatization of a Crown owned enterprise. However the principles of the privatization program do indeed apply to the proposed divestiture of the government's interests in Telesat.
When this government came to office in 1984 we inherited a fiscal situation that was described as being totally out of control. The deficit in 1984-85 was $38.5 billion. This consisted of $22.4 billion in interest on the accumulated debt to that date and $16.1 billion in operating deficits. In other words the government was spending $16 billion more on programs than it was receiving in revenues.
In contrast to the overspending of previous governments, this government stands for expenditure control and effective money management. Like any household, we realize that if your spending continues to sharply exceed your income, the bills keep piling up. That of course leads to serious financial difficulties.
The citizens of Canada have always known where this government stands on the fundamental issues. That is why they overwhelmingly elected us in 1984 and again in 1988. During this time we have achieved real fiscal progress.
As the February 1991 budget indicated, the deficit this year will be held despite the recession at $30.5 billion. The deficit would be substantially higher had we not through expenditure control turned the $16.1 billion operating deficit which we found in 1984 into a $12.5 billion surplus by fiscal year 1990-91. In other words we collected $12.5 billion more than we spent on programs.
November 19, 1991

In the next fiscal year, 1992-93, the deficit will fall below $25 billion and that is for the first time in a decade. By 1995-96 the deficit is forecast to decline to the $6 billion level or seven-tenths of one per cent of the Gross Domestic Product. By then the government will no longer be borrowing additional net funds in the financial markets. For the first time in a quarter of a century I might point out it will begin to buy back its bonds and the treasury bills known as that huge accumulated debt.
In pursuing our expenditure control program we have closely examined Crown corporations and other Crown investments. As members will recall the broad parameters of Canada's privatization program were first set out in the 1985 budget. At that time the then Minister of Finance announced our intention to review our inventory of Crown holdings with an eye to privatizing those commercially viable Canadian companies that no longer served a public policy purpose.

The time had come for the government to take steps reflecting the changes that had taken place during the past 30 or 40 years in Canada's economic and social infrastructure. As so often happens, the problems and priorities of the past had been dealt with, but new problems had arisen demanding new solutions.

In the past government ownership was a viable way of filling a private sector void protecting technology or contributing to nation building. By 1985 that was no longer the situation in many instances. Canada's economic and social infrastructures were relatively mature. The private sector was in a position to provide services once effectively delivered by the government. Moreover, in many cases the economy had the ability to grow and prosper without intrusive policies such as direct government participation in the economy.
Let me reiterate that the reduced need for Crown corporations to meet public policy goals can lead to a reduced drain on the federal Treasury. Given the fiscal quagmire that we inherited in 1984 and Canadians intense desire for more efficient management of public resources, the fiscal importance of the government's privatization program cannot be overstated.
Furthermore, privatizations will help reduce Canada's financial burden because all net proceeds from the sale of Crown corporations-and I want to make this veiy
Government Orders
clear-all net proceeds from the sale of Crown corporations will go into the debt servicing and reduction account, announced in the February budget and presently enshrined in legislation which is being debated at committee stage.
Although Telesat is not a Crown corporation, it is a company in which the government owns a controlling interest. Now I sit here and I watch the NDP sitting over there shaking their heads. I note that Bob Rae just privatized the Dome the other day. I see even the NDP is privatizing. The members sit over there and shake their heads, yet their brothers in the province are doing just that because they know it is the right thing to do.
Just to educate my hon. friend because obviously he does not know about Telesat, Telesat was set up in 1969 with three classes of shareholders; the government, telecommunications carriers and the public at large. It was not a Crown corporation, it was a mixed enterprise system. However, shares were never sold to the public but it was set up to do that. With the passage of Bill C-38 the government will be in position to sell 53 per cent of Telesat shares. It now owns 49.3 per cent of Telesat shares and 3.7 per cent is held by Canadian National Railways. The net proceeds from the sale of the government's Telesat shares will go to the debt servicing and reduction account. I understand that one of my colleagues in the opposition is asking the definition of net proceeds.
Basically net proceeds are all the money that is left over after the bills are paid. Telesat owes the Government of Canada $30 million. That is on our books and would have to be paid off by the moneys received from the proceeds of the sale, plus there are some legal expenditures and some finance expenditures for advisers on it, which are a minor part of the expenditures. But once those bills are paid, the entire balance goes into the debt reduction fund.
That is one of the things about our privatization program, as a matter of fact, that is different from other countries. For example, in Britain their Crown corporations are not on their books for anything. So every penny realized from a sale of a Crown corporation goes directly into their consolidated revenue fund. However, our situation in Canada is different. When Crown corporations are formed or borrow money from governments, they are put on the books of the government of the day and, of course, those loans, those moneys owing to the government must be repaid to the taxpayers of the

Government Orders
country when a sale takes place. Such as the case with Air Canada and such as the case here with Telesat.
The privatization program, I might point out, Mr. Speaker, also contributes to the growth of the Canadian economy. It does so by freeing up those commercially oriented Crown corporations whose potential for expansion and whose capacity to compete and diversify in an open market economy are stifled through the relative slowness of governmental decision making and through the lack of access to the equity capital markets for funds to help the company grow.
Since we began the privatization program, 20 privatization initiatives have been undertaken and nine entities have been dissolved. As a result of these initiatives, close to 50,000 employees have been transferred from the public to the private sector. In effect, the government's direct participation in the economy has been substantially reduced.

Telesat Canada was set up as a mixed enterprise, involving the government and several major communications carriers, with the mission to develop a national satellite telecommunications network. Today we can say: mission accomplished.

Telesat Canada now owns and operates six satellites, provides commercial satellite services and facilities nation-wide, including northern and remote areas of Canada. The company's revenues are derived from leasing satellite capacity to television broadcasting enterprises and telephone companies and through the provision of voice, data and imaging services to business. As well, the company offers international telecommunications consulting services.
In other words, Telesat Canada is a commercial success story and no longer requires government participation to fulfil its public policy role. In fact, continued government participation does not represent an appropriate use of taxpayers' dollars. Moreover, selling the government's Telesat shares will give the company both a stronger incentive and a more flexible means of pursuing its commercial opportunities.
Let me explain that in greater detail because I think it is very important for the people of Canada to understand. The company is subject to growing competition, most notably from domestic terrestrial carriers and Telesat's counterparts in the United States.
In order to compete successfully and retain its share of the market, Telesat must become more innovative, cost effective and efficient. That is why we are proposing to repeal the Telesat Canada Act and sell the government's Telesat shares to a private sector interest. Proceeding in this manner will enable Telesat to obtain access to the private equity capital and leadership that will help it to maintain its position in the marketplace and, of course, continue to provide state of the art services that users are demanding today.
Let me now turn to the key provisions of the legislation. The Telesat Canada reorganization and divestiture bill transfers the common shares of Telesat held by the Minister of Finance, 49.3 per cent as I mentioned earlier, to the Minister of State (Finance and Privatization). It also transfers CN's 3.7 per cent interest in Telesat to the minister and as a result the minister of state will hold 53 per cent, a control block of the shares.
The legislation will authorize the minister to offer the majority block of Telesat shares for sale. CN will receive its proportionate share of the net proceeds from the sale of its shares. The net proceeds from the sale of the government's shares, as I mentioned earlier, will go the debt servicing and reduction account.
The bill also provides that the company be continued under the Canada Business Corporations Act. This will ensure that Telesat will be subject to the same corporate rules as other private business corporations. Upon continuance, the current Telesat Canada Act will be repealed.
I wish to emphasize to my hon. colleagues that under this legislation, no more than 20 per cent of Telesat shares may be owned in total, directly or indirectly, by non-residents of Canada. This will ensure that Telesat will remain Canadian controlled in the future while allowing a reasonable amount of foreign investment in the company. This provision conforms to the government's policy of restricting non-resident ownership in telecommunications carriers to the 20 per cent level.
November 19, 1991

The government has taken steps through this legislation to ensure that the company cannot be wound up without prior legislative approval. Telesat will also be required as a minimum to continue to establish satellite communications systems and provide satellite based telecommunication services in Canada. In this regard, the company will continue to be regulated as a telecommunications common carrier by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC.
I briefly mentioned earlier that Telesat Canada provides commercial satellite services and facilities nationwide, including northern and remote areas of Canada. In fact, as a result of government policy, Telesat is the primary vehicle for providing the northern and remote areas of Canada with access to telephone, broadcasting and other telecommunications services which are so important for this vast country.
Accordingly, the government will require Telesat to continue to serve the northern and remote areas of Canada. I would stress that under the Radiocommunications Act, the government has the necessary legislative powers to enforce this policy, which I might add, should not increase Telesat's operating costs. In fact the provision of its services to the northern and remote areas of the country are profitable for Telesat and are unlikely to be abandoned under any scenario.
Returning to the legislation, as I stated, Telesat will continue to be regulated by the CRTC. As well, any transfer of control of Telesat will require prior approval of the CRTC. Similarly, Telesat will be restricted from selling, leasing, lending or otherwise disposing of its property which is integral to the provision of its key services again without the approval of the CRTC.
The CRTC believes that some of Telesat services are offered in sufficiently competitive markets and therefore these services need not be regulated. Therefore this bill gives the CRTC the power to refrain from regulating Telesat's activities where the CRTC is satisfied that the degree of market competition will ensure just and reasonable rates and non-discriminatoiy service.
Government Orders
Let me give you an example if I might. Satellite dishes are provided both by Telesat and by other many private suppliers. Therefore, the CRTC would not have to ensure the continued supply of these items. I think if any of us drive in any of our communities in any of our constituencies, we see a myriad of dishes of varying sizes and forms for sale. This needs not be regulated by the CRTC, so that of course is provided for in this bill.
It is not intended to circumvent CRTC's power to regulate Telesat-we should make that very clear-or in particular, the company's monopoly activities. I might say that this particular section in the bill is at the request of the CRTC. It feels that if there is competition in the marketplace, it should not be required to regulate one person or one individual supplier while the others are not being regulated. Of course that makes sense.
The government will also take steps to make sure that Telesat will be in an optimal position to supply its satellite services to Canadians. For a minimum of 10 years following the sale of the government's Telesat shares, no other telecommunications carrier will be issued a licence under the Radiocommunications Act to operate fixed satellite facilities in Canada.
This will contribute to a stable business environment for Telesat after the government has sold its shares in the company and is a reasonable approach, given expected traffic levels. It will also help Telesat to better serve the Canadian market and meet its responsibility of providing satellite based services to the northern and remote areas of Canada.
The government's privatization policy gives high priority to respecting the concerns of employees. The sale of the government's shares in Telesat will not affect the existing terms and conditions of employment, including employee pensions.
Also we will require as a condition of sale that the purchaser of Telesat continues the employee's share ownership plan that was implemented by the company in January 1990.1 might say in passing that over 60 per cent of the Telesat employees are participating in this plan. It has been very well received by the employees.

November 19, 1991
Government Orders
Bidders for the government's Telesat shares will also need to state their intentions regarding the use of Canada's two official languages and the maintenance of Telesat's headquarters and operations in the national capital region.
The government recognizes the importance of technology based industries to current and future economic development in Canada. Therefore, consistent with our desire that this important industrial sector continues to thrive, the agreement of purchase and sale will require Telesat to consider Canadian suppliers first and that the Minister of Communications be consulted about any major procurement plans of Telesat.
The divestiture of Telesat will proceed by way of a third party sale which will take place through a competitive bidding process. This will be put into motion following the passage of this bill.
As is standard there will be a first round to identify a short list of serious bidders. That would be followed by a final bidding from which the purchaser will be selected. With the exception of the 20 per cent non-resident ownership limit, there will be no restrictions on who may bid to purchase the government's shares in Telesat Canada. However, consistent with the government's policy of fostering competition within the telecommunications sector, the sale will be subject to the Competition Act.
What this means is that the sale will be reviewed by the director of investigation and research within the Bureau of Competition Policy to ensure that it complies with Canadian competition laws. The sale process will not commence until this bill receives royal assent. To facilitate that process I want to take this opportunity to encourage all interested parties to notify the director at the earliest opportunity of their intention to bid for our shares in Telesat. This will enable the director to identify at an early stage if there are competition issues that need to be addressed. I understand that already the director has been approached by companies interested in bidding.
I would encourage others that have not done so to do so.
Our approach to government ownership is pragmatic. We are not divesting ourselves of government holdings because of any ideological biases. Instead we are seeking
to rationalize government by divesting those Crown investments where government ownership is no longer necessary to fulfil a public policy purpose and by liberating commercially oriented Crown holdings with an economic potential that is unattainable as long as they remain under public stewardship.
In this respect the sale of the government's shares in Telesat will fully privatize the company. No longer will government officials and nominees sit on its board and no longer will it have to operate within the restrictions of the Telesat Canada Act.
This new freedom to manage its affairs in a fully commercial manner will allow Telesat to exploit fully the exciting opportunities in the rapidly changing telecommunications industry. Anybody who has had the pleasure of visiting the company's headquarters here in the national capital region will be very impressed at the technology that has been developed here in Canada and that is continuing to be developed. I know the member who represents the area where the company is located is in the House today and is very interested in this debate. He is nodding his head in agreement that it is a very exciting place to see. I do not want to start company tours out there or anything, but if people are interested I would certainly recommend that they visit because it is quite an exciting operation.
Finally I would say that a fully privatized Telesat should be able to capitalize on potential new business possibilities with its new owners. I think that goes without saying.
I look forward to the participation of opposition party colleagues in this debate and the ensuing study in committee. I believe that once carefully examined, all parties will see the wisdom of this divestiture, wholeheartedly support this bill and assure its passage in a reasonable period of time.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the second reading debate of the Telesat Canada bill. I have listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. minister. During my remarks I will raise questions with regard to some of the issues he has discussed. I look forward to being able to deal with many of those issues later at committee.
November 19, 1991

Just what are we doing here now with this bill to privatize Telesat Canada? What is privatization these days?
The field of privatization has actually been around for quite a while. A long time before I got here I think it used to be called divestiture but that was not as nice a word as modern days demanded. At some point we developed the term privatization to take the place of the word divestiture. That coasted along for a little while. Then there was some thought that the word privatization was a little too narrow in focus and that perhaps the word private was not quite right and we developed the term public participation. I guess the term public participation sounded much more appealing to the public and it had a nice ring to it. Some of the other privatization bills that we have been through in this House have used the term public participation.
In this particular bill involving Telesat we do not use the term public participation. We use the term disposal. We may have gone full circle. We are now getting rid of something. The term is not quite so glamorous as the others, but we have to get on with the issue no matter what term we use.
Telesat Canada was founded in 1969 as has been pointed out. I want to bring the attention of the House to the objects that were put in place for Telesat Canada when it was founded. This is a statute of Canada so I suppose I do not have to read on and on. It is fairly short. The objects are to:
(a)	establish satellite telecommunication systems providing on a commercial basis telecommunication services between locations in Canada and, subject to the appropriate intergovernmental arrangements, to and between other locations;
(b)	supply, on a commercial basis, satellite telecommunication systems and elements thereof in Canada or elsewhere; and
(c)	provide, on a commercial basis, services associated with development, implementation and operation of satellite telecommunication systems and elements thereof in Canada or elsewhere.
I point out the words "or elsewhere" in subsections (b) and (c). Today I gather that Telesat has confined its telecommunications service deliveries to Canada or at least for the Canadian market. But there is another
Government Orders
Canadian company that is operating outside Canada carrying Canadian telecommunications internationally.
There is also a section here that requires Telesat Canada to utilize to the extent practicable Canadian research, design, industrial personnel technology and facilities and research and development connected with satellite telecommunication systems. That is quite a mandate. Since 1969 Canada has fostered a lot of development and progress in that field. I think it is fair to say that we have been on the leading edge as a country.
Telesat Canada now maintains six satellites in space. One other satellite was recently leased to an American multinational. It will be going out of service I gather in a relatively short period of time. All of these satellites that are up there will in fact end their useful lives either because of the bum out of the power source or the change in the orbit.
In any event our Anik satellites are doing well now and Telesat Canada is doing well now. Just for the record I would like to make sure that we know what kinds of dollars we are dealing with here. I have three or four useful statistics for reference here. The operating revenues for the last completed report for the financial year 1990 were $177.8 million. The net earnings, which is a simple term for the profit but is not exclusively profit, were $30.4 million. The shareholders' equity, which would be the book value of what the government says the operational entity is worth for all shareholders including the government, is $282.4 million. The equity per common share is $38.45 per share.
The point to be made in looking at all of these statistics and looking back over a few years is that Telesat has prospered. Telesat has done extremely well. It has roughly doubled in its revenue generation in the last five years and it appears to have a strong future in the field.
The government says that it is privatizing or disposing of Telesat for a number of reasons. One of them is that the government has said it has achieved its objectives. I think the minister has probably reiterated that here today. In the documentation accompanying the government's bill is a statement that the government has achieved its objective of encouraging introduction development and the use of satellites in space technology in

November 19, 1991
Government Orders
the domestic commercial telecommunication sector through its investment in Telesat.
Yes, it has achieved all of those objectives and is continuing to achieve those. But are those the only objectives that Telesat had? In my view there were objectives that went beyond that. It included having a strong government presence in a field where there was previously not enough activity.
Now the government claims to have achieved the domestic objective but surely the challenge of maintaining a strong, vital Canadian presence in this satellite telecommunications sector domestically, if not internationally, remains. Just because we have achieved the initial objective of having a strong presence does not mean the challenge does not continue.
I want to point out that in terms of the business of government, privatization on its own is not stable ground for fostering further government activity. It really does not get any easier in government than selling something. All one must do is bundle it together in a package, as through the Telesat annual report, and sell it. You have the proceeds and everyone thinks you have done a great job. What you are selling is the work of Canadians, the initiative of Canadians, the product of this Parliament and the taxpayers' resources. If it is going to be sold then we want value for our money, but I do not think it is safe to base a privatization simply on ideology.
Sometimes I think that the government listens too intently to some of its friends on the issue of ideology. If we are going to sell a government entity then it should be done for reasons other than simple ideology. It should be done for reasons that are viable in business and based on common sense.
I would note that to sell something purely for ideological reasons is just as bad or dumb as acquiring something for ideological reasons. This was the case with many nationalizations all over the world over the last 50 or 100 years. I do not think ideology has a great role to play in any business enterprise.
The government has stated here that its goal is a healthy market driven telecommunications sector. Now I am curious whether or not the mere fact of this sale by itself will generate this market telecommunications sector. We in this House are going to have to be the judge.
We are going to have to judge it in advance because after the entity is sold it is too late.
Telesat Canada has been a monopoly for 22 years and the government has committed to maintaining Telesat as a monopoly for a further 10 years. There is no disrespect intended with respect to the prospective purchasers of these shares in terms of their market orientation. But I want to ask a question. If it is a monopoly now and if it is to continue to be a monopoly for a further 10 years, how much more market driven will this telecommunications sector be than it is now? It is simply a monopoly. The marketplace that purchases the services of Telesat is market driven to be sure, but the monopoly service that is provided is simply a monopoly.
We are just at the time when we know we are entering a domain of global competition. We are just at a time when Canada's industrial sector including the telecommunications sector needs all the help it can get. We need all the government support we can muster to challenge the world. Just at that point in time the government has chosen to bail out of Telesat. I do not know whether the timing is good. I suggest that it may not be. Just when we have to devote all that we possibly can as a nation to making our globally competitive enterprises successful, we are going to unhitch Telesat from our train. It does not mean that Telesat cannot continue doing its commercial work.
I want to raise a question and it is a question we will be dealing with later in debate, I am sure. I wonder whether or not there is more out there for Telesat with government involved.
I want to raise two or three issues with respect to the mechanism of the disposal of the privatization. The minister has discussed for us the issue of section 5(3) net sale proceeds. I have read that several times and I have discussed it with others. The minister has made an attempt to describe how the sale proceeds will be dealt with here. I am not too sure I have it nailed down yet. If the minister is correct, and I am sure he is, then I have another question to follow that as we chase each other around in this shell game. There is a lot of money involved here. He mentioned a figure of $30 million as being what is on the books of the Government of Canada as a loan.
November 19, 1991

Consider that I had an automobile and I turned that over to an agent and said: "Sell my car". If I bought the car for $5,000 and I made some improvements on it and it was to be sold for $10,000, when the sale was over I would expect to have $10,000 in my pocket. This would be minus the sale expenses. There would be a few sale expenses. There always are. I think that agent would come to me and say: "Here is the $10,000 minus the $500 it cost to sell it". I would say: "Thank you very much. Now I am going to use the money. It is mine, that $9,500".
What the government has said here in section 5(3) of the act is that when this sale is over it is only going to put toward the debt and debt service the net sale proceeds over and above the book value. If the book value is $30 million that is fine. At the end of the day the government is going to get all of the money including the $30 million. The loan that it says is on its books and the money that was extended came out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund many years ago. That was taxpayers' money. I am sure it sits on government books as a loan, but it is an asset of the taxpayer just as the shares of Telesat are an asset of the taxpayer. I do not care whether the money coming back to the government is by the repayment of a loan or by the sale of the shares. All I know is that as a taxpayer I want to see all of the money put toward debt service and debt reduction as the government has said it would.
We need an explanation. If the loose change here or the book value is $30 million, we on this side of the House want to know what happens to that $30 million. I think it ought to go to paying down the debt and/or for debt service.
Another issue raised in the sale is the reference to referring this sale to the competition branch. That sounds pretty good, but I think it may be a red herring. I think it is window dressing. I think it is something that has been inserted into the bill to make the bill look stronger, fairer and better than it really is. I will try and explain why.
The reason why this sale is to be submitted for review under the Competition Act is to determine whether or not there would be "any lessening of competition as a result of the sale". We know that Telesat has had a monopoly for 22 years and we know that it is going to continue to have a monopoly for a further 10 years. I
Government Orders
cannot figure out how there could ever be any less competition anyway if it is going to continue as a monopoly.
It would be philosophically and logically impossible for the merger review branch under the Competition Act to find that there would be less competition. There is not any now and there will not be any. I guess what I am trying to say is a zero is a zero is a zero.
There may be elements surrounding telecommunications services that involve competition. In the downstream marketing of the service there may be some aspect of competition there that needs to be studied. We will be able to address that later in our committee review of this bill.
The third item involves section 14 in what we are now calling forbearance. Forbearance is a term generated in the not too distant past to describe the ability of administrative regulators to avoid or forbear or decline to regulate or exercise regulatory powers in a particular area. I gather that the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that forbearance as a form of deregulation would be acceptable in the legal framework in Canada.
I do not have any problem with what they are saying, but I am sure all members would agree that if the government and/or this Parliament decides that there will or will not be a regulatory framework put in place for good public policy reasons then it should be this Parliament that makes the decision about whether or not the regulatory process should continue. I am not too sure that we want to be allowing the regulators to decide whether or not there should be regulation.
In this particular case and in fairness the government has indicated the criterion on which the regulator can base his decision on whether or not it will continue to regulate, and that means that criterion is the criterion of existing competition. This is the first time I have had to look at this mechanism of forbearance. I will call it back door deregulation. Before we implement it in this House I think we ought to make very sure it is exactly what we want.
Once it is put in place, and should problems develop in the field, Canadians could come back and say: "Wait a minute. We do not like what is happening there". We would have adopted a mechanism and put beyond our

November 19, 1991
Government Orders
reach at least for a short period of time the public policy regulatory initiative that is in place now.
The government has indicated that after the sale of Telesat it will continue the monopoly that it has now on a public policy basis. In other words, Telesat has the only gain in the satellite business for Canadian domestic telecommunications.
That is not in the bill. It is in the former statute. It is in the 1969 statute that created Telesat. It is not in the disposal of Telesat statute. I am not too sure why it is not there. If it is the government's policy to maintain a monopoly and continue a monopoly that existed in statute because it was put there by the legislators, I do not know why the government would not state that the monopoly would continue for another 10 years or for at least another 10 years.
In any event it is not there in the bill. The bill presumes that the public has made a decision or that this House has made a decision that a monopoly in providing these services is no longer necessary. I certainly have not come to that conclusion. There was a recent study commissioned by the government which discussed the issue of monopoly in telecommunication services. It referred to a period of a further five years. However that is an issue that my colleagues and I want to look more closely at before we are comfortable with all the provisions of this bill.
I want to raise a question in relation to the future of Telesat. It is really just conjecture, but we must recall that the only reason Telesat is there now is because there was a joint venture between the government and the private sector in 1969 or thereabouts. That is why it is there. Those are its roots and that is why it is thriving with its monopoly.
I can only speculate but I am curious about what will happen when the hardware that is up there now is finished. The satellites all have a useful life. I do not think any of them go beyond 10 years. I think eight years is one figure I read for the two current Anik-E satellites that were recently launched.
What happens when their orbits deteriorate or when they burn out? Will there be sufficient entrepreneurial initiative, with Telesat or whatever, to put up more Canadian satellites? I do not know that. There was not in 1969.
I know that the people who manage and run and give life to Telesat are professionals and business people. There are investors who have capital at stake. They are all large players such as Bell Canada, Telecom. There are some other investors as well.
Will there be the entrepreneurial initiative at that time to put up new satellites once the satellites have all gone their way? I do not have an answer to that, but I do know that there may well be competition which is not a bad thing. It is probably a good thing but the competition will be intense. It will come from countries like France, Japan and the United States as well as other countries whose governments continue to play a working role in telecommunications and in the business organization of space. I am not so sure that Canada ought to be pulling out. I have already made this point. I ask the question which we can continue to debate, and we will certainly ask the question at committee.
A fourth item related to the process of the sale is the commitment by the government to ensure the fostering of Canadian technology after the sale. It has described its commitment two separate ways in the documentation accompanying the bill. There is absolutely no reference to fostering Canadian technology in the bill itself.
Having pointed that out, I also want to recall for the House, because I have read it into the record, that the initial Telesat Canada bill did precisely that. It mandated the corporation to foster Canadian technology and information in that field. The first statement is that the government will require first consideration be given to Canadian suppliers. The other statement is that Telesat will have to use best efforts to buy from Canadian suppliers.
Maybe I am being too technical but first consideration and best efforts are two different mechanisms, two different standards. When those two different standards are held out in a framework where there is no statutory mandate, no requirement at all, I am curious exactly what Telesat is going to be asked to do.
Telesat will be composed of business people who will want to go out and cut good deals for their corporation. That is what their job is. That is what they are going to do. I am sure that they will not want to have their hands tied all the time in the way they make their purchases. They will want to buy good components and good information for good prices.
November 19, 1991

If the government is saying to us that it will insist that Telesat do this and if it is telling us by two different means what it wants, then the message when it is finally put to Telesat is going to be fuzzy. I think we would want to nail down that standard.
I would prefer to see something in the bill itself. As it stands now I think we can all acknowledge that what is there now in terms of commitment is not a promise. It really is not a commitment. It is a wish by the government that Telesat do that. I think that Canadians may want Telesat to do more than just want to buy Canadian or want to foster. I think we want to make sure that this area of telecommunications, where we are involved in the leading edge, is one that we remain strong in globally.
The last item has to do with access to the information after the sale. The government is going to make a decision about the bidding process. This is going to be a bidding process for these shares. It will not be a sale to the public through a stock market or through brokers. It will in fact be a process involving bids by parties that want to buy all or a part of the portion of Telesat that is for sale, slightly more than 53 per cent.
For those of us in this House who care about what happens to the taxpayers' dollars, and I know we all do, I know that when the sale is over we want to see where the money came in and where it went after that. We want to know how much was paid and if there was cash or something else as consideration.
We want to know what the other consideration for the purchase was. If it is as simple as cash that is great; it is easier to count. The Auditor General is very good at counting. The only issue then is the one I raised earlier involving the disposition of those moneys, which are now counted as being book values for the government.
I note that after the sale of de Havilland aircraft to Boeing we in this House have not to date been given all of the financial details. The sale was accomplished by means of a Governor in Council order, that is a statutory instrument. It is in fact a law of Canada.
I want to point out that I sit on a committee that has asked for that statutory instrument, that Order in Council, and the government has said that we cannot have it. We cannot have it because it was passed in cabinet. That
Government Orders
is a very serious problem. That is part of another agenda in another part of Parliament and is ongoing. However I do not think it is right. I know it is wrong for a government to sell an asset and when the legislators, the parliamentarians, ask what the terms of the deal were, how the money was moved around, the government says it is sorry but it cannot tell us.
There may be elements of commercial confidentiality involved in some of these transactions. Surely the government can find a way to deal with the commercial confidentiality. Members of this House certainly will want to do that. As I say that is another issue. But as we proceed with this privatization I rhetorically ask a question. When the financial details of this sale are complete six months or a year from now, if some member or a committee of this House asks what happened in this sale, where did the money go, how was it moved around, what were the terms, is the government going to say it is sorry but it cannot tell us? I hope not.
The record is not good. There are other issues like cabinet confidentiality that have to be taken into account here. I know this is going to be dealt with later. I raise it now so that as the minister prepares for whatever happens in cabinet he will take into account the fact that the members of this House are going to want to know what happened. It is only a matter of time before the question is asked.
I want to conclude. I began by discussing the role of ideology in some of the areas of privatization, not just in Canada but around the world. Eastern Europe is one area where there is a lot of privatizing going on. But there is privatizing going on even in communist states such as the Peoples Republic of China. It is helping to generate increased economic activity, market driven economic activity, where previously there was virtually none if we exclude the black market.
We have accomplished a great deal in this country, in North America and around the world, through ongoing government participation in large enterprises. Our world did not put men in space; the private sector did that. In every case man's space exploration involved a government commitment and participation. That happened in the U.S.A. That happened in the U.S.S.R. That happens in France now. Every single initiative has a government relationship behind it, and pardon the pun but that is what made it fly.

November 19, 1991
Government Orders
I do not think we should ever lose sight of the fact that government involvement in a mixed economy, in entrepreneurial initiatives, is not a bad thing.
I cannot wait to see the great rush of politicians to address and support the proposed high speed train from Quebec to Windsor in that corridor. I know it is a sleeper out there. I think there will be some proposals coming forward, but I will bet dollars to doughnuts there will be a mile long of politicians ready to jump in and pitch a piece of that high speed train technology and the enterprise. I do not mind that one bit. I am just saying: let us not assume that the only way we can go here is by selling off, privatizing, getting out of the business world. We have a mixed economy and we have to recognize it.
This government has a role to play in fostering all Canadian enterprise directly and indirectly, through involvement and non-involvement. It has to get on with it and knows it.
In terms of our general support for this bill, I have already raised a number of questions we believe are significant. We are in a position where we cannot support the bill at this time. We must withhold our support until we have good answers to all or most of these questions. On that basis we are not able to support the bill in principle at this time.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is good to have the opportunity to address this particular telecommunications issue.
I want to say first off, speaking on behalf of my New Democratic colleagues, that we have not taken an ideological approach in determining our support or lack of support for this particular piece of legislation. We look at it in terms of a pragmatic policy framework with respect to the issues of whether or not it makes sense in terms of cost recovery, in terms of the consumers' interests, and with respect to the development of future public policy initiatives.
In some aspects the privatization of Telesat may provide some benefits. I know, for example, right now that the industry is in deep difficulty with respect to the financial resources that can be set aside for research and development. Not much is going on there. It simply does not have the capacity to do so. A privatized industry may free up some of the initiatives to assist in that and I recognize that. But I think we have to look at it in
addressing whether or not this process of privatization, be it good or bad, is in fact appropriate for today.
I want to present three reasons why I think Telesat Canada should not be privatized, at least not at this time. First of all, in Canada we have a telecommunications policy that is virtually non-existent. We are sadly lacking in terms of an updated policy framework that we can take some philosophic direction from with respect to the whole question of whether or not this industry should be deregulated, privatized, et cetera. We really do not have that policy framework in place. Without this policy framework, this direction, we cannot really tell whether the privatization of Telesat Canada is in fact going to be in the long run beneficial or detrimental to Canada's interests.
Second, I want to address some of the financial aspects of this privatization. Telesat today is not in as attractive a position as it was a couple of years ago for the process of privatization to take place. Today it has a very high debt capital ratio. Without higher rates, which it has not been able to obtain through the CRTC, it is projected that Telesat Canada is going to lose money over the next few years.
It does not look good in terms of market opportunity for the disposal of these Crown assets, the 53 per cent controlling interest that Canada has in Telesat. I want to go into that in more detail.
The third point is the fact that Telesat Canada is this country's only domestic satellite telecommunication system for broadcasting, data and telephone transmission. The question remains that because it is our only domestic system, should Canada with a vested interest in this corporate entity be relinquishing its controlling interest? I think that is a very pertinent question to ask.
I want to return in more detail to each of these points that I have made. I want to touch first upon the lack of a definitive telecommunications polity in Canada. As I mentioned there is currently no federal policy on telecommunications, and yet the government is proceeding on an almost ad hoc basis through its process of privatization. One would think it is being driven by an ideological approach to try to sell off as many Crown assets as possible. There is no federal policy in telecommunica-

tions and yet we are going to sell off this very vital and important asset.
It is our satellite link to northern and remote areas of this country. It allows Canadians to see themselves through their own eyes. I have some serious reservations as to whether or not we should be relinquishing our window of opportunity in that industry.
Areas of Canada north of the 55th parallel depend almost entirely on satellite telecommunications for receiving long distance signals. Telesat carries virtually all the regional, interprovincial and national radio and television in Canada for our northern and more isolated communities. Eldon Thompson, president of Telesat Canada, said recently: "Given the sparse population of our country and our very difficult terrain and sometimes hostile climate, the Canadian telecommunications system has become vital to both the economic and social affairs of our country and our citizens". I think that everybody would agree with that statement. It is a very appropriate one. That is what makes the whole question of whether or not we should be relinquishing our control of this industry even more vital.
It said in the press release that it is the policy of the federal government that Telesat will be "required to follow the current government policy of providing the northern and remote areas of Canada with access to telephone, broadcasting and other communications services". That is not in the bill. I find the lack of this specific initiative, the fact that it is not in the bill, to be quite troublesome.
Policy is set by the government of the day. Policy can be changed easily as governments are changed. The question is: What guarantee do our northern and isolated communities have that the policy will not change? Without the benefit of an active Parliament, northern and remote areas could in fact lose their essential satellite services. This is reflected in Mr. Thompson's statement that I have just quoted. It is not in the bill. It is a sad oversight that the bill does not in fact entrench this requirement.
Although the Minister of Communications has said there is no special cost in providing service to northern and remote areas, no one really knows what the lay of the land is going to be in terms of our technological
Government Orders
future, even five or six years from now. Will that have an effect on our ability to provide this northern and remote service?
I would like to quote what the president of Telesat said just recently in committee hearings. He was reflecting on the fact that in 1997 the company may not be making money. He was talking about replacements for the hardware, the satellites, and said:
When we get to 1997 and we have to commission replacements for them, the shareholders may decide they cannot afford them or they will build something very small to carry voice and data traffic for the north only.
I think that outlines a very legitimate concern. The cash flow projections for Telesat over the next decade are not terribly healthy. What happens when they have to commission the cost of a new satellite and they do not have the operating funds to do so? What happens when there is no statutory requirement through this current legislation to entrench the necessity for the provision of northern remote services? It may very well be sacrificed or trimmed down quite significantly.
Does this mean that the north and remote areas of Canada, which are the bulk of the land mass of Canada, may only have assured service over the next decade?
The other point I want to make in this respect is that policies that have been directing our broadcast system have been made almost on an ad hoc basis. There is really no contemporary social policy framework in which to set the direction for telecommunications in Canada. Policies that direct our broadcast system have been made by looking through a microscope. Policies have been made to fit each individual area, with no over-all regulatory framework.
The technology of today has far outpaced the regulatory framework in which we continue to operate. I mean our federal policy is really embodied in an act which is almost 60 years old now. It is called the Railway Act from when we were dealing with telegraphy in Canada. Good heavens, we now have digitalization of services. We have direct broadcast satellites. We have short wave. We have the advent of optical fibre networks. None of this is addressed in that legislation. We have no capacity in our current legislative framework to deal with these advances that are taking place at an accelerating rate.
We have no policy to deal with the American death stars which are really direct broadcast satellites and will

November 19, 1991
5. ft 31
have a major impact on our broadcasting system. These kinds of questions simply have not been addressed because of that lack of policy framework. Yet here we go, ready to sell off one of our very important and very crucial assets in terms of a window in the telecommunications industry.
We are preparing to enter the 21st century with policies and regulations that are mired in the stone age of technology. I guess that is the simplest way to put it.
I see my time is limited. I hope I will have the opportunity to continue the debate after the House breaks. In that regard the sale of Telesat is premature. It is akin to putting the technological cart before the policy horse. The current system in that respect does not serve public or corporate interests. It is inefficient for telecommunications companies to explore avenues, do the research and development that is necessary and apply to the CRTC to find that their efforts were wasted because that may not in fact be the direction that the CRTC wants them to move.
My argument here is that before we do anything we have to update our policy. We have to update the direction in which Canada wants to go in terms of whether or not our telecommunications carriers should be privatized and whether or not they should continue to be regulated or in fact deregulated.
With respect to profitability I want to come back to this second point. I mentioned earlier that Telesat Canada is in a precarious financial position. Because of that I submit that its future very much depends on the agenda that will be set by its future shareholders, whoever those shareholders may be.
Telesat's shares were purchased in 1969 for some $30 million. Since then it has brought in almost $22 million in cash dividends over the years. It is not really costing the Canadian taxpayer any money. That money was invested at that time and is sitting there. Cash dividends have been returned to the Crown through the years and, if my numbers are correct, that $30 million translated into 1991 dollars would actually be worth almost $120 million.
We do have a substantial investment in there. I see my time is up. I will continue with this discussion at the earliest opportunity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: After Question Period and on resuming debate the hon. member will have five minutes left.

It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow the Canadian Council for International Co-operation will meet on Parliament Hill. Representatives of 129 member organizations across Canada will take part in the council's activities.
On behalf of the Minister for External Relations and international development, the hon. Monique Landry, and on behalf of all members of this House, including myself, I wish to extend a cordial welcome to all participants and wish them every success with their discussions on the importance of Canada's role in public development assistance, and I also want to congratulate them on the excellent work they are doing.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, during the 1984 election the Prime Minister's battle cry was jobs, jobs, jobs. Why not? He knows all about jobs. When he took charge of the Iron Ore Company there were 1,000 jobs in Schefferville. When he left six years later there were no jobs, indeed, no town. What he did for Schefferville he has been doing ever since for all of Canada.
Ask the hundreds of shopkeepers and the gas station owners who have had to close down because of crossborder shopping courtesy of the Prime Minister's insane
November 19, 1991

GST, or ask the thousands of fishermen and plant workers in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia who are jobless because foreign boats have pillaged their fish stocks while the Prime Minister stands idly by. Or, Mr. Speaker, ask the tens of thousands of factory workers whose jobs are going south, thanks to the Prime Minister's free trade fiasco.
Where will all this end, Mr. Speaker? Why does the Prime Minister not have the courage to call an election now so that the people of Canada can do to him what he has been doing to them and put him out of a job once and for all?


COPPER GREEN CENTRE
Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, Ontarians that live in the watershed of the Grand River can help give Canada's environment a future.
School children in Cambridge are bringing new meaning to the phrases "a penny for your thoughts" and "do you want my two cents worth?" They have started to collect literally tonnes of those unrolled pennies that most of us collect in dresser drawers. Every penny collected will assist in the construction of the COPPER Green Centre. To be located in Cambridge, plans for the COPPER Green Centre will include interactive displays, a conference centre for the environmental agenda, a university networked research facility and much more.
Of course these pennies alone will not pay for the project. However, as the campaign extends beyond Waterloo region and throughout all the schools and communities of the watershed, the pennies provide tangible evidence of the concern for the environment by children.
I congratulate the volunteers of the COPPER Trust Foundation for taking the leadership by organizing the many partners required to make this vision a success.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, during his appearance at the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool annual
meeting last Friday, the Minister of Agriculture explained that the reason for reducing the expected third line of defence payment from $1.3 billion to $800 million was because $800 million was all that he could find.
This was new information to this member and of great interest to the House. Until last Friday, the government did not want to say where the money was being found. It would say only that the money was coming from existing programs.
Now that the funds have been found, I urge the minister to do three things: first, tell the House where the $800 million is being found so that we can see which programs are being cut; second, pay out the $800 million before New Year's day; and third, negotiate a fairer system of farm price supports prior to next spring's seeding.
5k >k *


WELFARE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, municipal leaders in Algoma district were shocked a few weeks ago when they were told by welfare officials that welfare rolls this winter will reach 15 per cent as thousands of unemployed workers exhaust their unemployment insurance benefits and turn tBo welfare for income support.
In fact, in the first eight months of this year the number of people seeking welfare in organized municipalities in Algoma district has jumped from 3,814 in 1989 to over 10,000 in 1991 and welfare expenditures have increased by 400 per cent during that same period of time. The lay-offs at Algoma Steel in Ste. Sault Marie and the uranium mines in Elliot Lake last year will have an extremely adverse impact on municipal tax bills this year.
I have called on Premier Bob Rae to assume all welfare costs with the federal government, as is done in seven of the ten provinces in Canada, so as to reduce the burden on municipalities. I call on the federal government to recognize the human tragedy of thousands of workers losing their jobs and being forced to seek welfare. I call on the federal government to seek action to create jobs and give people honest work rather than welfare.

November 19, 1991


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, as of January 1, 1991, the Canada Post Corporation will raise its basic letter rate by two cents. The price of a stamp will rise from 40 cents to 42 cents, not including GST, and will total 45 cents, GST included.
To soften the impact of this decision, Canada Post is offering a one dollar discount coupon with every 50 stamps purchased. Do you think this is a windfall for consumers and the elderly? No, Mr. Speaker. With the proceeds of this rate increase, Canada Post is going to invest in renovation, new equipment and its box at the SkyDome in Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, I would be very surprised if Canada Post invited senior citizens from Abitibi to its box. I am therefore asking the Canada Post Corporation to postpone this rate increase for one year.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Cape Breton are struggling merely to survive. The present unemployment rate in Cape Breton is 20.9 per cent but we all know this is not a true figure for those who are unemployed. We know the true figure is probably double this percentage.
Our local employment offices are running out of money. There is no money left for job development projects and very little left for mobility assistance. We cannot even afford to send our people away to find work. Ottawa keeps telling them that there is no more money. We have good, hardworking, honest individuals who cannot get enough work to even qualify for unemployment insurance. The policies that are in place are doing nothing to help these families that are trying to overcome the adversities the government has created.
When is the government, through its federal agency, Enterprise Cape Breton, going to work with local municipal governments and develop creative short-term and
long-term job development programs for Canadians who are desperately in need of meaningful employment?


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the recent breakdown of the unity committee is an example of Canadian politics at its very worst.
In no other sector of Canadian society would a committee collapse into ultimatums and boycotts because there were differences in the organization or operation; not a town council, not a business boardroom, not a church committee, not any committee. Regular people would discuss the problems, resolve them and carry on. They do it every day. But here partisan politics takes over and the interests of politicians take priority over the interests of the country and everything else.
Probably all parties involved have made mistakes, including the Conservatives, the NDP and the Liberals. It is time they got on with the purpose of the committee and did the job they were sent here to do.
It is interesting to me that not one of my constituents has asked a question or even made a comment about the unity committee. Perhaps they just consider it more proof that we politicians are up here in an ivory tower dealing with problems we want to deal with but not the problems they want to deal with.


&quot;THE BLACK CANOE&quot;
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, today in Washington, D.C. The Black Canoe, the Spirit of Haida Gwaii, will be officially dedicated at the Canadian embassy. This masterpiece of monumental art perfectly distils the history, mood, desire, spirit and hope of the Haida people and humanity.
The brilliant perceptive mind of Bill Reid has brought forward from the dreamworld the shapes, forms and power of the Haida. Today is a day of greatness at Canada's embassy in the United States and a powerful delegation of Haida elders, chiefs and friends are celebrating with Bill Reid today.
During the construction of the great black bronze sculpture, Bill Reid took the time on a timeless after-
November 19, 1991

noon to tell my children the story of this black canoe and its 13 occupants. The stories of dogfish woman, bear mother, wolf, raven and the ancient reluctant conscript had a permanent effect on their lives.
During that afternoon at Granville Island I came to know the powers of great art and the importance of great artists such as Bill Reid. The Black Canoe speaks for Canada and it speaks of a world we must all seek to attain.


FARM MARKETING BOARDS
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton - Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, despite rumours of the demise of farm marketing boards, the federal government will not budge in its support of farm marketing boards despite renewed hope for a deal out of the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
This was echoed yesterday by our Minister for International Trade, as it already has been on many occasions stated by our Minister of Agriculture.
The minister stated that our position on marketing boards has been clear from the start. He said that we have a supply management system in this country which does not involve exports or distort trade patterns in other markets.
This government is committed to farm marketing boards and will not abandon them.


THE ECONOMY
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to remind the government that the city of Halifax shows no sign of recovering from this recession, a recession exacerbated by the government's high dollar policy, the regressive GST, high interest rates and cuts to equalization payments.
The statistics are at first merely figures on a page, but if the government chose, it could pull aside the veil of cold economics and it would see the human costs of these policies. It would see the bankruptcies, the people uprooted, families that are separated because some follow what has become the false hope of employment elsewhere. Or perhaps if the government chose, it could look at university graduates who, after years of higher education, search the streets of Halifax for a dream that for them has evaporated.
This government has to realize first that the Atlantic region is not emerging from this recession and that its facts and figures have no relevance for the people of Atlantic Canada or, indeed, for my city of Halifax where the unemployment rate is at 11.3 per cent.
Representatives from all levels of government have to sit down immediately to discuss the road ahead. The government must undertake to work with local industry to ensure diversification and community development. The work must begin now before it is too late.


TERRY WAITE
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, for five years people around the world have been praying for the release of Terry Waite, the British church envoy who was taken hostage in Lebanon while working to obtain the release of two American hostages.
I had the privilege of meeting Terry Waite in London, England in 1986 during a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference. A number of parliamentarians and their spouses attended a special breakfast during the conference. I had the honour to open the breakfast with a prayer. The guest speaker was Terry Waite and he spoke about his plans to return to Lebanon in a few days.
While we knew he would face grave risks during his return mission to Lebanon, none of us had any idea of the brutal ordeal he would face for five years. We thank God that he has been returned to his family. We pray that all remaining hostages will be freed and that the terrorists who have committed these crimes will cease this inhumane method of bargaining.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, remember the Brian Mulroney promise of seven years ago of jobs, jobs, jobs? Well here it is 1991 and Brian Mulroney has given us free trade, the GST, privatization, deregulation, more taxes, more debt, and cuts in social programs. And what do we have to show for it, an economy in a mess. Mr. Speaker, in my province of

November 19, 1991
According to a report in Saturday's Globe and Mail, Mr. Vander Zalm and Mr. Kempf kept the U.S. lumber coalition informed of Canadian strategy during the negotiations. The report says that sometimes on the same night that talks took place, Vander Zalm and Kempf would tell the Americans everything.
Mr. Speaker, it is time that this government packed its bags, and the sooner the better.


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, for several weeks in this House questions have been put to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs about the high level of interest rates on credit cards. Partially as a result, the issue is now being studied by the standing committee. Also partially as a result, several banks have begun the process of lowering those sky-high rates which I am sure they did not want parliamentarians to notice.
I rise in particular to thank the minister for his courage yesterday in going public, saying that in his opinion consumers ought to get a break and banks ought to lower their rates. Politicians can pass laws that meddle in the marketplace but how much better it is when important public figures like the minister make it clear that he believes average Canadians should be treated fairly.
It would have been easier to defend the status quo. The minister could have been the water boy for the banks, but he refused the easy way out; he told it like it is. Now it is up to the credit card czars to listen.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, new allegations have surfaced about the role of former B.C. premier Bill Vander Zalm and Socred forest minister Jack Kempf on their backroom deals with the Americans during the softwood lumber tariff negotiations.
According to a report in Saturday's Globe and Mail, Mr. Vander Zalm and Mr. Kempf kept the U.S. lumber coalition informed of Canadian strategy during the negotiations. The report says that sometimes on the same night that talks took place, Vander Zalm and Kempf would tell the Americans everything.
These shocking revelations raise additional questions about whether the federal government knew about this and did anything or, worse, condoned this behaviour. This is a political breach of trust and means we must be ever watchful of this government. The Tories and their few remaining friends in provincial capitals across this country are still looking for ways to sell out Canada at bargain basement prices.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that in Geneva today Canada, along with the United States and most European countries, signed a major international protocol which calls for measures to reduce emissions of pollutants which cause smog.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canada has played a lead role in shaping this protocol and in promoting the needs and targets of specific geographic areas for emission reductions.
The protocol is designed to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, VOCs, a major cause of ground level ozone, the major component of smog. This protocol will permit Canada to achieve a 30 per cent reduction of VOC emissions by 1999 in the lower Fraser Valley and in the Windsor-Quebec corridor.
The protocol also commits Canada to a national freeze of VOC emissions at 1988 levels to be achieved by 1999.
This represents a significant commitment and will require major efforts on the part of government, industry and the Canadian public, all of whom have participated in the development of the federal-provincial NOX/VOC management plan to reduce smog.
November 19, 1991



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House leader of the New Democratic Party for making that request.\nI wish that they would be tabled and that everyone in the country would read them. Bill C-22 has been a great success and I want people to know about it.\nGovernment Orders']
Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Today Canada reported its first merchandise trade deficit in more than 15 years. These numbers show imports at a record level.
We all remember the Prime Minister's election promise of jobs, jobs, jobs. What he did not say was that he was talking about jobs in Europe, jobs in Asia, jobs in America, but no jobs for Canada.
I want to ask the minister when the government will start creating jobs here in Canada and not overseas.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend was not in the House for most of the term of this government when we were creating as a country jobs, jobs, jobs every month.
I accept the fact that we have gone through a recession.
There is some difficulty that companies have endured during the recession, but I would caution my hon. friend from drawing conclusions about one month's trade figures. If he looks at the figures for last month, he will see that in the previous month's figures, we had record exports to the United States which indicates the strength of the free trade agreement in supporting job creation in this country.
My hon. friend should be cautious about drawing conclusions about this month's figures because next month he may be eating his words.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, statistics have been showing a downward trend for months and the figures released today are absolutely
Oral Questions
catastrophic for Canada. When will this government realize that its policy of a high dollar is killing the export industry in this country? When will the Minister for International Trade advise the Minister of Finance that the time has come to change this high dollar policy and to make sure that Canadian manufacturers can hire workers instead of creating more and more unemployment?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me just refer to some figures here that my hon. friend probably has missed.
If he looks at the first quarter of this year, 1991, he will see that the export level was $138 billion. In the second quarter, it was $145.9 billion. In the third quarter, the average is $150.2 billion. So there has been an increase each quarter during the full course of this year.
I do not recall my hon. friend being on his feet saying: "Isn't it a good thing that we have been seeing the economy of this country creating more exports". The only time he gets up on his feet is when he can walk around with that little black cloud that he loves to see hanging over his head and say: "Aha, we have seen a reduction in exports". What about the previous nine months of this year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: would like to quote from Doug Peters, the well respected chief economist at the Toronto-Dominion Bank.
He said today that these numbers show that the economy is still in intensive care. It is not me. It is the chief economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank from Bay Street, where the minister has a lot of friends.
Eveiybody in Canada knows that the problem is that we have to create jobs and this policy of a high dollar is killing the export industry in Canada. What we want from this government is a commitment that it will stop that policy of a high dollar and stop taking the Canadian economy off the life support that we are on at this time because the economy is in intensive care.
We have millions and millions of people who want the government to change these terrible economic policies.

November 19, 1991
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend talks about Douglas Peters.
Douglas Peters I understand is one of his economic advisers. What does he expect to hear from Douglas Peters?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This man is not an
objective observer of the economic scene in Canada. He is in the hip pocket of the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition knows that.
My hon. friend from Hamilton is starting to get excited. She says: "It is incredible". Go ask Douglas Peters where his political support lies.



Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Commissioner of Employers advised against raising UI premiums but the government went ahead and raised them 7.1 per cent. A parliamentary committee studying bankruptcy legislation advised against having a payroll tax, but the government did not listen.
When is this government going to start listening to the appeals of small business to put an end to these high taxes which are crippling small business?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, what is at issue here concerning the question of the UI premium rates is the financial health of the UI account and the additional burden on employers and employees.
As we stated yesterday, the difficulty of course was trying to find a balance between the two and I believe that we have achieved such a reasonable balance.
There are no quick fixes to the problem of the growing deficit under the UI account. Although, as I said yesterday, the hon. member may try to make the people believe that money will fall from the sky, it does not, and Canadians know the difference.
The alternative is to raise taxes or increase the deficit. We think that in the medium term it is to the advantage of the economy not to increase that deficit.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
One hundred and seventy-eight thousand more Canadians are unemployed than this time last year. The help wanted index is at its lowest level in seven and a half years. The government's 1984 commitment of jobs, jobs, jobs is being taxed, taxed, taxed away.
Why is the government making it so difficult for small businesses to lead us out of this recession and why can this government not see the pain and suffering that is being caused by its high tax policies?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member I am sure, just like I and every member in this House, hates to see any Canadian lose his job. She knows and people know that the government cannot prevent the loss of jobs all the time, like they want people to believe. This is impossible. Whenever someone is hit by a layoff he benefits from the unemployment insurance program for income maintenance, as well as from training and adjustment programs to help workers and industries adjust. This costs taxpayers some $3.4 billion a year. More importantly, we have economic policies which provide the framework for the economy to experience the same economic growth.
It cannot be done in a vacuum. These policies have got to work together to the advantage-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for the Yukon.


THE ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
[Translation\
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is obvious to millions of Canadians that our economy is in a slump. We have one and a half million unemployed and nearly two million people trying to make do on welfare. Plants are closing, farms are being shut down and thousands of children depend on food banks. All these people wonder why this government is not acting. In fact, the government is using to fight this crisis the very policies that landed us in this recession in the first place. It is fanning the flames. When is it going to help these millions of people presently living in despair?
November 19, 1991

[English\


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government is to bring down the rate of inflation and inflationary expectations, and to bring down interest rates. Interest rates have come down. That is the key to economic recovery, that is the key to investment and that is the key to new job creation.
The policy of the government to consolidate its debt, to deal with the deficit and deal with inflation, to bring down interest rates and to inject that kind of investor confidence in the country is the fundamental way to go in terms of creating a climate that will provide durable, sustainable recovery and long-term employment. That is the goal and that is the objective. I think there are a number of signals, a number of indicators that would point to the fact that we are on the right track.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, yes there are a number of indicators of what is happening with this government's economic policies and the major indicator today is the merchandise trade balance and the fact of what is really coming down. The government says it is bringing down unemployment, it is bringing down the inflation rate, but what it is bringing down is wheat exports. Crude petroleum exports are down, metal ore exports are down, passenger cars are down, aircraft and transportation equipment exports are down and jobs are gone. It is the worst record in 15 years.
The facts confirm that this government's policies are bringing this economy to its knees. I want to ask the minister when he will bring in a plan that will address the needs of the 3.5 million on unemployment or social assistance. When will he put Canadians back to work? When will he recognize his policies have failed and bring in something to help Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we have a plan and it
is working.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member points to a one month statistic. As I have indicated in the House before, the data that is coming in is volatile and you can have a variation from month to month.
Oral Questions
The fact is for the third quarter the merchandise trade balance was $4.8 million. Our exports have risen by 6 per cent since December.
The hon. member suggests that wheat exports are down. May I just simply remind her that one of the reasons that wheat exports are down is because we had labour strife and strikes.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that among other things has caused, in part, the downward trend in our merchandise balance of trade.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not being open when he says that this is just a short term problem, that it is just one month's problem. It is not one month's problem. I ask the minister to look at this chart which indicates that our trade surplus is down every year but one since 1982. The minister has to take responsibility here.
The minister should look at the faces of the farmers who have lost their farms, the workers who have lost their jobs and the child who is living in poverty and recognize that the policies of this government are not working.
If the minister cannot bring in a plan to deal with these issues now, he should get the Prime Minister to call an election and bring in a government like an NDP government that would deal with it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be aware, if she is not, that export volumes have risen each consecutive quarter. In quarter one of 1991, the volume was $138 billion; quarter two $145.9 billion; quarter three $150.2 billion. That does not seem to me like exports are going down.
What is important to bear in mind is that there was an influx of heavy imports, largely the result of machinery and equipment, plus a lot of automobile accessories and parts which would indicate that is a forerunner to further automotive production in the country, which I am sure will be reflected in future months. Notwithstanding the fact figures standing alone are not that attractive, the fact that there is that increase in imports is a clear indication of demand and strength in the Canadian economy.

November 19, 1991
Oral Questions CHILD POVERTY


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I rise today in this House on the issue of children and poverty in this country.
The Prime Minister and this government must face the fact that over one million Canadian children are living in poverty and that the token initiatives taken by this government do not correct this devastating reality. Thousands of children are living in conditions of the Third World here in Canada.
Will the government assure us today that from now on it will place top priority on the relief of child poverty and implement policies now which will guarantee that all Canadian children have a fair chance to develop to their potential.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does raise a very important question. I think she is referring to the report that was released today by the National Council of Welfare which does deliver some criticism toward the federal government and, indeed, as well to the provincial governments. I think it should be fair to recognize that in terms of transfers to the provinces, there are some $37 billion worth of transfers in the form of cash and in the form of tax points to the provinces. That has been increasing over the last five or six years at the rate of about 6 per cent per year. There has been some restraint placed upon it because of our serious fiscal deficit problem. The fact remains that CAP is still growing and transfers to the provinces are continuing to grow.
I know the hon. member is suggesting that the federal government should spend more, but if she is going to ask us to spend more, she had better identify the source.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. Our children are the future of this country. Government initiatives regarding children and poverty have not worked. Over the past seven years, the number of children living in poverty in Canada has increased in spite of a 3.7 percent reduction in the over-all number of
children. Far too many children depend on food banks and other charities. What message does the government want to send today to the thousands of parents and children who are lined up at food banks across Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would agree with me that the worst legacy that we could leave for our children and future generations is the burden of debt, the legacy of debt, and that is something that has to be considered as well.
I know the hon. member poses the question in a very serious way, but I ask her to consider the fact that the number of low income Canadians declined by over one million since this government has come into office. With tax reform, with a GST tax credit, with the increase in the child tax credit, the pensions, and a number of other reforms that have taken place, real incomes for the Canadian people have risen by a real rate of 2 per cent. While that may sound modest, the fact of the matter still remains that we are heading in the right direction in very difficult, tough financial circumstances.
I know that she is genuine in her concern, but I ask her to consider as well how we might best appropriate the funds that we have and utilize them more effectively and more efficiently so that we can get better value for the dollars that we have, scarce dollars, I might say, Mr. Speaker.


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The only legacy this government has given to the poor people is to make them even more poor.
The National Council of Welfare in its report today, to which the Deputy Prime Minister has alluded, fully condemned the federal government's policy to put a cap on the Canada Assistance Plan until 1995. The report says: "The council still considers the current policy of the federal government to be bad public policy".
Why does this government refuse to reverse the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member I am sure will realize that the Canada Assistance Plan funding has risen at an annual average rate of 7.2 per cent between 1984-85 and 1990-91. It is slated to increase at the rate of roughly 5 per cent from here on through until 1992-93.
In other words, in 1984-85 the Canada Assistance Plan paid out $4 billion. In 1992-93 it will pay out $6.6 billion. That does not sound like a reduction. That sounds to me like a sizeable increase.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The poorest of the poor cannot swallow those figures. This document goes on to say: "Although welfare recipients are among the poorest of the poor in our society, they rarely get any guaranteed protection from increases in the cost of living. Between 1986 and 1990 many recipients actually became poorer".
Will the minister tell the House today what he intends to do to assist the neediest of the poor?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, one of the best ways to provide security for the poorest of the poor is to attack the root causes of inflation. That is precisely what we are doing. With inflation running at 2 per cent on an annualized basis, it is a heck of a lot better than inflation running at 8 to 10 per cent as it was in the days of the Liberal regime.
In 1981-82, it was between 13 per cent and 15 per cent. We have attacked the root causes of inflation. We intend to keep inflation down and that will provide security for the senior citizens, those on fixed incomes and those on low incomes. That is what this government is doing, that is what it has done and that is what it is going to continue to do.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of Indian affairs and concerns the scandalous Third World health situa-
Oral Questions
tion which exists in many of our northern native communities.
Recent statistics show that there were 105 new cases of tuberculosis in northern Saskatchewan last year. That is triple the rate of five years ago and more than double the rate of the epidemic year of 1925. Since every study shows that overcrowding is the predominant cause of this epidemic, I would like to ask the minister if he will commit himself today to build enough houses to keep the children of Black Lake and all northern communities healthy and not fall victim to these kinds of Third World diseases.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I want to assure this House that we are well aware of the situation and of course we regret this high rate of tuberculosis found among native people.
That is why we put in place a procedure for co-operation with provincial representatives, consultants from the University of Saskatchewan and health and welfare officials. We are trying to find a strategy to eliminate tuberculosis among native people, of course in consultation with all concerned, so that native people can also enjoy a good life and better health.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the minister of Indian affairs.
I think it is quite obvious that the fact is that as long as people are forced to live with up to 18 people in a little box, they will always be unhealthy and we will always have these kinds of diseases.
Is the minister prepared to make a commitment today to build enough houses to end this blight on Canada's record?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly am. Indeed, we do. I should point out that the hon. member has said that every study shows that overcrowding is the predominant cause of the problem.
That is an incorrect statement. There are many contributing factors to the high incidence of tuberculosis among northern aboriginal peoples.

Oral Questions
I should say that this government is committed to determining, where there are situations of crowding, remedies to that problem and to point out that the average number of persons in an aboriginal housing unit in northern Saskatchewan is five to six. We are rebuilding housing at the rate of some 6,500 units per year which would have the result that in a 15-year period all aboriginal housing in Canada would be renewed.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
The Uruguay round of negotiations of GATT is in the final stretch and yet there are reports that the Canadian coalition of supply management advocates is dwindling even to the extent that Canada has met with its two best allies for article XI, Japan and South Korea, and is encouraging them to go to a system of tariffication for import controls.
What is the minister doing to ensure the survival of Canada's supply management system at this critical time in the negotiations?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member and other members are fully aware, all ministers of the government have been taking an active part in discussions based on the formula and the process that was derived some 12 months ago between the Government of Canada and all the stakeholders in the supply management area.
The position that Canada has taken and continues to take at GATT is consistent with the position that was developed in co-operation with the supply management industry. It will continue to be so, Mr. Speaker, because we believe as the stakeholders do, that this is the route to take to bring security and they, the stakeholders, have assured us of their support.
I hope the hon. member will continue to support the government in its endeavours.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Reports say that federal officials are considering a fallback position to the government's position on article
XI. Yesterday the Minister for International Trade was saying that Canada's position remains unchanged, as did the Minister of Agriculture just say. This situation is very contradictory and has producers extremely nervous. Can the minister assure Canadian farmers that our demand for a strengthened and clarified article XI has not and will not be changed to a system of tariffication?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: thought I may have addressed the hon. member's question in my earlier response, Mr. Speaker.
I am not aware and I believe that if he is, he has a responsibility to say who has said that the Government of Canada is considering a fallback position. I responded to that question when it was put by the hon. member some two weeks ago. I answered it at that time. The Liberal Party may still be considering a fallback position. We are continuing to look for clarification and strengthening of article XI under GATT.


VALUE OF DOLLAR
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The value of a currency is an essential element in any free trade agreement. In the case of free trade with Mexico, could the minister tell us what value he thinks the Canadian dollar should have in relation to the Mexican peso so that our workers do not lose their shirts?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is a preposterous question. He knows very well that the value of the dollar is fixed in the international marketplace and he should not degrade himself by posing such a stupid question.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: The same problem, Mr. Speaker, with the U.S. free trade agreement is that the government thought it was a preposterous question. That is why the dollar went up and that is why we lost so many jobs.
This government must not be allowed to make the same mistake twice and perform the same kind of stupidities which the minister has just enunciated.
November 19, 1991

The Mexican government, in contrast to this government, has already indicated it will not allow an over-valued peso to prejudice their workers or their exports.
The question really is why will this government not make the same commitment to the workers of Canada in terms of our dollar?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the second question is more nonsensical than the first.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, the news media has been full of stories recently about trade between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Some Canadians worry that North American free trade would make this country too dependent on one continental market.
My question is for the Minister for International Trade. Can the minister tell this House what concrete steps he is taking to round out Canada's global trade so that we are strongly developing other markets besides the American one for our products?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that over the course of the past couple of weeks I have led two trade missions, to Japan and South Korea. There were representatives of the automotive products industry, homebuilding industry, food processing, nuclear, the telecommunications industry. It is these types of products where we are making good headway in international markets. This is consistent with the approach we have been following in trade missions to a number of countries in the Middle East, Spain and Europe.
It is also an essential part of the prosperity initiative. We are trying to encourage companies within Canada to reach out into international markets outside of North America, to form strategic alliances both for investment in terms of technology exchanges with these companies, to join up with other companies to tap into other markets and, in that way, broaden our trading exposure with these other markets and lessen the reliance on North America.
Oral Questions


RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of Treasury Board.
Last week The Montreal Gazette detailed a story of rampant discrimination against visible minorities at the health protection branch of health and welfare. One of those affected by that situation is Dr. Dennis Wang who, as the minister will know, is one of the world herbal experts whose job just mysteriously disappeared.
Does the minister not find it ironic that the same Dr. Wang is featured on a poster designed to demonstrate the multicultural character of the Public Service? Does this provoke him to do something about the racial discrimination in the health detection branch, as well as the Public Service generally?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to tell you and the members of this House that this government is not about to tolerate such behaviour within the civil service.
I am not familiar with this particular case from the Department of National Health and Welfare, but this government is committed to an harassment free environment. We have taken measures. There are ways to deal with these issues and I will look into them very clearly. I can state again that we will not tolerate racial harassment within the civil service.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I find the minister's answer somewhat surprising because notwithstanding section 15 of the charter of rights, notwithstanding the Human Rights Commission, notwithstanding a purported program from Employment Equity, we have three human rights complaints about racial discrimination in the NRC, we have five at the health protection branch, we have a systemic discrimination complaint being investigated against the Department of Justice and another one at external affairs.
Will the government agree, given the situation that has been complained about widely by the visible minority community of this country, to form a task force like that that was formed for women to investigate employment

November 19, 1991
Oral Questions
discrimination affecting visible minorities in the Public Service and do it now?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, there have been unfortunate cases brought to our attention and I do hope that we are dealing with them in a proper way.
We have set up a system. We have a Human Rights Commission and I think we are dealing with these particular situations as well as a government can possibly do it. I do not agree. I have set up within the civil service four new committees to deal with that. We will certainly look at all the issues and the information that has been given to me by the hon. member. If I feel that action needs to be taken, it will. We do not intend to tolerate such harassment in the civil service.


William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It too refers to the GATT negotiations, where we know that tremendous pressure is being put on Canada to dismantle the supply management system and move to tariffication. In Atlantic Canada that would cause terrible disruption to the agricultural community. Although we know Canada is strongly resisting this pressure, we want to know if Canada has shifted its position on strong defensive supply management systems?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I certainly do not intend, as members of the opposition, to thank the hon. member for his question. He has been actively involved in assisting the government and the ministry in preventing any erosion to supply management.
The hon. member is fully aware that Canada's commitment to article XI and the strengthening and clarifying of that article will allow us to continue supply management with more predictability in Canada. Tliat is the position of the government.
He is also aware in this Uruguay round that we wish to start removing trade distorting subsidies which are also causing a great deal of harm to another sector of Canada's agriculture. On those two issues, Mr. Speaker, the stakeholders, the Government of Canada and the governments in the provinces have joined to put forward
a common cause at GATT. I thank the hon. member for his continued support and interest.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The government policy at the moment forces laid-off Canadian workers, whether they are in Labrador West or Elliot Lake or Sydney, to exhaust all of their severance pay and all of their vacation pay before they can draw unemployment insurance or before they can access any of the training dollars from the unemployment insurance fund as a result of Bill C-21.
As unemployment is a serious and growing problem in this country, will the minister bring forward immediately amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to allow Canadian workers to draw their unemployment insurance without exhausting their benefits, without declaring bankruptcy, before they can draw unemployment insurance and therefore training dollars?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, when we introduced the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, Bill C-21, many amendments were brought in to allow the training of unemployed Canadians. That will continue.
The suggestion of the hon. member to put unemployed persons on training and not have him exhaust his benefits is one that surely I would want to look at. More important, I would like to consult the private sector on it, the labour and business side, and see whether or not this is something we can look at.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer. If he consults the steel industry, the iron ore industry and other industries in this country he will find out that workers cannot draw training dollars until they are drawing unemployment insurance. The bulk of the benefits of C-21 are lost if you are not drawing unemployment insurance.
There are people who are 15 and 20 years in the workforce who will be exhausting a year of their benefits before they can draw UI. We need the amendments now on behalf of those workers.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member
November 19, 1991

raises an important point for Canadian workers. He will find in the Speech from the Throne and in the prosperity initiatives that when we proposed, for example, that the private sector quadruple the money they spend on training of their employees, I think it points to the reality the hon. member refers to.
As I said, it is something I am open to look into with the private sector. If it is possible then to move in the direction of trying to improve the UI regime so that it will be more relevant to needs of workers, I am ready to consider it.


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Canadians are being gouged on a daily basis by the major banks and trust companies on credit card interest rates. Canadian banks are making record profits while credit card interest rates are fully 10 points above prime.
Since the minister yesterday refused to order a cap on credit card interest rates, will he today stand up for Canadians and initiate a full scale inquiry into the interest rate structure used by Canadian banks for interest rates charged on Canadian credit cards?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I already answered my colleague yesterday that I was concerned myself, as everyone must be, about the fairly high interest rate on credit cards. I told him that I would meet representatives of the banks and trust companies in the next few weeks or days to discuss this subject with them.
Nevertheless my colleague should also admit that already several banks have announced significant drops in their interest rate that will save consumers quite a bit of money. I must repeat, Mr. Speaker, that consumers must continue to be careful and check when they buy, if they have to use their credit cards occasionally, to do everything required to negotiate loans with their local banks or credit unions so as to have the lowest possible rate. And I still rely on competition, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
In 1989 a committee of this House recommended an 8 per cent cap on credit card interest rates, a recommendation that had it been followed up by the minister would have saved Canadian consumers over $100 million in excess credit card interest rate charges.
The minister has refused the cap. Today he has refused an inquiry. What will it take for this minister to put the interests of Canadians ahead of the interest rates of the big banks?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think that I have always shown interest in consumers and I would just tell my colleague about the efforts that we have made to bring interest rates down to their lowest level in years. Rates today are in no way comparable to those of over 20 per cent when the government to which members opposite belonged was in power.
They are in no position to lecture me and this government about the interest rates that have been charged. Those people strangled Canadian consumers for years.


IMMIGRATION
Bill Attewell: My question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Many people are concerned about the alarming increase of violent crimes in greater metropolitan Toronto. Many people also link the problem to our immigration and refugee policies, which are not properly identifying applicants with criminal records.
What measures is the minister going to put in place to improve the screening and deterrence of foreign criminals before they enter Canada, and to correct other related flaws in our system to detect, deter and deport foreign criminals?

November 19, 1991
Points of Order


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians need to know, want to know, and I think do know that the vast majority of immigrants and visitors to Canada are law-abiding people. The government knows this.
We have increased immigration levels to Canada to one of the highest levels in the post-war period. We want Canadians to know that we are actively working to prevent the entry of foreign criminals. Many measures are in place to make sure we can detect those undesirable persons and we remain vigilant in the department in that regard.


BILL C-22
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: My question is for the
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Bill C-22 proposed amendments to the Patents Act, resulted in increased costs of drugs as generic drug companies were not able to compete with the multinational drug companies during the 10-year patent protection period.
The multinational drug companies are now pushing to have this protection period extended to 18 years. Will the minister assure Canadian consumers that they will not be sacrificed by extending the patent protection period.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I can't believe my ears. Bill C-22, to which many opposition members objected, has attracted hundreds of millions of dollars in investment in recent years. Increases in the price of drugs have been kept below the inflation rate, which is phenomenal. I don't know where the hon. member got his information. I have here 12 pages of investments planned by various companies, totalling several hundred million dollars. One hundred and thirty five million at Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd, 270 million in Montreal at Merck-Frosst, three million at Berlex Canada, 95 million at Astra Pharma Bristol-Myers, 150 million -


POINTS OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order results from an exchange that took place between the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Minister for International Trade. I presume it was an inadvertent attack by the Minister for International Trade but it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this point of order may in fact be a point of privilege. I would ask that you review the "blues" and I will subsequently review the "blues" as well. It relates to the fact that the Minister for International Trade has said that Dr. Peters, a respected economist in this country, was in the back pocket of the Leader of the Official Opposition.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Peters is not on staff. He has never been on staff. There has been no contract with this individual by the party or the leader's office. Furthermore, and this is very serious, this respected economist was consulted on a regular basis by the Minister for International Trade's former colleague, the Hon. Pat Carney, when she was Minister for International Trade.
I suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister for International Trade is inadvertently attempting to damage the career of a well respected economist and I would ask him to withdraw those remarks.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: was only referring to a newspaper report of, I believe, two or three months ago, that reported on Mr. Peters being appointed to an advisory committee to the Leader of the Opposition. That is what I was referring to.


An hon. member:: Was that damaging to his reputation?


Mr. Speaker:: I will consider the "blues" when I see them.


An hon. member:: Shame, shame.


An hon. member:: A good idea.


November 19, 1991


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker I want to thank the Chair for suggesting that it will review this matter very carefully. I wish to put on the record that the Minister for International Trade ought not to be allowed to stand in this House and through innuendo and through creative ways slander and question-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: There is some doubt in my mind whether the exchange that the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has referred to the Speaker is a serious breach of parliamentary procedure. I have indicated to the hon. member that I will look at it.
What I would like hon. members to keep in mind is that whether these suggestions come from a preamble or whether they come in response to a question, in either case they often do more to cause difficulty in the House than to cause help. I will look at the particular matter.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, in Beauchesne's sixth edition, page 111, paragraph 374, pursuant to Standing Order 31 it says that statements ought not to be used to make personal attacks.
I was not in the Chamber but the phone did ring about the lead-off statement today from the member for Burin-St. George's. I would simply ask that you review the "blues" and that statement to see whether or not the rule of the House was violated.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a different point of order. I wonder if I could ask my friend the government House leader to talk to his associate, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. When he was responding to a question today I think he referred to and quoted from a number of documents. I wonder if the government House leader would talk to the minister and ask him if he would table those at the appropriate time when he has an opportunity-


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House leader of the New Democratic Party for making that request.
I wish that they would be tabled and that everyone in the country would read them. Bill C-22 has been a great success and I want people to know about it.
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McDermid that Bill C-38, an act to provide for the continuance of Telesat Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the disposal of the shares therein of Her Majesty in right of Canada, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap has five minutes left.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before the debate was temporarily interrupted, one of the difficulties that we face with regard to the disposal of assets of Telesat is the fact that right now it is undergoing some financial duress.
It is really not an appropriate time to be divesting the public shares of Telesat. The company has a debt load that quite frankly would choke a horse. The poor financial outlook of Telesat is expected to extend into the next decade as a result of recent heavy capitalization and a burdensome rate structure which has been imposed on it by the CRTC.
The corporation has a debt capitalization ratio of over 60 per cent which is pretty significant. That 1990 figure is almost double the ratio for 1987. Its cash flow to debt financing has grown considerably weaker since 1986. During the next two fiscal years the corporation faces considerable escalation of its debt repayment schedule.
I might add much of the current financial woes really stem from a CRTC decision which has allowed for an annual rate increase of a modest 2.67 per cent.
This decision disallowed the inclusion of what I consider to be significant expenses in the calculation of the rates adopted and what Telesat officials believed to be an overly optimistic view of the market. It has a real cash flow crunch.

Government Orders
As a result the company has been thrust into an extremely low earnings position. It is not expected to achieve allowable earnings for several years. I found this in my discussions with the representatives at Telesat.
Corporate profitability will therefore become increasingly difficult during the early years of operation of its new series of satellites. Eldon Thompson is the CEO of Telesat. I will quote him once again: "It will be extremely difficult if at all possible to operate and maintain long-term service. The rate decision exacerbates the inherent cyclical nature of the satellite business since it ensures that the lowest prices are charged at a time when the company's costs are the highest".
It is only natural in looking at the financial projections of Telesat to conclude that any investor who is looking at acquiring the shares of Telesat and looking at the cash flow projections and the debt to capital ratio is not going to be overwhelmed with the idea. I do not think the share offering can be expected to be too optimistic.
In other words, what I am saying is that it is not the appropriate time given the market circumstances for a kind of a fire sale giveaway because I think that may very well be what it amounts to. It is therefore unlikely that the sale, if it takes place at this time, would be of great financial benefit to the taxpayers of Canada in terms of cash recovery to the Crown.
As I said before there may be some reasons to look at privatization. I think the question is: Why now, particularly? I realize my time is limited. I only have a short time left. I will go on to summarize more or less my feelings on this whole thing. Canada's shareholdings in Telesat represent a considerable investment in the future of Canadian telecommunications.
The government wants to opt out of this investment at a time when we are experiencing essentially a worldwide revolution of technological change in the industry. For Canada to forfeit its shares and window of opportunity in our only space based telecommunications industry means that we would essentially be forgoing the opportunity to provide direction in terms of policy direction for this country at a very critical time in the evolution of this industry and in the evolution of that corporate entity.
In addition Canada has not yet fleshed out a well defined communications strategy. We have entered the 21st century of high-tech change cobbled with a policy that has evolved in the horse and buggy days of technological evolution.
I think it is a serious mistake to forfeit our investment in Telesat at this particular time and before we have delineated a comprehensive communications strategy.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech.
There are a couple of points that I would like to make and then maybe I could ask him a question. He talked about cash flow, debt ratios, et cetera. He compared 1987 to 1990.
This particular business, the satellite business, is cyclical. The front end costs are tremendous. It has to hire a company that propels satellites into outer space. It has to buy these satellites and have them made. In this particular case it was made at Spar Aerospace at tremendous capital cost.
The first two or three years of the cycle is extremely expensive for the company. That is the cycle that we are in right now. Everyone held their breath in Canada for some time because the first satellite did not deploy exactly the way they wanted it to. They had to do what the experts refer to as a "shake and bake" to get it operating. But they did get it operating.
The second satellite has been launched successfully as well. There were tremendous up front costs. This company traditionally and any company involved in satellite telecommunications realizes their profits in the last half of the cycle. That is when they start making money. To say that we are selling it at the wrong time now is a fallacy because those who will be buying this company understand full well the cyclical nature of the major capital expenditures and at the same time the profit that comes at the other end.
With regard to Mr. Thompson's concerns about the CRTC's decisions on rates, naturally that is a concern, but as my hon. friend knows full well, the government has given orders to CRTC to review the rate schedule because of the inordinate costs up front. Again, those who would be purchasing this company will be very much aware of all of that and will be taking that into consider-
November 19, 1991

ation. I do not think that there is a problem there at all as to the timing of the sale.
My question is this. The hon. member is giving us the old socialist New Democratic line.


An hon. member:: We are not. You have not been listening.


John Horton McDermid: Let me finish. He is talking about the horse and buggy age. I can tell you that to direct policy you do not have to own a company. For some reason, the NDP think that in order to direct policy you need to have a company; you need to have an oil company to have energy policy, you need to have a satellite company to have a telecommunications policy. That is a fallacy. That is just not true. You can have the policies and you do not have to own the companies. That is what he said. That is why I said that he is in the horse and buggy age when he uses that kind of analogy that we should have a company so that we can have policy. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand. You can have policy and you can have policy direction without owning a company.
This company has asked to be privatized so that it can expand and it can take on the new challenges that are coming down the line. Of course, being a pragmatic government, we examined what their requests were and we said: "Sure, we are prepared to go along because it does not serve a public policy purpose".


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the minister was absent for most of my speech due to unavoidable circumstances which he had let me know of ahead of time. I only say that to say to the minister that had he heard my initial comments, I do not think that he would have made the charge that I was taking an ideological approach to this whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, if you will recall, in my opening remarks I said that rather than an ideological approach to this whole question of privatization, there may be very sound reasons for going ahead with privatization. One of those reasons I cited in passing was the opportunity for more research and development to take place. That is a positive reason.
One of the arguments I put forward was the fact that we have to make this decision based upon some pragmatic objectives, the objective of rationalization cost recovery if we are in fact going to get the money back and we are going to maximize our return in terms of cash assets
Government Orders
to the Crown. I do not think we will at this particular time.
The second reason I gave, which the minister was not here to listen to, was the fact of consumer interest. What is in the long-term interest of the consumers of the services offered by Telesat?
Last, we are making this decision in the absence of well-defined and well-flushed out policy initiatives. I was arguing at that time, and I think the minister was back to hear the tail end of those arguments, that in fact we are putting the technological cart before the policy horse. We in fact do not have comprehensive policy to take us into the 21st century of technology change. We are mired in a kind of a horse and buggy day, the stone age of our technology. The Railway Act is the main legislation body that directs communications in Canada today. We need to bring our policy up to date to take account of all the technological change that has taken place to set us on a specific philosophical approach to this whole realm of telecommunications. Once we have that determined and are moving in the right direction then perhaps it makes sense to disperse the assets of Telesat. I am suggesting that we cannot make that decision until we take the time and develop the comprehensive policy that is needed to meet the needs of today. Then and only then can we really determine whether the sale of Telesat is in the interest of Canadians and this government.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am really quite pleased to stand here this afternoon and participate at this stage of the debate on the principles of Bill C-138, this bill to privatize Telesat Canada.
There are some very serious questions about the government's decision to privatize Telesat at this time. They are all important enough questions. I would consider them to be principles of this privatization legislation. What are perceived to be policies are really fundamental principles in the Canadian dynamic.
Some on the government benches may well argue with the points I shall now raise, but I believe they have to be addressed in a most serious way in the best interest of Canada and the business community.
This bill is coming forward in a telecommunication policy vacuum. It fails to protect northern services and the monopoly status that Telesat presently enjoys. The reliance on the Competition Act through the Competi-

November 19, 1991
Government Orders
tion Bureau is not a good telecommunication policy method for screening bidders. There is a failure to question whether broadcasters should be able to bid, as well as the vague terms and conditions of sale. Add to that the terms of a Canadian procurement policy, the invitation rather than the obligation to use both official languages, the location of its headquarters, the lack of reason for rejecting a public share offering and the lack of a floor policy for bidding. These are all, I believe, critical issues.
I know the minister may have some quick answers to some of these questions and I look forward to getting some of these answers before this bill goes much further.
First and foremost we must recognize at the outset that Telesat is an important national asset. Canada must continue to be a major player in the satellite field if we are to benefit from new technologies, services, high-tech jobs and research and development spending which this company brings to Canada, Canadians and Canadian business.
In this era of fast changing technology this sector is the engine, the fulcrum, the economic lever which can enable, as well as ensure, our competitive capacity in this very competitive international environment.
Ensuring that Telesat remains a viable national asset for the benefit of all Canadians has to be uppermost in our minds. That should be a given for the policy makers across this floor. After all, it was the Canadian taxpayer that made the key investment that got this company off the ground in the first place some two decades ago.
Long before you get to the privatization question you have to make sure that you have established the appropriate policy environment, in this case telecommunications policy, before a privatization can even be considered. This is something the federal government has clearly failed to do. It has failed to establish any sort of national strategy for the telecommunications sector despite promises that date back to the era of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre in the 1984 economic statement. I quote that statement to remind the government. Ele said: "There is a clear need for national
telecommunications policy to take advantage of the opportunities presented by rapidly advancing technology and the growing demand by Canadians for new telecommunications services".
He added: "Through regulatory reform the government can spur innovation and provide a major stimulus to the Canadian economy". Yet the telecommunications revolution is breaking every new record every day around us. It has moved forward at a rapid pace since 1984 that could never have been dreamed of. This government has left the Telecom industry labouring under the century-old Railway Act without updating rules and regulations for the era of global competition.
Telecommunications industry revenue has grown to more than $21 billion a year. It plays a role in the daily life of nearly every Canadian. Its impact on business has been phenomenal. Global capital markets now function because of global telecommunications. Companies large and small now communicate with customers, distant offices and employees at home through telecommunications. There are new telecommunication ads which I am sure you have seen, Mr. Speaker, such as the Bell Canada ad where the man is going on his vacation while the other man is rushing off to meet his counterparts in the industry around the country. They are busy talking about teleconferencing, which is also offered by Unitel and Telesat.
These are the realities of what is going on in the telecommunications world today. Digital technology is a reality as is fibre optics. The whole field of broadcasting, radio and television is testament to the changes that are taking place in telecommunication technology.
The Americans have built vast global networks and yet this federal government is left watching these dramatic changes in its rear view mirror. Now we have the Telesat privatization going on in this policy vacuum. Seven years ago the past Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre and the prior Minister of Communications, the hon. member for Frontenac, and even Flora MacDonald promised a bold new Telecom policy. Even the impartial observer would agree that this government's record has certainly not been very successful. This government has failed to update and revise a comprehensive national telecommunications policy or strategy which is the fundamental environment in which Telesat operates.
November 19, 1991

Government Orders
The policy vacuum and lack of national telecommunications strategy into which this government wants to sell Telesat are truly a major concern. Would you not agree with that?
Telesat is the only Canadian carrier providing commercial satellite facilities and services across this land. It is also the only Canadian carrier providing basic telecommunications services to the northern communities and to the remote regions of Canada. That is the second principle I want to debate with respect to this legislation.
Is this government going to leave them out there with no communication facilities that are protected? Why has this government seen fit to protect those very vital and very valuable northern services only through government policy? A cynic would say that such a policy is on very thin ice in the hands of this government. I would add that the official's argument that once a satellite is up there is no reason why anyone would stop providing services to the north is a highly questionable proposition to say the least. Don't you need receiving stations and earth stations? Don't they involve costs and require expensive maintenance? Don't they require expensive and regular adjustments? What about the cost of new investments in the latest technology to receive the satellite signals?
These items bring into doubt the government's urging not to worry about the continuation of northern services by Telesat once sold off. Once the satellites are up there they are basically free, according to this government. Hopefully we can be forgiven if we do not take the minister's word on this issue. This should be founded in the legislation, not left to the whim and will of the government in power.
I am anxious for the government to explain to those northern and remote communities how the proposal of a mere policy of service to their communities is worth much, if anything, particularly when it is subject to change at the whim of a minister. That I would suggest is not very reassuring, comforting or Canadian for that matter. Service to the north must be protected in the legislation and that is what we will be pushing for if this goes to legislative committee. Frankly it should just be put on a back-burner somewhere and be revisited.
I would also like to address the government's proposal to assure a 10-year monopoly for Telesat in the form of government policy, just as in the northern service. The question of a monopoly service has not been addressed and is to be left after privatization. That just makes no sense.
Yes, we need an entire debate about foreign competition, about market conditions, about Canadian content in service, and I could go on and on. Suffice it to say, the government has put the cart before the horse with this legislation. The lack of some clear, new thinking from the government on monopoly satellite services is another extremely large component of the policy vacuum that I talked about earlier.
For now I think the monopoly is important for Telesat so that it can remain a vital national asset and a national satellite service provider, given current market conditions. Obviously the government agrees or is at least paying lip service to the idea. It mentions that a policy of monopoly provider status will be established for Telesat once it is privatized. That is an irresponsible approach and it ducks the issue.
Again a cynic would ask: if the government believes so strongly in the monopoly provision, then why not put it in legislation? Only another cynic would suggest it is not assured in the bill so that if the government decided to drop the monopoly protection at the urging of the new owner it could be far more easily changed than a policy that is already in legislation.
There are some questions that I believe we shall have to ask. What are the real costs in terms of only having policy and not legislative protection of the monopoly? How do potential bidders see this affecting a privatized Telesat? And, more important, what are the costs to Canadian taxpayers of this uncertainty with regard to the monopoly status of Telesat and the real costs of this uncertainty in the form of lower bids for the company? These are some real questions we will want explored at legislative committee.
There are two issues with regard to the open bidding process. Why was a public share offering rejected? Why is the Competition Act being used to screen bidders, not a modern, updated, sound telecommunication policy for the 1990s?
First we would like to know-and it is a key principle of this bill-why the public share offering was rejected as an option in this proposed sale. Would not the taxpayers

November 19, 1991
Government Orders
then have had a chance to participate in Telesat Canada's success story?
Canadians have already paid as investors. Do you think we have conveniently forgotten that Canadian taxpayers' dollars are already involved in this particular story? Is the minister setting up Telesat for some big player to come in and grab it? Is the minister seeking out critical mass in some telecommunications industry segment by letting anyone bid? The point is that there is no evidence that these critical questions were even addressed by the government in deciding on a open bidding rather than other privatization methods. That is a very vital question we will want to have answered in committee.
Why is the Competition Act the only criterion being used for screening bidders for a key component of Canada's communication industry? I think that is an important question. The answer I think is that this government lacks a clear, cohesive and comprehensive national telecommunications strategy. We should have had a policy that was revised and updated, that knows and understands all the Telecom markets and players, domestic and international, in order to screen bidders fairly in a telecommunications policy context. To leave one of the key telecommunications issues in this decade, namely who gets hold of Telesat, exclusively to the determination of the Competition Bureau is a serious flaw not only by the privatization minister and the Minister of Communications but by the whole cabinet. Where is their responsibility in response to the people of Canada? What does it mean by allowing a group of bureaucrats who may be very competent but are nonetheless non-elected people make decisions as to how a bid is receivable and the nature of that bid? I thought we were supposed to be a government of elected representatives.
We should not have the spectacle of the competition bureau making telecommunication policy for Canada. We do here in this bill.
I wonder how our communications minister feels about the extent of his contribution on this matter appearing as a couple of paragraphs in the Minister of State for Privatization's press release. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that made him feel very comfortable? Irony of ironies, it is just this past week that the Minister of Labour, doing the Minister of Communciation's work,
brought in the status of artist legislation. Now we have a Minister of State for Privatization bringing in communications policy'.
We now have communications and cultural policy by the privatization and the labour ministers, dictated by Treasury Board and determined by the Minister of Finance. Why do we have a Minister of Communications? It is a very good point that ought to be raised in the committee.
Does the Minister of Communications not feel a very sad loss of power? Does he not feel badly? If he does not he really should. He should go back to the cabinet and discuss this whole issue.
The telecommunications policy decision of who can bid for Telesat is key to this whole process, to the structure of this industry and to the industry's future development. Again, this is another question we will want to put before both ministers at legislative committee.
I think the Minister of Communications' abdication of policy responsibility on the Telesat privatization poses many more questions as well. Should Canadian broadcasters be able to bid and possibly own Telesat? Do you, Mr. Speaker, recall what we did in the broadcasting bill with respect to people who are in the telecommunications field with respect to a broadcast right?
I do not know the answers to these questions. I hope the ministers do. I do believe it is a matter of telecommunications and broadcasting policy, not competition policy. That is the mistake of the Minister of Communications and that is the mistake he allowed to happen in this bill.
Since when has this country, except up until now, allowed culture and communications policy to be made by bureaucrats in the Competition Bureau? I think this is really the wrong path to be going down and it is another issue that I would like to hear the two ministers discuss in committee.
It is pretty well toward the end of the questions I have about just how loose and freely this bidding process has been set up. Why are companies simply being invited to state their intentions with regard to how they would address Telesat's future operations in both official languages? Why is this not being made a condition of the bid, a real demand on the bidders?
November 19, 1991

I see the privatization minister's cynical hands over all these wishy-washy vague requests for comment on how official languages would be maintained by suitors of Telesat. It is insufficient. It is not good enough and that is another issue to be pursued. Has this minister heard of the Official Languages Act of Canada? Does he know that federally regulated organizations fall under that Official Languages Act? Is that why he wants to know whether he is going to keep Telesat as a monopoly service and all the other things that he is going to do in terms of regulation?
Again, there is the question of the minister's weak demand on the part of bidders for where they will locate Telesat. He says that bidders will be asked to state their intentions regarding Telesat's headquarters in the national capital region and the government will choose a winning bidder not based in part on this information but simply in full knowledge of the bidder's plans.
I see this as just another weak way of passing off key issues related to privatization. I find the terms and conditions provisions of the procurement rules to be followed by Telesat bidders also inadequate. Why should Telesat bidders be only asked to consider Canadian supplier proposals and to use best efforts to buy Canadian?
Was Canadian procurement not a key reason why we set up Telesat, to get a domestic industry off the ground? Was it not a key reason why we set up Telesat and why we have Spar Aerospace today?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, and I note that I have less than one minute left, I wonder why the government has not provided for the public record any evaluations on what it deems Telesat to be worth.
Why cannot Canadians have the privilege of knowing what the value of their shares in Telesat are worth before the privatization minister gets his hands on the bids so that taxpayers and not just the minister can get to see what kind of dollars we are talking about.
I wonder why the minister did not set a floor price for the Telesat shares on behalf of all taxpayers. Would that not have been in the best interests of both the taxpayers and the minister, seeing that he is claiming that he will
Government Orders
put the proceeds from this sale in that paper tiger, the deficit reduction fund.
Presumably the minister is so proud to be sending money into that fund that he should be more than prepared to share with Canadians an evaluation of Telesat share values so that Canadians know what kind of a deal they are getting. That is another issue for the committee.
In conclusion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I apologize but your time has expired.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the hon. member for Mount Royal. She obviously spent a great deal of time and has given a lot of thought to the issue.
The hon. member raises a number of questions, quite a few of which I believe were answered in the speech presented earlier today by the minister, and I know she listened with great care.
I would like to briefly respond to a few of the points she raised, the most recent one being about the value of the shares. I cannot help but think back to when the previous government bought Petrofina and turned it into Petro-Canada and by arbitrarily determining a value, spent far more money than they should have. In fact, we do not know right at this minute what the value of Telesat shares are. That is to be determined in the marketplace and the government, I can assure her, will get the best possible value.
Coming to one of the other points that she raised about going through the particular process of sale, the government is interested in getting the best possible price so that it can return the maximum amount of money possible to the debt service and reduction fund.
As the minister indicated, the net proceeds from this sale will go to that fund. It so happens that Telesat owes the Government of Canada $30 million. That will come off the top and be paid back to the government to clear that debt off. The rest will all go back into the debt service and reduction fund. So there will be benefits.
My hon. friend raised the subject of the Official Languages Act. I should remind her because perhaps she is not aware of the fact although I am sure she is, that Telesat is not a Crown corporation and has never been subject to the Official Languages Act. Obviously that condition remains and we cannot change that. However

November 19, 1991
Government Orders
the government, in an effort to strengthen the implications and the intent of the Official Languages Act, is in fact requiring the bidders to state their intentions with respect to that matter.
The hon. member made many points and they were all good and valid questions. I am just trying to respond quickly to a few of them and then I will allow her to respond. The last point I wish to raise is with respect to the service to northern people which is critically important. I think it should be borne in mind that the government will exercise its existing powers under the Radiocommunications Act to ensure that the wholly privately owned Telesat will support and conform to federal broadcasting and telecommunications policies.
Telesat will be required to continue to follow the current government policy of serving as the primary vehicle for providing northern and remote areas of Canada with access to telephone, broadcasting and other communications services. With that, Mr. speaker, I will sit down and allow my hon. friend a moment or two to comment.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his respectful answers. They are still not satisfactory in my view. It may be that I am wrong. Given the government's penchant for, as we say in French, le contenant et pas le contenu, in English I would say "a pretty package with no stuffing", I would like to suggest that the quick response by the parliamentary secretary may have some justification.
I suggest that he go back and tell his minister, who is so rude as to not be present in the House when there are official opposition critics speaking to his bill, which is typical of this particular minister, it would be right if the legislation went back to be more carefully examined-


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am sure that the hon. member did not mean to unfairly malign the minister, but in fact the minister was required to leave early because he has a medical appointment at the hospital that he had to keep.
That was this morning but I just want to make sure she was aware of that. That is why he had to leave earlier than under normal circumstances he would have.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, though we are not supposed to refer to absences by people in this House, I wish the minister good health and I hope he got a good medical report. Frankly I would like to have used an excuse too and put the bill off until tomorrow because I would like to be in committee where I belong.
Let us hope that with the government majority it will pass this bill, let it go to committee and let the government answer all these questions and be open to positive amendments and changes. In fact, let it be open to even reconsidering the timing of this bill and bring in a telecommunications policy so that we could then address this bill in its proper context.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few comments to some of the arguments that my colleague from Mount Royal has presented.
She mentioned the return of assets from the dispersal of the Crown assets from Telesat to-I cannot even remember the name-the debt reduction stabilization fund, I think it is something like that. In B.C. we had a similar one. We called it the BS fund.
This fund, or at least the creation of this BS fund, this budget stabilization fund, has not even passed this House. In fact, this fund has not been created and may not be created. My question to my colleague is what if the fund is not created. Where do the assets go? Are they returned to the Crown through consolidated revenue? How do we know that they will in fact go to reducing the debt that this government has acquired over the years.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the first problem is we do not know the value. The second problem is we do not know who the bidders are and whether the terms and conditions will ensure that we are going to get a sufficient return on our money to even warrant the sale. The third problem is that we should not be selling it anyway so I do not think we should worry about where it is going. We should just sink their ship on Telesat. They should not be privatizing it in the first place.
I wish I could understand what the government does with all its money. It has been increasing taxes like mad and it has been dragging money out of all of our pockets as we scream, from each level of government and yet it has not been able to reduce the debt. It has increased the
November 19, 1991

deficit. Explain to me what it does with money. I do not know.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the hon. member for Mount Royal on her excellent presentation on the Telesat Canada bill.

I wonder if the member shares my concern. I am sure she must and if she could comment concerning access to information after sale.
Fifty-three per cent of Telesat Canada shares are owned by the Canadian government with a possible worth of $150 million plus. We remember that the sale of de Havilland was done by Order in Council and the information was kept secret from the Canadian public under the cloak of cabinet and commercial confidentiality.
In this particular case, we have possibly $150 million plus in assets. What will we have to do, and what mechanism could we put in the legislation to have access to information for the accountability of the disposition of government assets?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question and I am very pleased that my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood is sitting behind me. His business experience is going to help me answer that question.
The government owns 49.5 per cent, just under 50 per cent of Telesat. When you talk about access to information of that nature, this government, you and I acknowledge and recognize to this date has not been very open and above board with Canadian people anyway. Therefore, I would imagine that anything it is going to do in this regard, it is going to call competitive information and we will not have much access to the final information that would be involved around this sale.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and take the opportunity to speak on Bill C-38, an act to provide for the privatization of Telesat Canada.
Government Orders
Once again we are faced with legislation that comes as a result of this government's philosophical obsession to diminish the ability of the Government of Canada to make policies in areas of national importance and regional significance.
I have some concerns about this legislation that I want to outline. First I want to take a few minutes and talk about the desire the government seems to have to want to privatize practically everything.
Canadians have seen their train service severely diminished through cuts to VIA Rail. The privatization of Air Canada has jeopardized the services that are required in the north and other regions of our country.
At the present time the process is under way of cutting off our ability to influence the ever important national resource industry through the commencement of the privatization of Petro-Canada.
This government literally brags about the profits that the privatized Canada Post has produced in recent times while ignoring the fact that post offices have been closed throughout rural Canada. This has in some cases severely damaged the character of rural communities. It has caused a great deal of concern among rural Canadians who are fighting to keep their towns, villages and communities alive.
Now we have this government putting forward legislation which again could take the hand of the Canadian people out of the satellite communications field. Once again we have to very closely scrutinize the government's plan in a very thorough manner to ensure that this legislation is in the best interests of Canadian people, rather that just another example of this government's right wing Conservative philosophy.
We must also examine this legislation to ensure that it is written in a way that the interests of Canadians are paramount, rather than the special individuals or private investors or corporate players.
Telesat was founded or established under the Trudeau Liberal government in 1969 by the Telesat Canada Act. It was a joint venture between the government and the major communication carriers to develop a domestic commercial satellite based telecommunications system.

November 19, 1991
Government Orders
It is the only Canadian carrier providing commercial satellite services and facilities across Canada.
There are other concerns that I want to raise about this legislation. For many Canadians, in particular those living in the north and remote areas of Canada, the satellite services provided by Telesat Canada are perhaps the only practical and affordable means of providing broadcasting, telephone and other telecommunication services.
I was informed a while ago that Telesat Canada will continue to provide these satellite services for the provision of telecommunication services to northern and remote areas. When I heard that, I was certainly relieved. But as I read through this legislation I find to my surprise and alarm that there is no mention of maintaining these essential satellite services to the north and remote areas. There is no mention anywhere in this legislation. All we seem to have is the minister's promise that as a matter of government policy Telesat Canada will continue to provide satellite services to the north.
With all due respect to the minister, whom I respect rightly as an hon. member, Canadians have heard promises from this government before. Such phrases as jobs, jobs, jobs still ring in the ears of Canadians across this country. In particular, it rings in the ears of the almost
1.5	million Canadians that are unemployed across our country.
Canadians have watched over the last seven years as promise after promise of this government has been dropped, botched or broken.
I would not be surprised if Canadians from the north and the remote areas of our country do not feel secure because this government has stated that it promises to ensure that Telesat Canada will continue to provide satellite facilities to their regions.
I would be very surprised if a promise from this government will put to rest the fear that these essential services could be jeopardized by this legislation.
Unless Telesat's role in serving the north is in this legislation, I believe that northerners will have good reason to be concerned that that service could be in jeopardy. Even if the government's promise is fulfilled and satellite services to the north are continued, there is
no mention or there is no promise of which I am aware that would commit the government to ensure that these services are provided at the same level and quality as they are now. That promise could be a very hollow promise if the quality of satellite service to the north is diminished.
A second area of concern that I have about this legislation is the government's decision to privatize Telesat Canada through an open bidding process as opposed to a public share offering. Even Telesat's vice-president of finance and administration, Fred Bartlett, has expressed his preference for a public share offer. He is quoted last May in the Financial Post as saying:
If you want to ensure that Telesat is maintained as a separate entity
and if you want to make sure there's competition within the industry,
public ownership is a good way of going about it.
Those are the words of the vice-president of finance and administration of Telesat.
The open bidding process could provide a great opportunity for a controlling interest in Telesat to fall into the hands of one owner. Of course what this would do, or could do, is reduce the level of competition in an already highly concentrated telecommunication industry.
If that owner happened to be a national carrier, such as Telecom Canada or Unitel, it is conceivable that Telesat could be managed in a way that provides a competitive advantage to the controlling company. In addition, if the controlling company in Telesat was placed with a telephone company there is a possibility that the future direction of Telesat would go in the interests of the telephone industry at the expense of the television cable industry. I suppose that it is only fair to say that the same could be in reverse.
If this scenario is a possibility, then I think the government should take precautions to ensure that it does not take place. In reading the government's own release, it seems that there will be no restriction on who bids for the shares other than the 20 per cent non-resident ownership limit.
I assume that would open the door for the telephone industry to take control of Telesat if it put forward the highest bid. That is a matter that I certainly hope the committee will look at in great detail.
November 19, 1991

Another concern that I want to mention this afternoon is the so-called loosening of restrictions such as Telesat's buy Canada policy that this legislation could very well bring about. Has the government examined the kind of an impact that this could have on Canadian firms which have supplied the goods and services to Telesat?
If Telesat is no longer obligated to purchase from Canadian suppliers, how many Canadian jobs will be jeopardized? I understand certainly that Canada has got to be prepared to compete internationally, and I understand the need to avoid protectionist trade policies. But if this government is planning to allow Telesat to purchase from abroad, is it prepared to assist the Canadian companies and employees who would be jeopardized and damaged as a result of this decision?
There are a lot of concerns about this legislation. I have only mentioned three here this afternoon, and I know others have already been raised. I am sure as the debate continues there will be more concerns brought forward. There are questions to be asked of the government's motives in bringing this forward, questions to be asked of who will be best served by the bill-Canadians, business interests or the government itself? There are questions about the continuation and improvement of services to the north and the remote regions of our country. There are concerns about the decision of the government to sell its shares through the open bidding process rather than a public share offer. There are concerns about how this legislation will affect the Canadian firms that supply Telesat Canada and the jobs of its employees.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this matter. I expect that this bill will be thoroughly scrutinized before committee where I hope that some of these concerns will be answered.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to my hon. friend's question. She raised a number of points that the previous speaker raised, and I must say I responded to them. I would be pleased to repeat some of the points for her benefit.
I could not help but notice in the early part of her speech that she spoke about a number of things. She
Government Orders
even made reference to the bill a couple of times. She talked about privatization generally and she talked about cost, but I think it is important for her to recognize that there is a fundamental philosophic difference between this government and the one that was formed by her friends on the other side, and that is that this government believes in fiscal responsibility. It believes in paying its bills. It believes in providing value for every tax dollar that is spent. One of the reasons that we have a privatization process is that we only maintain agencies and Crown corporations so long as there is a public policy requirement for those agencies to be held by the public.
We happen to believe that private industry can more efficiently deliver services in a competitive environment, and that is why, among other things, we are proposing to privatize our shares in Telesat, because there is no longer a public policy purpose to be served by maintaining them.
She mentioned in her remarks and used a tactic that, quite frankly, is not something foreign to the Liberal Party in its approach to dealing with the public. That is what can only be described as a scare tactic. She again raised the notion of what is going to happen to the northern service. It was made perfectly clear by the minister moments ago, it was made perfectly clear by me, that a fully privatized Telesat will remain subject to the government's policy that it provide satellite-based telecommunications services to the northern and remote areas of Canada. The requirement will not be onerous and Telesat, as the footprint currently provided by its satellites, covers these areas in any event.
Furthermore, Telesat's services to northern and remote areas are profitable, and for this reason the company wishes to continue to provide them anyway. However, if in the future Telesat wanted to tilt its satellites in such a way as to exclude northern and remote areas from its coverage, the Minister of Communications has sufficient powers under the Radiocommunication Act to revoke existing licences or to refuse to licence future satellites.
The assurance is there. The issue of competitiveness is raised as well.
What happens if somebody in the telecommunications industry or some company were to buy it? I would remind her that it was clearly set forth by the minister

Government Orders
when he announced the bill. I read from his statement at that time: "The shares will be sold through an open competitive bidding process and the sale will be subject to the Competition Act". Before any sale is approved by cabinet, cabinet must be satisfied that it meets the requirements of the Competition Act.
As to the issue of public share offering as I mentioned earlier-and it is the last point I will make-the government's task here is to get the best dollar available for the Canadian taxpayer. There is no question that through this competitive bidding process the government is following we will gain much more revenue for the government, which means much more revenue for the debt service and reduction fund. This is something we would not require if there had been fiscal responsibility from the Liberal government.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, certainly I want to thank the member for the answers he has provided but I must say that what they do is raise a lot of questions in my mind.
He talked about fiscal responsibility. I want to assure the hon. member that we on this side of the House are certainly concerned about fiscal responsibility. I can say as a businessperson that certainly the debt is something that really concerns me. We want to see that there is value for every tax dollar spent.
He talks about the promise by the minister and the parliamentary secretary of services being continued in the north. What I said was, yes, we had a promise. Promises have been broken by this government however. I do not think because the people of the north have a promise that is going to make them feel too secure. What I have brought up is why is this not in the legislation? Then I think people in the north would know that they are going to be provided with that service.
It is fine to stand up now and make the promise, but what happens if it becomes unprofitable? When something becomes unprofitable, if it is not in the legislation the people of the north may find that a promise will be broken.


An hon. member:: You have it.
Ms. Callbeck That was my point.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, it must be a coincidence that we happen to be talking about this so-called privatization bill in November, just before the month of December and the Christmas holidays, because this is a present. A present, not for me but for the businessmen who will be able to buy this telecommunications company, and I am referring to Telesat. It is a present. The government is once again handing out presents. One wonders who will benefit. In any case, it won't be the people who paid for Telesat. They are certainly not going to make a profit on this. I find it incredible that this government feels it can compare the sale or privatization of Telesat with the sale of Petro-Canada, because if the government was ever guilty of behaving irresponsibly, it certainly was in the case of Petro-Canada, and I can tell you-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I just want to make sure he is rising for questions and comments on what was said by the previous speaker. I recognize him on that basis.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague said that we must know who will benefit from this privatization. I would just say that to me it is quite obvious that business people will benefit from it. I refer to the privatization of Petro-Canada as a remarkable example of the way this government can say to us: "We are privatizing Petro-Canada for your good, for your benefit. We are privatizing Telesat in your interest." Nothing is farther from the truth. It is not correct. In my opinion, what happened with Petro-Canada is quite the opposite.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester. Two minutes remain for questions and answers.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a clarification and raise a question of privilege. The hon. member for Mount Royal corrected me in her speech at the end when she answered my question, saying that Canada's share was 49.3 per cent. I had a discussion with her after showing her the documentation and she agrees with me that when the share of Canadian National, which is a Canadian company, at least so far, is added,

November 19, 1991

the total is over 51.1 per cent. Therefore Canadians own more than 51.1 per cent of Telesat Canada.
As for the speech by the hon. member for Malpeque, I have this concern. The government informed us, through the minister for privatization, that it would put the proceeds from the sale of Telesat into a national debt fund to reduce the debt and interest charges. Mr. Speaker, my question is this. We must remember that the minister told us that would be done after paying off the $30 million debt or loan that had been made to Telesat Canada. Certainly some costs are involved with the sale that could raise it to $31 or $32 million-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the 10-minute period for questions and comments is over. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Chambly.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, this Bill C-38 to privatize Telesat really gives away to business people what we in Canada paid very dearly for Telesat Canada-$30 million.
We should be ashamed to betray Canadians in such a way, because they were sold out in similar fashion with Petro-Canada. It was the same with Air Canada. We have a government that tends to sell off businesses or Crown corporations that are doing rather well, that are profitable. As soon as they make profits, they are sold to private interests and often, indeed always, the consumer pays the bill. I can tell you about Petro-Canada, Mr. Speaker, because we are now discussing privatization in principle and I find it hard to accept treating Telesat Canada the way Petro-Canada was treated.
Petro-Canada was indeed privatized. It was originally created by the Liberals to have a window on the industry, to know what is going on in the oil industry, why the others raised gasoline prices, why it often took a few days to raise the price of gas when a barrel of oil cost more and often three or four months to lower the price when a barrel of oil cost less.
So Canadians were very glad that the government wanted to buy an oil company, even to create a fairly profitable oil company, and finally have a window on the oil industry.
But I see Telesat Canada as a window on the telecommunications industry, a rather important window, be-
Govemment Orders
cause even though it cost us some $30 million, it is, if I understood the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization, a company that is starting to make profits. It may be that later on these profits won't be as important, but presently that company is certainly not in deficit. So why sell it now? Why sell it at a price so low that it is a gift to entrepreneurs? Why take something that Canadians have paid with their taxes and sell it simply because the government needs money?
You have to be careful with privatization. If privatization can help the public and society in general, if a corporation is in effect a bottomless well, such as the SkyDome in Ontario that was created by the Liberals and supported by the Conservatives, by Conservative entrepreneurs, then we must put a stop to the situation and privatize. I have never been able to understand this government. It seems that the government is wearing what we call blinkers like horses during a race and therefore can only look in front. I do not know the exact word in French.


An hon. member:: Des oeilleres.


M. Edmonston:: That's right, des oeilleres. Thank you. Even the Liberals were able to see the problem with this government. To use a typical Quebecois expression, the government is blind. In the case of the SkyDome, the NDP supports privatization, because we are not blind. The NDP can see clearly. We can see that the SkyDome is a disaster. But such is not the case with Telesat and it certainly was not the case either with Petro-Canada.
The question is: First, will the privatization of Telesat help Canada make progress from a fiscal point of view? Second, will it help Canada make progress towards a better understanding of the telecommunications industry? Third, will it help us reduce-I have heard that one so often that I do not dare repeat it-the deficit? There, I said it, "reduce the deficit". We hear that expression so often as a pretext for all sorts of things: We want to reduce the deficit. Mr. Speaker, will we manage to reduce the deficit? My gosh, if it should happen, I would be the first one to say that the Conservatives are great. Unfortunately, I cannot say that today.


An hon. member:: Tomorrow.


Philip Edmonston: Tomorrow maybe, but not today. Because based on the present bill, there is no guarantee that we will manage to reduce the deficit. Quite the

Government Orders
contrary, if we look at what our great government has given us in the past, namely the GST that was supposed to be revenue neutral, to be visible and to be a way of reducing the deficit. None of that. Incidently, I read an excellent article written by Marjorie Nichols in which she says that before the implementation of the GST, the sales tax brought in about 19 per cent in revenues. However, considering how much it cost us to introduce the GST, the tax will net us about 16 per cent. This means that if we count all the jobs, all the public servants, all the song and dance it took to introduce the GST, we are left with less money than we had when we still had the manufacturers' sales tax. See for yourself! It's in all the papers. In today's papers even.
I am delighted to see that some Conservatives have started to see the light. The problem is that it cannot be used as an excuse to reduce the deficit, because the Canadian people-anglophones, francophones and allo-phones-won't believe you any more. You have lost your credibility in this respect. Do you understand? So don't use this as an excuse that you want to reduce the deficit. It just won't work. Maybe it worked during your first mandate, but not any more.
Second, they claim that Telesat isn't making any money, that it's a black hole and that it will cost us too much, and that the government shouldn't be involved. That doesn't make sense either. Telecommunications is one of the areas in which the government should be involved, very much so and with enthusiasm. It should be involved because that is where the future lies.
We in the NDP feel that instead of looking for excuses to reduce the deficit, the government should be realistic. As I see it, the only way to reduce the deficit is to change this government. It would make a big difference. We could have a government that is far more responsible and, if it happened to be a New Democratic government, we could have a government that would privatize if necessary but would not privatize as a matter of course. It would above all be the kind of government that would help Canadians in industries that have tremendous potential, like the telecommunications industry.
I feel that today, the government has betrayed this country with the kind of bill we have before the House. In statements made today by the Minister of State (Finance and Privatization), the minister said that the
reason he wanted this bill was to have effective money management. I don't think we will get effective money management with this bill. We must look at this government's past history: 33 taxes within eight years; 85 per cent of the government's revenue comes from personal income tax and only 16 per cent from corporate income tax.
When he introduced this bill, the minister said, and I quote: "Crown corporations must meet public policy goals without draining finances". Amen! I have no problem with that, Mr. Speaker. It is perfectly true that Crown corporations should have social goals without unduly draining the money reserves we have in this country. But I do not think Telesat was draining our money away. I don't believe that, at least not compared with the technology we will lose, the technology we will no longer have if we sell this company to private interests.
When I hear the minister talk about fiscal responsibility in connection with this bill, I say it is really fiscal irresponsibility, because as we say, "If it's not broken, why fix it?" I am not convinced that Telesat is so broken down, in such bad shape, working so badly that it has to be hit with an axe to get it on the right track. I do not believe that, Mr. Speaker.
I can also tell you that when the government privatized Petro-Canada-and I keep coming back to Petro-Cana-da because I used to be president of the Automobile Protection Association. Many drivers complained that they were always being pestered by the government to buy from Petro-Canada because that helped the government. Petro-Canada had the support of many motorists but we stopped supporting Petro-Canada when we saw that the Conservative government had changed Petro-Canada's mandate; just before selling it, they changed the mandate. Instead of letting Petro-Canada be a competitive catalyst for cheaper gasoline prices, the government decided that Petro-Canada would act like any gas company or oil company and Petro-Canada would sell gasoline at the highest price it could at every opportunity, even though it was a state owned company.
Finally consumers said that they had enough of Petro-Canada. It charged as much or more than other gas companies. The government was taking as much money as it could to sell it off. That is what they did. Not only did we lose an extremely important tool for Canadian
November 19, 1991

consumers but we also lost an excellent competitive catalyst for lower gasoline prices. That is shameful.
When I see Telesat-and I hear that the minister wants to protect Canadians' interests by privatizing it, but I look for something to compare it to. I look for cases where they privatized something and protected us in so doing. Like what, Mr. Speaker? Certainly not the privatization of de Havilland. I am not convinced that we are further ahead with the privatization of Air Canada. Certainly not with Petro-Canada. Now he would have us believe that privatizing Telesat Canada is in our interest. I do not believe that.
In closing, I just want to comment on the minister's statement when he presented the bill that he leads or is part of a pragmatic government. If this government were so pragmatic, if plain common sense were so important to this government, we would not be privatizing Telesat now at such a low price, so low that we will not get much for what we paid very dearly. The government will wait, give a break and then try to save money on other things.
There are several measures that the government could take but the privatization of Telesat is not one of them.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that we, as a political party, will vote against this bill. This is not an ideological stand, because in the past we have supported the privatization of other corporations, like the SkyDome. But in this case it is, like we say of the GST, the wrong initiative at the wrong time. In this case-not in all cases-but in this case, privatization is unacceptable because it is tantamount to a gift, just before Christmas, to private interests.
I do not want to give this kind of gift to private interests, especially when us, Quebecers and Canadians, have paid a lot for Telesat Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before going to questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House of the issues that will be on the agenda when we adjourn this evening, namely: the hon. member for Skeena-Sovereignty; the hon. member for Don Valley East-Employment; the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur-Canada Post; the hon. member for Haldiman-Norfolk-Goods and Services Tax; and the hon. member for Eglington-Lawrence-Immigration.
Government Orders
We resume the questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State (Finance and Privatization).


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a fundamental difference in philosophy. This government believes that the government should not be involved in things that can be done probably more economically and more efficiently in the private sector. Whereas the fundamental philosophy of the party of my hon. friend opposite, the hon. member for Chambly who just spoke, is: Why should something be done competitively in the free marketplace if it can be done more expensively and involve more people by the government? With that he speaks at great length about Petro-Canada and its place in the Canadian oil industry.
I would refer him to a better example, one that more truly reflects the philosophy of this government, the example of Air Canada and its predecessor, Trans-Canada Airlines. I remind him that in 1937 it was a Conservative government that introduced and created Trans-Canada Airlines which subsequently became Air Canada.
It was also a Conservative government that instituted and created the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Why? Because there was a public need, a need for government to move in and provide a service that was not being created in the private sector. So they were created.
Let me follow the example of Air Canada. I notice that he did not mention Air Canada in his remarks. The airline developed at a time when there was not an airline and there was one needed. There was a national air service required and it was created. Now, some 50-odd years later, we find that there is all kinds of competition within the airline industry in North America. Indeed there were two trans-national carriers and we had a situation where the people of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada, were subsidizing the maintenance of one of those services while the other service competed in the private sector and had to make it on its own without benefit of government subsidization.

Government Orders
This government quite properly proceeded to privatize Air Canada, bringing significant revenues to the Crown, while at the same time creating fair competition in the marketplace.
I read the words of the chairman of the board of Air Canada who had advocated privatization. He was writing after privatization of how the airline had been, I guess I might say somewhat like myself, too fat and needed to be sheared down so that it would work more effectively. That is precisely what has happened with Air Canada.
Air Canada, one of the finest airlines in the world today, is competing very effectively with Canadian Airlines International without a drain on the taxpayer of Canada.
My hon. friend spoke about the many taxes that have been introduced in the last few years. I want to tell my hon. friend as one member of Parliament who supports the actions of this government that I wish we could get rid of all those taxes. I have not met any of my constituents that like paying taxes. However, the problem is that people want services and in order to provide services we have to raise revenue through taxation. That is what was done with the various taxes.
If the government had not inherited a $38 billion deficit and a $16 billion operating deficit, we would not have had to increase taxes in order to pay for the sins and the debts of those who were here before us.
With respect to Telesat I just very briefly will make this last point so my hon. friend can respond. I would remind him that there was a need for public intervention to see that Telesat was established in the way that it was to develop and provide satellite based commercial telecommunications services in Canada. This objective has now been achieved.
The government is no longer providing capital or operating funds for Telesat and no longer has any reason to continue its investment in Telesat. Therefore we say it is time to pass it on to the private sector in which it can continue to grow, develop and serve Canadians.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, as you will have noticed, when I began speaking on this subject I mentioned that the government often has a tendency to put blinkers on
and to listen only selectively. I hope the government will allow me to say this again and will understand and listen to the complete story.
What I said is that in principle as a party, my party is not in favour of privatizing per se and it is not against privatizing per se. I think that privatizing can be an instrument just like any other instrument of public policy.
The government must intervene in areas in which there is no other intervener that can possibly go in. That is the purpose of government. I feel and I believe my party as well feels that government intervention should be necessary as a last resort, a last recourse.
We would like to see private enterprise play out its role. We have always done that as a party. If one listens closely to the provincial premiers, in addition to my leader, one will find out that is what we have always proposed. One will find as fiscal times get harder and harder in this country of ours-and I think it is going to get harder before it is going to get easier for most of us-the New Democratic, the Liberal and the Conservative parties are going to have to face the reality that we need all of these economic tools in order to bring about a fair, just society, and that may include privatization.
However, I am speaking to this particular bill. I do not believe that it is time for the government to cut and run. That is not what the taxpayers of this country want this government to do. The taxpayers of this country want a responsible government which will not cut and run in an industry, the area of telecommunications, which has so much potential. Unfortunately without a telecommunications policy we do not even know the full potential or where the government should really get involved in this industry.
In conclusion I would just like to say that I hope my friends on the other side will take off their blinkers and see better the reality. That is the only way we are going to get anything done in this House.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the member for Chambly, a member of the New Democratic Party. I listened to most of his speech. I tended to agree with most of what he said except that I had a little difficulty

November 19, 1991

squaring what he was saying and what is currently going on in my province of Ontario with our dome stadium.
We have a situation in which the cost of the dome stadium was approximately $500 million and that was not including the gift of land from the Government of Canada. That is probably worth another $100 million. We see a situation in which, I think it was, approximately 10 private sector companies put a proposal forward to the province of Ontario putting in approximately $100 million cash. I think the total cost of the dome was about $350 million. It bought it for about $350 million. About $225 million of it was a deferred debenture, interest-free, on which it did not have to start making payments for 20 years from now.
I have difficulties with this and I just wonder if he could try to square that New Democratic Party approach in which it sells something for literally one-seventh of its value with his approach to the government.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I think what you have to look at is that when the Government of Ontario came into power it was saddled with a very serious situation that the Liberals had said did not even exist. They had left the government almost bankrupt. There was very little money.
The point I would like to make here is that sometimes there is so much expense. I know from what I read in the financial pages of the Toronto Star that this was a black hole and that the government should get out of it because it could not carry such a huge burden. The fact that the government did so is much to its credit.
I think what he is saying here is that our party has an ideology of government intervention, and he is right. However, I do not believe our party provincially or federally has put on ideological blinkers to the extent that it says: "No matter how much it costs we are going to stay in there". Not a all, and I compliment Bob Rae. He had a hard choice and made that choice. That is what leadership is all about.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I think the purpose of Crown corporations in this country since the beginning of time has been to use these vehicles as serving a public policy function. I think in the last few years, especially with the government's
Government Orders
approach, we have been too easily tempted when times are tough or if a company all of a sudden showed a little bit of a financial burden to dump it too quickly. As a result we have a policy that has been instituted and implemented by this government which basically led to the dismantling of this country's finest business assets.
I am really having problems with this because as I go through the list I do not see the real benefit to Canadians by the actions that it has taken. For example, let us start off with Air Canada because it has been raised here. The first share offering of Air Canada, which is a company that the government privatized, I guess it was three years ago, was sold at about $1.50 before market share, and this was assessed by some of the best analysts in the country. The proceeds from the first offering did not go into the national treasury. They went back into the corporation which effectively inflated the remaining shares.
Look at CN hotels. I am not convinced that the land acquisition was really taken into account properly. Concerning CN En Route, we know from the many times in this House that the land was worth almost twice as much as the government received. In other words, the Government of Canada had $29 million in proceeds from the CN En Route project, but the person who bought it for the $29 million turned around and sold the land alone for close to $46 million. On it goes. Just think of all the things that this government has privatized such as Canadair, the company which makes our Challenger jet and our water bombers, Canadian Arsenals and de Havilland. It is an incredible list.
Let us look at de Havilland. Here was an instrument of public policy in which the taxpayers of Canada spent close to a billion dollars in research and development. We made some of the finest aircraft in the world, the Dash-7 and the Dash-8, and we were starting to get a full book for these planes. Now all of sudden because the Boeing company is running into trouble and is trying to stabilize its own act at home the first on the chopping block is the Canadian subsidiary.
Had de Havilland remained a Crown corporation then today we could have maintained this as an instrument of public policy and the 4,000 direct jobs in Ontario would not be in jeopardy as they are today. I give full marks to the Prime Minister and the Premier of Ontario who are in Paris today scrambling trying to save de Havilland, but

Government Orders
not for the Canadian taxpayer; they are almost begging an offshore buyer to come and pick up the pieces.
Here is an example in which the government, in its haste to dismantle a major piece of industry from a sector of our economy which was so vital in terms of global trading, basically acted rashly and quickly. The only people who really benefited in this particular case were the brokers. The national treasury certainly did not.
Take a look at the Northern Canada Power Commission. The government sold it to the Northwest Territories. We subsidize through transfers from the national government the Northwest Territories year in and year out. This is nothing more than a gymnastic of figures. Who is the government kidding on this? On we go with Teleglobe, CNCP Telecommunications, the Canada Development Corporation, Fishery Products International and Varity. We saw what happened with Varity. Once the final private placement was done on Varity off it went to Buffalo.
I have nothing against the decisions that businesses are taking. Once these businesses are in private hands it is the responsibility of the boards of directors of these companies which report to their shareholders to be concerned about the bottom line, about profit. The business of business is profit, but the business of government is people. That has been, should be and should continue to be, the filter that we use when we are going through the analysis of whether we should sell off or dismantle these Crown corporations.
In the case of the bill before us, Bill C-38 respecting Telesat Canada, we use a very simple example. We are talking about communications in the north. There is no direct provision in this legislation for maintaining services forever in the north. How could there be? We cannot sell a Crown corporation to a private person and then dictate what the business plan is going to be for the next 10 years. The objectives are totally different.
We may say we are going to make sure it does this for two or three years, but invariably it happens that time after time all of a sudden the particular corporation loses money. It will come back to Ottawa and get all its high powered lobbyists in place to come around and lobby us and say: "Listen, we are losing money on this company.
You must get behind us. You must support the grant or the tax-free loan or get cabinet behind us if you want us to maintain our system in the north".
What do we do? We get behind them. We get behind them. In essence we have given away the control of this public policy instrument but we continue to fund it. What is the point? We are better to realize that these Crown corporations are public policy instruments. They are used to create jobs, to maintain jobs and to provide a national standard of services in some of the key sectors of this economy so that a person in Prince Edward Island can get the same kind of service that a person can get in downtown Toronto or a person in the Northwest Territories can get the same kind of service as we in downtown Toronto have. As soon as we move away the Crown corporation, the public policy instrument, and give it to a private sector outfit which has a different objective, we essentially break down the ability to deliver a national standard whether it is communication or service or whatever. The whole problem with this government is that it does not think in terms of national standards. It does not realize that by creating these national standards and services you get a national will. It is from that national will that we continue to fight against all the forces that are trying to move in and push this country around. When you break down region by region the way this government tends to do, it is very tough to keep us together. It is very tough to fight the economic forces that tend to move in on us.
I will give you the example of the de Havilland corporation in my city. Its skilled labour force in Toronto is responsible for the Dash-8 which is probably one of the finest aircraft in the world in terms of short take off and landing. Can you imagine that as we stand in this House we have to be worried that it may not continue as an entity? We go out there cup in hand and ask Italy and France to get a joint venture deal together and please buy out de Havilland.
The whole thing is absolutely crazy. The Canadian taxpayer invested a billion dollars in the research and development to put de Havilland on the international map. Then after all of the taxpayers' start-up costs and its key expenses have been put into the thing, a full book,
November 19, 1991

all of a sudden we turn the control over to an organization run out of the United States.
When times are tough in the United States what happens? They are not going to shut down an operation in the United States. I mean how naive can we get. They look out around the world and say: "Where can we cut costs because we are no different from anyone else? We want earnings per share". They look up to Canada and say: "Let's shut down de Elavilland. Let's give away de Havilland because there is absolutely no way that it is going to help our earnings per share in the United States".
I think that this government's privatization program has been a disaster. I am not against business doing a job on its own. A government should only be operating a business if the private sector says to us that it is not profitable. If it is not profitable but we need to maintain a national service or a product that we think may need start-up costs and in the long term we can hand it over, terrific. But we are taking some of these Crown corporations that are jewels and have made the Canadian taxpayer proud. I am proud of Petro-Canada. I am proud that I was a part of the government that put the Petro-Canada package together.
There may have been some flaws in putting the deal together and maybe some of the commissions were a little excessive. But it gave us a window into the oil industry which previously had been ripping off the Canadian taxpayer to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Petro-Canada was a galvanizing agent in this country. It pulled us together as politicians. I know even this government, from a political perspective, has given subtle direction to Petro-Canada in terms of using it for public policy. What is wrong with the national government having a window in the oil business? There is no country in the world that does not have a strong window in the oil business. As I said earlier, we might have made some mistakes in putting the deal together, but that is no reason to try and dismantle it.
These members want to dismantle everything. This government wants to retreat from governing.
We wonder why they came to Ottawa. They are supposed to come to Ottawa to govern the country not to retreat from governing the country. If they do not want
Government Orders
to sell it to the private sector they want to give it to the provinces.
It is like FIRA. I see the member from Calgary and I will never forget the very first night I met him. We got into a tremendous debate over the Foreign Investment Review Agency. We wanted to have checks on foreign investment coming in here. We did not just want their money. We wanted them to put money into research and development. We wanted them to do some manufacturing here.
Now-what do we have? We have a situation where they can waltz into this country now and just about do whatever they want. But if times get rough there is no regulation for continuing to do business here. They just leave. That is why we have this flight of manufacturing organizations and capital, the likes of which this country has never seen before.
We had strong Crown corporations in these various sectors to try to maintain a window in these industries and use them to try to negotiate jobs. There may have been times when we sold some of those products at prices that may have been on the low side, but as long as we had people working rather than sitting at home we felt it was a good instrument of public policy.
This government must realize now that its business plan for this country is not working. It is not working in spite of the liquidation, the giveaway, the sell-off and the paper shuffle of Crown corporations. It has sold off more Crown corporations in a three or four year period than probably in the history of this cBountry.
In spite of all that, they have still doubled the debt and the deficit. They do not have a handle on the unemployment situation and they have boxed themselves in. They cannot even get any job creation programs going because they are boxed in. They cannot raise taxes because they have raised them 40 times. They cannot go to the financial markets because they are burning up their credibility there.
Why can they not review their attitude on these Crown corporations and realize that it is a phoney game to say that they are going to reduce the deficit by selling off these Crown corporations when they know in fact that is not really what is happening. It is a gymnastics of figures and it does not do a darned thing to help the balance sheet of this country. It does not do a darned thing to put

Private Members' Business
people back together. It does not do anything on a long-term basis.
Can we imagine the Prime Minister of Canada today having to almost beg to get a buyer for a Crown corporation like de Havilland? I mean it is sick. There is no way. It is one of the finest corporations in Canada, but we lost our leverage. We lost our control by selling it off to Boeing.


An hon. member:: It lost a lot of money.


Dennis Joseph Mills: We did not lose any money when we put the job creation factor and the R and D factor into the pot. They talk about international competitiveness. They do not even have control of the aircraft sector when they give it away to the Americans.
If you have a marketing and sales guy to sell Dash-8s, where does he get his direction right now? He gets it from Boeing in the United States. When you control it you can put those marketing guys on the road at the Paris Air Show or wherever you go and you can fill the book. You can decide what the prices are and you can keep everybody working.
I think it is a heck of a lot better to train people and maintain skilled craftsmen than to have people on the unemployment lines. Think of the indirect jobs that you control through all of these Crown corporations.
I am not saying that I condone waste. I do not. I am not saying we could not have made these corporations more efficient. We could have. You are doing the same thing with the airport.
Look at what you did with Terminal 3 in Toronto. If the public of Canada ever knew what was going on in Terminal 3 right now there would be a revolt in this country. It is a non-optional use facility right now. You know the person who bought it cannot meet its financial regulations and you guys are in a box. You are damned if you do and damned if you do not, trying to fix the problem. That is what is wrong.
You do not see these as instruments of public policy making where you can keep people employed. I would rather have a higher deficit and have everybody working than have the deficit you have now with 2.5 million people unemployed. You have the country in a state of chronic depression and you do not know where you are going. That is the problem. You do not have a single idea over there and you have given the shop away. You have practically destroyed the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Arseneault that Bill C-211, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (temporary community service), be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee A.
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-THnity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak on Bill C-211.
The purpose of the bill, to refresh the memory of the House, is to amend section 14 of the Unemployment Insurance Act to ensure that persons in temporary service to the community as jurors or emergency workers, in other words in a community service, are not regarded as disqualified from a benefit merely because of their participation in such an activity.
I have a number of points that I want to make in a preliminary sense, realizing that I have another nine and a half minutes to speak here. You may wonder why I am speaking on this, Mr. Speaker. There are three reasons. The first reason is that I was very impressed with the way that the member for Restigouche-Chaleur put forward this motion because I think it is a wrong that needs to be righted. It is a wrong that can be righted by the agreement of all in the House, and I will be very disappointed if I find that there is an intention to talk this bill out so that it does not really come to the point where it can in fact be effective.
The second reason is that I am familiar with the Restigouche-Chaleur area. I have spent many a day up there, going back really I suppose too long to remember. I have a great affection for the people in that area. They
November 19, 1991

are not unlike the constituents whom I represent in Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. It is not a rich part of the world. It is an area where, if there are any injustices to be righted, I think we should take all the time and effort that we can in this House to look after the little guy and the little woman. That is what it is all about and this is what we are trying to do on this side of the House. I hope that members on the other side of the House and on this side that are not in my party will pay attention to this fairly basic point in principle.
The third reason I want to speak on this is that it concerns the Unemployment Insurance Act. I have spoken many times in this House on this subject and the things that have bothered me, the people in my riding in Atlantic Canada, and I suppose for that matter all over Canada, going back to Bill C-21 and that kind of thing.
I am not going to rehash the ills of that bill but will get into the substantive debate on this issue. The government will have to recognize that there is an inequity in this particular section of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I do not think much of an effort is going to be required to change this bill.
In so doing, it will indicate some flexibility on the government side in a positive sense so that it can take the bill and make the amendments.
When any member of the community, male or female, who is drawing unemployment insurance represents their community by participating in jury duty or any other emergency community duty can be forgiven and still be considered to be employable under the Unemployment Insurance Act. In fact, when they are performing this duty, they can indeed still qualify for unemployment insurance.
What we are dealing with here is the possibility of the government showing some flexibility with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act. God knows, it has shown a lot of flexibility in the Unemployment Insurance Act. In the relatively short time that I have been in this House, I have seen more changes made to this particular act and more changes made to what I believe was the intent of the act when it was put forward in 1940 as a safety net for Canadians who were out of work. It has made many changes and has indicated a degree of flexibility that unfortunately has always been in the negative sense.
Private Members' Business
Let me just give some poor examples. I am going to remind the government that these are poor examples. When it sits down in the sober light of dawn to look at and see a chance to continue and to discharge its flexibility in a positive sense, those people likely to be cut off will qualify under this safety net and will be given some consideration.
When I first came to this House almost four years ago to the day, indeed before I became a member of Parliament, I recall the hon. minister from Newfoundland, who was representing the government at the time, now the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in St. John's, Newfoundland, responded to some questions with respect to free trade. I know he does not like to be reminded of this, but I do have to remind him because the content and the substance of what he said was: "You are out there worried about unemployment insurance and the safety net and the level playing field and all these fear mongers like Mifflin and all his other people that are out saying you are going to be cut back on unemployment insurance, do not pay any attention to them because I can assure you, I have it from the Prime Minister, that there will be absolutely no changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act".
That was in October. I learn now that when we sat in this House after the election of November 21, I was horrified to find that on November 22, less than a month after the minister had made that statement, the changes that ended up in Bill C-21. They were so controversial that I presented 40,000 signatures of my constituents in this House against that bill. It was in April that the hon. minister of the day, sitting over there, produced the changes that horrified this side of the House. In effect it did a number of things. What it did essentially is take the government out of unemployment insurance. It took away in my riding and particularly Atlantic Canada which was hurting very much, the job development programs on which people unfortunately and regrettably had to rely. These are gone now. We just had section 25, which really does not give employability, but just considers those who have stamps. It raises the level of those stamps. The job creation programs as I knew them and as I nurtured and encouraged them have disappeared. This has been very hurtful to my riding.
The other point that showed flexibility is that the formula for unemployment insurance is that the employer paid 43 per cent. It was 1.4 times more than the

November 19, 1991
Private Members' Business
employee, who paid 31 per cent. In those days, the government paid 26 per cent. Now the government pays nothing. It started off at $1.95 per $100 of insurable earnings for the employee. It is now going to go up to $3 which is a 60 per cent increase in three years. The employer paid $2.73 per $100 insurable earnings. It has now gone up and will go up on January 1 to $4.20, 60 per cent. That is flexibility? We can show flexibility in taking away programs from people. We can show flexibility in taking the government out of the UIC business. We can show flexibility in taking away job creation programs for people who do not have jobs, particularly in areas where the fishing industry this year and the year before is just terrible. If flexibility can be shown in the negative sense, then why can the government not now show some flexibility in the positive sense.
I read all the correspondence that came from Marsha Valdron to the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur. She was incredulous that because she performed a duty and because she was honest in what she did, she was being penalized by the system. I read all the correspondence and I read the letters that went back and forth and the system is saying to her: "Yes, but that is what the act says and besides, jury duty is a provincial responsibility".
Here is the one case where the little person has taken up the cudgel. She is saying to us in this House: "I am one of many who have been treated this way and I would like to have some redress. I would like people to consider this". Well, we are considering this and I am sure there will be a government member speaking very soon.
I know there are many government members who want to vote for this. I will be very hurt if I find that the partisan system has designated x number of people to vote against this, because it is no skin off the government's back to vote this. It is not going to hurt anybody to show the flexibility in a positive sense, to make allowances for those people who discharge their civic duties. I think this is one chance.
I just heard what the hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood had to say with respect to ideas and creativity. I agree with him generally, of course. This is one chance for this government to show that it has creativity and concern for the average person, what is referred to as the common man, the common person, the common woman in this case.
If the government could pause and show some consideration in this area and show some compassion and feeling for ordinary Canadians, I do not think it would do it any harm. It would do it the world of good and do the country some good at this particular point in our history.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to participate in this debate on Bill C-211. There are fundamental flaws in this amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act. This bill seems laudable in theory, but in practice it promises chaos.
This bill threatens to open up a Pandora's box of parallel amendments that would burden the UI system with complex administrative spinoffs and open-ended cost increases.
The response must clearly be to reject this well-intentioned but ill-conceived legislation. In support of rejection, my colleagues in this House will be presenting sound jurisdictional and financial arguments. In rejecting this bill, we would like to make it clear, if any doubt still remains, that we have no argument with the general objective implicit in the proposed amendment.
A more relevant, less financially punitive system of compensation for Canadians that fulfil temporary civic responsibilities and community services such as jury duty and fire fighting, is a concept few of us here today could disagree with. That point was made repeatedly on October 8 when C-211 first came before the House. There can be little question that compensation must be raised to more realistic levels to ensure that community and civic services retain their essential place in Canadian society.
However, applying this compensation to the UI program remains not only inappropriate fiscally and jurisdictionally, it also plants the seeds for a scenario of inexorable add-ons to a social safety net already straining at the seams. The current bill for our UI program is $20 billion. If we open up the compensatory door suggested by C-211, an over-burdened program could find itself subject to a blizzard of so-called special cases that would end where, we do not know.
November 19, 1991

Leaving aside for the moment the administrative implications of this scenario, the fact is that adequate compensation for civic duties is not in any case the responsibility of the unemployment insurance program. Yes, there is a real problem in the low rates of compensation paid through provincial justice systems, but the solution to this problem surely does not rest with the unemployment insurance program. Yes, the compensation paid by the provinces to Canadians serving on juries is generally far less than UI benefits but the question the House should be asking is: Since when were UI benefits designed to subsidize provincial judicial systems?
In each part of the country it is incumbent on the provincial or territorial authorities to look closely at jury duty compensation schemes and adjust them to more accurately reflect the needs of those fulfilling part-time civic and community duties. Quite obviously it is not through the resources of the unemployment insurance system that we should be addressing the question of compensation for fulfilling a civic duty.
It is within the judicial system of each province that the resolution for this problem lies. This is the appropriate course jurisdictionally. Of that there can be little question.
It is also appropriate from a practical point of view because it is simply much easier to resolve this problem through relatively straightforward administrative changes at the provincial or territorial level than to try to deal with it through the UI system.
Amendments are intended to refine, clarify or somehow improve existing legislation. This amendment if adopted would not improve in any way existing UI legislation. Rather, it would severely complicate it which should not be the effect of legislative amendments presented before this House.
This amendment through its emphasis on the creation of an increasing number of exceptions does nothing to help the UI system to better serve Canadians. It simply asks the system to do things for which it was not created and is not responsible.
The question before the House is: Do we embark on rewriting the Unemployment Insurance Act or do we suggest in the strongest terms to the provinces and the
Private Members' Business
territories that they compensate people fulfilling their civic duty at rates consistent with 1991 wage levels? This question of adequate compensation is an important one and the hon. member should be commended for bringing it to the attention of the House. However, Canada's unemployment insurance system is clearly the wrong tool with which to tackle the problem.
I urge the members of this House to ask themselves again: What does this legislation mean? I urge them to ask: Where would it end? I urge them finally to let our unemployment insurance system do its job and let the provinces do theirs.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to address and support Bill C-211, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. For the record, I would simply like to read in the additional words to be added to section 14 of the Unemployment Insurance Act by the bill before us.
It says under section 14: "A claimant is not entitled to be paid benefit for any working day in a benefit period for which the claimant fails to prove that the claimant was either (a) capable of and available for work and unable to obtain suitable employment on that day (b) incapable of work by reason of prescribed illness, injury or quarantine on that day and that he would be otherwise available for work". It would add to that the provision "(c) engaged in jury service or (d) serving temporarily as a result of an emergency as a fire fighter, flood control worker, rescue worker, provider of food or shelter or other such worker for the community".
My colleague across the way just said that the UI act and the unemployment insurance system was the wrong tool and suggested that when the unemployment insurance system was first devised, it was not created for such a purpose as illustrated by the bill before us and it was not responsible for looking after such things as jury service, emergency services or compensating people for engaging in such necessary public interest actions.
Over the years, while it may not be the best social cost accounting we have added, under several different governments of at least two different stripes, a number of

November 19, 1991
Private Members' Business
objectives and a number of reasons for receiving UI benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. These objectives also have nothing to do with the original reason for putting unemployment insurance into place. For us to now say that it is the wrong tool I think is attempting to rewrite an awful lot of history. We and all parties have found it very convenient to use this system to compensate people for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with the vagaries of the marketplace and whether or not an employee or a group of employees find themselves out of work through no fault of their own.
For instance, we have added sickness leave to the unemployment insurance system. What that has to do with the vagaries of the industrial marketplace I do not know.
We have added maternity leave to the UI system. What that has to do with the vagaries of the marketplace I do not know.
We have added job training and what that has to do with someone being out of work through the vagaries of the marketplace I do not know.
There is the matter of relocation of employees from one section of the country to another. We have subsidized the wages of employees through job training. We have subsidized, over the years, the wages of employees in job sharing scenarios.
These are all in terms of social cost accounting the kind of activities which would more properly have been borne by the general revenue of the nation and not by a system which raised its moneys largely in the past through the contributions of the employees and employers with no regard to ability to pay.
Now we have had the government retreat from any public subsidy of this system. We have collectively agreed that all of these various obligations regarding sickness insurance, maternity insurance, job training payments, subsidy of wages for job sharing and the subsidy of job training, which it could be argued should be part of the education system, by vote of this House on a number of occasions that these will all be paid by contributions of employees and employers.
Having agreed to all of that because we have found this a very convenient system in which to attach these various schemes which we had deemed to be in the public interest, what causes us now to say: "Oh, this is an inappropriate mechanism". If we are going to argue that let us be consistent and put all of these other matters back in the regime which provides for their financing out of general revenue and not simply payments from employees and employers without any regard to then-ability to pay. Those are societal responsibilities.
If we are not going to return all of these to being financed out of general revenue, what is wrong with adding what is going to be a relatively minor cost to an area which obviously is one of some shared responsibility?
The minister in his letter to members of Parliament on October 8, 1991 suggested that the subject of juries and juiy duty falls under provincial jurisdiction. Well that may well be so, but the Criminal Code and the criminal law and the administration of justice is certainly a matter that falls very much both within provincial jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction. It is, therefore, quite appropriate we feel that a measure to provide those who are fulfilling a mandated public responsibility by serving on juries or serving in various emergency services required by their communities, and certainly endorsed by both the federal and provincial authorities, should not be penalized for fulfilling their public obligations.
While the provinces certainly have not borne what most of us would regard as being an appropriate share of any burden to see that Canadians that take part in these activities are not penalized for doing so, and certainly the rates which they provide under the various provincial jurisdictions should be increased, that does not let the federal government off the hook for contributing what should be its share of seeing to it that persons who do fulfil their public duty in the ways pointed out by this Bill C-211 should not be penalized for so doing.
We agree with the goals. We in the New Democratic Party also believe in a UI system which has been conveniently used, and many would argue properly used, to assist Canadians on a wide variety of endeavours which we in this House and people across the country have deemed to be appropriate and in the public interest. We also agree that the matter of serving on juries and the question of providing emergency services are also areas for which Canadians have a right to expect that they shall not be penalized by actions of this government, either by omission or commission.

[Translation}


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on the bill introduced by the hon. member, a bill whose intent will, I am sure, be applauded by all members of this House.
However, we must be able to rely on citizens who act responsibly, who are called for jury duty or who give up some of their time to help members of their communities.
This country has over five million volunteers, and I think I am not overstating my case when I say that these people represent the very essence of civic duty in this country. I am sure all members will agree that the volunteer concept contributes immensely to the quality of life of Canadians.
The issue is not whether citizens on jury duty or working on a volunteer basis as firefighters or rescue workers, for instance, should be compensated through the unemployment insurance plan. Of course they should. The question is whether the hon. member's bill is the right way to deal with this problem.
We are all familiar with the role that insurance plays in our lives. Almost all Canadians have some kind of insurance policy: life insurance, home or accident insurance, automobile insurance and unemployment insurance. We pay our premiums and we receive payments when necessary.
However, Mr. Speaker-and I am convinced this is an important point-we can only receive payments if we observe the terms of our insurance contract. The insurance company may sympathize with our situation, but if we do not meet the terms of our insurance policy, we cannot receive compensation. Private sector insurance could not survive if it made an exception every time a customer argues that he is entitled to compensation although he is not eligible under the terms of the insurance contract.
Since the Canadian government is financially responsible for its programs, they must be administered in the same way. There are criteria for every government expenditure. The federal government would be accused, and rightly so, of being financially irresponsible if it did not require claimants to at least observe the eligibility criteria.
Private Members' Business
The hon. member argued that his bill would change the criteria and allow unemployment insurance recipients who are on jury duty or who work as volunteers on an emergency team to receive benefits. However, I may remind the hon. member that although other members and I fully support the purpose of this bill, we do not think the amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act is in order.
The Unemployment Insurance Act is supposed to help workers that are temporarily unemployed and are seeking employment. Canadians do not pay unemployment insurance premiums to compensate jury members or volunteers that work here and there, praiseworthy though their work may be.
What, in fact, would be the impact of Bill C-211? Let's think about it. Would the repercussions of this amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act be as simple as they look? What could be the consequences for the government if this bill were passed?
Let us look more closely at the bill put forward by our colleague. Under paragraph (c), UI benefits would be paid to persons who could be, and I quote:
-engaged in jury service.
Now, Mr Speaker, for how long? The way the government looks at this matter is not unreasonable. We already give two days of grace, which is a reasonable period, before questioning the claimant's availability.
The hon. member's bill does not provide for any time limit for the period where the UI claimant could serve for jury duty while drawing benefits.
A policy without strictly defined limits would simply not be practical and definitely would be irresponsible. Some trials drag on for months. The provincial judicial systems are responsible for jury service. The benefits paid by the federal government under its unemployment insurance plan were never intended to compensate citizens called up for jury duty for indeterminate periods because provincial governments would not pay them sufficiently.
Let's take paragraph (d) of Bill C-211. Under this paragraph, unemployment insurance benefits would be paid to a claimant, and I quote:

November 19, 1991
Private Members' Business
-serving temporarily as a result of an emergency as a firefighter, flood control worker, rescue worker, provider of food or shelter or other such worker for the community.
What do we mean by temporarily? A fire in a house might last just a few hours, but the time required to control a forest fire depends on the weather conditions as well as several other factors.
My colleage will surely agree that the unemployment insurance plan could be faced with a considerable increase in costs if the word temporarily meant indefinitely-
Under paragraph (d), benefits would also be paid to a claimant "serving as a provider of food or shelter or other such worker for the community". What does my colleague mean by other such worker? What are the limitations of that volunteer work?
The bill gives great discretion as regards the interpretation of that clause. There is no question that the intention of my hon. colleague is praiseworthy, but to pass this bill might be like opening a pandora's box and create a real administrative and financial nightmare. And how many people would benefit from these provisions in the bill? Probably not a large number, not enough to justify the additional administrative costs that would result from the implementation of these new provisions.
As I said, we are all grateful to the citizens that show public spiritedness. These people show a dedication that is largely responsible for the strength of our great nation. However, the Unemployment Insurance Act is not the channel that must be used to insure, to reward or to protect the salary of jurors or volunteers, regardless of their contribution to our society. If we eliminate the requirement to actively look for a job, we run the risk of transforming unemployment insurance benefits into a form of welfare assistance, and that is not the reason why Canadians contribute to the unemployment insurance program.
The bill introduced by the hon. member is well-intentioned, but it has nothing to do with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. After all, people on a jury do have a job, even if it carries extremely low compensation. It would run counter to the principle of the act to pay benefits to a person with a job. The problem the hon. member is trying to deal with should be raised with provinces because they are the ones who give
a meagre compensation to jurors in their judicial systems. The hon. member should look at it this way: since the responsibility lies with the provinces, he should submit his very worth while proposal to them.
So I am sure that if our colleague withdrew his bill, he could easily obtain a lot of support to explain the situation to provincial governments and to ask them to examine their policy with regards to the remuneration of jurors and of volunteers involved in community service.
I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that our colleague will get considerable support on this issue. But it is essential to bring the issue to the attention of those who have jurisdiction in that area and can study the matter. That means that this issue has to be submitted to the provincial legislatures, not to this government.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to publicly congratulate my colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur for an initiative I found very laudable. Why? Because it tries to correct an injustice.
I have heard all the hon. members who have addressed the issue so far and have supported it. They wholeheartedly agree with what he is trying to achieve, that is to correct an unfair situation occurring at this very moment. But as they often do, they even blame the bureaucrats sometimes for doing so, they say it is not clear enough, it needs to be better defined, if we do this, we might create some other problems. I say let us go ahead, let us do something. We are faced with an injustice, something that should not happen.
And here my colleague has suggested a solution. I congratulate him for doing so. Let me tell you something else.

It is not just myself or my colleague and others who have said there is a problem here which needs correction. I would like to quote from a document. It is a newspaper article which calls the UI rule stupid.
Who would say such a thing? A judge who excuses potential jurors because he really felt that this particular rule, one which denied benefits to people who served as jurors or emergency workers, was incorrect. He felt even more strongly than I did on that particular day because he called it a stupid rule.
November 19, 1991

Private Members' Business
What happens? You receive unemployment insurance if you are without employment, if you paid sufficient benefits. A person may be called away for jury duty or some other emergency work such as fire fighting or what have you. If that were to last more than two days one would lose the benefits. One would lose the benefits, but one would also be unable to look for work and obviously, if you are fighting fires or serving on jury duty, it is very difficult to be looking for work.
It is an injustice. It is not correct. It is inappropriate and something must be done.
Let us review together, just so that we do not lose sight of what my colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur was attempting, the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The purpose of the UI act was "to promote the economic and social security of Canadians by supporting workers that lose their jobs".
If you have lost your job and you are getting this kind of benefit and you do your community work, your civic duty, clearly you ought not to be penalized. Some of my colleagues have indicated that there are other ways of compensating. I suspect, although I cannot speak for my colleague, that what he wants is the situation corrected. This is one way of correcting it. If others, particularly government members, want to bring forward bills that will correct it, we would be delighted to look at them. However we do not want just talk. We do not want just evasion. We do not want people side-stepping the issue. We want people dealing with it head on.
People who are unemployed or who are called away to do civic duty about which they have no choice basically but to say yes, and they probably want to, should not be penalized because they do what the community, the province or their country requires them to do.
Let me remind members as well of another very important fundamental principle of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Equity has always been an important part of unemployment insurance. Many amendments were made to eliminate the inequities contained in the original legislation. Interesting. There was a reduction in waiting periods during the 1950's, more categories of jobs became insurable. Additional contingencies of sickness, maternity and retirement were covered. Entrance requirements were lowered and benefit rates became more generous.
I point that out because clearly what my colleague is seeking is not unusual. It is not off the wall. These amendments were brought forward to correct injustices, inequities to make the system more just, and that is what my colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur is attempting to do.
I want to remind people as well that the Unemployment Insurance Act is intended to provide income security to citizens, not penalize them when they are under obligation to exercise their civic duties. That is the crux of the matter. That is the very heart of it.
All members of Parliament have constituents that may be faced with having to carry out their civic responsibilities either as jurors or emergency workers. Therefore, members from all parties it seems to me should support a bill which intends to address an injustice, a glaring inequity.
I just cannot believe we could not come to some agreement here. Either we support this particular bill, or we come forward immediately with another avenue that will in fact do the same thing. Let us not penalize people who do their civic duty.
I want to remind colleagues as well, and I want to quote my colleague's press release: "This amendment that has been brought forward will ensure that persons in temporary service to the community, such as jurors or emergency workers are not regarded as disqualified from unemployment insurance benefits because of their participation in such an activity".
That is the crux, that is the issue, that is the centrepiece. That is what we want to do.

I think we have here an incredible opportunity to address a very minor issue, that is so important for many people, and to correct an injustice. Why should we not go ahead? Why not agree for once on an issue like this one, on something that will allow us to correct an injustice? We all agree that people who give some of their time to their communities, their province, and their country, should not be penalized? Why not correct this situation?

November 19, 1991
Private Members' Business

This bill, it seems to me, is so commonsensical that we should not even be taking the time to debate it. I do not say that to denigrate the bill because it does address a very important question.
This makes so much sense that there ought to be a mechanism when a colleague comes up with such an idea. It ought to go through that mechanism and be dealt with like that, quickly, immediately: correct it.
If all parties cannot agree here on this one issue, this issue that deals with men and women across the nation, this small issue in relationship to those other issues that we have to deal with but an important one to those people who it touches, how could we possibly dream of coming to some agreement on the big question?

Whether it be major constitutional issues, the economy, social programs, the environment or other key matters which affect every Canadian, if we do not manage to agree on a simple question of this importance, I believe that it will be very difficult indeed to find solutions to the other major issues.

I am here and I notice I have just a bit of time left. I would not only propose that we go forward with my colleague's bill, my colleague from Restigouche-Cha-leur, but I would suggest that we take an opportunity to study the whole of the UI bill after we pass this one.
What he is doing is laudable. It needs to be done. We all know that there are a number of problems with the Unemployment Insurance Act: part-time workers, the variations that exist, the number of hours that you have to work and whether or not you will qualify or not qualify, the ability to upgrade when you are collecting unemployment insurance so that you can in fact hope and dream of a better position later on, the adequacy of the amount that you receive, the whole notion.
My colleague has reminded me of adoptive parents and the contradictions that exist there. I would suggest that we take this particular example, pass it and begin the process of reconstruction.

Let us try to deal with this issue so we can move to other major concerns. Let us set our house in order. Let us make sure that Canadian men and women who need help will get it in an efficient, adequate and timely fashion.

I ask my colleagues to do everything they can to make sure that this bill that my colleague from Restigouche- Chaleur has brought forward will correct an injustice in the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today on this well-intentioned bill. I congratulate the member for Restigouche- Chaleur. It is bills like these that entitle a member of this House to truly deserve the title "honourable".
I do not think anyone here would disagree when I say that the intention behind this bill is an honourable one.
We do not vote on bills solely on the basis of their intent. To do so would be an abdication of our responsibilities. Rather, we scrutinize proposed legislation and having done that, I must say that I believe this bill should not be supported by this House. The reason I say this is primarily a technical one.
First, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to consider the impact of this bill on a program that is funded by two large and important sectors, Canadian employers and Canadian workers. With that in mind, I would like to address the financial implications of this motion on the unemployment insurance program. In doing so, I hope to convince my colleagues that this motion is not viable in today's economic climate, nor is it appropriate in that it crosses into and usurps provincial jurisdiction.
How much would it cost to implement this motion? That is not the essential question. For example, we are unable to estimate the cost of paying UI benefits to volunteer workers, although we do know that it would cost some $2.2 million to extend benefits only to those UI claimants who sat on jury duty in the last fiscal year.
By government standards, $2.2 million may not seem like a large amount of money, and it is not, especially in a $20 billion program like unemployment insurance. But that is not the important issue. The essential question is: What is the purpose of the UIC program and the

jurisdictional responsibility for it, for jury service and for community services?
If we are to judge the motion based solely on the dollar amount for jury duty, I am sure that many members would vote in favour of it. I must warn members, however, that when you look exclusively at cold, hard figures you run the risk of not seeing the broader picture. Therefore, it is critical that we examine other factors which must be taken into account.
Mr. Speaker, you just heard my colleague discuss some of the ramifications of this motion. His remarks clearly indicated that its passage would have numerous spin-off effects. In other words, if this motion passed then future sittings of the House would undoubtedly end up discussing similar such requests and the question of extending UI benefits under other circumstances would be raised again and again.
If we are going to talk about government support for charities or even churches, I would say parenthetically that I would support doing away with the present system of tax credits for charitable donations and donations for churches in favour of a matching dollar program for real charitable work, where community service is being delivered with no more than 20 per cent overhead, instead of making contributions to religious activities. But that is another issue for another day.
Returning to the issue at hand, if requests started to multiply, what would then be the cost? Obviously, neither I nor members on the other side can answer that question. I can guarantee that it will be much higher than the figure I mentioned a moment ago. I hope this will give food for thought to those hon. members who are unequivocal in their support of this motion.
At the very least, I would ask them to contemplate the consequences on those who must contribute a portion of their weekly earnings in supporting this insurance program. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the UI program is financed through premium contributions made by the nation's employers and workers. The federal government provides interim financing, some $1.3 billion in 1992, but ultimately it is the workers and employees who finance the program. I am sure that members would
Private Members' Business
agree with me that Canadians who pay those premiums would be quite apprehensive if any additional burden were placed on the UI program, especially when the cost of that burden cannot be actively calculated.
This is particularly true in light of the announcement made yesterday by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As you know, he stated that the unemployment insurance premiums of both workers and employers will rise in 1992 by some 7.1 per cent, I believe it was.
I know how reluctant the minister was to make that announcement, but he had no choice. The UI fund is currently operating at a deficit and even the announced premium increases will not reduce that shortfall, they will only maintain the deficit at a manageable level.
Given this reality, I feel it would hardly be prudent to place additional pressures on the UI fund. We simply cannot afford it. It becomes even harder to justify increasing UI premiums when you consider that the money would be spent in areas that clearly fall under provincial jurisdiction.
The comments about fire fighting had me particularly confused because when I was a young geologist I used to work in northern communities quite frequently. Very often unemployment insurance credits were earned during fire fighting. If we made unemployment payable for people who were on fire fighting duty we could readily see that the provincial governments would suddenly refuse to pay people and just conscript them into that service.
Compensation for jurors and emergency volunteer workers is a provincial responsibility. Under these circumstances, how can we expect the federal government to impose higher premiums on Canadian workers and employers? Should we ask Canadians to incur a higher deficit in the UI fund? I think not.
In closing, I would like once again to acknowledge the hon. member's intentions in sponsoring this motion, but it is clear that his idea is simply impractical and detracts from the real purpose of the unemployment insurance program, which is to protect unemployed workers while they look for a job.

November 19, 1991
Private Members' Business


Dennis Joseph Mills: I would like to compliment my colleague from Restigouche- Chaleur for this initiative, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act for temporary community services.
The member from Calgary North began by saying that he saluted the initiative of the member for Restigouche-Chaleur as well-intentioned, and then in the end he sort of said that it was not practical. What is the purpose of this House of Commons if we are not here to craft and amend legislation? When we discover flaws in the legislation, what is wrong with having these legitimate debates where the government can perhaps show some good faith, and instead of just debating them in a token fashion, say: "Let's work together and we are going to get this amendment through". This bill is not going to shake the fiscal framework of this country. I was amused by the remark earlier of the member from Markham. His rationale was that by amending this bill, where would it lead to? It could lead to further amendments. I must be losing it, because I thought we were here to craft and amend legislation.
This week I had a constituent come in to my office and he talked about the flaw in the UI legislation related to adoptive parents, where adoptive parents do not get the same benefit as natural parents. I must have been asleep or something the day that particular piece of legislation went through. That is a real flaw in the legislation. I am going to be asking the Law Clerk if he will help me to prepare an amendment to the legislation.
I cannot believe that anyone on the government side is going to put forward an argument that because of the fiscal constraints we are under, we are going to have a different law for adoptive parents. That is just not good logic.
It seems to me that when we have an amendment like this, it is an opportunity for the government to practise what it has been preaching in the last two weeks. The government has been talking about putting some goodwill and spirit back into this country and showing that we are acting in a fair way.


Al Johnson: Talk to Mr. Chretien about that.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I would be happy to talk to him about that.


An hon. member:: He cannot support this bill.


Dennis Joseph Mills: He does support this bill. There they go again, Mr. Speaker. This idea of goodwill is only one way. They expect us on this side to wimp out on every piece of nonsense that goes on on that side of the House. It is like the government House leader when he talked about decorum. It is all words. He never meant it.
They talk about my leader. I think it is fair ball. We are all human. I think the Leader of the Opposition has basically said that the frustration that they are causing not only the people of Canada but us as members of Parliament from time to time is such that we sort of bolt.


Al Johnson: Possibly trying to manipulate the destruction of the country.


Dennis Joseph Mills: The member for Calgary North now is really losing it. Here we are talking about a simple amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act and he is linking an amendment to this act and the destruction of the country. That is not really what it is all about. I cannot believe it.
The member for Restigouche-Chaleur has obviously been hearing from his constituents and has used the process of this House of Commons and there is not an ounce of goodwill. I am telling you right now, Mr. Speaker, here is a simple amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act where we are asking the government an easy thing. Do you know what is incredible about this? The minister responsible is from the same province, from New Brunswick and we cannot get these men and women to put some pressure on the minister. It is a ministerial stroke of the pen to amend this.
It is token goodwill. It is not even a big deal. But no, they get set in their ways and say that it is impractical, where would it lead to. Obviously I get a sense that there is not going to be a lot of movement over there. It is no wonder why sometimes we throw our hands up in
November 19, 1991

frustration and wonder what the heck we are doing in this House. I just hope that maybe there can be a moment of reflection on that side of the House that they will consider looking at this and consider the fact that fighting for amendments whether it is for volunteers like this, or even for the adoptive parents, rather than us coming to hit them on the head from time to time, why do they not show some initiative on their part and say: "Listen, there is a flaw in this legislation and we want an amendment. Let's get it through and on with it and let's figure out ways in which we can get people back to work".


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to have nearly the time I would like to get into this bill. I was very impressed with the arguments of my colleague, the hon. member from Calgary North, when he talked about the economic consequences of such a bill.
Although many on this side of the House, as well as on the other side, agree with the sentiment expressed by the hon. member for Restigouche who raised this motion, I think perhaps his good intentions are misdirected. If his concern is with those citizens who are called upon to do jury duty and/or fight forest fires, I think it is true that pay for jurors and emergency workers is often less than they might get on unemployment insurance. But is that the fault of unemployment insurance or is that the fault of the provinces that do not pay sufficient funds to people who are on jury duty or are on emergency duty, such as fighting forest fires?
I doubt whether the member would have even had a complaint from his constituent if in his province they paid jurors more than people on unemployment insurance. So that is the problem he wishes to address. It is not a problem with the unemployment insurance bill. It would add again to the deficit of the unemployment insurance. The Liberal Party again wants to add to the deficit of unemployment insurance or simply-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
Adjournment



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon in relation to the approval process provided by the Government of Canada to the United States military for Trident nuclear submarines to pass through Canada's sovereign internal waters at Dixon Entrance.
The history of the boundary, the A-B line and this body of water which is sovereign and internal to Canada, is one of a trail of bullying, broken promises, treachery, deception, lies and treason, and it carries on to this very day.
On October 2 in the question that is being covered again this evening, I asked the Prime Minister why he and the government were proceeding to approve the transit of these U.S. nuclear submarines through Dixon Entrance. The Minister for International Trade responded for the Prime Minister and simply said, and I quote: "Discussions are ongoing".
In the August 28, 1991, cabinet document, which I will be providing today to Hansard, it says:
Given that a Govemor-in-Council decision is soon going to be
announced regarding the transit of nuclear submarines through
Dixon Entrance -
That quote makes it quite clear that a decision had already been reached, certainly within the bureaucracy, and I suspect at the ministerial and cabinet level as well. So I pursued it and on November 1, at page 4371 of Hansard, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
Have there been submerged U.S. submarine transits of Dixon
Entrance in the past two years?
The minister said and I quote: "My understanding is no".
On October 30, the same minister announced an Order in Council providing consent for U.S. nuclear propelled submarines to pass submerged through Dixon

November 19, 1991
Adjournment
Entrance. It raises a very fundamental question, Mr. Speaker, of who is in charge? Who is in fact in charge? Is it really possible that on October 30 the Secretary of State for External Affairs would announce blanket prior consent for U.S. nuclear submarines to go through Dixon Entrance and actually expect members of the House of Commons and the Canadian public to believe that she had never been informed and simply did not know that the U.S. navy had been illegally transiting Dixon Entrance on a regular basis for the previous two years? I somehow think not.
We have to ask why was the deal hidden?
I would like to reflect for a moment on the words of the former secretary of state, the Right Hon. Joe Clark, as recorded March 23, 1987 at page 4447 of Hansard when he was questioned by the previous member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, Pauline Jewett, in relation to the polar sea and Arctic sovereignty. Ms. Jewett asked:
Can we have the assurance that some secretly negotiated agreement
will not be sprung on the Canadian public at that time?
Mr. Clark said the following:
The assurance is categoric. There will be no secret agreements
sprung upon anybody. I take very seriously, if I may say so, the
obligation on these matters with respect to the north.
He goes on to say that it is the practice of this government, which has asserted northern sovereignty, to consult extensively with all those Canadians who are interested.
There was no consultation. It was secret. There has been no environmental assessment and there must be because, as I pointed out before, in just one recent four-year period these very same U.S. nuclear submarines have been involved in over 400 accidents; 12 groundings, 50 collisions, 113 onboard fires, 14 onboard explosions and 31 onboard crew suicides.
The people of British Columbia and the people of my constituency deserve a risk assessment, an emergency preparedness assessment, a full environmental assessment and review that is public. This government cannot keep these kinds of issues secret. We deserve to know publicly what is going on.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we may
want to dispute with the hon. member some of the alleged facts he puts forward today.
One thing that there is not a dispute about and with which we agree with him totally is the sovereignty of the A-B line, the boundary between the United States and Canada in the upper coastline of British Columbia. That is indisputable. Canada has never wavered from that position. It is an internationally agreed upon boundary which is nearly 100 years old. That is Canada's boundary and there is no dispute about that.
There is a dispute, however, first of all, about the comparison he makes between this issue and the polar seas. That is not a NATO exercise, that is not a NORAD exercise, that was a sovereignty issue between Canada and the United States. The former Secretary of State for External Affairs was accurate and categorical in the statements he made on that issue.
This issue regarding submarine traffic in the Dixon Entrance has to do with our agreements with the United States through NATO and NORAD. It is not only U.S. subs that have gone there but other NATO subs have been there. So if I might put a pun on it, to polarize the issue as a Canada-U.S. issue is not accurate and it does not stand scrutiny under fact. To raise bogus alarmist stories about fires on these subs when he does not say whether it was an ash tray or a steak in the galley or sub-machinery related fires is alarmist and it is unconscionable for the member to do that.
I would say that yes, there is an agreement between Canada and the United States through the NATO agreement. Yes, there has been an environmental study conducted and, yes we are going to continue this. It is not a Canada-U.S. issue, it is a collective security issue which Canada plans to honour.


EMPLOYMENT
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the Kendall Company established a manufacturing plant in the city of Toronto about the year 1916. It moved in 1953 to East York which was then a suburb of the city of Toronto and is now one of the six cities that make up metropolitan Toronto.
Two years ago, Kendall employed some 700 persons in its East York plant manufacturing bandages, dressings and medical supplies. Two years ago our government gave Kendall $1 million to move its East York operation to Peterborough, Ontario and to establish a brand new
November 19, 1991

manufacturing operation there. With Canadian taxpayers' money, including the tax money of those 700 employees in East York, Kendall closed its East York plant. It laid off 700 people, established a new manufacturing plant in Peterborough and hired another 200 people there. That was two years ago.
In September of this year Kendall announced that it was closing its new manufacturing facility in Peterborough altogether, laying off 165 employees and moving its production to the United States. I wish this was an isolated case but it is not.
Our own government says that over the last two years there has been a net reduction in manufacturing employment in Canada of about 195,000 jobs. In fairness, thousands of jobs are lost every year whether it is in good times or bad.
In fairness, over four million Canadians change their jobs every year. In fairness, manufacturing employment as a percentage of the labour force has actually been declining since 1950 when it was 26 per cent and today it is only 16 per cent. In fairness, the United States also lost about a million manufacturing jobs over the last two years. And in fairness, in spite of the loss of manufacturing jobs there has been a net increase in the total number of jobs here in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, you and I know that none of that helps if you have lost your job, if you have received your lay-off notice or if you are afraid that you are going to lose your job or somebody in your family is going to be losing their job very soon.
What is the government going to do about it? I have suggested that we can stimulate demand, create jobs and get the economy moving again by perhaps using the 5 per cent down payment, the registered retirement savings plan as down payment, lowering the differential on the interest rates between Canadian and U.S. dollars and providing short-term loans, not grants, to manufacturing businesses that need help to survive in the short term.
So far the government has refused to act on any of these suggestions. I have not heard any brilliant ideas from the government except: "We will keep lowering interest rates". Interest rates going down did not solve the problem in the 1930s and so far it has not solved the problem today.
What does the minister have in mind?
Adjournment
Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for Science): Mr. Speaker, first let me point out that when Kendall announced some two or two and a half years ago that it was closing its operation employing some 700 people, at that time IRDP was in place, the Industrial Regional Development Program, and Peterborough was eligible for that funding to locate industries in an area of high unemployment.
I am happy to report that as a result of IRDP, which we no longer have and maybe I could support my hon. friend in reinstating IRDP, 26 projects located in the Peterborough area representing a capital investment of some $8,836 million.
In my conversations with Kendall today in Peterborough it advised me that it is retaining its own factory and property. It is not putting it up for sale. It is employing over the next number of years a minimum of 107 people and will be engaged in the process of distributing coast to coast in Canada out of the Peterborough operation with
80.000	square feet of space being used.
In addition, it found it necessary to rent the other
80.000	feet of space which it owned and is installing at the moment some high-tech equipment so it can handle a very involved cross-Canada distribution program. With modern telecommunications it is now able to receive phone calls from any hospital in Canada direct to that factory, and it is going to maintain warehouses in both Moncton and one other part of the country. It is retaining those outlets for distribution in Moncton and in the west.
I am pleased to announce that Kendall expects to continue its program. I can advise the member that the government has investigated the investment of $1 million and on a preliminary, cursory view it is prepared to recommend that it lived up to its agreements under the IRDP. It is not intended to-


CANADA POST
Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, on June 101 gave notice of my intention to raise during the adjournment debate the issue I raised at the time.
On June 10 I asked the government what it intended to do about saving the jobs involved in manual sortation at the Cambellton post office. This question was further to a press release issued by the Canada Post Corporation on May 7, announcing measures to rationalize mail

November 19, 1991
Adjournment
processing which would eliminate more than half of the staff at the Campbellton Post Office.
The government's response was predictable. The minister showered me with platitudes about the use of technology to increase efficiency at Canada Post. However, he conveniently forgot to answer my question about job losses in a region that has a very high level of unemployment. When I waved a letter under his nose from the office of the president of the Canada Post Corporation, indicating that the latter had no intention of removing sorting operations from Campbellton, he again evaded the issue by referring to what the Liberal government did 10 years ago about political interference in the Canada Post Corporation.

The reason for my question on that date was that I had received a letter from Canada Post. Rather than read it all I will just read the last sentence. It says:
Dear Mr. Arseneault:
I can assure you that we have no plan to remove sorting operations
from Campbellton.
Following that there was a press release by Canada Post basically stating the opposite, telling us that there was going to be downgrading of sorting operations in a number of communities across Canada, Campbellton being one of them.
I immediately requested a meeting with Canada Post. In all fairness, I should say that Canada Post responded very quickly and came to the riding to meet with the member of Parliament, myself, and a number of other individuals. I want to be on record now as thanking Canada Post because as a result of that meeting there was a partial reversal of that decision.
However, I must still remind the government that I did have a commitment that there would be no loss whatsoever. A partial reversal in my mind is not good enough.
Specifically from the government we heard that the reasons for doing this was technology. I am not against technology but I ask: Does technology require that you have to go into a post office, buy a stamp and then go outside to mail it when the post office is open? Is that technology? Is technology the lack of mail boxes in rural Canada? Is technology closing post offices? Is technology rewarding your management for all the major cuts it has
been making across the land in Canada Post and trying to get back at the union members?
I hope that I will get a more direct answer this evening. I hope that Canada Post would plainly say that there would be no loss of positions at the Campbellton post office, because that was the original commitment.
In closing, I should say that I have another commitment from Canada Post in our riding. I was told that I would be informed of any changes in my riding with regard to Canada Post. I was just informed yesterday that effectively there has been a cutback at the Nash Creek post office, a reduction of hours for some employees. I would ask again that Canada Post reverse that cutback.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I note with interest the hon. member's concern regarding Canada Post Corporation's recent announcement with respect to mail processing in the town of Campbellton.
He complains that the mail processing will be removed from the town and that people will lose their jobs and he asks that the government intervene in this matter.
I am truly surprised that the hon. member would suggest that the government intervene in the postal operation, when it was agreed by all three parties in 1981, and perhaps he is not familiar with this, that Canada Post should be free of political interference. The corporation has come a long way from when it was a debt ridden burden on the Canadian taxpayer, costing Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars. As a matter of fact, it has just recorded its third straight year of profitable operations.
Part of Canada Post's success story can be attributed to the operational efficiency achieved through such initiatives as process rationalization. This program is not new. In September 1990 Canada Post implemented mail processing changes to make more efficient use of its work force, its equipment and facilities as well as improved transportation links throughout the country. This streamlining ensures delivery standards are maintained or exceeded. The program is presently operating successfully in some 100 Canadian communities and now the corporation is planning to proceed with similar measures in an additional 54 communities later this year. More mail will be consolidated for processing and fed
November 19, 1991

directly into mechanized plants for maximum efficiency and faster sorting and distribution.
In some communities such as Campbellton twin mailboxes will be introduced so that the customers can separate their local and forward mail, which is mail bound for all other destinations. The mail separation eliminates one step in mail handling and the forward mail will go directly to Saint John for mechanized sorting while the local mail will continue to be processed in Campbellton.
I would just like to close and say with respect to any reduction in the number of jobs as a result of the implementation of this program, Canadians can rest assured that work force changes at Canada Post are being managed in a responsible manner.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I first brought this issue to the attention of the Minister of Finance over a year ago before the GST became law.
I began receiving calls and letters from my constituents who are naturally upset by the discriminatory practice that they were receiving from the government on the GST.
I tried to to explain to the minister that it was unfair to have a double standard in which urban residents can get an unlimited amount of water GST free, whereas GST on water and on basic necessities in rural Canada was being applied.
However, on February 6, 1991, the then Minister of Finance indicated: "No GST will apply to the supply of potable water". Such was not the case. Changes were made and rural Canada continued to suffer under the burden of this regressive tax.
In response to the overwhelming calls from my constituents, I asked the minister in the House on June 11,1991 to immediately correct this serious injustice to rural Canada.
The present Minister of Finance replied in a letter to me of June 13, 1991 indicating: "The GST as amended on March 27 exempts the supply of unbottled water when provided by a municipality or by an organization designated as a municipality for the purposes of that supply".
The government's tune had changed and it continues to try to convince rural Canadians that all is fair, that the
Adjournment
problem has been solved. It has not. Rather, the government's proposed solution to the unfair tax of water used by rural Canadians served only to shift the tax discrimination from rural residents to rural water suppliers. Water suppliers can apply to become a designated municipality so that they do not have to charge GST to the customers. However, as a municipality the suppliers can only get 57.14 per cent of their input tax credits as opposed to the full 100 per cent able to be acquired by other small businesses. Hence, the designation of a water hauler as a municipality can result in the customers having access to tax free water, but the water haulers must bear the brunt of this and they must lose their full GST rebate which all others enjoy.
This uncertainty is a discrimination and it is totally unacceptable. This convoluted legislation is pitting water hauler against water hauler, antagonizing and frustrating customers and causing a paper nightmare to claim the input credits. Furthermore, to try to get a straight answer out of Revenue Canada on this is next to impossible. The minister was bound to know that a tax like the GST would run into some snags, and this is one of them. The real crime is that he can easily solve this problem. All he has to do is bring in amending legislation to zero rate bulk supplies of water. In the larger scheme of things this may seem like a little thing, but I tell you it has meant hardship in rural Canada and it has meant hardship among rural water haulers. The hardship and discontent is clearly demonstrated by the well over 6,000 signatures I have received from rural petitioners. Still I am having numbers of petitioners and numbers of petitions come in.
Water is a basic necessity of life, and I would ask the Minister of Finance to immediately rectify this unfair discrimination in rural Canada.


Benno Friesen: I would first of all point out to the hon. member that the Minister of Finance is a member from rural Canada who understands water supply very well.
The member for Haldimand-Norfolk has criticized the GST for creating an inequity in the treatment of water supplies between rural and urban residents. The member believes that residents of rural areas who do not have access to municipal distribution systems are required to pay GST for their water while city dwellers receive water tax free.

Adjournment
Let me clarify the policy in this matter. The goods and services tax, as amended on March 27, exempts a supply of unbottled water when provided by a municipality or by an organization designated as a municipality for the purpose of supplying water. An independent water supplier, for example a private water utility or a bulk water supplier, may apply to Revenue Canada Customs and Excise Division for such designation. Its sales of water will then be exempt. Like municipalities, it will then also be entitled to a 57 per cent partial rebate of GST for tax paid on inputs, including vehicles, equipment and fuel. Accordingly the policy provides for consistent treatment of water supplies in urban and rural areas. Of course, a private supplier may choose not to apply for designation as a municipality. In those instances, it would be required to collect and remit GST and will be entitled to full input tax credit. This may be an appropriate result where the clients of the supplier, that is farmers purchasing irrigation water, are themselves able to claim input tax credits for GST paid.
However, in other circumstances private suppliers would most likely want to take advantage of the exemption, thereby ensuring that rural residents receive their water on the same tax exempt basis as urban residents.
A recommendation was made by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk that the supply of water from bulk water suppliers should be zero rated, that is removing tax on the supply and at the same time giving suppliers full input tax credits. However, that would not provide equitable treatment of bulk suppliers and municipal suppliers.
The legislation allows consistent treatment of the supply of water to both urban and rural residents. However, we recognize that there have been difficulties informing water haulers of this policy, and as a result there has been some confusion with respect to the treatment of supplies of water to rural residents. Consequently, we are looking at ways to simplify the application of the exemption in this area. Maybe the hon. member, since he is concerned about this, will help spread the word.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, last June 17 I raised an immigration issue of significant importance with respect to how our immigration procedures are handled and how we assure that the religious rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are respected.
The matter clearly also affects the individuals whose circumstances prompted my question. Specifically, four Sikh priests denied status in Canada were facing deportation.
Forty thousand members of the Khalsa Dabar Sikh Temple in Mississauga were subsequently compelled to go to the courts to secure for their priests the very same rights guaranteed to all priests and religious ministers both under the Immigration Act and its regulations.
For example, directives from the Quebec region immigration office guarantee that priests can request a credible basis refugee claim without a formal interview or hearing. But these four were denied that opportunity. The minister was brusque in responding to a reasonable request for intervention. First he declared that the priests should simply get out. He was precipitous, he was wrong and worse, he was inflammatory.
Second, he refused in this House to be involved or to comment claiming that this case was before the courts. Yet no court action had begun. His involvement had been asked so that a court action could be avoided.
Third, after I advised him that the priests together had 12 more administrative procedures before refugee hearings, he lashed out with personal attacks on this member engaging in diversionary tactics because he was not in possession of the facts.
He owes Canadians the responsibility to stay informed. His perverse inaction is creating unnecessary turbulence in the lives of individual priests and their parishioners. To date the immigration department has refused to deal with the questions of religion and priesthood. It has forced the priests to go into a refugee system to secure status, thus denying Sikhs the same access to their priests as Catholics, Protestants and others have to their own.
November 19, 1991

The actions of the department means in effect that it does not recognize the Sikh religion. Without their priests Sikhs cannot enjoy the guarantees of religious freedom under section 2 of the charter. The multicultural character of Canada referred to under section 27 can no longer apply to them. The equality provisions under section 15 ring hollow for them.
How can the minister justify depriving Sikhs of these basic freedoms?
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Punjabi, translated as
follows:]

This is an affront to Sikh faith and to Canadians of Punjabi origin who practise the Sikh religion. They live by the precepts of their founder, the Guru Nanek, who called for peace among men, equality between genders and among races, respect for individual rights and differences, who preached humility, industry and the concept of community.
Mr. Speaker, these are admirable Canadian values and as a country we should support those who advance them there and everywhere.

Yes, and yet the minister is prepared to send these priests to a country where they will be clearly in danger. International press reports, UN resolutions, Amnesty International, among other impartial observers point to the fact that the deportation to the Punjab will lead to certain danger for the applicants.
It is time the minister acted to ensure that the Sikh community in Canada has a real chance to live in dignity. It cannot continue to thrive or to do so without figures central to Sikh religion and to culture, that is their priests.
I urge the minister to stop waffling, stop dallying, to get involved, intervene and ensure that they have an opportunity to stay in Canada and to minister to the parishioners of Sikh faith in Canada.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration,
Adjournment
I wish to respond in greater detail to the questions raised by my hon. friend from Eglinton-Lawrence.
As the hon. member well knows, the backlog clearance program for Bill C-55, Canada's refugee determination system, is among the most generous refugee protection systems in the world and he should acknowledge that.
Both systems are administered uniformly across the country. Decisions are made by independent, and I stress, are made by independent decision makers and each case is reviewed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Nevertheless, Canada's refugee determination systems were never intended to serve as another route for immigration. That should be made very clear.
Our goal is to provide Canada's protection to those who genuinely need it and to deal firmly but fairly with those who do not. It should be noted that the four individuals referred to by the hon. member all made refugee claims. They have the right to have their claims determined. In fact, under Canadian law there is an absolute obligation to deal with their claims. It should also be noted that Employment and Immigration Canada has been working with Canadian congregations including the Sikhs and foreign clergy and religious workers for a long time.
There are well established procedures in place to facilitate the admission of foreign religious workers either as immigrants or temporary workers. Officials of Employment and Immigration would be pleased to assist the congregation of Khalsa Dabar Temple should they wish to bring in foreign religious workers according to the requirements of Canadian law.
Similarly, if a refugee claim is rejected and a removal order issued, those same officials have no choice but to proceed with the removal. That is as the law requires. Canadians expect as much.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.33 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 20,1991