1991-11-01

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blais that Bill C-22, an act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations; and the amendment of Mr. Rodriguez (p. 4192).
Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have been here a little better than a year now and I think I finally have an occasion when I can say something nice about this government.
This is sort of a kinder, gentler Bankruptcy Act and in many respects the process that was used to arrive at this act is worth noting. I notice that a number of members have done so on the way through and I want to do it again.
I think there are two or three things that need to be said about the way in which this particular piece of legislation has been brought to the floor of the Chamber. It has been discussed by a House of Commons committee in a very broad sense, what is wrong with the old Bankruptcy Act and things of that nature. This is one of the few occasions when one can point directly to a process that is somewhat different, somewhat unique and a lot more sensible than the normal legislative flow.
A bill was introduced and sent to committee. The committee then had the opportunity, before everybody
was locked into position, before everyone had decided exactly what they wanted in the bill, to have some options open up. Some groups were provided with an opportunity to comment in a public way before the legislation was put together in final form. This is somewhat unusual. Normally that is a private process carried on by most governments behind closed doors. There is a kind of negotiating process that goes on before a bill is tabled.
This time there was much more thought, consideration and opportunity. It was not perfect, but it was much better than what we had seen on many other occasions. I commend the government for making that change in the way that legislation, particularly this kind of legislation, is put together. I think that is helpful, because I believe that makes the legislative process a much more open and legitimate process. I think all of us know, if we go home to our ridings at all, that people are very angry that someone has designed a bill, a law and after it has been put to paper, so to speak, it rarely can be changed. At that point, a government is committed totally to almost every single word in the bill, especially in a majority. Even good ideas that are recognized by all sides somehow cannot be fitted into the bill. It is just not possible to do that.
I believe that what was used as a parliamentary process here is one which the government should pay a lot of attention to. It ought to think more of ways in which laws can be brought before the Chamber, and then aired. By airing I mean not just hearing complaints about it, but hearing suggestions or ideas, about hearing concepts, about hearing how the bill will have an impact on various groups that will come under that legislation.
I think that the first order of business here this morning is to congratulate the government for its role, and all the opposition parties for their role, in trying to work out something that is a little different from the norm. I believe it will be a more positive one.
The second thing that I think is important to note about this bill is that it is one of those areas of law that is not quite politically attractive. I suppose that is the polite

Government Orders
way to say it. It is one of those things where, in talking about bankruptcy, there are not many political points to be gained. It does not have a broad appeal among the population.
It does have a tendency to be the kind of law that gets drafted, set in cement, and never changed. The previous law, for example, went for some decades before changes were made to it.
I want to note too that there is a provision to review this bill on a regular basis. I believe it is every three years.
The government should also take note that none of us is a perfect human being. With all the work being done by the staff that are around, all the people who draft legislation, all those who advise governments and opposition parties, all the consumer groups and manufacturing association groups, we sometimes forget things. We sometimes do not put provisions in the laws that are flexible enough to reflect that our society is changing. What looked like a good law in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s does not even seem relevant to many people today.
This is one of those areas of law that falls into that category. There is a need for legislation, such as this one which deals with bankruptcies, to be reviewed on as regular basis. I do not just mean it should be looked at in the sense that a parliamentary committee can go and criticize an existing law. I mean in a way that allows a parliamentary committee to do something a little more positive than that. It should take the law, hear how it is working in our Canadian society, and adjust it regularly.
That should be the norm. It should not be the norm that someone drafts a law, passes it, and it stays there for 30 or 40 or 50 years. It should be the norm that every single law on our books gets a regular review from a parliamentary committee. In areas of our society such as this, where pressures change regularly on businesses and on people who work for businesses, I believe there is a need to have the laws of the land adjusted regularly.
I think there are some good basic concepts that have been brought forward in this particular piece of legislation.
There is another provision in here that a number of business people have talked to me about that strikes me as just being good plain common sense. That is a cooling off period. There is a period of time when a business
under the previous law would have gone bankrupt today. Under this proposal there is a short period of time, 30 days, a window of opportunity to go out and see if there is a way they could reorganize, to check out some other forms of financing, to see if there are some things that they could do which would keep that business alive. That is important.
Some would argue that legislation such as this deals almost exclusively with the business community. I do not believe it does. It certainly has its prime initiative in that realm, but it is people who work for those businesses. Those are jobs. Those are people who have their livelihoods thrown away at the same time.
Much criticism has been levelled against companies that go bankrupt. Sometimes it is a rather creative process that a company that has not enough assets to keep it going today somehow manages to emerge from a bankruptcy with lots of assets and lots of cash in its hands. Most of the people who work for that company wind up with nothing and a small group of people wind up rather well off.
I believe that legislative review and the kind of provisions that are in this act will tend to mitigate against that concept, that kind of perception that these laws are just written straight for the business community. There are some important principles that have been incorporated into this act that I think give it a little better balance. Part of the credit for that goes to the hon. member for Nickel Belt, who is of course our mentor for the private sector. He advises the corporate sector in Canada on what they are doing right and what they are doing wrong, and from time to time he gives them little awards, and he is a friendly, knowledgeable chap. The work that he did in this committee, and the work of all the members in there, I think has been quite helpful. He has certainly given me more information than I ever wanted to know about the corporate sector. But that is his job and I think that is a good description of the job of most ordinary members in this Chamber.
Most ordinary members are not burdened with the responsibility, thank God, of sitting in cabinet and coming forward with a new policy or a new law which they then have to defend, even if they think that it is not exactly what they personally would want to do. But ordinary members on all sides are not carrying that big rock on their heads. They have an opportunity to go in and speak their minds, and I think this law reflects that.
November 1, 1991

This legislative proposal shows initiatives here from all sides of the House, from a number of different members and from a number of different organizations. I think that is one of the things, frankly, that is wrong with politics in Canada, that we simply have not been able to find a way to do that very often.
This bill, although it is not a perfect piece of legislation, reflects that, and it is better legislation because of it.
I want to move to a couple of areas where I think there is a little room for improvement. Perhaps it reflects on some of the things that I have been saying already. There is an attempt made in here to put together a wage protection package. All of us who have sat in our constituency offices and listened to individuals who worked for a company that looked pretty healthy last month, but is now out of business this month, have just kind of shaken our heads. Somehow, the laws of the land exclude those who made a contribution to that company. They are kind of shut out. The proposal in this act for a wage protection plan may not be perfect, but at least in principle it is a recognition that somebody else has some sweat equity in that business, that somebody other than the owner made a contribution, that somebody has a right to get something out of the bankrupt company just as other creditors do. In other words, the employees have an investment. It might not be an investment in stocks in the company, and it might not be a title on the board of directors of the company, but they have been there every day when the business opened up in the morning and they generated the income for that.
There is a reflection, perhaps for the first time in this kind of legislation in Canada, that they also have a claim on what happens here.
I think our arguments, when the bill goes to committee, are going to be a little hot and heavy about the exact nature of that claim. I want to give credit where credit is due. This is the first occasion that I can think of in bankruptcy legislation where Canadian workers have at least been acknowledged. We want to argue a bit more about how that is done. We specifically want to argue exactly how practical it is to levy yet another tax on a small business. Without getting fervent about all of this, there cannot be anybody left in here who has not had some small business person in the riding come and talk to him rather loud and rather long about all the changes
Government Orders
that have occurred in their financial world in the last little while.
A lot of business people can handle a great many things with ease. Change is not one of them. Many of them are very small businesses where the financial and accounting side of the business is often not something that is going to make General Motors quiver in its collective Gucci boots. This is often one person with a ledger, trying to figure out when the taxes are due, and how much they are, and what they are for. Even though the dollar amount may not be much more than it was under some other tax scheme, the fact that you have got to change them all around causes aggravation. That means less productivity in the work place.
Even we New Democrats have to ask ourselves this question once in a while: Does this method of raising money seem appropriate for the moment? I have to agree with those who say that to do this kind of wage equity program by means of some kind of levy is going to cause some hardship. Perhaps we ought to look at some other ways of accomplishing the same goal. We are in agreement, on all sides now, that people who work in these companies deserve some wage protection.
We are in agreement that some wage protection package has to be put together. Let us explore the ways in which we might do that. We are arguing, particularly on the amendment that has been put forward already, that it is not appropriate to do that at this point in our history by adding yet another tax to the process. That may upset the apple cart.
This is going to be a tough argument. I do not deny for a moment that we are going to encounter some very strange allies in this process and that they are going to agree with the position put forward by the member for Nickel Belt for some very unusual reasons. At least we are acknowledging that there is a problem out there and that businesses and individuals are encountering that problem.
Take a parallel situation like a goods and services tax where the government has tried the traditional techniques of negotiating a different way of collecting tax. It is estimating it on a different basis, providing rebates to certain people who might have a more negative impact than somebody else. It has spent a lot of money on advertising to tell people how wonderful and painless and absolutely necessary this really is, even to the point

November 1, 1991
Government Orders
of saying that it was only going to use this money to pay down the national debt. Even though all those traditional devices have been tried, people in Canada are still saying: "But it is still wrong". That is my concern about some additional taxation process around a wage protection package.
The good idea, the wage protection package, may suffer immensely because of the technique that is being used to fund it. I urge all members to go back, when this bill goes to committee, and revisit in your own minds that wage protection package which has been agreed upon. Let us look for any alternatives for funding that wage protection package. I hope that is what happens.
I noted that there is a section of the bill which deals with the matter of people who have supplied goods, in this case to a company that has gone bankrupt. It concerns their right to go in and retrieve their goods during a 30 day period. I know the argument I am going to get on this. I know there are going to be people who say: "Well, I did not find out about it until the 29th day, and I could not get a truck there on the 30th day, so it was the 31st day when I was able to retrieve my goods, so I did not get them". Maybe there is a little room for flexibility there.
I want to introduce one other area which might be useful that I did not see in the legislation. There are a number of individuals, consumers, who have bought and paid for a car, a truck, a boat, a piece of furniture, a television set in a company that has gone bankrupt. I am aware that in each of the provinces there have been attempts made to provide them with some mechanisms to retrieve those goods. Perhaps it would be useful to just simply apply the same rule to individual consumers as you have clearly applied to the suppliers in this instance. That is that when a bankruptcy occurs, they have a right to be notified and a right to retrieve something that is theirs, in essence, but which has not yet been delivered. For some people this is going to be a lot of money.
I recall in the province of Ontario about a year or two ago we discovered that people had purchased boats in marinas which were encountering difficulty and sometimes going bankrupt. These boats can be pretty expensive pieces of merchandise and it was questioned as to whether owners had a right to retrieve their boat from the property of a marina that had gone bankrupt.
The same thing is true of a car dealership that goes bankrupt. You have just bought your brand new Chevy Lumina, made in Oshawa and built entirely in Canada. You are happy as can be. But you will not be very happy if you bought it, paid for it and your Lumina is sitting in a bankrupt dealer's showroom. I think you have to give fairness on both sides.
I agree that the provisions are in here for suppliers to recover things that are rightfully and legally theirs. That should be there, but so should some mechanism whereby a consumer who has done exactly the same thing has a legal right to retrieve whatever it is that they have bought from a company that has gone bankrupt.
All of this is kind of arcane legislation. None of us in this Chamber want to become experts on bankruptcy laws. But all of us, in an economy like the one we are in at the moment, becomes just a little more critical day by day because this is for real. For example, one of the provisions that is in here that everybody agrees with, the wage protection plan, is not meant to be retroactive. There is going to be an argument about that, I hope. There ought to be an argument because a certain cut-off date is put in the legislation, and people after that point have a legal right to make a claim against the wage protection package. Before that date, they are just plain out of luck. That would be denying that we are in the middle of a recessionary period where there have been substantial problems with companies going bankrupt. A lot of Canadian citizens have had their lives ruined because of a bankruptcy.
I believe we have to at least take a look at precisely how we are going to handle that. I do not want to be the one who sits in the constituency office and says to someone who is jammed in exactly that situation: "Well, if your company had gone bankrupt next week, instead of last week, we would have had these things to offer you".
I understand that when a law is passed there has to be a starting date in the law. I understand all the problems about making it retroactive as well. I have no illusions
November 1, 1991

about that, but I believe it should be recognized and it should be dealt with.
One final thing I think is useful in the considerations that have gone on about all of this. This is kind of strange territory for me, so I would ask you to bear with me.
I have listened to a number of business people who have explained to me the wonderful world of finance, and how the smiling, friendly face who was so anxious to give their company a lot of money last year has now been replaced by some other face who is not smiling quite so much. This face does not want to give them money, they want all the money back. They are angry about that particular set of circumstances, without question. They are also angry over who did this.
Very often in a lending institution it is not the manager of the institution who is sitting down with an old friend making these decisions. It very often is somebody who is in that branch for six months or perhaps a year for some training, and they are arguing vehemently that the rules are the rules and you cannot bend the rules. These individuals who have borrowed money are in a rather unusual position. They thought they were doing what the lending institution considered to be good business. All of a sudden, it is not good business anymore. More than that, they will be forced into bankruptcy.
I do not know whether we want to take a look at some kind of system of providing an impartial referee, or whether we should do something a little more positive than that. There are certain things I do know, having been around at different levels for a while. All governments, at almost every level now, have set up some organization to try to deal with this, to promote industrial development in their area.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. Your time has expired.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to most of what my hon. colleague opposite had to say this morning with respect to this legislation and the amendment that was put forward by his colleague.
Let me first say that my hon. friend opposite did make a point about the methodology now being used and hopefully will be used some more in dealing with legislation that is going to be coming before this House
Government Orders
from time to time. That was the one in which he and others referred to the pre-study which began when I was chairman, while most members of Parliament were still on their summer leave. In the early part of September, while others might still have been getting their last fishing trip in, or a vacation with their families, we were doing the nation's business.
Not all members of Parliament are away during the summer. Some are working. Well, we are going to work on that too. I understand that this particular pre-study was somewhat unique and I was grateful to have the co-operation of all parties of this House. It seemed that there were a lot of good intentions to try to resolve what all consider to be a need for changes to the Bankruptcy Act and the bankruptcy laws. They were last really reviewed many years ago.
It is too bad there is not the same spirit of co-operation that went into that pre-study on the other side of the world where they are trying to negotiate peace. As we all know that is important in world matters. Here we have actually accomplished and set some precedents for further pre-studies of legislation that will then be introduced to the House.
The report which the committee released, which I am certain most who are following this legislation read quite closely, reviewed the legislation that was originally proposed and drafted in a very detailed manner over some 20-odd pages. The committee brought in experts to give testimony for the different parties which feel the legislation would benefit them or cause some difficulty for their businesses or employees. We heard opinions about that area from individuals, organizations, bankers, real estate people and those affected. Of some 21 recommendations that we put forward about 16 have been adopted and included in the legislation.
Compared to other reports of the past in this House I think that is almost a record setting endeavour. I hope the message is that backbench members of Parliament and those who have an interest but do not sit in the cabinet can directly influence through their interventions the policies that we put forward in the form of a bill.
As the chairman of the committee it made me feel that that exercise is one that we should continue because it does have a very positive and beneficial effect.

November 1, 1991
Government Orders
I do not want it to be construed that in this particular area we are trying to beat up on the institutions that loan money, basically the banks and trust companies. That certainly is not the case. It is fairly safe to say that the banks are the most protected institutions in this country. Possibly they would argue that is best for Canada, best for a country like ours, that it not be wide open. We do not have bank failures on a regular basis. The kinds of laws and protections that are there keep the system stable.
However, in defence of business entrepreneurs who have to go to the banks for their finances I will ask: Why should the fact that they did receive large advances and loans from the banks jeopardize someone else who is doing business with that company? That to me is one of the very key parts of this legislation.
Everyone talks about wage protection. I know that has been the topic on people's minds in drafting this bill. The ability to revindicate your goods should a bankruptcy occur has an immense beneficial effect on so many suppliers who may be forced by a bankruptcy to go into bankruptcy or insolvency. That to me warrants a lot of protection.
It was one issue that the committee reviewed and believed was a very integral part of this legislation. A farmer in my area a couple of years ago delivered his cattle to a dealer for slaughter. That particular slaughterhouse went into receivership or bankruptcy the next day. The receiver locked the gate. The farmer could see his animals on the other side of the fence. He put a whole year, or two years or three years, into producing those animals. That was his income for the entire year. He could see his livestock but he had no legal right to them because he turned them over to a company that subsequently went bankrupt.
Under this legislation if they are identifiable and across the fence, the owner can go in and take back anything delivered to that bankrupt person that is identifiable in the previous 30 days.
That is the kind of protection that this legislation gives those suppliers and I think it is most welcome.
A second very important point in the legislation is that the Government of Canada, the Crown, does not put itself in a priority position. It stands in line with the
unsecured creditors in almost all cases except for the deductions of tax and unemployment owed.
That is a major shift and a welcomed shift. Those suppliers or unsecured creditors now may have a little bit of an opportunity to recover some of their moneys put into a company. Before, the Crown, the big Government of Canada, was sitting there first to make sure it was looked after. It was felt that this possible loss of revenue would not be significant to the government.
The committee looked at some other very important considerations that altered the legislation. It is very interesting for a group of legislators like ourselves to hear firsthand how the bill can be improved, as opposed to those who originally drafted it, mainly departmental bureaucrats. We should hold our heads up high because we are probably as capable of drafting legislation as those so-called experts. I see my colleague across the way nodding his head. I want to also thank him for putting a lot of hard work into this pre-study.
The main contentious point of the legislation was in terms of wage earner protection and how they should be paid. That is certainly where we heard testimony concerning introducing a tax at this time, albeit one I always thought was never a significant amount. We are talking about 10 cents a week per person by the employer. It is hardly calculable and I felt that we certainly should not be alarmed. However the very word "tax" in the economic climate of Canada today did find disfavour with a lot of people. My colleague from Mississauga made his point very strongly that adding any kind of a tax at this time would not auger well for a lot of businesses.
I think I could agree that the climate is such today. There is a fairly heavy reliance on taxes because of our deficit in Canada, because of demands on federal moneys. Taxes on businesses today makes it very difficult because tax has to be calculated in the price and Canadians want to be competitive in marketing their goods. There are all the different levels of tax, not just the federal government tax by the way. There are municipal taxes, property taxes, provincial taxes, and surcharges levied on businesses and business locations. We now have stricter laws on the environment adding more expenses to businesses trying to operate. One wonders sometimes why people want to venture into business because of the very fact that the big hands of the government have a hand in your pocket.
November 1, 1991

It may well be that the Minister of Finance may have to revamp the entire tax structure of this country to make it more equitable to do business than it presently is with tax on top of tax. I see some nodding across the way.
The tax structure obviously evolved over the course of years as the demand on money increased. A Utopian system would have meant that all governments in Canada, even provincial, would not have spent money without knowing they had the money in the bank to do so.
We have all gone into deficit spending. Almost all provinces and certainly the federal government have been in that position since the 1970s. It is very difficult to reverse the trend, as hard as we try. Upon any suggestion by any other party that it would reduce the trend of deficit spending faster than we have, I suggest that their popularity would go down just as fast. Those are the realities we as politicians face. You can talk a good line but when you deliver it the public then sees that somebody has to do with less and consequently you fall into disfavour.
I want to get back to the wage protection plan which is a major part of this legislation. I know the different forces that are at play here. In trying to be a balanced chairman I heard both sides of the issue and knew there was strong evidence that the wage earner should be put in a super priority.
At first glance this has some benefit. However, on the other hand, in the case that there is still not enough money in the system once a company goes bankrupt, we had to add other measures to cover the funds. It was suggested that the Superintendent of Bankruptcy would be in a position to find the funds in order to pay those that would not. We discussed in depth walkaways, those businesses that do not go bankrupt but just sort of dissolve. Three or five employees are promised the previous months' pay and then do not get last month's pay and finally the place closes down. Then they are out two months pay. What is the provision here while we are collecting moneys from all employers across this nation?
We were lobbied really hard by those who do volunteer work or are maybe paid for it in a small way. They would be contributing to this fund. They basically are in the business of doing work for humanity, you might say, or
Government Orders
for the charitable organizations. They said: "Why are you taxing us? Why are you penalizing us when we are basically doing this for the benefit of all Canadians? Is it not unfair? We just cannot come up with that kind of money, the 10 cents a week".
Another argument that I heard my colleague on the committee from Sudbury make was that today it is 10 cents, but what if the money is not enough and the demands are higher. Next week or five years from now it could go up to $4.1 hope that we never get into that kind of a position. However, that is a concern that could be alarming in the context of politics at a convention or during the next federal election. He would say: "Yes, they put it in and they will be the first people to put it up after the next election". All those things. We might do that to the taxes too. That argument can be used on anything.
The idea was to find as best we could a consensus as to how to make the bankruptcy legislation modem, make it ready for the 1990s and the problems that business faces while still being fair and equitable to those unpaid workers. That was one of the major areas. We could sit and debate either way.
I would not want to hold up this legislation because we could not come to a unanimous conclusion in this House on how that bill should be paid. I would like to try this idea out on the members of this House today. If we found some kind of a compromise-I see the minister standing in the House-I wonder if they would consider postponing the tax and maybe consider using Consolidated Revenue to pay off these unpaid employees in the case of bankruptcy.
We have heard business people say that the climate for additional taxes is certainly not going to be very good for us. I wonder, as a brainstorming measure, if we, all parties of this House, should not consider as an option foregoing the collection of additional taxes at this time. Then when the country is back into a far more prosperous boom cycle we might be able to introduce a small levy to recover some of these funds.
I would like to close by stating that I hope the government would refer ideas of future legislation, as it pursues the area of consumer and corporate affairs which I am involved with, to pre-study. That pre-study has been very effective. Fifteen out of twenty-one

November 1, 1991
Government Orders
recommendations were basically accepted by the government. I congratulate all members of this House who participated in it.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear what the chairman of my committee had to say about this bill. We worked on it together, and I appreciated the fact that our chairman went to great lengths to hear all points of view and to be strictly non-partisan. That being said, I think it is very important for us to have this bankruptcy legislation.
I have the following comment on the hon. member's speech. Contractors and their associations said before the committee that they didn't want another tax. That is true. The chairman just confirmed this. They said they did not want another tax, not even a 5-cent or 10-cent tax. People are fed up with taxes.
I may say that as New Democrats, we supported this view. And after two or three months, everybody was saying: "We cannot afford another tax, so what can we do?" Then, all of a sudden, a group from Quebec appeared before the committee, the Association des contracteurs du Quebec. I imagine the chairman will remember. I asked these people what Quebec was doing about the bankruptcy problem, because we were talking about compensation for people who were in dire straits. They told me there were two aspects to consider. In Quebec, according to law, all contractors must have an assistance fund paid for through taxes, but construction workers had top priority, in any case. I then asked them whether it caused them any financial difficulty and whether they or members of their families had gone bankrupt as a result of this priority. They told me there had been no problem and that the system was something people in the rest of Canada could live with.
I was delighted to hear this, and I am also delighted to hear that our committee chairman endorses the same views.
Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I have one last question. If you agree that we have to set up a $60 million fund, where is the money going to come from? I believe the government mentioned there was no more money in the Treasury. Where are those $60 million
going to come from, because 5 cents or 10 cents per worker will amount to almost $60 million? Who is going to pay?


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I am standing here somewhat in amazement. My colleague from the New Democratic Party is talking a very different line than some of his other colleagues. He asks if we are going to spend some money, where is the money going to come from? I want to thank him for that point of view because we don't hear it very often from New Democrats.
The member is absolutely right. That is the biggest concern we have. Automatically going to the government's coffers while in a deficit situation, without looking at ways of recovery, is not the way we want to operate. That is for certain. Those days are gone. We may have to go there to initiate this fund but certainly we will want to look at a way of recovering it as well. Somebody has to pay. That is for certain. If you are going to pay out to wage earners, if you are going to give them something that they have been denied then somebody has to pay. Collecting it through the UI fund was the suggestion.
He mentioned the Quebec construction people who built in a little protective system for themselves. I suspect that this is just that on a grandiose scale. However the answer still is that once the government gives out its money it must find the source of funds. The source obviously has to be in the form of a tax. That is the only way the government gets its money. I would only suggest that he stay on that wavelength.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to congratulate the hon. member who chaired the committee. I said at the beginning of my speech but I will repeat that it was a very useful process for members of Parliament to be allowed to pre-study a piece of legislation prior to the approval of the principle of the bill at second reading.
I have to commend the Chair for allowing us the latitude that he did. He certainly has set the tone for the deliberations we had. It has perhaps been the most productive committee exercise I have been involved with since I was elected to this place back in 1988. I would urge all ministers, all members, and all committee members to look at the process that we went through
November 1, 1991

because it was very seldom marred by partisanship, it allowed every member who chose to participate to participate. The result is that the government and the minister responsible will probably have a better bill.
The member indicated in his remarks that perhaps, just perhaps, committees might not be a bad place to write legislation. I certainly hope that his comments will be prophetic and at some point in the reform of how we do our business here committees will receive draft legislation from the government and the bureaucrats and it will be left up to members of Parliament, working with those same bureaucrats, to recommend pieces of legislation. That is one way that we can involve all members no matter what their political stripe or party affiliation. It is one way that we can involve them in a very positive way in the legislative process.
I think the chairman has gone a long way in setting the tone and for that I wish to thank him.
I have a comment to make and I would like the member to comment on it. We heard a lot during deliberations about revindication. One of the things we heard from the banks about revindication was that if we did that there would be a massive credit crunch. With the able assistance of the Chair some witnesses appeared and they told us that was simply not the case in the province of Quebec where under their civil code there is a revindication process.
I would like to ask the member to comment about the pressure that was on us initially concerning banks and revindication and then how that dissipated as soon as we had the witnesses and we refocused on super priority.
Second, I would like to hear his comments dealing with farmers and fishermen because he has a great interest in both of those areas. Perhaps he could speak about what we might be able to do subsequent to this bill, if it does pass, to ensure that farmers and fishermen are protected with regard to revindication.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the comments made by my hon. colleague from the other side with respect to drafting legislation. I think I am going to reconvene the committee this afternoon to draft some legislation to bring bank interest rates down.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
Government Orders


Felix Holtmann: I think some of my colleagues from his side would assist me in doing so.
Let me comment briefly on the revindication part of this bill. Once again this revindication of the supply of products to businesses that have found themselves in trouble is a very important and integral part of the bill. It does apply to farmers and fishermen as well, though possibly not as comprehensively as it could. Maybe we should look at it and talk about a farmer who delivers grain to an elevator company or to a feed lot that went bankrupt. How do you tell which is his? It is not really identifiable. How does he recover it? I think that is what the member was referring to. Could we even go further?
I know the minister, being associate minister of agriculture, also has a keen interest in this area. Fishermen and farmers find themselves in the most vulnerable positions because their products quickly change form, are unidentifiable and in many cases are not possible to revindicate.
This is what the member was referring to. Very possibly our committee could brainstorm to determine how to strengthen that portion of the bill for the agriculture and fishing industries of Canada. There are many farmers and fishermen who are vulnerable.
I thank my hon. colleague for the idea and look forward to further work with the other members of the committee.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by recognizing the efforts of the committee under the able chairmanship of the member for Portage-Interlake and in hopefully a new spirit-we talked about decorum earlier this week-also recognize the efforts of the members of the New Democratic Party, the members for Chambly and Nickel Belt.
I particularly want to congratulate the members of our party, the Liberal Party, the member for Dartmouth and the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who so ably represented us in this pre-study of Bill C-22.
The report issued by the committee on Bill C-22 contains several recommendations which I believe improve the bill. I hope that when the bill returns to the House at report stage we will see the recommendations of the committee incorporated into the legislation.

November 1, 1991
During its pre-study of Bill C-22 the committee examined a number of the major concerns that my colleagues and other members of this House have with this bill. To its credit the committee also sought the views of a wide variety of interested organizations, including representatives from the financial, business, and labour sectors.
I was also pleased to see that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture appeared before the committee. A major concern which I hoped would be addressed in Bill C-22 relates to the important issue of having protection placed in the Bankruptcy Act for farmers. The present act offers very little protection for agriculture producers who, for example, have little chance to recover or receive financial compensation for lost produce when a purchaser of that produce goes bankrupt. I will address this matter in greater detail later on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. On resumption of debate the hon. member will have, 17 minutes maximum to speak.

It being 11 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, November has been designated Migraine Awareness Month. Millions of Canadians are affected either directly or indirectly by the problems associated with victims of migraine headache. In fact, 3.2 million Canadians suffer from migraines. It costs $500 million in lost work productivity as well as millions more in medical costs. The incapacitating pain and nausea that renders the victim helpless from a few hours to several days can cause major disruptions in the family and in professional duties. The cause or causes are still being sought as is a universally effective therapy. For many relief with expensive medications are minimal at best.
The Migraine Foundation of Canada is to be commended for assisting the many victims. We lend full support to its efforts in finding an effective cure for this excruciating and often debilitating illness.


INNISKILLIN WINES
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, the biennial global wine competition which was held in Bordeaux, France, in June attracted 4,100 wine entries from 38 wine producing nations.
Inniskillin Wines of Niagara-on-the-Lake walked off with one of the nine gold medals awarded, the Grand Prix D'Honneur, for its 1989 vidal ice wine and thus instantly elevated the wines of Ontario into international fame and acclaim.
Information gleaned from the media indicates strongly that there were no Canadian wines served at the luncheon held at Rideau Hall for the Royal visit of Prince Charles and Princess Diana. If Canadian wines were overlooked, even the winner of a gold medal, I express my great disappointment at the lack of sensitivity shown by our government toward our Canadian wine industry and its workers.
I might add that at another wine competition, Intervin, which attracted 1,800 wine entries, Ontario wineries garnered 53 medals.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I apologize, you have had one minute.


EATING DISORDERS AWARENESS WEEK
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, this is eating disorders awareness week in Canada.
This year, the week is intended for adult women whose desire to be slim is often a concern. Everyone should be aware of the dangers to health that result from eating disorders.
If we wish to prevent or reduce the problems related to eating disorders and make Canadians more aware of them, we must convince them to adopt a philosophy of life that excludes dieting and to accept their bodies as

they are. Self-acceptance is a fundamental objective of the National Eating Disorder Information Centre.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare supports the centre's efforts to this end and joins all members of this House in wishing the organizers of this public education campaign success.

[English ]


LOW-LEVEL FLIGHTS
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the government on its decision to scrap low-level flights that were planned for northern B.C. In fact, the minister, in a letter to me, stated very clearly:
The international events of the past two years and the recent
initiatives announced by the United States have considerably reduced
East-West tensions with the resultant re-evaluation of our own and
allied military requirements. Consequently, it is not envisioned that


IR 910-
[Stage Direction]
The flight path:
-will be utilized in the foreseeable future.
I want to point out however that the government still does not get the whole message on a coherent defence policy. Its plans to allow U.S. submarines to use the Dixon Entrance has been pointed out by the member for Skeena and at the very least that project deserves a full environmental assessment.
Let us hope that the reduced tensions around the world will not only help northern B.C. but also the rest of the world, and especially now, the Middle East.

Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon -Souris):: Mr. Speaker, as someone who has studied and taught Canadian history for most of my adult life, I have a love for and an admiration of Canada that will never diminish.
I am well aware, however, that this country has never been nor will it ever be easy to govern, due in part to our geographical immensity and to our resulting diversities.
In fact, one could easily conclude that we have survived to date in spite of our geography rather than because of it.
I was delighted to learn, therefore, that the 11,000 members of the IODE have been circulating a petition in support of a united Canada, a petition in which they affirm: "That Canada's diversity is a national blessing and a tradition to be cherished and preserved".
Most of us who sit in this Chamber are parents and some are grandparents. As such we can, I hope, concur with IODE's request that we never forget the needs and interests of future generations.
In the words of the petition itself, as no one could say it better, I quote: "For our children and their children, Canada must remain whole".


BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, according to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the rate of individual and company bankruptcies continues to grow at an alarming rate all across Canada. The total number of bankruptcies continues to grow at an alarming rate all across Canada.
The total number of bankruptcies for the first nine months of this year reached over 56,000, a dramatic 50 per cent increase over the first nine months of 1990.
The fact that the cost of borrowing money has improved while bankruptcies continue should suggest to the government that for far too long there has been some fundamental and deep underlying problems preventing individuals and companies from doing business in Canada.
When is the government going to show some interest and announce measures to alleviate the plight of thousands of Canadians who are threatened with bankruptcy because they are still unable to do business in this country?


SOCIETY PROTECTION WEEK
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch -StoufF-ville):: Mr. Speaker, this Monday begins Society Protection Week and the government will be dealing with legislation to improve the safety of Canadians.

November 1, 1991
There have been 72 murders in metro this year already. All of last year the total was 55. Of the 72 murders, 33 involved firearms while guns were used in only nine murders last year.
Many of the residents of Markham-Whitchurch- Stouffville are demanding that the government overhaul the justice system.
Next week the gun control legislation, the Extradition Act, parole reform legislation and a revised Young Offenders Act will be important steps toward a more equitable justice system, a system that protects Canadians and allows them to feel safer.
I have addressed these issues on many occasions in this House. The government is making important inroads by introducing laws that more appropriately recognize the pain and suffering of innocent victims and the need to provide tougher laws to protect all members of society.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian Ethnocultural Council appeared before the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution.
As expected, this umbrella group of 74 ethnocultural and racial minority organizations, reflecting one third of the Canadian population, emphasized their great concern about the minority equality guarantees in the Charter of Rights and the compromising impact on them of the notwithstanding clause.
The press, through which Canadians are supposed to be informed about the constitutional process, typically ignored the CEC brief completely or portrayed it primarily as a defence of the distinct society clause.
Apparently in what the majority press defines as the real national agenda, the real concerns of the CEC hardly count.
By many this would be seen as a typical example of the marginalization by the media of real minority voices. In fact, it should raise the more fundamental question: If the media do not fairly report the national constitutional debate, can there really be one?


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend the Prime Minister faced what was surely the toughest decision of his life. He had to choose between being the Secretary-General of the United Nations and Prime Minister of Canada.
On the one hand, the world's leaders wanted to recognize his skills. On the other he faced a hostile media and personal attacks on him and his family. Those of us in public life in a much more minor way know the pressures of politics on the family.
We can only surmise too well the intolerable weight which hung on Mila Mulroney and their children. On the world stage the Prime Minister was being asked to serve the billions of people who live on this planet. In Canada he was being criticized en bloc by media and opposition politicians for even letting his name stand.
I do not know how many of us in this House could have made the decision that man did. He decided to do his duty for Canada, when this nation had given him every reason to take a walk. If this is not selfless commitment to country, I do not know what is.


ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, call in the Mounties. I think I have been robbed. Either Christmas has come early or the government is still playing Halloween tricks.
Bill C-41, the National Energy Efficiency Act, is nearly the same as a private member's bill that I presented last winter called the Energy Conservation Standards Act. I am pleased that the minister of energy has taken the advice of the Liberal Party that strong, consistent national energy standards are needed, that special labelling is required to show consumers the most efficient products.
I am hopeful that there will be some teeth to the government's new-found commitment to an environmentally friendly future. We need only to look at the 92 per cent cut to alternative energy research programs and the laying off of one-third of the energy department's staff who is working to stem the impact of global warming.
November 1, 1991

Is Bill C-41 a death-bed repentance for the Tories? Is this bill too good to be true? When we notice that since 1984 the research branch's budget has been slashed from $500 million to $40 million.
I must say that I congratulate the government for taking this initiative on energy efficiency, and for following the skilful and capable lead of the Liberal Party of Canada.


CHRYSLER CANADA LIMITED
Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, two days ago, the Minister for International Trade announced the winners of the awards for business excellence. The categories of those winners were entrepreneurship, environment, industrial design, innovation, invention, marketing quality and small business.
I want to draw the attention of this House to one of the highest categories, the category of quality. The winner of that prestigious award was Chrysler Canada Limited of Windsor's mini-van assembly plant, which introduced a long-term quality policy in September 1985.
That program ended up with the dividend of having this tremendous award given to it, in recognition of not just quality product but of management and of the people who work in that plant. I think we should all congratulate a Canadian company for doing so.


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the days of special loopholes, secret deals and lax enforcement of pulp mill effluent had better be over. The Environment Canada report entitled Effluents from Pulp Mills Using Chlorine was released this week and concludes that the government will classify the total effluent from chlorine using pulp mills as toxic under the Environmental Protection Act.
The report concludes that 75 per cent of the mills have effluent that kills fish, effluent that is still toxic 1,400 kilometres from some mill outfalls.
The 47 chlorine pulp mills dumped more than a million tonnes of chlorinated organic compounds into our lakes, rivers and near shore environments in 1989.
This is Canada's largest single industry and biggest water polluter.
The present law, the 1971 Fisheries Act, requires all pulp mills built since then to have non-toxic effluent. The November 1991 pulp mill regulations must cover all mills and be legally binding and be enforced. Some of the fat profits of the pulp sector will have to be used for cleanup, to compensate for damages done, and to implement zero toxic discharge technology.


CANADIAN KARATE CHAMPIONSHIPS
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to point out today the outstanding performance of five karate experts from my region who, at the most recent Canadian championships held in British Columbia, won six medals, including three golds.
With his two gold medals, one silver and title of male athlete of the championship, Marc Hamon of Terrebonne is Canadian karate champion and he has done our region proud. Once again he has proven the vitality and excellence of our sporting organizations.
I would not want to forget another excellent performance, the one turned in by Michel Landry of Mascouche, who won two medals and was outdone only by Marc Hamon.
I congratulate them and their coaches and wish them the greatest success in the next international competitions. Their success is the result of discipline and hard work. Three cheers to them all and keep up the good work. We are all behind you.


EDUCATION
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my support to the thousands of Canadian post-secondary students who are outraged at this government's introduction of a 3 per cent guarantee fee on Canada student loans.
It is grossly hypocritical for this government to claim that it is fighting for accessible post-secondary education, while at the same time imposing an additional cost of 3 per cent on Canadian students who are already

November 1, 1991
Oral Questions
suffering from a recession and the imposition of the GST on books and learning supplies.
Many students must rely on Canada student loans in order to have the chance to attend post-secondary institutions. After all, these are loans for the needy, not grants for the greedy.
This policy is anti-education. This government must work to encourage, not discourage education. The removal of this inane fee will move us in the right direction.


CANADA CAREER WEEK
Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the House about an initiative that especially interests me, Canada Career Week, which this year will be held from November 3 to 9. For seven days, more than 1,000 communities in all regions of Quebec and Canada will work with the federal Department of Employment and Immigration and organize a host of original activities, in the hope that all students will make choosing a career a top priority.
I am proud of the ever-growing support which the government receives from young people, of course, and also from teachers, parents and the business community. Last year, for example, over 2,000 employers and thousands of participants took our suggestion and helped make Career Week an outright success.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Earlier this week when the minister said the economy was starting to boom, he was patting himself on the back. Yesterday when the numbers proved him wrong, he decided to blame Canadian business people who have been critical of the government's interest rate policies.
He said: "It is now time for the business community to take up the challenge because it cannot hide behind that forever".
That is not a fair remark. Does the minister really think that business does not want a recovery? Did the business community bring in the high dollar? Did the business community bring in 33 tax increases? Did the business community deliberately cause the recession? Or, did the government do all of those things?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the government's economic strategy has been to create the conditions for a durable reduction in interest rates and for sustained non-inflationary growth. That is precisely what is happening.
Interest rates are coming down, not going up. They have come down by over 6 percentage points since the high of May 1990. The spreads have narrowed from about 5.75 basis points to 2.5. basis points. With respect to the prime rate, there is about a three-quarters of 1 per cent spread between the U.S. and Canadian prime rate. Inflation has declined dramatically. The annualized rate of inflation on a three-month basis is something in the order of between 2 per cent and 3 per cent.
Interest rates are coming down. Inflation is coming down. The composite leading index that takes into consideration all the components of the economy is going up. September figures indicated that the unemployment figures were going down, not going up. Employment is going up. Housing starts are up. Automobile sales are up. Residential construction is up.
There are signs that the economy is indeed improving. [Translation]


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, today, November 1, the Canadian dollar is worth 89 cents U.S. Everyone in Canada understands that this high dollar is stifling our economic recovery, everyone except the government. Is the minister prepared today to admit that his monetary policies are strangling the Canadian economy and would he be prepared to adopt a more reasonable monetary policy to save hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians who are now paying for those policies?
November 1, 1991


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think what the strength of the dollar does indicate is the inherent strength of the Canadian economy. In spite of the hon. member wanting to downgrade the prospects for the future of the Canadian economy, I think the other point of view should be expressed as it is by organizations like the IMF which suggests that Canada's rate of growth will be 3.8 per cent next year. The OECD suggested that Canada's rate of growth will be 3.5 per cent. Why? Because we have the fundamentals right.
If the hon. member has any suggestions about the value of the dollar, maybe she might like to enlighten the House as to what she considers to be an appropriate value of the dollar, how she would get it there and how she would keep it there. Perhaps she might want to take Canadians into their confidence because quite frankly she is proposing simplistic solutions that are totally unworkable.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, why does he not listen to the Canadian Steel Producers Association which told the government several months ago that this dollar policy was killing the Canadian steel industry? Why is he pursuing the government policies that are costing Canadians thousands and thousands of jobs?
Will the minister understand that every cent the dollar goes up is literally costing thousands of Canadian jobs. Will he today follow the recommendations of his colleague, the member for Burlington South, who endorsed the position taken by the Canadian Steel Producers Association that we should have a lower dollar? Will he do that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the government does not set the value of the dollar. The rate of exchange of the dollar is established in the marketplace.
If the hon. member is suggesting that Canada should go to a fixed exchange rate, if that is the policy of the Liberal Party, why does she not come clean and tell
Oral Questions
Canadians that is their policy? She cannot have it both ways.


JOB TRAINING
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
This morning we learned of yet another shell game practice by this government. Reports indicate that the only funds this government could find for training is the $400 million it has squeezed out of unemployed Canadians: no new moneys, no new commitment from this government, money taken away from unemployed Canadians.
We know that the employers have paid their share. We know that the employees have paid their share. We know that the unemployed Canadians have already paid their share. When is this government going to pay its share?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the fallacy of the Liberal thinking persists. Where is that money coming from? He is forgetting about the Canadian Jobs Strategy. There is a program for 1991 of $1.9 billion. It is not much money I guess to a Liberal to go in the pockets of taxpayers and pick up $1.9 billion.
The Liberals should come clean with Canadians and tell us if we should increase the deficit or borrow more. They should make their stand clear. He is not. He is trying to make people believe that $3.1 billion is no money for workers who are in need of training.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, the question here is whether or not we are committed to the unemployed Canadians and to training.
Despite the rhetoric the government has continuously increased UI premiums and has cut $200 million from the Canadian Jobs Strategy in the last two years. It has completely divorced itself from its responsibilities to the unemployed. Canadians are tired of this sleight of hand, of this disappearing act in the areas of training and unemployment.
Halloween was last night. When will the government stop tricking Canadians and treat Canadians with dignity and respect?

Oral Questions


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the tricking stopped in 1984 when they were spending zero dollars on training.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct myself. Maybe it was little bit more than zero but not much more. Maybe you could compare the numbers.
Anyway I invite the members to stay tuned. At twelve o'clock I will be tabling in this House the UI developmental use for the people in this country and they will have good news.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
On October 10 the government announced a farm aid package of $800 million. At that time the Minister of Finance warned that he would be continuing this government's policy of robbing from the poor to pay the desperate.
Today there are reports from his department that the minister is considering taxing Canadians who have been encouraged by the trade deal and the GST to make purchases in the United States. This government is considering putting a tax on those consumers.
The government has two choices: Further tax the consumers who are overburdened or close some of the corporate loopholes. I want to ask the Minister of Finance: Will he commit to take the other way and close some of those corporate loopholes like the $1 billion free lunch program for businesses so we can pay for needed programs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would realize that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any speculative stories about tax proposals. I did indicate at the time the $800 million farm aid package was announced that it would have to be funded from within existing resources or tax measures or a combination of both, because I clearly indicated that increasing the deficit was not an option.
That is what I am looking at right now. Of course I will be pleased to entertain any suggestions by the hon. member or any other hon. members. But her suggestion
may not find favour with representatives of the restaurant association so she may want to check with them before she advances that proposal.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the question here is who pays and what is the fair method of doing this.
I want to remind government members that it is their policies. If they look at Statistics Canada they will see that since the GST has come in, purchases in the United States have gone up 215 per cent. There is a direct link between this government's policies and what is happening in terms of cross-border purchasing.
I want to ask the minister again: Will he look at fair tax reform, close those loopholes for the powerful and wealthy, make sure that the people who should be paying are paying, and stop overburdening the middle income consumer who cannot pay any more taxes?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course I am interested in fairness in the taxation system and fairness in spreading the burden among all Canadians.
The hon. member was blaming cross-border shopping on the GST and cited figures going back to 1988. The GST came into effect in 1991, not 1988. I think she will agree with me that my predecessor closed a number of loopholes with respect to corporate taxation. If she has some further suggestions of course I would be glad to look at them.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, three days ago, this government established the prosperity secretariat. I say to the minister that it is not necessary to spend $20 million to ask Canadians: Who should start paying the nation's bills?
Can the minister assure the workers of this country that they will not face any new taxes as long as the wealthy enjoy tax breaks?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's sensitivity about new taxes. I think that all Canadians share that view. I would hope that they would consider that when they continually ask the federal government to spend more money, because if you are going to spend more money on programs there are only two sources from which you can get it. You either impose


November 1, 1991

a tax or you borrow against the future by increasing the deficit.
We hear suggestions across the way every day about spending more money. When this government came into office the Liberal Party in office at that time was spending $1.33 for every dollar's worth of revenue that it was taking in or its program expenditures were increasing at the rate of 14.8 per cent per year.


An hon. member:: What has that got to do with it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What has that got to do with it? If we would have continued along that line, the deficit today would have been $130 billion more and we would have had an $800 billion national debt if we had followed the spendy-trendy ways of the Liberal Party.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who should also remind the House that the public debt has more than doubled since his government came into office.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance admitted yesterday that he might have been overenthusiastic when he said that the economy is starting to boom, but he has also been saying that the recession is over. Yesterday, a senior official of Statistics Canada, Phillip Cross, speaking of the current situation said: "We haven't said the recession is over yet".
I ask the minister: Will he admit today that he was also overenthusiastic when he said that the recession is over?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, Mr. Speaker.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not explained why he has given this answer in the face of the words of the expert from Statistics Canada.
This week, speaking of the current recession, the Economic Council of Canada said: "There may be some evidence that unemployment is cumulative. Many young workers who get trapped in a cycle of insecure jobs and (UI) dependency are unable to break away from it when they become adults".
Oral Questions
I ask the Minister of Finance: What does he have to say to the young people who are trapped in a permanent cycle of unemployment due to this government's policies? Will the recession ever be over for them?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member knows all about youth unemployment. I think when the Liberals were in office the youth unemployment rate was between 18 and 19 per cent. It has dropped dramatically.
If he wants to quote the Economic Council of Canada, maybe I can use a quotation that he would find very interesting, because it certainly goes against every suggestion, interpretation and grain that he is suggesting. The Economic Council of Canada said that growth will pick up significantly in 1992 and beyond. The real GDP is expected to grow at 4.2 per cent in 1992 and 5.1 per cent in 1993. That compares with Department of Finance's projections of 3.2 and 4.1 respectively.
They are suggesting that growth will be very stimulative in 1992 and 1993, contrary to what the hon. member suggests.


THE CONSTITUTION
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada's Constitution, indeed Canada's future.
The inherent right to self-government is the cornerstone of what aboriginal Canadians want to see in the constitutional proposals. Will the minister clarify for members of this House what he presented to the Assembly of First Nations hearings yesterday, when he reportedly indicated the government's flexibility on the important issue of inherency of self-government to be entrenched in the Constitution?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to be able follow the hon. member who appeared before the Commission of First Nations yesterday on behalf of her party and the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
I indicated that the government had very serious reservations about the idea of inherency standing alone, but that we were encouraged by the discussion that was

November 1, 1991
Oral Questions
developing that would define inherency in the context of Canadian laws or in the context of Confederation.
I think this is a very helpful development and one that I encourage the commission and would through this House encourage members of our special joint committee to consider. The government has made a proposal that relates to a justiciable right, but we have made it clear that the proposals we put forward are capable of improvement. If there are means by which the proposal we have put forward can be improved in the manner I suggest, we would look at them very carefully.
There are, I think, two criteria that we want to respect. One is to have a proposal that will be acceptable to the aboriginal people and governments in the country. The second is to have something we can have accepted under the formula of 7/50 as a proposal in the Constitution.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
As the minister knows for aboriginal Canadians, there have been several false starts on the constitutional rounds. It is not fair at this point to keep First Nations guessing nor is fair to keep Canadians guessing on how the government plans to deal with their concerns.
Will the minister clarify whether the government is flexible on the issue of inherency being entrenched in the Constitution without a deadline?


Charles Joseph Clark: am not sure that I understand all of the implications of the question. I think eveiyone in the House knows the importance of precision.
I have just spoken about the kind of discussion I hope will begin with regard to inherency in a context. Obviously, if there is a definition of a right of self-government, we would want to have that agreed and entrenched.
We have proposed in our document that 10 years after the entrenchment that could be interpreted independently by the courts. We have also proposed, however, that once an agreement was negotiated among governments and a particular band or aboriginal organization, that particular agreement could be immediately entrenched and would then have constitutional force.
Obviously the question of 10 years is also a matter that the special joint committee will want to consider to see if that should be lengthened, kept or shortened.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for whoever is answering for the minister of health.
The Canadian Medical Association report has found the Meme breast implant is unlikely to cause cancer, but notes at least nine potential problems that Meme im-plantees can face and also notes a lack of study and information on these problems.
The CMA among its recommendations verified what we have been trying to tell the minister all along, a need for biochemistry and toxicology studies and an implant registry to aid research.
Will the minister commission the research and the registry right away?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, I must repeat that the first responsibility of the Department of National Health and Welfare is to protect Canadians' health, and that is why we are working closely with all concerned regarding breast implants. The Meme is no longer available on the market. Studies and opinions are divided, even among users of this implant, and I especially call on women to be vigilant and informed before taking any action. We at National Health and Welfare are following all studies very closely in order to protect the health of Canadian women.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister responding will be able to better answer my next question.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare now has his department's internal review of Health and Welfare's handling of the Meme breast implant issue. Will the minister table that report today so that we can all see it? Does that report contain a call for an external audit?
November 1, 1991

[Translation\


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I must repeat that my colleague, the minister responsible for Health and Welfare, has always been interested in this very important issue, as we have been saying for months. A study was ordered and I can, on our behalf, ask the minister, as soon as he receives the study, to table it wherever appropriate.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of Employment.
He will be aware that when his colleague, the minister of Fisheries, announced the fish aid package, it was indicated that it was designed to help those who needed it most. He will probably know that the ground rules on the issue have been changed in the past week or so and a whole category of people, indeed all the fishermen on the west and southwest coast of Newfoundland, have been told they are not eligible to receive any assistance or funding under the program pending the outcome of the winter fishery.
He also knows that these people cannot wait until next April without any source of income. Will he call off this perverse toying with people's lives and undertake now to ensure that they will become eligible once again for funding under the program?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, a program has been put in place to try to help those who are living in these difficult times in the fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador and, for that matter, in all of Atlantic Canada.
Certain criteria under the program are being applied. If the member has suggestions, I am ready to look at them, but my understanding is that those we claim are
Oral Questions
now not eligible, it is simply because of the fishing pattern. But I am ready to look at the issue.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion is very simple, apply the same rules to those people as are being applied elsewhere in the province.
My supplementary question is for the minister, and this matter comes, even more directly, under his jurisdiction. He will know, of course, that fishermen who have qualified this year for unemployment insurance will not have any source of income under that program until early in December.
These people, because of the very poor fishery this year, have been without income of any kind for several weeks already and are facing another five weeks before they get any unemployment insurance.
I wonder if the minister would undertake to see to it that these fishermen are given some immediate access to income through these special projects under the aid package or otherwise.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I am ready, of course, to look at how, with the flexibility that exists under the UI act, we can answer some of these problems. But the UI act cannot be the answer to everyone's problems when they face difficult economic times. The money paid into the UI fund by employers and employees throughout the country is one that has to be managed according to the legislative framework that embodies it. If there is that flexibility within the act, I am ready to look at it as I indicated earlier.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, interest rates have dropped. I listened to the Minister of Finance suggest that there was some simplistic proposals being made by the opposition, yet his predecessor and the Prime Minister both told us on a number of occasions that when interest rates came down and the bank rate came down to a reasonable level the dollar would fall as well.
The Minister for International Trade knows that was said. It even said in the budget documents that the dollar would come down as interest rates fell.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance directly whether or not he is now prepared to tell us when the govern-

November 1, 1991
Oral Questions
ment is going to respond to the devastation that is being directed on industry in this country, especially exporters. When will the government act to allow the Canadian dollar to come down?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would really be interested in knowing from the hon. member where in the budget that precise quote stating exactly that the value of the Canadian dollar will come down as interest rates fall appears. I think the hon. member may be making a supposition but I do not believe that he will find it in the budget.
What the hon. member is saying is that the Canadian dollar is showing considerable strength and a lot of it has to do with the borrowings by the provinces and the inflow of Eurodollars and other foreign currency which is being transformed into Canadian dollars and therefore driving up the price of the dollar. There are a whole host of factors that enter into the exchange rate and the hon. member knows that very well.
I think the bottom line is that there is an inherent strength in the Canadian economy that others see that perhaps the hon. member and others in this House do not see.
If the hon. member is suggesting that one can just simply snap one's fingers and bring the value of the dollar down, I would be interested in knowing how he would propose to do that. The value of the dollar is not set by the government, it is set in the marketplace and the hon. member should know that.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance loves to look at headlines, but yesterday's headlines in New Brunswick read as follows: "Stone Consolidated of Bathurst to cut back. Fraser to suspend operations at Atholville plant. Brunswick Mining no longer competitive, mainly because of high dollar".
Does the Minister of Finance agree with the Prime Minister of Canada who said this year that when interest rates went down the Canadian dollar would also drop substantially? Does he agree or not?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can only indicate to
the hon. member that in spite of what he is saying, we have a merchandise trade balance of about $13.5 billion and it is increasing. It is a positive trade balance and it is increasing.
Our trade with the United States is increasing. We realize that the exchange rate has an impact upon competitiveness in the international marketplace, but it clearly demonstrates that we are doing very well in terms of what we are achieving in the export market.
I should also say to the hon. member that the impact of interest rates, for example on a person who is carrying a $50,000 mortgage, his monthly payments today are about $130 a month less than they were a year ago. On a $20,000 loan on a car, a person is paying $50 a month less on the payments on his car than he did a year ago. A small business firm with a $200,000 amortized loan over 10 per cent is paying about $600 per month less than he was a year ago. Those are pretty positive features and the hon. member should recognize that.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Many questions exist surrounding the events that led up to that final signing of the free trade agreement.
The minister responsible for stick-handling those final negotiations today in the press astonished everyone by saying that her files had been destroyed on purpose. She said the government actually stole her files and destroyed them. She went on to say that as a former minister her files would not have been destroyed without someone's authority.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister on this incredible act of sabotage within the government is this. Who authorized the destruction of those files?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Hear, hear. Good question.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Senator Carney has her version of events. My department looked into this in some considerable detail.
Files were inadvertently destroyed following her departure from the portfolio. By examining material in the National Archives, we were able to estimate what the
November 1, 1991

value of that might be. We have looked into this matter very thoroughly and are satisfied with the conclusions.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the minister says files were inadvertently destroyed. We are talking here about thousands and thousands of pounds, a small forest of files that were destroyed.
We recognize that the $20,000 may be some effort to pay out the member of the other place so she does not say anything more about this, but what we see,-


Some hon. members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows perfectly well that that is an improper suggestion. I know he would want to withdraw it and then he can complete his question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Obviously there has been a clandestine covering up-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Let me finish-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put his question directly and leave out the suppositions.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Deputy Prime Minister is: in view of the fact that thousands of pounds of critical, sensitive documents mysteriously disappeared like the Al-Mashat letter, does the government not feel that a public inquiry would be appropriate to find out what went on in those critical hours before that free trade agreement was signed?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, there was an investigation within our department. I have answered this question and I have no intention of pursuing it any further.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Secretary of State for External Affairs on two very urgent international humanitarian issues.
As the minister well knows, there are 4,500 Jews in Syria whose human rights are being violated. They are
Oral Questions
not allowed to emigrate, arrest and torture are commonplace. In particular there is the desperate situation of a number of people, particularly the Swed brothers who have been in prison for over four years without any trial at all.
I want to ask the minister if she will make a direct request of the Prime Minister to appeal to President Assad of Syria to release these people as a demonstration of his own government's commitment to trying to find some peaceful solution in the Middle East.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think what is most important about the peace process in the Middle East is that the parties that are at the table pursue their discussions in what now is seen as a reasonably positive atmosphere.
In the case that the hon. member is referring to, we have been in constant touch with the Syrian authorities at the highest levels within the government regularly over the period of their incarceration, and indeed were successful in having those sentences reduced.
I will be very happy to look into it again and make further representations. We have been doing this fairly constantly and I am quite prepared to do it again.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that representation has been made, but we are asking that the Prime Minister himself make a direct appeal to his counterpart in Syria to try and release these people who are having their positions so desperately violated at the present time.
I would like to ask a supplementary on another humanitarian international question. We have all witnessed the siege of Dubrovnik and the over 60,000 people who are without water, without food and without any form of electricity. Limited humanitarian assistance was received last night but we know it is not nearly enough.
I would like to ask the minister if the Canadian government would make a direct appeal to member states of the United Nations and the European Community to undertake the kind of serious airlift of food and medicines, similar to what happened with the plight of the Kurds, and will Canada offer to directly participate in such an international effort?

November 1, 1991
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, once again this has been constantly in the forefront of our discussions internationally, both at the UN and in the European Community. As monitors of the potential ceasefire in Yugoslavia, we are very much a part of what is going on, both through the European Community and the WEU.
Certainly we are prepared to raise the issue of an airlift of goods for humanitarian reasons and to try everything that we can to ensure that things get through to the people in this really tragic situation in Dubrovnik.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton - Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister.
Mr. Anton Kikas, a Toronto businessman and Canadian citizen has been under arrest in Belgrade, Yugoslavia since August 31 of this year. As of last night, no charges have been laid against him by either the civil or the military authorities. The military courts holding Mr. Kikas refuse to release him or to begin legal proceedings against him.
We are talking about a Canadian civilian who is being held by military authorities. What is the Canadian government doing to protect Mr. Kikas' rights?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, at Mr. Kikas' personal request he has claimed the provisions of privacy and has specifically requested of the Canadian government and others that his case not be discussed publicly by anybody. Our consulate is in touch with Mr. Kikas and is also in touch with the Yugoslavian authorities in an attempt to protect the rights of a Canadian in another country. Beyond that it is not possible for me to comment at the request of Mr. Kikas himself.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker,
I have spoken to Mr. Kikas' counsel. What Mr. Kikas asked is that counsel address all issues in the press and that was the extent of his request. I add again that Mr. Kikas has been held for 60 days without charges. That surely is unreasonable.
Will the minister press the Yugoslav authorities today for an immediate release of Mr. Kikas? Such release is already authorized under Yugoslav law.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that Mr. Kikas' request for privacy should apply to other members of this House besides myself and that we respect that request on his part. I think it is most appropriate to address inquiries through his lawyer. Beyond that, once again I have no further comment.


REFUGEES
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
On September 30, the Canadian chairman of a south Asian community wrote to the minister making a one time request to sponsor about 400 of their co-religionists who have been stranded for years in New Delhi, far away from their homeland. The committee has also tried to assist these desperate refugees through various Canadian church organizations and NGOs. Sadly to date only a small number of Afghan Ismailis have been successfully sponsored.
Does the minister really understand the serious plight of these refugees and will he give the utmost priority to the request to include them in the 1992 refugee cycle which I think he is announcing today?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's concern. I can assure him that we are always prepared to help sponsors seeking to bring convention refugees to Canada.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as members of the House know, we work very closely with the UNHCR, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and we will continue to do so.
I must tell the hon. member, however, that the UNHCR is encouraging repatriation for this group and not third country resettlement. Of course we are always prepared to consider individual cases.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the matter of the shredding
November 1, 1991

of the free trade agreement documentation. The minister says she will not pursue this matter any further.
I want to assure the House that the New Democratic Party will pursue this matter further because Canadians want to get to the bottom of this sort of thing.


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


Chris Axworthy: The
question that I have for the minister, and the one question I think Canadians need to know the answer to is: What was the money paid to Senator Carney for?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, first of all what I said was that I would not pursue this any further under these circumstances. I was referring to the manner in which the question was asked. The amount was paid in recognition that documents that had some value to Ms. Carney had been destroyed. The value was determined independently on the basis of the value of other documents within the National Archives.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week there was a conference here in Ottawa on the effect of putting property rights in the Constitution. The issue of environmental protection was raised.
I want to ask a question of the Minister of the Environment. In his opinion, does the entrenching of property rights in the Constitution in any way threaten existing environmental legislation? Will the right to own property give the right to pollute it?


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise the hon. member and the minister that that is asking for a legal opinion and it is not appropriate. If the minister wants to give his comment he can.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: will be very happy to offer a comment, Mr. Speaker, as you so correctly point out. I would never offer a legal opinion and seek to substitute myself as a judge, as you know.
Oral Questions
This is an important issue in regard to the environment because it has been brought up as a concern.
Let me first state the fact that the federal government's intent in regard to constitutional proposals is not to diminish our role in the area of the environment. Quite the contrary, we look upon these constitutional proposals as an opportunity to clarify some roles and establish some working principles.
In the area of property rights, I have been a bit concerned about some remarks by some people who seem to indicate or think that because there would be property rights that in itself would negate the possibility for a government to legislate or produce regulations in the area of the environment.
As far as we know that is not the case. Rights do not exist on and upon themselves. They do not exist in a vacuum. They exist in the historical, social and economic context and it should be viewed in that way.
That being said, we look forward to comments that will be made by people who are concerned about this in the context of the committee or the Standing Committee on the Environment.


NUCLEAR VESSELS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
On Wednesday cabinet consented to U.S. submarines to transit internal Canadian waters at Dixon Entrance effective October 30, 1991.
Would the minister advise this House whether there have been submerged U.S. submarine transits of Dixon Entrance in the past two years and, if there have been, has the public been informed? Under what form has Canadian government consent been given to such transits?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to double check the information that is at my disposal.
My understanding is no, but I am quite prepared to look into it and let the member know.

November 1, 1991
Points of Order POINTS OF ORDER


WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, obviously I have not had a chance to see the "blues" yet, but if I have inadvertently alleged that the former minister for External Trade had accepted the $20,000 as a pay-off I fully withdraw that remark.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate that withdrawal, but I thought it should have been a more fulsome withdrawal, because as I heard Mr. Speaker ask for a withdrawal-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. government House leader has the floor.


Harvie Andre: I heard Mr. Speaker during Question Period ask for the withdrawal of a question that as I heard it would have been slanderous if uttered outside this institution. I then heard no withdrawal but heard another question being put.
I humbly submit if slander is to be permitted and after the fact later one can impart "if I said something inadvertently" and then go on to ask questions, that behaviour will be carried on in perpetuity.
I humbly ask that if we are to restore to this institution a reputation we all say it needs, perhaps we should be a little more willing to admit transgressions, more immediate in our withdrawals, and less willing to slander in this institution in a way that would be subject to court action if done outside this institution.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, just on the point of decorum, I think the government House leader should be aware of the fact that while he was thrusting and jousting with the NDP his colleague, the Minister of Justice, characterized another NDP member as slimy. The former Minister of Finance told me to go back to kindergarten.
It seems to me that when we are talking about decorum the use of words like slimy and kindergarten really do not have a place here either.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this is a charter member of the rat pack who in her own book says: "I have a big mouth"-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. government House leader has risen on the point of order in which the hon. member for Kamloops made a withdrawal. The hon. government House leader has made a comment. Does the hon. government House leader wish the floor further?


Harvie Andre: I happen to sit right in front of the Minister of Justice and I did not hear the accusation, the word that the member for Hamilton East attributed to her, and in her absence I wanted to make the point that was not said.
Perhaps we should remind ourselves of the kinds of things people are saying around the country about our behaviour and remind ourselves that yesterday there was a very serious and important debate in this House about decorum based on a motion which was unanimously passed by the House in terms of the behaviour of the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam. Yet we unanimously pass that motion in the House, leave this House, go outside and immediately condemn this House for its decision.
That is the kind of thing we have to stop doing if we want to bring respect to this institution and to members of Parliament who try to represent their constituents here.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the government if it would consider making a statement on the terrible air crash in northern Canada. A number of members have concerned constituents and we would like to have some information about it.
If the government is not in a position to make that statement now, could it undertake to do so if information is available before the House adjourns this afternoon?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern expressed by the member. I know it is a concern shared by all members of
November 1, 1991

this House and our thoughts are with the families and the victims of this terrible crash.
I do not yet have final information about the number of survivors. At this very time the rescue efforts are continuing. There are people on site providing support to the victims and the evacuations will be taking place as soon as they can be effected safely.
There are survivors but there are also critical injuries. We will of course be assessing the situation and advising the families. We will be making that information public as quickly as possible. If information is available before the House closes, I will be pleased to return and provide that to the member and to the House.


COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Maurizio Bevilacqua: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Period and in response to my question on training, the Minister of Employment and Immigration stated that during the years when the Liberal Party was in government we spent nothing on training. The reality is-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is entering into debate on what the minister said or what was done many years ago by another government. That really is not a point of order.
I will hear the hon. member further.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, we cannot get away with saying all sorts of things in this House that are not based on reality.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: First of all, I can understand the position of the hon. member. When there is a sharp disagreement as to what the facts are there is a natural tendency to want to correct it, but I ask hon. members to remember that there is a distinction between the kind of deliberate statement which may be untrue and the understandable difference of opinion as to what was done by whom and in what place.
I could point out in this case that the hon. minister a moment or two later said that he might not have been altogether correct. However, once we get into that there is no stopping it.
Points of Order
Another thing I point out is that preambles often make statements that could well be quarrelled with by the other side. I think that if we had everybody up on points of order after every Question Period we would be going for quite a long time.
I understand the hon. member's concern, but there must be another way to correct it. Of course the late show would be an excellent usage of that opportunity. You could return to the matter in Question Period or return to the matter in questions and comments at the close of the government member's speech on a bill, provided of course that the Speaker does not hold you too closely to relevancy.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: I just wanted to point out to the minister that there is a difference between zero and $2.2 billion.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose I have to concede there is no question of debate there.


WITHDRAWAL OF REMARKS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you when you are reviewing the "blues" from Question Period to look at what happened in the incident of the question raised by the New Democratic member.
I want you to look at it, Mr. Speaker, if you do not mind, from this perspective. I believe that what happened is that the hon. member introduced a question that contained inflammatory language on which you then called him to order and asked for his withdrawal. He did not withdraw it. He got up and asked another question. What happened from that is that we had a very quick escalation of the failure of members to live up to our own standards that we want to see in terms of decorum.
Mr. Speaker, my point is this: I would ask you to review those "blues" because I believe your action was correct in the first instance, to cut the question off and ask for a withdrawal. I would ask you to examine that because I think that is a pattern for practice that will allow us and prevent us, I guess in fact, from getting into these situations of an escalation of an ugly event.

Routine Proceedings


Mr. Speaker:: As always, I will take the comments of the hon. parliamentary secretary and consider them in the continuing effort to maintain the kind of decorum that the public is expecting of us.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned by this continuing exchange in view of the fact that when I last rose in this House with respect to some comments made by Conservative members which had been withdrawn, the ruling of the Chair at that point was that once the withdrawal had taken place the matter was finished.
My House leader has withdrawn the language which has been referred to at length by various people on this side. I think to be consistent, that should be the end of the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: So far as the hon. member for Kamloops is concerned it is the end of the matter.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the topic of decorum in the House. I know you feel and we agree that all of us members have a role to make it happen, but in the case that we are just discussing, I have seen the hon. member for Kamloops slip up or make a mistake the odd time, but I do believe he is very calculating person and when he-


Mr. Speaker:: If the matter is closed, how many members are going to get up and comment upon it? Perhaps the hon. member could tell me what his point is then.


Bill Attewell: It is this, Mr. Speaker: I do not think it is good enough for somebody to make that type of remark-


Mr. Speaker:: Look, I am sorry. The hon. member now is retrying the issue. That is the very thing the hon. member for Essex-Windsor complained about. I see it as a retrial of the issue. The issue is over with, just as over with as I have-


An hon. member:: We are talking about your responsibility.


An hon. member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Not in connection with this case. We can talk about my responsibility some other time in another place, but I am not going to pursue the question that was raised with respect to the hon. member for Kamloops no matter how ingenious the attempt may be made to do it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I wish to table in the House two background papers, in both official languages, entitled Aboriginal Peoples, Self-Government and Constitutional Reform and Shared Values: The Canadian Identity.


IMMIGRATION
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, again under Standing Order 32(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, the Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration Levels for 1992.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8) of the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response, several petitions.


[Stage Direction]
1992 EXPENDITURE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENTAL USES
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 1992 expenditure plan for developmental uses of the unemployment insurance program.
*||



*
tr
**>v
November 1, 1991

I am especially pleased today to announce this plan, which is an increase in funding for the developmental uses of the unemployment insurance program. We will be allocating $1.8 billion in 1992 to support training and other adjustment programs for unemployed Canadians.
These programs will be available to UI claimants to assist them in getting more permanent high wage and high skills jobs to make them and all Canadians more competitive and more prosperous.
Funding for training and other adjustment measures was increased as a result of changes to the UI act in November 1990. These changes to the act reflect the government's commitment to prosperity. This is the prosperity message which, by the way, my colleague the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and I announced on Tuesday.
This 1992 expenditure plan for developmental uses, which I am tabling today, provides a comprehensive picture of why and how these expenditures will be made. This is an historic development. It is the first time in Canadian history that business, labour, educators and social action groups formally acting together in partnership as the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, have made a joint recommendation to government.
The government has accepted in full the board's recommendations. The government's labour force development strategy, in seeking to establish a new partnership in Canada, has today delivered hard evidence that, yes, partnerships are possible and work, and the benefits of collaborating can be substantial and positive for all.
The labour force development strategy, an exercise of the mandate the government gave to this new board last year, represents an historic departure in the making of national economic policy. No one can fail to be impressed with how our major competitors derive substantial economic and social benefits from real partnerships between labour and management.
The Prime Minister of Canada, my predecessor at employment and immigration and many others in government, key figures in business and labour provided
Routine Proceedings
real leadership over the last two years in pressing for this new level of co-operation.
We can all take pride in this accomplishment today, in seeing the reality of the partners working closely together. It is a landmark in the evolution of the relationship between management and labour in Canada in this century. It provides ample evidence of the government acting when action is called for. It is a self-evident truth that some fundamental changes in Canadian society cannot be effected by government fiat or acts.
If the hon. member opposite and especially the hon. Leader of the Opposition would take the time to read their briefing notes or, better still, read those two discussion papers which we tabled Tuesday on prosperity, he and they would better understand this truth. When you hear them speak they want Canadians to believe-

They want the people in my riding to believe that the government can solve all the problems of our economy.

These documents are trying not to do that.
Competitiveness and prosperity cannot be achieved by actions of government alone.

That is not the way to competitiveness and prosperity.
After reading the two papers we tabled last Tuesday, hon. members will realize we cannot force Canadians to learn. Governments as such cannot create a learning culture or in any way impose one on Canadians.
The federal government has given Canadians all the facts. We have explained clearly and concisely what the costs and consequences will be if we refuse to learn on a continuing basis. We also explained all the benefits that accrue from acquiring knowledge and skills.
It is now up to Canadians to choose. They will also have to decide what other changes in attitude and behaviour we will all have to consider if we want to ensure our future prosperity. Starting a dialogue and forging a consensus for truly concerted action are goals recommended by experts throughout the world, not just here in Canada, to all peoples and all nations. It is also

November 1, 1991
Routine Proceedings
the conclusion reached by all studies so far. We are not re-inventing the wheel.
To deny Canadians an opportunity to speak to each other in a broad national dialogue amounts to rejecting all the wisdom that has come down to us through the ages. The national dialogue on prosperity which we started this week will not be interrupted or delayed for even one day by the implementation of other important measures. I announced one of those measures today: The allocation of funding totalling $1.8 billion.
This may be an historic step but it is only the first step. The situation in the world today demands a much closer partnership involving all parties.

Hon. members in this House and all Canadians will want to know that the board has made specific recommendations on the amount of money which should be allocated to training and adjustment programs in 1992.
The board also recommended in this budget allocating the following sums to each of five programs: $100 million for work sharing; $120 million for job creation; $1,005 million for income support while training; $500 million training course costs; and $75 million for self-employment. This total of $1.8 billion represents a significant increase in the level of funding for these developmental uses.
During the 1980s funding remained in the range of $300 million to $500 million and this new level of funding for 1992 delivers on the commitment made by the government during the debate on Bill C-21.
Of even greater importance, in the great debate on the free trade agreement, this government committed to put adjustment programs in place for displaced workers. We often hear that there are no such programs. This is the tangible proof of the government's commitment to workers in Canada.
Many of those who are unemployed today will now receive, because of this new level of expenditure, new opportunities to gain the high wage jobs that the FTA and other economic measures are bringing to Canada. Every hon. member, I am sure, will want to acknowledge that the efforts this government invested in developing the labour force development strategy and in creating
this historic board has yielded tangible results. With the effort and support of all parties at the table, the strategy is working and working well.
In conclusion, I know that I am going to be followed by people on the other side. I expect the Liberals to stand up in this House and apologize to all Canadians for having held up the implementation of Bill C-21 which has delivered the kind of money which people who are unemployed in this country badly need. So I cannot wait for his apology.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, right from the offset I tell the minister that we on this side of the House have no intention of apologizing to the minister and his government for any vision that we have for prosperity in this nation.
During our years in government we were truly committed to the issue of training. We were truly committed to a vision that would bring prosperity to Canada.
While we, on this side, are obviously disappointed with the statement and the proposal made by the government, we are not however at all surprised. While the government enjoys speaking about global competitiveness, prosperity agenda, learning culture and all the other catch phrases that are designed by some media gurus in the backrooms, we are looking at the substance of this government. When we look at substance in the area of training, when we look at the indifference that this government has shown in the past seven years in the area of training and education, it does not auger well for the future of this country nor does it auger well for the future of our children.
I think we in this House should always be mindful that every decision we make as a government is going to have an impact on the future.
Today's statement by the minister is a clear indication that once again this government is abdicating its responsibility to the unemployed people of this country. This government has been a government that has been involved in shell games, taking credit for moneys and commitments that certainly do not come from the government itself, but are commitments that come on the back of unemployed Canadians, those individuals who need our help the most.
November 1, 1991

Today we heard a report, and we read a report that $400 million was once again going to be squeezed out of unemployed Canadians for training. Between 1984 and 1988 this government cut total funding for job training from $2.2 billion to $1.6 billion. Last year alone it cut $100 million from the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
If you want to speak about global competitiveness, if you want to speak about responsibility in a global environment, then this government should take note of the fact that while our competitors are increasing their total commitment to training, in Canada, federal training expenditures have gone from .24 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product in 1984-85 to .17 per cent in 1989-90.
Finally, we are certainly not going to buy the cosmetic veneer of the government on the issue of training. We are not going to buy the falsehoods presented on the issue of helping young people. From 1985 to 1990, the budget for SEED, the Summer Employment Experience Development program, was cut in half from $150 million to $77 million. Those are not figures that are often cited by the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
I ask the minister how these practices are helping Canadian workers adjust to the changing skill requirements. How are these practices helping Canadian students acquire the education they need to compete against the rest of the world?
If we are serious about global competitiveness, if we are serious about building an agenda for prosperity, then we must act on it. This government talks a good game but at the end of the day it is clear that it has abdicated its responsibility to training and education.
The minister speaks about co-operation between business, labour and government while his government is in the process of withdrawing from the field of training. That is contradictory. It emphasizes the essential problem that this government has. The problem is that it lacks a coherent approach to training and education. If the Conservatives had a coherent approach, they would realize that there is a relationship between a tax on books and the problem of illiteracy. They would realize that putting a 3 per cent tax on students makes education less accessible, more difficult to acquire. They would realize that when university students are studying in overcrowded classrooms, using antiquated materials and
Routine Proceedings
outdated texts, the education one is getting is not the very best.
Instead of seriously attacking the crisis in skills training and education, this government continues to offer Canadians half-baked plans like the program we see today. It uses the money that it has squeezed out of unemployed Canadians for this. For those individuals who really need our help, this government allocates an amount that does not even begin to reverse the damages that it has done.
I also want to draw from an article that appeared in the The Toronto Star of October 24, 1991, I believe. Of the additional moneys, the $400 million allocated today, half of that would simply make up for the $200 million cut over the past two years from the government's Canadian Jobs Strategy.
This is the same government that parades throughout Canada advocating the wisdom of training, education and world-class economy.
If one is serious about it, then one should be committed to it. Today it has demonstrated it has absolutely no commitment in the area of education and training. It is only willing to do it by raising premiums. It is only willing to do, it with employers, employees and unemployed Canadians, but it is not willing to participate in a responsible and dignified manner in helping those people who elected this government and this House to help them.
Therefore, I am not at all happy, as I am sure many unemployed Canadians are not happy. I am sure many Canadians feel cheated by this government that has decided to enter the new era of global competitiveness, but it does not have a clue how to become competitive in a global competitive marketplace.
I will take just one last minute to wrap up. I would just like to say that the time has come to act. The government has had seven years. The time has come to be serious. The time has come to stop tricking Canadians. The time has come to put your money where your mouth is so that we can build a prosperous Canada.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that a little ways back in his speech, the hon. member who just spoke before me asked some pretty provocative questions about where the training is for a number of categories of young Canadians. I think those

Routine Proceedings
are questions we all hope the minister will answer very soon.
In his announcement today, the minister said this was an investment of $1.8 billion in Canadian workers. Let us be perfectly honest here, this is $1.8 billion of UI premiums paid for by the workers of Canada and by the employers of Canada. Not one dollar is paid for by this government. Let us be absolutely clear what we are talking about when we make these announcements that we are doing all these grand and wonderful things for the workers in Canada.
This $1.8 billion is only possible as well because of longer entrance requirements and shorter eligibility for those who are on unemployment insurance or need to go on unemployment insurance. Let us not monkey around with what the real world is about in the world of unemployment insurance. Let us not try to give the workers a snow job that this government is doing them a great big favour. Let us be really clear about what we are talking about.
Having said that, I want to acknowledge that the government is recognizing the importance of training and education. The recommendations of the Labour Force Development Board are being acknowledged by this government and are being implemented, as the minister just stated.
It is not a case any more of whether or not we agree with Bill C-21. That bill has passed and now we are dealing with a reality based on that bill. Therefore, I must say that I am pleased to see this training being made available for Canadian workers.
Recommendations are very important, but I think it is also important that we read into the record something said by the co-chairs of the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. That recommendation was to the minister:
You are no doubt aware that there has been a great deal of
controversy about whether unemployment insurance funds should
be used to pay for anything other than income support
It is important to be explicit here, as it is in the report, that the board is not passing judgment on this issue within its recommendations. Indeed, the board is committed to dealing with this issue as part of an ongoing work program. In other words, we all have our hands tied and can only deal within the parameters of what is in the Unemployment Insurance Act since Bill C-21.
The previous speaker from the opposition side of the House said, and I concur, that it is terribly unfortunate that on one hand we see an increase in funding for training, but at the same time this government is providing for cuts. Actually, it is not at the same time, it provided for it earlier this year in the Canadian Jobs Strategy. Only yesterday we had representatives here from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union from British Columbia. They were seeking a meeting with the minister, which they did not get, to plead with the minister to ensure that the employment fund that was provided last year be extended this year. This is because fishermen in B.C. and shore workers in B.C. are unable to qualify for unemployment insurance under the new guidelines of Bill C-21.
The minister responded to a question in the House by saying that he would review this. We must plead that if this government is concerned about the unemployed in this country, if the minister is supporting his colleague on this prosperity kick we are on in Canada on this big $20 million show, then surely to God we could get $1 million, or between $1 million and $3 million, out of a $20 million budget. It started at $15 million on Tuesday and by Thursday it was a $20 million budget for prosperity bumf in Canada. Now we cannot get $1 million to $3 million to save the fishermen and the industry in British Columbia. It would seem to me that we have a government speaking out of both sides of its mouth on this issue.
I want to talk a little bit about what is in this statement by the minister and what is in his announcement. As I have said, we believe that the UI fund should remain primarily an income support program. We should be finding alternate mechanisms for training funding. At the same time, we should be looking elsewhere. I want to give a couple of examples of elsewhere. In Sweden, training is seen as a responsibility of the employer. Wages are subsidized to new entrants to the work force and the employer ends up with a skilled worker in the future. This is not so in Canada. The workers have to pay for training out of the very fund that has been set up to protect them when they are unemployed.
A couple of years ago the president of Boeing said that he could sell 10 Dash-8 aircraft per month, but they only had a work force capable of building five Dash-8 aircraft in that time. This represented a multimillion dollar loss every month, not to mention the tax losses that this
November 1, 1991

government sustained by not being able to produce those aeroplanes.
Yet there was no mechanism in place to provide for the kind of high-tech training that those workers needed in that industry to be able to produce 10 airplanes instead of five.
We have an announcement today of this wonderful increase from $1.4 billion to $1.8 billion but still we have not addressed how to deal with situations like Boeing was faced with a couple of years ago.
David McCamus, who is the chairman of Xerox Canada, is not a person whom you would consider to be, or I would consider to be, sharing my views on this very important subject. But on June 3, 1991, Mr. McCamus was quoted in The Globe and Mail:
Canadian firms spend $98 per person annually to teach workers
new skills. "That's less than the cost of a dinner at a moderately good
restaurant in Toronto".
This is also probably less than the cost of a moderately good dinner in Ottawa.
It should be noted as well that most of the money employers are spending is being spent on managers rather than on those workers who are producing the product, those workers who are on the line and need the skill upgrading and need the ability to operate the new equipment coming in to keep our workers competitive.
While we are very, very happy to see this kind of program in place we have made it very clear that we do not appreciate where the money is coming from. We believe very strongly that the minister should be "fessing up" that it is not coming from this government but that it is coming from the workers and the employers of Canada.
We believe very strongly that while we are funding this particular program there is tremendous confusion about what programs there are and what funding there is. As a result of that all kinds of people are falling through the cracks and are not getting the training that they should be having.
In conclusion, I wish the minister well with this second year's initiative with this program. I am glad to see that he takes the Canadian Labour Force Development
Routine Proceedings
Board seriously and I hope that relationship will continue.



Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and indeed a privilege for me to have an opportunity today to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 from the citizens of Kamloops, British Columbia, and actually a number of other western communities. They are concerned about the ability of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to fulfil their mandate as a result of cutbacks that have been experienced over the last number of years.
They point out a number of reasons why they feel the RCMP should actually receive increased funding. They point out a concern about the increased level of lawlessness that some communities are facing, and they call upon the Government of Canada to restore adequate funding to our RCMP so that it can fulfil its mandate and role as the only visible police force for many communities across British Columbia and remain as a viable symbol of Canadian unity.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The next petition is on another matter that is actually unrelated, but equally matter. It has to do with the decision-and I understand this was made public in the last number of hours-of a firm called Multinational Resources, which is a company on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, that plans to invest $4 million in accelerating its plans and designs to dam the North Thompson River at Valemount, British Columbia in an effort to divert the water into the San Diego, California basin.
This is one of the many proposals of what is known as the NAWAPA plan. That is a plan to divert Canadian rivers into the United States and northern Mexico. Our government is presently negotiating a deal with the United States and Mexico and so the petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to state categorically that it will not permit our fresh waters to be dammed and diverted into the U.S.A.

November 1, 1991
Routine Proceedings JUSTICE


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present many petitions with hundreds and hundreds of signatures of residents of Canada to add to those already presented.
These petitioners feel that there are serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system. There are many vulnerable persons who have little protection in the current system. Women, children and disabled persons are at particular risk.
These petitioners request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against a person are serious and abhorrent to society and they ask that Parliament amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972, and the Parole Act.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour under Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of approximately 300 Canadian citizens who are concerned about the ongoing carnage in Yugoslavia. They call upon Parliament to bring justice to those responsible for crimes committed against humanity and to recognize without delay Croatia and Slovenia as independent sovereign states.
These petitioners are from Burlington, Hamilton, Guelph, Kitchener, London, Rexdale, Toronto, Mississauga, Woodbridge, Etobicoke, Downsview and Richmond Hill.
At the same time they also commend the efforts of the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada for his efforts and requests to the Security Council to have the United Nations intervene in the Yugoslavian civil war and to send peacekeeping forces to Yugoslavia to prevent further carnage in that tragic conflict.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to present a petition which has been signed by several hundred Canadians from Vancouver Island, the lower mainland in B.C. and various points in Ontario. I am sure these people were shocked to hear what seemed to be the de facto blessing
which the external affairs minister gave to the illegal and brutal occupation of East Timor by Indonesia recently. They call on Parliament to condemn the Indonesian military occupation of East Timor, the genocide of the East Timorese people, and to publicly support the right of the East Timorese people to determine their own destiny by referendum and free elections and to support these causes in the United Nations and all other international arenas.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit on behalf of a number of residents in the constituency of Okanagan- Shuswap a petition to the government. These individuals are very concerned about Multinational Resources, a company that has just announced its intention to dam the North Thompson River and divert water from British Columbia down to California.
They are asking the federal government to state categorically that it will not permit our fresh rivers to be dammed and diverted into the U.S.A. They are very concerned that under the provisions of the free trade agreement the export of bulk water from Canada to the U.S. would essentially enshrine Canada's obligation to maintain such exports, and they are very, very worried about it.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: On another matter a number of constituents throughout the Okanagan-Shuswap are very concerned about the government's intention to cut back on the services of the RCMP throughout Canada. In particular, they ask the government to re-examine its decision to force provinces to increase funding for the RCMP while essentially withdrawing federal funding.
I know there has been some movement in that regard just recently. However I think the submission of these petitions at this time reinforces the very strong feelings that people have about the RCMP and its service in the communities throughout the Okanagan-Shuswap.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the merchant mariners of Canada who draw Parliament's attention to the critically important contribution made by the merchant mariners to the defence of Canada during World War II and the victory
November 1, 1991

of the allied forces, and also to the fact that merchant mariners placed themselves under great risk in carrying out their duties. Many lost lives and many were seriously injured.
They would like Parliament to designate Canada's merchant mariners as veterans of World War II, extending to them all the benefits accorded to the veterans of the regular forces.


Robert Evans Skelly: I also have a petition from several hundred people across Canada mentioning that the Government of Canada has not taken due consideration for aboriginal immunity from taxes under the aboriginal rights and treaty rights in the goods and services tax legislation. They are calling on the Government of Canada to revise the legislation and the regulations so that it respects the tax immunity of aboriginal people based on their aboriginal or treaty rights, whether they live on or off reserve.


Robert Evans Skelly: Finally, I have a petition from people who are concerned about the development of Multinational Resources Corporation which intends to dam the North Thompson River near Valemount and to divert that water to the southern California area. They urge the Government of Canada to state categorically that it will not permit our fresh water rivers to be dammed and diverted into the United States and to state that all our Canadian rivers are not for sale.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition under Standing Order 36 in regard to a veiy important issue respecting the diversion of water in Canada. It is signed by a number of residents of British Columbia, in particular the Okanagan.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada to state categorically that it will not permit our freshwater rivers to be dammed and diverted into the U.S.A. and to state that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, pursuant to Standing Order
Routine Proceedings
36, to present a petition from a number of my constituents' neighbours in south central British Columbia.
It seems appropriate as the MP for Kootenay West- Revelstoke, which as I think without a doubt is the most dammed constituency in Canada, that we should have considerable sympathy and our petitioners do for the issue of concern that has been mentioned earlier regarding Multinational Resources announcement of an intention to dam the North Thompson River at Valemount.
The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to state categorically that it will not permit our freshwater rivers to be dammed and diverted into the U.S.A. and to state that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have a petition to present that has been certified correct. The petition duly states that the Multinational Resources Company has announced the intention to dam the North Thompson at Valemount to divert water to sell in San Diego, California, and other areas.
The petitioners are urging the Government of Canada to state categorically that it will not permit our freshwater rivers to be dammed and diverted to the U.S.A. and to state that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.
As a member for Kootenay East who has seen the devastation of the Columbia River Treaty, my residents are concerned about this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Kamloops on a point of order, I believe that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier would like to revert to presenting reports from committee.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, with the patience of the House, I would like to revert to presenting reports from committees.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. This report deals with the disband-

November 1, 1991
Routine Proceedings
ment of the tax evaluation division of the finance department which occurred last summer.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, this committee requests a government response to this report.

I may add that the committee took this matter seriously, hence our intention to give notice with in the next few minutes so that the report can be considered and concurred in by the House.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.] [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Kamloops on a point of order after I hear the hon. member on Questions on the Order Paper.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 92 will be answered today.


Ms. Hunter: Has the government allocated any resources toward the
development of exportable environmentally friendly technologies
and, if so, how much and what percentage of federal government
research and development funds does this represent?


Hon. William Charles Winegard (Minister for Science):: It is important to draw a distinction between environmental technologies which are specific to improving or protecting our environment and environment friendly technologies which may not relate directly to the environment but the application of which does not injure the environment.
It is very difficult, both in a technical and statistical sense, to separate expenditures into these two categories. This having been said, it is estimated that for the fiscal year 1991/92, the federal government will allocate $3,287 million to support R and D in general and $65 million specifically targeted to the environment. The $65
million represents 2.0 per cent of the total estimated allocation for the support of R and D in 1991/92.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State
(Finance)): Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 118.
I ask that it be printed in Hansard as if read.
[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Duhamel: For each year since 1987-1988, what is the total of all grants paid to businesses by the federal government for (a) small (b) medium (c) large businesses?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: I am informed by the Office of the Comptroller General of Canada as follows:
The total grants and contributions paid to businesses by the federal government since 1987-1988 by fiscal year is as follows:
1987-	88-$2,849,321,460
1988-	89-$2,828,328,867
1989-	90-$2,926,137,890
1990-	91-$2,493,222,484
The information is not available for amounts paid to small, medium and large businesses.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Standing Order 39(5) indicates that when members submit a question under this category of the agenda they can request that a minister respond to a specific question within 45 days.

We have these Standing Orders. We have agreed to them and we are expected to follow them. Yet, I look at a whole list of questions that have been there, not for 45 days, not 50, not 60, but over 70 days.
I know it is difficult, but government ministries do have people working for them. Their job is to respond to these and to follow the Standing Orders.


Mr. Milliken:: 120 days.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My friend from Kingston and the Islands says even as many as 120 days. I seek some guidance from you, Mr. Speaker. We either have Standing Orders and we follow them or we do not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Maybe we can get
an explanation from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, we do try to make every possible effort to answer those questions within 45 days. We often run into difficulties. One serious problem which we have faced has been the fact that some of the questions are addressed to all departments and it takes a great deal of time to co-ordinate that information.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you take under advisement Standing Order 39 (5) (b):
If such a question remains unanswered at the expiration of the said period of forty-five days, the member who put the question may rise in the House under "Questions on Order Paper ' and give notice that he or she intends to transfer the question and raise the subject-matter thereof on the adjournment of the House.
In other words, they can transfer it for debate. I would recommend in cases where we are not able to answer within 45 days that the House follow that procedure. That would be an easy way for all of us to make sure these questions are answered.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. friend that in some cases that might be an appropriate way out. However, I have looked at some of these questions that are in excess of 70 days. They are not tricky.
Here is one that simply asks: "Has the government assumed any costs relating to the furnishing of 24 Sussex Drive?" This is not a tricky question. You simply go to Public Works or the appropriate department and ask. This has been sitting on the Order Paper for months and months.
Routine Proceedings
The intent is not to embarrass the Prime Minister or the government, but simply to find out whether renovations have been made and, if so, what did it cost the government. This is not a complicated question. I cannot accept fully the explanation put forward by my hon. friend.
These are our Standing Orders. These are the rules and regulations that govern our behaviour. Every day the government consistently abandons the Standing Orders, ignores them. We either follow our Standing Orders or, as the government is doing, select which Standing Orders we want to follow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It might be wise if the House leaders would discuss this further behind the curtains or among themselves at their management committee meetings or come into the Chamber and talk to the Speaker at his leisure.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.
I was in the Chamber earlier this day when the member rose and presented two petitions to the House. In the presentation of the second petition, I would like to point out to the House, he did indeed break Standing Order 36(7) and very clearly so. If he wants the rules enforced, I would suggest he start with his own behaviour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think we should debate this any further. I understood that he was just about ready to finish as far as his particular petition was concerned. I do not think we should consider that any more.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very short point of order.
My hon. friend, the government Whip, has pointed out that I have not followed Standing Order 36(7). I might say that what I did was read my petition.
If the government Whip is saying that I am not allowed to read the words of my petitioners then this is a muzzling of democracy and I will not stand for it. If my petitioners who have collected the petition want me to present it, I am going to present it whether the government Whip wants me to or not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I just want to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Kamloops that there is only 15 minutes allowed for the presentation of petitions. There were a lot of colleagues in his own party who wanted to get on too. That is why in future, when

November 1, 1991
Government Orders
there are about 10 members from his own party who have petitions to present, the Chair would appreciate it if he would sort of try to cut it down in order to get everybody on.
In today's tough economic climate it is obvious that the present act is indeed inadequate. A modernized Bankruptcy Act is required, one which offers every reasonable avenue to prevent bankruptcies.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The Elouse resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blais that Bill C-22, an act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations; and the amendment of Mr. Rodriguez (p. 4192).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of ministerial statements Government Orders will be extended by 29 minutes.
The hon. member for Stormont-Dundas has 17 minutes plus 10 minutes for questions and comments.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today on Bill C-22 to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act and to amend the present Bankruptcy Act.
With the in-depth review given Bill C-22 by the committee I hope the government will pay serious attention to the recommendations which have been put forward. During the committee's hearings and when the government first introduced the bill, it became apparent that there is a general consensus in Canada that the present Bankruptcy Act is in need of reform. The time has more than come for changes to be made.
It is very unfortunate that we are witnessing record bankruptcies in Canada today. A revised Bankruptcy Act is needed more than ever before. It is also important to remember that the Bankruptcy Act can do much to save a business or individual from actually going bankrupt just as it deals with the regulations governing the process of bankruptcy.
Bill C-22 is but the seventh attempt in 16 years to reform the Bankruptcy Act. The current legislation, which dates back to 1949, should have been amended a long time ago. Bill C-22 proposes eight main changes dealing with: wage protection, commercial reorganization, consumer proposals, secured creditors and receivers, Crown claims and priorities, protection of unpaid suppliers and, finally, technical provisions.

In dealing with these eight principal areas of bankruptcy law, Bill C-22 avoids an attempt to overhaul the entire Bankruptcy Act. Such an endeavour has proven to be difficult in the past and is perhaps one reason why the act has remained without serious amendment for so long a period.
We are at a stage now, as I alluded to earlier, that far too many bankruptcies have occurred in Canada. High unemployment, the recession, inadequate government measures to stimulate the economy, high interest rates, the goods and services tax and even cross-border shopping have taken their toll on businesses, especially small business.
The phenomenal growth in business and personal bankruptcies, especially in Ontario, is a significant indicator of the tough economic climate prevailing in Canada today. The number of bankruptcies have indeed been high.
In addition, when a business closes it often sets off a chain reaction. Not only are there job losses as a result of a bankruptcy of that particular business, sometimes other jobs in businesses which had dealings with the original firm are put at risk. Therefore, I am pleased that the reorganization amendments to the Bankruptcy Act contained in Bill C-22 provide more time for a business to prepare a reorganization strategy rather than have it forced to close its doors for good.

Bill C-22 would amend part III of the Bankruptcy Act by adding new general provisions to give insolvent persons time to prepare and negotiate a reorganization

November 1, 1991

proposal and would allow for a stay of proceedings instituted by all creditors whether secured or unsecured.

In addition, Bill C-22 contains proposals to provide protection for unpaid suppliers. The bill will afford short-term creditors an increased level of protection that they do not possess under the existing act. The provision will however only apply to recently delivered goods. Suppliers of identifiable unprocessed and unpaid goods will be permitted to reclaim their merchandise within 30 days of delivery. The provisions relating to unpaid suppliers raises a question concerning farmers who at times find themselves with little recourse when purchasers who have taken possession of their product go bankrupt.
As the committee noted in its report, the protection offered to unpaid suppliers is of no benefit to those who supply perishable commodities. In most circumstances the nature of the produce requires quick processing such as for example in the case of meat and poultry products.
Obviously the processing of such products makes them ineligible for revindication as they are no longer considered as being in an unaltered state. Their perishable condition also means that their value is lost in a short time span.
In such cases suppliers would in fact be getting back a product that was worth less than it was when first delivered.
I therefore join the committee in its call that the government re-examine this flaw in the provision that protects unpaid suppliers. A reasonable measure must be implemented to give farmers and fishermen protection with regard to perishable commodities.
Bill C-22 also proposes to create a wage claim program. Direct compensation for unpaid wages will be provided to workers who lose their jobs due to the bankruptcy, receivership, or liquidation of the employer. At present employees only have a preferred status claim for three months of unpaid wages up to a maximum of $500 and $300 for sales persons' expenses. Elowever, this does not include vacation pay.
Government Orders
Preferred status is of little value as the assets of a bankrupt employer is used first to pay secured creditors including government liens. Thus the current priority given to employee wages is clearly inadequate.
Clause 6 of Bill C-22 will however establish the amount of benefit at 90 per cent of an employee's unpaid wages, including vacation pay earned within the last six months up to a maximum of $2,000.
It also covers 90 per cent of a sales person's expenses unpaid during the same time period up to a maximum of $1,000. The program will not however cover severance or termination pay.
The fund is to be financed by a payroll tax on the employer. The amount paid per employee will be calculated by .024 per cent of insurable earnings and collected through the unemployment insurance system. It has been estimated that for average wage earnings this will amount to 10 cents per employee.
The tax is scheduled to be imposed January 1, 1992 whether or not Bill C-22 is passed.
There are several problems with the wage earners' protection fund that deserve consideration. The fund itself is not the most efficient possible. It also imposes another tax on tax weary employers, especially small businesses. The Liberal Party has recommended that workers should be given super priority for wages and vacation pay and that the maximum coverage should be $3,000.
To facilitate the immediate payment of wage claims the receiver would pay up to the maximum allowable with the Superintendent of Bankruptcy guaranteeing the amount and paid out of a fund to be financed by an across the board increase in the fees charged by the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.
The committee which pre-studied the bill has put forward a recommendation which supports the establishment of increased protection and compensation for employees of bankrupt employers.

The committee suggests that, in the event that a firm goes bankrupt, goes into receivership or liquidation, wage claims and amounts owed for business expenses up to $3,000 should have priority over any other claim,

November 1, 1991
Government Orders
including Crown claims. Such priority should be subject however to the right of the employer's unpaid suppliers to repossess goods.

The committee went on to recommend that where in a bankruptcy there are insufficient assets to cover an employee's total wage claim, the trustee should be able to claim any shortfall against a wage fund.
In the opinion of the committee, the fund should be administered by the Superintendent of Bankruptcy and financed from increases in the fees levied by the superintendent.
Most of the witnesses which appeared before the committee supported employees being able to receive some of their unpaid wages if the employer goes bankrupt. There was, however, severe reservations expressed as to how a wage protection fund should be financed. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association thought the fund should be financed out of general government revenues. This idea was previously put forward in 1980 and as recently as 1988 by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The department proposed that the fund should be financed out of general revenue rather than by employer-employee contributions. The department also proposed that the Superintendent of Bankruptcy should administer the fund instead of UI.
The Canadian Bankers' Association and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce believe the fund should be financed by a tax paid by employers and employees. Such a proposal had earlier been put forward in January 1986 by the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy and Insolvency which is commonly referred to as the Colter committee.
Other witnesses such as the Canadian Federation of Labour suggested that funding should be the employers' responsibility. But this raises the argument that all employers should be made to pay into a fund which will pay the wages of employees of the disproportionately lower number of companies that go bankrupt.
Finally, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business categorically rejected the government's proposal in Bill C-22 to establish an employer only payroll tax to fund employee wage claims. The CFIB has consistently called for the super priority of employee wage claims
in cases of bankruptcies or receiverships and that any such fund should have strict limits and be funded out of general revenues.
The CFIB has suggested however that should the government nonetheless introduce a fund financed by a payroll tax, it should at the very least be based on equal contributions by employers and employees.
Notwithstanding the various positions on the wage claim protection fund, there is a different way to protect unpaid wages of employees. Giving employees super priority status would permit them to have first claim on the assets of the bankrupt employer above all other creditors. The super priority concept could be a sound alternative to the wage claim fund.
I hope the government will give super priority due consideration. The committee recommended that employees should be given priority, but this would be subject to the right of unpaid suppliers to repossess their goods from the employer.
Bill C-22 is a substantial and complex bill which has as its objective the reform of very important components in the present Bankruptcy Act. I have touched on some of the more salient points of the bill. There are others and I know the bill will receive further examination before it receives third reading and eventual passage.
In conclusion, I hope that the concerns expressed by the witnesses who appeared during pre-study of Bill C-22, along with the comprehensive recommendations outlined in the committee's report will get serious consideration from the government.
I believe the inclusion of the committee's recommendations to Bill C-22 would be beneficial. There is no doubt that the present Bankruptcy Act requires reform and I hope we will soon see the necessary changes in place in the veiy near future.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague who also sits with me on the consumer and corporate affairs committee.
I am particularly pleased to hear him say that he supports super priority, the priority given to workers when companies go bankrupt, the precedence or super priority of these workers, as preferred creditors, to make claims.
November 1, 1991

The problem that we noticed a long time ago is that workers employed by a company that goes bankrupt, are the last to receive compensation. Statistics show that for every dollar the company owes its workers, they receive about five cents. This is unforgivable and unacceptable.
I was therefore pleased to hear my colleague on the Committee support the idea that workers should have super priority when a company goes bankrupt. I know that my colleague from the NDP, the hon. member for Nickel Belt, also supports this idea. I hope that the government in a non-partisan way will hear us NDP and Liberal members and everyone who worked on that committee.
I would like to say that I received comments from my constituents about the super priority for workers in bankruptcies. I would like to tell you about Jean-Sebas-tien Belanger of Saint-Hilaire who asked why one always had to go to court, a costly and unnecessary process, when the government should shoulder its responsibilities. That is precisely what we ask today: that the government assume its responsibilities and for once give workers the right to recover the money owed them for which they worked.
I would like to ask my colleague a question on retroactivity. We talk about giving compensation to people who are affected, namely the workers, when a company goes bankrupt. However, many workers are affected but will not be able to get any compensation because that legislation has no retroactivity clause. If this is the case, a large number of workers who suffered from bankruptcies-after all, let's not forget that we are in a recession-will not be entitled to that wage protection.
Therefore, I would like to know my colleague's opinion on retroactivity, since this is an extremely important element if we are to make sure that there is justice not only for some but for all.


M. Kilger:: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my NDP colleague, the hon. member for Chambly, for his questions and comments.
On the matter of super priority, we in the Liberal Party want to work on building a better balance, and more specifically, we do not want another tax.
Government Orders
To get back to his second question, about whether to support this retroactive concept, I must say I would favour of this kind of formula because it would be fair. Consequently, and also because of the recession, which is largely what dictates the government's financial policies, perhaps it would be an opportunity for them-

If I might, to take the money out of general revenues, if you will, and to give Canadian workers that retroactive supplement suggested by the member for Chambly.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this particular piece of legislation has been talked about from time to time through my entire 12 years in this Chamber. It began I think long before that.
The act that is currently in place was passed in 1949. Sometimes it is wise to reflect on what Canada looked like the last time a bankruptcy act was passed by this Chamber. It certainly was not the same country. We had just finished World War II and were entering a new phase of our existence. I do not know what the population was but it was certainly less than half of what it is today. The origins of the people of this country were very, very different.
I simply bring those facts to the attention of the House to indicate that it is time for a change.
I was elected to this Chamber in 1979 and the previous year I had started a small business, an office coffee business. It had grown to some reasonable size with six employees and 350 coffee machines and delivery trucks, telephones, stationery and coffee supplies and so on. I remember the nervousness my wife and I felt as we went to the bank and signed the appropriate documents to get the funding to be able to buy some of the required capital equipment in the first instance and then to fund the cash flow.
Cash flow is a foreign concept to people who have never had a business of their own. It concerns how fast your money is coming in and how fast your money is going out. If it is going out faster than it is coming in you have a negative cash flow. If it is coming in faster than it is going out you have a positive cash flow.
I remember the National Energy Program in 1981. In my community discretionary spending was cut to the bone by company after company in 30 days. As a consequence of that sudden, abrupt downturn in the economy there were suicides, spousal battering, and

November 1, 1991
Government Orders
increases in violent crimes. There was enormous stress and strain. The unemployment rate increased from less than 4 per cent to 11 or 12 per cent practically overnight in Calgary, Alberta. That was caused by a piece of public policy, the National Energy Program. It was a consequence which I do not think was intended by the government of the day. It was a consequence which the government of the day could have avoided if it had listened to some of us in opposition. However the bureaucracy's wisdom is frequently taken by governments to be better than that of members of this Chamber.
We make that mistake from time to time in our party, but less frequently, much less frequently.
Since 1985 one of the big achievements of this particular Parliament is the fact that we changed the rules for committees. Those of us who served prior to that time recognize the enormous difference that exists today in the functioning committees. Standing committees can in fact investigate things they decide to investigate, with resources to help them do it and witnesses.
We have a lot more witnesses in our legislative committees. With the latest changes made in May we are trying to force them to be a little more disciplined in their presentation and orient them toward the fine print of a particular bill.
The big achievement, which members who arrived subsequent to 1985 may not realize, is the fact that there is a genuine discussion on amendments which takes place. It is not simply with the minister, not simply with the bureaucracy, but with the members of the committee who have heard the witnesses and have listened to the testimony.
At the end of the day sometimes every single amendment is moved by all members of the committee. On other occasions there will be one member who is discrepant. On other occasions it will be government members versus opposition members, though that is not common.
I sat on the gun control committee recently, the first legislative committee I have been on in a while. The committee made 32 amendments to the bill and we split on one. The government and opposition split. People were nervous about the split because it essentially established democracy's control over the regulatory
process. It said: "We shall hear witnesses on regulations under this act". Government members supported that. It was an amendment I personally felt strongly about. Opposition members were nervous about supporting it, I think for other sets of reasons, and did not in the final analysis. They voted against that amendment but somewhat reluctantly. They felt that the place of democracy in that process would be more positive than negative.
I will come back to the downturn in the economy of the city of Calgary and my struggling young business which at that time was a couple of years old. In 30 days we lost close to 40 per cent of our market. Prior to that downturn in the economy we were paying suppliers in 90 days and customers were paying us for our services in 30 days. Virtually overnight suppliers required payment from us in 30 days and our clients paid us in 90 days. We moved from a positive cash flow to a negative cash flow position, and with quite a few dollars involved you have no choice but to seek more funding in the middle of a downturn.
Thank heavens there were some assets. Our home was not heavily mortgaged and we were able to offer a lender some security of that kind, and we survived. Most of those 350 coffee machines I had out in the community were in small businesses. We would deliver them their coffee and put our machine in their firm to make their coffee.
Over 50 of them went bankrupt within six months, and the coffee we had advanced to them was gone with the receiver. The machines, which were never the property of the companies, were most often taken and simply disappeared. There I was on the other side of the fence as a small business person with nothing in law to enable me to get back my product, which still belonged to me because it had not been paid for, or to take back my machine, which was only on loan in the first place.
That is the domino effect of bankruptcy which this House, for the most part collectively, intends to change with this piece of legislation. It should be changed.
Listening to this debate, if there is any sort of disagreement with this bill it is probably an ideological difference between the New Democrats and my party, with some members of the Liberal party on either side of the fence. We believe you have to pay for something before you can
November 1, 1991

do it and the New Democrats seem to believe you can borrow the money and do it anyhow.
There is a provision in the bill that would take care of the expenditure for employees who lose out in a bankruptcy case through a kind of tithe on all the businesses in the country. That includes public sector businesses that do not go bankrupt as well as private sector businesses. It is really a piece of unemployment insurance, a small extension of that principle.
Members rightly, I think out of conviction, do not like the tax. However it is amazing how little you hear about the pay-out side. Nobody is complaining about giving money to people, nobody is disagreeing that those people deserve money, that they are the victims of a bankruptcy simply because they were working for the wrong employer at the wrong time. The complaining we hear is about raising the money.
We have had discussions about decorum in the House. There are a lot of deeply felt feelings about that because it relates to our image in the community as members of this institution, and it relates to the image of the institution in the public's mind. People are common sensical and when we do not act responsibly, when we do not examine both sides of an issue, the expenditure side and the income side, when we try to pretend that something is free or that it is okay to go on forever borrowing money, we lose credibility with them.
In our debates if all of us were more dedicated to the principle of being practical, having a difference of ideas but carrying an idea through to its conclusion-if you want to make a pay-out then you have to produce the income-and sharing with members of the House how that might best be done then I think our credibility in the community would increase because we would be seen more often as common sense people. If we showed respect for each other a little more often in the Chamber that would be intensified and positive for our kind of democracy.
I rose today to simply put a little bit of my own personal experience on the table. The provisions of this bill when it comes to the protection of all the small businesses out there which supply businesses that go bankrupt are very positive. The protection of the workers
Government Orders
is very positive. The disagreement is from where the income shall come to take care of those employees.
I have faith that hard working members of this Chamber are willing to meet on the standing committee and consider the bill. I have faith they will come up with an amendment or two which will satisfy hopefully all comers of the House. All comers of the House believe in responsible legislation, that if you have to spend you have to raise, that going on with borrowed money is not an option.
If members on the opposition side believe that borrowing money is the way to go, then there will be a split on the committee as well. If they work collectively at the situation and devise something that will work a little better than what is in there now, I think they will find support from the government members. They may even find some leadership among government members. Government members are as concerned as other members of the Chamber about the practicality of one proposal over another.
What I do not like to see is the NDP amendment that we are debating right now which would stop the bankruptcy bill. Voting for that amendment would mean no bankruptcy bill. For my 12 years in this Chamber we have said collectively it needs to be changed. The NDP at the end of the line stands up in this Chamber and moves a motion that would kill the whole thing and keep the act the way it is. That is totally unacceptable to us.
I would hope maybe the NDP might rise in this Chamber later this day and ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. I would guarantee on behalf of this side of the House we would be pleased to go along with that suggestion.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the input of the hon. member in the debate. I listened very carefully. I am pleased to report to him two things.
First of all, the committee process we have just gone through was a very complete process. We did not leave any ends untied, indeed we found many ends of the bill that were very much untied. We sought, with unanimity I might add of the committee, we unanimously agreed to what the flaws were and we unanimously agreed to what the solutions were.

November 1, 1991
Government Orders
The member was begging us almost to come to our senses, to come to some conclusion and think our thought process through. I want to report to him, first, that even members on his side thought the process through and thought better of the bill. As a result the committee in pre-study came up with 22 recommendations for change. One of the major recommendations deals with the wage earner protection fund.
The hon. member just mentioned that it is important for us to realize we cannot live on borrowed money. I could not agree with him more. If he reads the committee report or if he reads the Hansard from the committee deliberations, he will see what the committee has done, Liberal members, New Democratic members and Conservative members. It is that we recognize that fact and recognize that no, if we have a wage earner protection fund, the government, using borrowed funds will have to put $3.5 million into the fund. We said there must be a better way to do it.
Second, we did not think that small business in this country would support another tax no matter how small. We are concerned about consumer confidence and business confidence in the system.
We said there has to be a better way. The government's objectives are admirable and supportable. We do support the objectives. We came up with a proposal that is very detailed. We studied this thing inside out, upside down, every which way to Sunday, and we came in with a set of proposals that take the government off the hook. That means the government does not have to spend any money. We are doing the government a favour.
It has already been blamed for 32 taxes. We did not want it to be blamed for 33. The recommendations of the committee were to save the government from the embarrassment of another tax. In addition to that, we had a system in place whereby it should be self-financing through the superintendent's office.
Every position that we have put forward the department has had plenty of opportunity to come back and indicate to us that our logic is wrong. Not in one case has the department done that.
I want to let the hon. member know that we have done our job. We do not want to hold up progressive legislation, but at the same time this pre-study gave members of all sides of the House the ability without a noose around their neck from their respective Whips on policy positions.
That process has worked and what we have here is a good committee report and I would like to get his response. We urge the government not to take the easy way out which is to create a fund that is going to cost taxpayers money because the government has to contribute, but to look seriously at the amendments that their own members have put forward. It is a process that will work and it will show that the government has truly cared about saving small business from another tax and saving taxpayers from more taxes.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the arguments about super priority, the magic way of funding without cost to anybody. My experience tells me there is always a cost to somebody.
There is a tendency when speaking of super priority to say we are going to take the money from the bankers, take it from these rich guys who loan the money. That is a great concept.
The hidden part of that is the little guy who cannot borrow the money in the first place to try and achieve his dream. That is the one who does not come as a witness before parliamentary committees. That is the one members are unlikely to know about and understand unless you have done it yourself, unless you have signed your family home and your family's future to a loan to borrow the money to start an enterprise, unless you have faced that sudden change from positive to negative cash flow and had to go back to lenders a second time.
If those lenders need to protect themselves on a 2 per cent basis, a 3 per cent, or 5 per cent or whatever in making the decision about your loan when they look at those financial statements in all of their glory and all of their detail and they need to build in that extra factor for super priority they will. When they do they will choke the lifetime dreams of thousands of Canadians who are every bit as small and every bit as deserving as the employees of the bankruptcy.
It is an illusion to think this money can come out of the hide of the lenders. The world does not work that way. The costs come out of the hide of the borrowers and the real cost of this is the person who never has a chance to
November 1, 1991

try his dream because he cannot get adequate financing in the first instance.
That is what is wrong with this proposal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to bring to the attention of the House that we are now under Standing Order 74. The maximum time for speeches is 10 minutes with no questions or comments. I will now recognize the hon. member for Lambton- Middlesex.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today on Bill C-22, the Bankruptcy Act.
I recognize, as my colleague who spoke before me pointed out, that the act allows unpaid suppliers to retrieve goods from bankruptcy within 30 days. However, there are two very serious catches. If a farmer for example cannot get his product back, if there is any added value for example a meat packer declares bankruptcy and the cattle have already been processed, he cannot get the meat back. If a vegetable crop has even gone through a washer which is part of the processing process, the farmer cannot get them back or get paid for them. Or if grain is delivered to an elevator and dumped into one of the silos along with other grain it cannot be identified as the farmer's particular grain so therefore he cannot get it back.
I would think that these areas do have to be corrected.
As I think back to the other forms of legislation that offered protection in parts of Canada quite a few years ago, I think of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. It provided for many of the same recourses but was far more specific in terms of extensions of time to allow a herd of cattle in a feedlot to mature to market weight or crops to ripen.
But it also had recourse so the farmer could have schemes or arrangements. They could make compositions in addition to the extension of time, and if necessary, renegotiate a mortgage. That legislation also reflects clause ll(l)(e) of the Farm Credit Act, which also states that the act gives the corporation the authority. Under that authority, the corporation may make schemes of arrangement, compositions, extensions of time or renegotiate mortgages.
Government Orders
I cannot understand for the life of me, with all the hardships in Canada today, whether it is the prairies or whether it is in central Canada or Atlantic Canada, why the Farm Credit Corporation is not using those provisions in the act to try to give some relief to those thousands of farmers across this country who are literally being forced off their farms in this financial crunch that has been brought about by the lack of attention of this government, first of all by the damage that is being done under the free trade agreement, and second, by the damage being done by export enhancement programs being used by our neighbours to the south of us.
Those export enhancement programs violate not only the spirit of the free trade agreement but also the free trade agreement itself, which is very specific and says that neither country will subsidize exports into markets of the other nation.
This government has not even called for consultations under chapter 18 of the free trade agreement, nor has it asked for compensation. So here we have a government that has ignored what is happening to us on the world markets, ignored the violations of the free trade agreement that are taking place, and have not even asked for consultations or compensation to help those farmers that are being forced off the land, and for not using the act as provided under the provisions of that act specifically chapter ll(l)(e) of the Farm Credit Act.
I also want to point out that there are other areas of grave concern to me and that is what is happening in our economy. Just yesterday I had some frantic telephone calls asking for help. "What can you do to help us, as small business people, who have ploughed our lifetime savings into not just a small business enterprise, but a business enterprise designed to renew the vitality and the growth of a small town?"
These young entrepreneurs in my constituency, in the township of Sombra, spent their savings which they had accumulated over many years to buy up the old stores and to renovate them. They made it into a tourist town. It is on the St. Clair River, with a ferry operation across to the state of Michigan, just a few miles from the city of Detroit in the heart of a potential tourist area of several million people. They spent their lifetime savings putting all of this together, restoring those old stores, having tenants come in who set up boutiques and gift shops, restaurants, all sorts of attractions.

November 1, 1991
Government Orders
As they opened these up, the businesses took off and prospered. But then we had a downturn in the economy. We know what went into effect on January 1, 1989. These real Canadian entrepreneurs who were attempting to attract American tourists to Canada and working for the last six years on this tourist development are the kind of business people the government claims it wants to help. It spent $1.2 million on a competitiveness study by an American it could have purchased the same at a book store for $40. They are going to spend tens of millions of dollars to study our Canadian economy, but they do not want to hear about free trade and the impact of that, the GST or the Canadian and U.S. interest rate spread or the high dollar.
These tourism operators could explain to the government what is happening without the cost of this $1.2 million. Yesterday, they had a notice of eviction delivered to them signed by the sheriff of Lambton County. I have a copy of it right here. It gave them just a few days to vacate.
This afternoon I had a note delivered to me in the House by the tenants of some of those stores who have thriving businesses who also have to vacate. The notices were delivered by the sheriff on behalf of the Federal Business Development Bank, which is willing to force them out of these facilities and close down the businesses these tenants are operating. It is completely unacceptable.
I have to ask, what will this act do in a case like this where these tenants have invested their lifetime savings in making these businesses go, competing against the free trade agreement and the GST and the high Canadian dollar, but are surviving and prospering and had their merchandise in place for the Christmas rush.
This is unacceptable. I ask this House to stop and take another look at this bill, the Bankruptcy Act, and tell us how it is going to help these tenants. How is it going to help these entrepreneurs who are being forced out just at the start of the Christmas rush, when they have put their lifetime savings into building up these businesses that are attracting tourists to Canada and then having the rug pulled out from under them by the government of this nation and the policies it put in place.
Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State
(Finance)): Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill C-22. At the outset I want to commend the minister and the committee for the pre-study it did on Bill C-22.1 think it was a wise move on the part of the minister, and of course there was some excellent work done by the members of the committee. They are all to be commended.
The fact that the minister accepted, I believe, 16 of the 22 amendments they suggested to the bill is an indication of how much he thought of their work.
In the limited time available to me I want to talk a little bit about super priority. I wonder if many members realize where this all began. We had a previous bill before us on bankruptcy. I believe it was in the early 1980s. The minister I believe was the Hon. Judy Erola. The bill was before committee and it was sort of flip-flopping through the House. There was not too much attention being paid to it. All of sudden Maislin Transport in Quebec went bankrupt.
Members familiar with the transport industry will know the name Maislin, an over the road company. It had bought into a transport company in the United States and as a result of that investment and some other difficult times, it found itself faced with bankruptcy.
The employees of that company had cheques bounce all over Montreal and the various communities where they had their depots. At that time the minister brought in super priority. She suggested a $3,S000 per employee super priority. We asked her at the time where she got the $3,000 figure. At that time the average wage in a bankruptcy across Canada was $250. Why the $3,000? She said that was the semi-monthly wage of a machinery salesman. I could not see the connection. I don't know how many machinery salesmen there are in Canada as opposed to transport truck drivers and numerous other employees, but that is the origin of super priority.
There were other developments as a result of the super priority. The banks felt endangered to some degree. Looking at super priority, my own personal preference would be this 10 cents per employee per week. I think that is the least cost involved and I think
November 1, 1991

the administration of it, putting it through the unemployment insurance fund would be the best way to do it. I cannot agree to put another charge against the general revenue fund. We are, in fact, saying that all Canadians who contribute to the general revenue fund through taxes and tariffs and so forth should indemnify the wages owed by an employer to an employee. I cannot agree with that at all.
I want to talk a little bit more about what happens to a business when it goes under. I have run a business, and fortunately I was never bankrupt, but I was a creditor in a number of bankruptcies and I know what you go through as a creditor.
Why do businesses go bankrupt? If you analyse bankruptcies, you find in most cases that the reason the business went bankrupt was it just did not have enough money invested. There is no crime against that. If you look at business start-ups, business start-ups usually are in boom times. "Let's go in business for ourselves, the market is there, profit is available and product is available; let us go into business". You put the minimum amount possible into your business, never thinking you are going to have a downturn, and away you go. Some of them grow very rapidly, and if the market turns down they are in jeopardy. It is classical.
I had a look at this bill and I see that they are going to give people who supply merchandise to somebody who eventually goes bankrupt 30 days to retrieve that merchandise. I think that is a great move. I think that is a very positive thing in the bankruptcy. Nobody will find this written anywhere, but there is a feeling out there among people who are creditors in bankruptcies that there is an effort if you are going to go bankrupt to load up your inventory. If you are going to go bankrupt and you know it, load up your inventory so there will be more that can be sold to satisfy whatever creditors there are.
I had an experience in my own business, and it was a typical business arrangement, where sales were down for the quarter that we were operating in. One of my salesmen came in with a sizeable order but we looked at the name of the customer and we said "Wait a minute, we got some bad vibes about this fellow, we heard that he was kind of shaky". We did the normal checks through the banks and Dun and Bradstreet and other credit reporting agencies and they said that, yes, while he was having some cash flow difficulties he did seem to be well enough financed and he probably would be able to
Government Orders
survive this. On the basis of that we went ahead and shipped the merchandise to him. Within seven days we heard that they were going to put a padlock on the door. Unbeknownst to me, the salesman who had arranged the sale went back to the gentleman who was going to go bankrupt and asked him if we could borrow back this merchandise because we had a large order to ship and we had to ship it by the end of the month-none of which was true-and could we have the merchandise back so we could complete this order. They gave us the merchandise back. We took it to our shop and we sold it. The company then went into bankruptcy and the receiver in bankruptcy called me on the phone and he said: "You owe us a bunch of merchandise here, you took merchandise from our inventory and we either want the merchandise replaced or we want you to pay for it".
I said: "We are not going to do that. You cannot expect me to deliver back to you merchandise from which you are going to give me 10 cents on the dollar." He said: "I will take you to court". I said: "Be my guest. I do not think there is a court in the country that would agree with you". Fortunately, by just hanging tough, we got away with it, but there are a lot of other people who did not get away with it. That is one of the tragedies in bankruptcy. Those are the people who, as a result of someone else going bankrupt, are thrown in jeopardy themselves.
What I like about this bill is that it is a package. It says we have done pre-study, we have accepted some amendments, we have this business of taking care of up to 90 per cent of the employees' wages by a 10 cent per employee per week plan. I think that is the least costly of all the plans. We have virtually a chapter 11, as they call it in the United States bankruptcy, a provision to allow the company to restructure over a short period of time. We also have this business of super priority and the general revenue fund to adjudicate, I guess, when we get to committee.
I think the over-all package is good. I hope we get to the legislative committee shortly. I would like to see this bill through and operating in the shortest possible period of time. I think that if we can get it into operation it is going to help a lot of people.
I am aware that some people have spoken against John Bullock of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They have spoken against the 10 cent a week

November 1, 1991
Government Orders
per employee. He apparently prefers the super priority. I am afraid of the super priority because I believe that is going to inhibit the ability of small business to borrow from banks. I do not want to do that in any way, shape or form having said that lack of capital and lack of a line of credit is the main reason why businesses go under.
With those few remarks, I will pass the baton on to someone else.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin here by mentioning, perhaps for a third time in this House, that this proposed bill is not going to make it difficult for small business to get loans.
I worked on this committee, I worked on this bill and I would like to illuminate the hon. member with some additional information he may not have that came from business. I am specifically speaking about the Quebec Contractors Association. These people came before us and said: "Look, in Quebec we have to deal with super priority. That means that the workers are first in line and whenever there is a bankruptcy they get their money first". That is what we are asking for here in this bill. I asked the representative: "Well, what does that do for the banks and the caisses populaires and all those other lending institutions?" They said: "You know, it is funny. We not only have that, but we also have a tax or a lien in the construction in Quebec. Do you know what? The banks are not kicking". It has worked out pretty well. It has worked out for not quite several decades, but at least, I believe, since 1980.
I was surprised because I have heard the government say: "If we let workers have what they are due, the small businesses will never be able to get loans". That is not true at all. I think that we have to set the record straight.
I should add, by the way, that I do not think we should add another tax. My party does not believe that we should add another tax. Canadians are fed up with the taxes that we have had already. My party is fed up with the taxes that we have had already. We would like to see a more creative solution. We think that there is one. That creative solution is for the government not to spend the very little money that we already have on science projects. These are of little value in western Canada and British Columbia. Even our national scientists have said
there is no reason to spend this $250 million. This $60 million or $70 million that we are asking for to protect workers could be coming out of general revenues if the government would learn not to spend money foolishly. That is what it is doing. We are having a $400,000 travelling committee to learn about prosperity.
We are having a great deal of money being spent on committees. We are having a great deal of money being spent on things which most Canadians would feel are superfluous. We are asking in this bill for approximately $60 million to $70 million. That money, as it has been expressed here, would come out of a tax. It must not come out of a tax, even if that tax is going to be 5 or 10 cents per worker. There is no such thing as a free lunch. We have said that. The Conservatives used to say that before they were in government. Now they pretend there is a free lunch.
It is not a free lunch and those people who need this money should not be taxed. Businesses should not have to pay the tax. What should occur, as I said before, is that this should come out of general revenues. There is money there for it if the government would just quit wasting the little precious money it has left.
The important thing to remember is that the people who are in bankrupt situations, the workers, must get their money right away. If they have priority, even before the government, these people will have a greater chance of getting their money than ever before.
I rise to speak on this Bill C-22 mainly because I am afraid that the government, as much as it pretends that it wishes to help workers involved in bankruptcies, does not really intend to take the committee's recommendations on super priority and revenues coming in order to protect the money that they will get from general revenues. I believe that this government is going to want to bulldoze through another tax, the 33rd tax that it has passed since it has been the government.
I will not accept that, and neither will Canadians. The members of all parties in that committee, Conservatives, NDP, Liberals, have actually presented some sound suggestions that the government can use in order to deal with this very difficult situation.
November 1, 1991



I am surprised to see that this government will not listen to the sensible suggestions made by its own members on the consumer and corporate affairs committee. A consensus was reached by the New Democratic Party, the Conservatives and the Liberals on requesting that a worker trapped in a situation where his company goes bankrupt be considered a secured creditor, in which case the money owed him, between $2,000 and $3,000, can be paid.
I know my constituents do not want another tax. So we must not levy another tax to set up a fund to help workers trapped in a bankruptcy situation. It would be better to take this money from existing funds. The federal government has plenty of money, but unfortunately, the government tends to waste it.
One of my constituents, Mr. Andre Dubois of Saint-Bruno, who is fed up with the GST, wrote me as follows: "Politicians in general don't work for us but for their own personal glory, and they don't care about the well-being of Canadians. All programs are launched on a shortterm basis. What we need is the will to change our political perspective and our political traditions. Programs, goals and promises should no longer be changed after each election".
The Canadian public wants some common sense from this government. Instead of more taxes, it wants the government to spend smarter. No more spending right and left on plane trips that may or may not have been necessary. No more wasting money on those big limousines you like to use because you happen to be in government. No more spending money on your friends in the advertising business who expect a reward for supporting you in the last election. All this has to stop. The time has come to spend money on our workers, to give them more protection. I believe that if you would only realize that, Canadians would be far better protected than they are at the present time.

In conclusion, I would just like to add that a lot of people out there are involved in these bankruptcies as workers and they realize that presently they have no protection, or very limited protection at best.
Government Orders
I have pleaded for retroactivity in this Bill C-22 because it is important that there be protection for those people who went through the recession and who represent the largest group concerned. If we pass this bill without retroactivity, they will be left high and dry. We must not allow that to happen.
I spoke with the government Whip and I explained why this was necessary. I told him that it does not appear that super priority or retroactivity will cause the banks any harm. I believe that essentially what we are looking for is protection for Canadian workers. I believe that with a minimum of good will from the other side of this House we can work together as we did in committee and protect all workers.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this important piece of legislation.
I want to begin by congratulating my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth, on the masterful way in which he has directed our party's analysis and response to this legislation which touches a very complex and difficult set of issues. It affects in a profound way the conduct of business everywhere in Canada. As he has done on so many subjects since being elected to this Chamber, the member for Dartmouth has tackled this bill with enthusiasm, skill and with surefootedness.
The reform of Canada's bankruptcy laws is long overdue. Our current Bankruptcy Act dates back to 1949. In the face of the manifold changes that have occurred in the Canadian economy and in the business environment in the past 42 years, the provisions in this legislation are increasingly anachronistic and woefully out of date.
These years have witnessed a growing library of departmental reviews and parliamentary studies and at least six failed attempts at legislation. Clearly all members of this house share the desire to see this legislative attempt succeed.
We applaud the government on having introduced this bill and also on having submitted it to pre-study before second reading. We think that was an eminently worthwhile thing to do.
The member for Dartmouth and other members on this side of the House have worked assiduously to enable the bill to be improved.

November 1, 1991
Government Orders
While we support the government's introduction of this legislation, it does not mean that we should accept anything the government puts before the House. It does not mean that we should suspend our responsibility to scrutinize and evaluate critically both the broad principles and the detailed provisions of the bill. Nor does it mean that this government will get a blank cheque on this legislation.
Nevertheless, while we will be diligent in our questioning and in our examination of the bill, our intention which we assume the government shares is to secure workable, fair bankruptcy legislation, legislation which provides balanced and adequate protection to creditors and debtors and creates a stable climate for entrepreneurship and investment. That is what my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth, has done so well in his interventions at the pre-study stage of this bill and in his remarks earlier this week on second reading.
His approach has been to examine Bill C-22 bearing in mind not only the need to balance the competing and conflicting interests of the various direct participants in a bankruptcy, that is to say the debtor and the various creditors, but also bearing in mind society's broader interests, namely ensuring that the bankruptcy rules do not adversely affect the climate for business investment, risk taking, job creation and the incentives for the prudent management of business enterprises; the need of the worker to a fair settlement and recovery of wages lost as a result of a failure of a business enterprise; the interest of society in supporting reorganization where it may avert a costly bankruptcy without creating a cushion for sloppy management or preventing the difficult but sometimes necessary adjustment role that bankruptcy performs in a dynamic, modem, free market economy; and, finally, the strong opposition which all of us in this House have heard loud and clear from our constituents, the opposition to any addition to the already unacceptable burden of taxation which Canadians are obliged to pay.
It is this last consideration which has led us on this side of the House to take issue with the government's proposed design of the Wage Claim Payment Act, one of the central components of Bill C-22. With the Wage Claim Payment Act, the government proposed a scheme to ensure that the employees of a company thrust into
bankruptcy or placed in receivership are reimbursed for salary or commission not paid by the bankrupt company.
Under clause 6 of Bill C-22, this payment would apply to unpaid wages and vacation pay as well as sales persons' expenses during the six-month period prior to the bankruptcy and up to a maximum of $2,000 or $1,000 in the case of sales persons' expenses.
In order to claim the benefit, an individual would have to submit a claim to the trustee, liquidator or receiver who would in turn submit it to the Superintendent of Bankruptcy for verification. The payment of these claims would not come, as in the case for example of the claims of the other creditors, from the disposal of the assets of the bankrupt company but would come from a fund financed by a new payroll tax on all employers, a tax equal to .24 per cent of the employer's weekly insurable earnings.
This is where we are in fundamental disagreement with the minister's proposal. Not only does this new tax constitute an additional burden on the employer and a burden which is directly related to employment, but I would submit it represents an inconsistent way of treating the outstanding claims by workers to the value of the debtor company. All other creditors receive their claims from the value of the disposed assets of the company. In this case workers are treated differently. They will be asked to receive their claims out of a fund raised by taxing all employers, in other words all businesses regardless of whether those businesses went bankrupt or not, in order to pay the workers' unpaid wages in the event of a bankruptcy.
We on this side of the House have suggested a different approach. We have suggested that the payment of wage claims be made up by the receiver to a legislated maximum of $3,000 with the amount guaranteed by the Superintendent of Bankruptcy and paid out of a fund financed by an across the board increase in the fees charged by the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.
The Superintendent of Bankruptcy would charge an additional fee out of the fee he charges on the assets of the bankrupt company in order to finance the payment of the unpaid wages and related expenses going to the workers of the company. It would be the company's assets, the bankrupt company's assets, from which the
November 1, 1991

fund would be drawn in order to meet this creditor claim on the bankrupt company.
Second, we have suggested that unpaid wages have a super priority. In other words, this claim should be the first claim addressed by the creditors in disposing the assets of the bankrupt company. Super priority would mean that when the bankrupt company's assets are disposed of under the supervision of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, it would be the workers' unpaid wages as defined more or less in the bill that would be dealt with first, ahead of the other categories of creditors.
There has been some question by government members on this concept of super priority. Apparently they believe that acceptance of the super priority concept would create a credit crunch, would impede investment and would make it more difficult for small businesses to receive loans from the banks.
We should bear in mind-and this is where I will conclude-that businesses go bankrupt as 56,000 businesses did in Canada this year. Regardless of what the cause of the bankruptcy is, and it may have nothing to do with the soundness of the business but simply the economic conditions like the recession caused by this government, when a business goes bankrupt and there are several categories of creditors there is always one creditor that gets super priority. In Canada the creditor which has been given super priority in the past has been the banks.
We believe on this side of the House that it is time. It is eminently fair for another category of creditor, namely workers and their families who are left high and dry by the fact that their source of income has eroded and there is no backup in many cases, to have chance to receive what small payment is due them from the company in which they have invested time and labour. Rather than give this credit priority to the banks, we suggest super priority should go to the workers.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to speak on Bill C-22 because it is a veiy important bill. It is important at any time and in any place, but certainly never more than in the current economic difficulties facing our country with thousands of businesses going bankrupt and requiring reorganizations of varying sizes. For instance, the Algoma Steel
Government Orders
situation will see over 6,000 workers facing the threat of a company becoming totally insolvent. At the present time the company would have to go through the old Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act which of course is very out of date. This legislation would terminate that bill after three years.
What I want to talk about this afternoon, besides the impact on small and large business of not having adequate bankruptcy legislation, is the impact of reorganization as it affects Canadian farmers.
In 1984 the Bankruptcy Act was before Parliament and at that stage amendments were brought in to assist farmers in reorganizing the debt. Unfortunately that bill died on the Order Paper. The opposition of the day, which is the government of today, did not expedite that legislation as many pieces of legislation were being expedited in June 1984.
The whole situation of course since 1984, since the current government has been in power, has been one of tragic difficulties for Canadian agriculture. It has really been a tragic comedy of errors. The Minister of Agriculture imposed a moratorium on farm foreclosures under the FCC and then did nothing about it for 18 or 24 months in terms of bringing in debt restructuring mechanisms.
Finally Farm Debt Review Boards were brought into play, and some months after that process was put in place the government finally brought in the farm debt review board fund to carry out rescheduling of farm debt carried by the Farm Credit Corporation.
Farm Debt Review Boards have had some value I believe in mediating disputes between creditors and farmers, but the report that was put out by the Standing Committee on Agriculture really was quite critical of the way they have handled the work. It talked about the confusion in the role of the boards. Some boards operate on the basis that they are advocates for the farmers. Others simply put it through as mediators. It talked about the process and the delay of resolving the problems, the lack of expertise in financial analysis, the incomplete and poorly prepared financial information and the problems that exist in relationship to the sharing of information between the various stakeholders in farm debt. It talked about approaches that are inconsistent across the various provinces and about there not being

November 1, 1991
Government Orders
enough follow-up after agreements have been reached. It went on and on and on.
The reason I speak this afternoon is that the agriculture committee in 1988 put forward a number of recommendations to deal with the operation of the Farm Debt Review Boards. One recommendation really stands out and that is recommendation No. 6 under section 3 of the farm debt review board report which reads:
To correct these difficulties the committee recommends that the federal government institute the following: a procedure whereby the Farm Debt Review Board, in each case where no agreement is reached, shall make available to the farmer a report outlining their recommendation.
The reason I proposed that to the committee-and it was accepted by the committee-is that I foresaw new bankruptcy legislation in the future modelled after that in the United States which under chapter 11 in the United States provided for companies, proprietorships or in this case farmers provisions for reorganization of debt.
Although when this legislation first came out it was reported to be non-applicable to farmers, it is my understanding that legal officers of the Elouse who were advising the committee said clearly that it applied equally to farmers, small businesses and other individuals seeking reorganization.
As I see the legislation, if this proposal in the agriculture committee of the House of Commons were adopted and the government were to put in place a procedure where Farm Debt Review Boards issued a report to each farmer where no agreement was reached under the farm debt review board procedure, the farmer would be free to apply to the Superintendent of Bankruptcy for a reorganization. He would go before the court and be able to ask for a reorganization. He would be armed with the report of the farm debt review board committee. Where that report suggested that if all the creditors had been willing to take a write down of 25 per cent or whatever, the creditors would get more that way than they would by simply foreclosing and selling off the assets.
As I understand the bill that is before us, there would be a vote of the creditors. Where two-thirds of the creditors agreed with that recommendation, the restructuring or reorganization would take place, whatever that restructuring was, whether it was to extend longer
periods of time or rescheduling of debt or reorganization. In any event, that is the kind of thing that takes place under the existing Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. Only this act would apply to all creditors, including farmers.
I think the legislation can be very beneficial and can work in harmony with the existing farm debt review boards, provided the government requires them to issue the report which I suggested this afternoon. I will be very interested in what happens in the committee hearings. Perhaps this proposal which I have outlined can be considered by the committee just to see whether there has to be some technical arrangements made in the way this new Bankruptcy Act will work, especially as it applies to company, corporate and individual reorganizations.
In the last two weeks I have attended two farm rallies, one in Regina last Thursday, where over 7,500 farmers attended, rallying to protest this government's cutback of support programs in the 1990 year, rallying to protest that a government would be so insensitive, almost insane we could say, that it would cut support programs by 40 per cent in a year when commodities, grain, wheat, oats, barley, are dropping by 30 per cent on world markets.
They are not rallying because they like to take a day off and go to Regina from all over that province and across Manitoba and Alberta as well. They are rallying because they cannot make it. Many of them are going to face reorganization, bankruptcy, foreclosures and so on. Today and every day two farmers in Saskatchewan walk off the land.
I believe that the procedure that I have outlined here today combined with this new legislation could be very helpful in carrying out those reorganizations and assisting where the government has failed over the past year or two in its reorganization programs, in its support programs to farmers.
I hope that this legislation ultimately will be passed, taking into account those very worth while, very capable recommendations of the hon. member for Dartmouth. He has really brought a lot to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Essex-Windsor on debate.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us first to see just how
November 1, 1991

serious the whole question of bankruptcy in this country has become. We have across this country in the past year seen over 13,000 firms which have gone bankrupt. We have seen close to 60,000 consumers who have gone bankrupt. We are talking about something which has cut a wicked swath right across small business, and not just the small business community in this country. It has hurt people badly.
We in this party have been calling for this kind of legislation for months. It has taken the government a long time to come forward. I have to congratulate it on finally having the courage to bring to the House of Commons a piece of legislation to change the Bankruptcy Act.
The previous Liberal government which faced an even worse recession did not even bring forward a piece of legislation to improve the Bankruptcy Act. I say that is to their shame.
As I think about this act, I think about some of the people in my constituency. I think of the people at Brant Castings, for instance. Brant Castings was a firm which was originally established by Birla Corporation of India, a firm which brought a great many employees into the operation and a firm which was quite successful for a period of time. That firm, however, after several sales, ultimately went bankrupt. It went bankrupt leaving workers in the lurch.
That is for us at the very heart of the problem of bankruptcy. The workers that I represent who worked at Brant Castings have not been able to get their vacation pay. They have not been able to get their severance pay. They have not even been able to get, in some cases, wages which were owing to them from Brant Castings, this despite the fact that the owners of Brant Castings continued to operate other enterprises in our community which are viable, which have all sorts of assets and are making a great deal of money for those owners. There is something about that which is terribly unfair.
I think of the workers I talked with just last week from GTL, Glengarry Transport Limited, which went bankrupt. Workers in my city, truck drivers who sat around the table in the teamsters headquarters talking with me, told me about the thousands of dollars in back pay, in severance pay and vacation pay which they were not
Government Orders
going to receive because GTL had chosen to go bankrupt.
In the case of some of these trucking firms that have gone bankrupt it has been even more scandalous. Some of these firms had first established operations in the United States in order to be able to take over the business of their operations in Canada when the Canadian operations were permitted to go down the tubes.
Surely that kind of reality is something that should not be possible in this country.
It has not just been industrial workers or truck drivers. Farmers have come to talk to me about being forced into bankruptcy in my constituency. Throughout Essex County the rate of bankruptcy for farmers has increased dramatically in the last few years. The debt review board which was established by the federal government, as many of these farmers see it, has not become a defence for the farmer but instead a defence for the financial institution at the expense of the farmer.
This legislation in front of us is certainly a response, and I say a serious response, to some of these problems. I do not think it is a sufficient response but it is an important step forward, something which we have called for and which we are pleased to see in front of us. The approach which is being taken has two very good things within it. The first is a respect for companies and an attempt to keep them, to give them breathing space so that they can continue as viable institutions. The second is the establishment of a wage protection fund. These are both very positive steps.
There are however three serious problems with the legislation as it presently stands, and I hope these will be addressed in committee. The first is the amount of support which workers can receive from the wage protection fund. In my view the $3,000, divided $2,000 and $1,000, is too low a level. The province of Ontario, which has just established a wage protection fund, has set the level at $5,000 and has also established much more funding than is being proposed with respect to this particular wage protection fund.
Second, it is very important that this government look very carefully at the question of super priority. I hope that people will approach it on the committee as they approached it in the pre-study, on an non-ideological

November 1, 1991
Government Orders
basis, with an open mind. I hope the government will accept amendments which suggest the super priority approach is something that deserves emphasis.
Finally, to be very blunt, to suggest to small businesses, medium businesses, and public sector institutions which are already being squeezed right across this country that they should have to pay the whole cost of this wage protection fund is frankly irresponsible. It has been opposed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and by many other business groups and public sector groups. It is not an approach which any government should be taking, given how weak our economic recovery is. I hope that there will be a rethinking of these three points at the committee stage.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to make a few comments on this particular bill because I think it is more than opportune that at a time when we are seeing record bankruptcies in this country we are discussing a new approach to bankruptcy legislation. In fact the legislation that we have on the books now was passed in 1949, which was the year after I was bom. Certainly the economy in many ways has changed as much as I have in the time since then.
I would also like to point out that within my own province of Saskatchewan this is a very critical question because the rate of bankruptcies has been mounting dramatically over the years. The figures I have before me show that the last year the Blakeney government was in office, 1981, there were 167 business bankruptcies in the province of Saskatchewan. By the time the federal government opposite was elected in 1984 there were 309 business bankruptcies. By 1989, the last complete year for figures which I have, there were 556 business bankruptcies. That is about a fourfold increase since 1981 in business bankruptcies in the province of Saskatchewan. That is an outrageous record. This is a timely piece of legislation.
As well I want to compliment the people involved in the pre-study process. I think the members of the committee who undertook that are justly proud of the work they did. We have much stronger legislation as a result of this. I hope that at the further committee stage, following second reading of this bill, further improvements could be made.
There are three specific areas that I would however like to comment on which need to be revisited and need some serious amendment. The first deals with the whole question of how this bill relates to agriculture producers and farmers in this country.
The farm community, as we all know, is under perhaps the greatest stress that it has been under since the 1930s. In fact it might well be under the greatest stress that the family farm community has ever been under. Certainly if we want to protect the family farm sector in this country, if we want security of food supply, if we want to be a sovereign country when it comes to feeding ourselves, we have to be more than cognizant about the situation facing farmers and we have to be proactive about it.
As previous members have mentioned there have been rallies attracting as many as 7,500 people in Regina,
4,000	people in Rosetown, and in Spirit River and Winnipeg that have underlined the point that the farm community is in desperate straits and that many of these people are facing imminent bankruptcy.
There are a few aspects of this bill that need to be addressed when it comes to giving farmers some support in bankruptcy situations. I am not now speaking about their own bankruptcy but rather their interaction with businesses that go bankrupt. Certainly the farm community has been making representations to governments for a long period of time. When I read the transcript of the presentations that were made in the pre-study process it was evident that the farm leadership in this country is getting more than impatient with the lack of action which has been taken.
One of the problems is that while there is a recognition in this bill that there is a 30-day period of retrieval for suppliers of a good or somebody whose products are involved with a bankrupt company, this is basically meaningless in the case of most agriculture products. How do you separate your kernel of wheat from your neighbour's kernel of wheat? How do you separate one tomato from another or one apple from another? Even in the case of livestock it is often very difficult to sort a specific animal from another once they have been through the sales process.
For many producers the deliveries they have made to a company that has gone bankrupt represent the whole year's income, a whole year's production for that farmer. Therefore, if the company goes bankrupt the whole year's income is wiped out. That is something that I do
November 1, 1991

not think is recognized in this bill which I think we need to address specifically.
There are a few aspects to that which bear looking at. One is that there has to be a new look at how super priority applies to farmers. Second, I think there needs to be a special fund which fanners can draw on given the impossibility of identifying an individual farmer's production from other farmers' production of many commodities in the case of a bankrupt company.
Third, and I think most important, we have to stop the erosion of the orderly marketing process because the marketing boards, the Canadian Wheat Board and other similar institutions do not go bankrupt. They pay farmers in cash and on time, and offer a secure market for farm products that does not leave farmers vulnerable to the vagaries of small companies and fly-by-night operators and others who might go bankrupt.
I think the whole trend we have seen away from orderly marketing is one of the things that has made farmers much more vulnerable to the whole process of bankruptcy than they otherwise need to be.
The second criticism I have of this legislation is one which was pointed out to me by the Saskatchewan School Trustees Association. It pointed out in a letter that the proposed legislation would cost education in Saskatchewan some $130,000 to $150,000 per year at its current levels. Certainly that is a large sum of money for school boards which are struggling in the current economic environment to absorb.
School-boards have been placed under increasing pressure through a number of processes. Obviously the whole process of downloading from the federal government to the provincial government to the local government has resulted in a situation where education and other public services, like municipal government services and hospital boards, are much more dependent on the local tax base and local taxpayers than they otherwise would have been.
Given the fact that those taxpayers and tax bases are being squeezed extremely tight at this time, it seems
Government Orders
inappropriate to me for us to be contemplating legislation that loads a new cost on to those publicly funded bodies.
It also is inappropriate to load this cost on those kinds of bodies because there is not even the remotest possibility of those bodies ever going bankrupt. These employers are forced to bear a cost for a situation which will never apply to their employees. A school-board has never gone bankrupt in this country, nor has a hospital board, nor have provincial governments, nor have federal governments, though they might if the present trends continue. If these government bodies go bankrupt everyone else will have gone bankrupt first.
It really is quite academic to contemplate a situation where these bodies would go bankrupt. It seems inappropriate to be applying this tax to those bodies.
It is inappropriate to fund the wage protection fund through an increased level of taxation. As other speakers have pointed out this would represent the 33rd increase in new taxes by this government since its election in 1984. The business community and consumers are saying: "Enough is enough when it comes to taxation".
Grant Devine found that out in Saskatchewan. He had just introduced a provincial sales tax harmonized with the GST to the citizens of Saskatchewan. Not only was he rejected by the consumers of the province but his actions were decisively rejected by the business community of that province as well.
Not only is it inappropriate in a time of recession and tough times for business to load on another tax but if this government has any regard for its political future it should be looking very closely at how much the consumers and the business community will bear when it comes to new taxes. The government should take a new look at how this is funded and ensure that it is funded out of general revenues as it should be.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt for just a second. Earlier today the member for Kamloops rose and raised an issue of conduct in the House. At that time I indicated that I thought he should look at his own behaviour in terms of Standing Order 36(7). That was followed by an intervention from the member indicating that he had done nothing wrong, that all he had done

November 1, 1991
Government Orders
was to read from a petition, and that I as a government member was trying to keep him from his rights of free speech in representing his petitioners in the House.
I have had a chance to examine the petition and to examine the tape of what the member said in the House. I would simply like the House to know that he went beyond the petition in dragging in the issue of a Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade deal and that he dealt with the motivation of a company called Multinational Resources which was not indeed part of the petition. Therefore the statement he made in the House about his own behaviour is simply incorrect and I think very inappropriate given the nature of the day and other things that had happened earlier in this House.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I certainly concede that I have not been a member of this House for as long as the government Whip but I have learned, and I hope that you will bear me out, that it is the custom of this House that if one decides to launch a personal charge of some sort that notice be given to the person and generally speaking that one waits until the person involved is actually in the House.
I would hope very much in the spirit of trying to see to it that we do have civility in the House that the government Whip would get up and withdraw his comments now. If he wishes to raise them at a future point when the member is in the House I am sure that our House leader will be quite prepared to respond.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The comments are unanswered now and I think that once the hon. member for Kamloops is in the House he may reply if he likes. I do not feel that we should get into that any further. The hon. member for Kootenay East has the floor on debate.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into the debate on Bill C-22, an act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act.
It is without a doubt a step in the right direction. Bill C-22 is proof that the government shares many of the concerns of the area of protection for workers affected by the Bankruptcy Act. I would also like to say that although it took seven years for the government to act it has at least started to act in bringing in this bill.
I do not think I need to remind members of this House that the previous Liberal government failed to act on this important matter during its time in government. The member for Nickel Belt has risen on numerous occasions identifying the problems workers have when bankruptcies take place in trying to acquire their wages.
I agree fully with the basic principle of Bill C-22, that it addresses the issue of compensation for employees and it allows for some breathing room for businesses facing bankruptcies. These are actions that New Democrats, I believe, and all Canadians support.
This bill like all legislation is based on a principle but it is also an attempt to define and put into place regulations that attempt to bring the principle to life. While I support the principle and general thrust of Bill C-22 there are in my opinion a number of ways to greatly improve the legislation.
I would like to offer a couple of suggestions which I believe were also made in committee. First, there is the issue of priority in cases of bankruptcy. Bill C-22 does not really give jurisdictional priority to workers. It does not challenge the traditional hierarchy of creditors. The only wage claim payment contained in the bill is in fact external to the bankruptcy settlements process. It comes in the form of employer tax to be collected through the system.
What this government is doing is getting some additional taxation by passing a bill and again hitting the very people who are going to have the hardest time in trying to pay, and that is the small business people and the various small businesses which are trying to operate in very competitive markets.
Yet the government is determined to bring in this kind of taxation that will bring about those kinds of problems. For instance, it does not address the issue of private pensions. What about the pensions within the protection of a bankruptcy act. People have paid into pensions, or are part of a private pension scheme. While we look at the protection of the wage portion of it, what about the pensions? I say to you that while we are addressing the kind of work that went into this kind of bill, that is this big and this thick, and with all the committee work that went on, surely the government could have considered protecting pensions also. There are some very serious flaws in this bill.

As well, the $60 million wage compensation fund which is supposed to cover all of Canada is a band-aid. This fund will be eaten up in no time at all if the present levels of bankruptcies continue.
In my riding alone, I know of many bankruptcies that have taking place and of the serious affects they have, not only on the workers but also the people who are losing their pensions. It also hurts the surrounding community.
Finally on this point, the tax of 10 cents per week per worker is unfair. Surely we should take into account the size and health of the business. Should a small business really be taxed at the same rate as, let us say, the finance industry which employs 500,000 people? Should municipal governments, hospitals or school boards be forced to pay this tax when they cannot go bankrupt?
I feel these are questions that should be looked at seriously before the final bill is passed.
The idea of establishing priority for workers would have many advantages over a fund created by a new tax. By giving employees priority over banks the legislation would be practically self-financing.
In most cases banks are the first in line to collect outstanding debts during bankruptcy. By giving employees first priority we would not need a new tax and I cannot for the life of me see banks suffering. It is common practice for banks to ensure that the market value of assets pledged as collateral is much less than the size of the loans. Why not give employees a priority? Who would lose? The only thing lost would be the new tax on business. Why bring in a new tax when the money is already there?
I would like to finish by simply summing up my position. Bill C-22 represents a long overdue step in the right direction, but I think we can accomplish even more with no additional cost to the taxpayers.
Again this government is emphasizing its tax grab to the ordinary Canadian people in another way in another bill. It is like every piece of legislation. When the government brings in a piece of legislation it always tacks something extra on to it. I would like very much to be able to support this bill as a principle, but some of the
Government Orders
things that are added into this bill and some of the things that are going on in this bill makes it almost impossible for me to do so.
I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to make my comments. I will close by urging the government to finally do away with the tax grab it is trying to bring about. Every bill we see in this House is further taxation. For goodness sake, get away from this idea of taxation and find another way that is more evenly balanced and fairer for our people.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, in light of the comments made by my friend the government Whip who had some comments to make about a petition I had introduced earlier.
I do not know if the government Whip was embarrassed by some of the comments I made. I do not see why he would be. He was concerned that a reference I made about a company in British Columbia was inappropriate.
I simply want to say that I have a copy of a similar petition. As a matter of fact, it is the same petition, which I will introduce Monday and it refers to a firm called Multinational Resources. This is not a figment of someone's imagination. This is a firm that trades on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Its principal is a fellow by the name of Bill Clancy who used to be executive assistant to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the hon. member can either bring up the point of order immediately or he can defer it until the government Whip is in the House at a future time. I am not going to make a ruling on it yet, but I know exactly what is coming on here. However, I wish the hon. member would bring his argument to a close, please, on his point of order.


An hon. member:: Here is the government Whip.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My point of order is that apparently the government Whip did not believe what I was saying in my petition when I was reading it on behalf of my constituents, and he threw some doubt as to its legitimacy or whether my constituents were reflecting reality in their concerns.
I simply want to say, particularly now that my hon. friend is in the House, that I have followed the rules as laid out in the traditions of the House of Commons whereby 15 minutes is set aside each day for members of

Government Orders
Parliament to present petitions on behalf of their constituents. I was doing that.
As a matter of fact, to save some time, because it was a long petition and rather than read out all parts of it I thought I would summarize it. As you so aptly pointed out, Mr. Speaker, a number of my colleagues were waiting to also present petitions. So I said: "How can I condense this and yet reflect the basic thesis of the petitioners?"


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That is what the rules say you must do.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Well, as my hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands points out, that is what the rules indicate. One is to summarize as best one can the content of the petition. I did that. I pointed out that a particular firm was planning to introduce engineering works to divert the North Thompson River into the Columbia valley basin and eventually to transfer water to San Diego, California.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands wish to say a few words on this in regard to this debate? Then I will set it aside for a ruling.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, by chance, I consulted the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms and I found citations concerning the presentation of petitions in this House. Citation 1041 reads as follows:
A member, when presenting a petition, may not make a speech nor present argument in support of the petition.
Only a brief summary of the petition is allowed. Citation 1042 reads as follows:
When presenting a petition, a Member may make a brief statement of the content of the petition. In making such a statement, the Member should avoid going beyond the thrust of the petition and entering debate.
I think that the rules are very clear. If there is a problem with what the hon. member for Kamloops said when presenting his petition, I am sure that the hon. government Whip immediately raised the problem with the Speaker.
Perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops said something that was in the petition. I do not know and I cannot
say, obviously. He can only present a summary of the petition and that is what he said today. Now if you want to hear more from the hon. government Whip, fine. If not, I think the case is very simple and you should give your opinion on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think I have to hear any more arguments. I want to thank the government Whip for coming into the House while the hon. member for Kamloops put his arguments forward. I also want to thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
I will review the "blues". I would like to have another look at the "blues" just to see exactly how that petition did read and then I will come back with a ruling. We will carry on with debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, since it was not clear when the government Whip indicated his concern, could I ask for a clarification? What is the point of order? What is the concern that was raised by my hon. friend?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Do you want me to repeat it, or do you want the government Whip to repeat it?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I know that you could repeat it, but I would like my friend to repeat it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think you will have an opportunity to read the "blues" and I do not think we should get into the debate any further at this time.


Steven W. Langdon: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but surely now that my House leader is back in the House it is the time that the government Whip, if he has something that he wishes to raise, should raise it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I just said that he did raise it. The hon. member for Kamloops had heard the remarks. I think he will be able to look at the "blues," and then I will be able to make a ruling on it as soon as I have an opportunity to read the petition again in the "blues". I feel that the matter is closed now.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into debate on this most important piece

of legislation. I remember years ago when I was first elected to this House. I think calls were then being put forward for legislation on bankruptcy. Year after year those same pleas kept coming forward, that we needed to do something in order to update our bankruptcy legislation. For one reason or another, while various ministers took various initiatives at least to indicate their intentions, they never went anywhere. Consequently once again here we are debating Bill C-22 regarding the Bankruptcy Act and the Insolvency Act.
Talking about bankruptcy these days seems to be a most appropriate discussion topic when we consider what is going on out in the real world. As we speak, thousands and thousands of bankruptcies are unfolding each day that the House is in session. This has become almost an unbelievable statistic that is presented on a monthly basis when we once again get the aggregate composite of the number of bankruptcies for the month of July, the month of August and the month of September. It is staggering.
We all know that this is only the tip of the iceberg. For every business that goes bankrupt many others simply close their doors, simply become a business that no longer exists. There is a graveyard of businesses that have gone under and the scorched earth policy of the various programs this government has imposed on businesses which has resulted in a travesty nothing short of embarrassing.
Literally thousands and thousands of Canadian firms went bankrupt during the past year, with liabilities in the billions and billions of dollars. We should also acknowledge the fact that while this is referring to business bankruptcies many individuals had to declare bankruptcy as well. The sad thing is that this has occurred many times as a result of nothing the individual or the firm has done, but they have been caught because of various policies and various economic circumstances beyond their control. I think all of us acknowledge the fact that from time to time we make mistakes, from time to time businesses make a bad judgment call and find themselves in dire economic straits and consequently pay the ultimate price of bankruptcy.
These days many people-and I am thinking particularly of those in the agricultural sector-find themselves having to abandon their means of livelihood, abandon the nature of their business, the nature of their enter-
Government Orders
prise. They are simply driven out from the life and business they have pursued because of reasons beyond their control. It is obvious that this is something we must discuss, the whole matter of bankruptcy.
We are talking today about the principle of this legislation. I want to put it into some context by simply suggesting that the current Bankruptcy Act dates back to 1949 and has never been seriously amended over the years. As far back as 1970, a study committee report commissioned by the government noted that the 1949 act essentially reflected economic and social conditions existing before the Second World War, that the Bankruptcy Act was inhumane, antiquated, and gave the lowest priority to people while making it easy on those who were making good incomes to walk away from their debts. It also indicated that employees of bankrupt firms were virtually assigned an expendable commodity status and that after the banks and secured creditors had scavenged the remains of the corporation or firm, workers were granted a preferred status for up to $500 in wages and up to $300 for unpaid sales person expenses.
We could go on and on in terms of the obvious shortcomings of the present legislation.
Between 1975 and 1984 no fewer than six bills were introduced by successive federal governments and they all died on the Order Paper. That clearly indicates that the governments of the day really had no will to proceed with bankruptcy laws that would treat employees equitably, that they were quite prepared to continue with the status quo which gave the employer, the banks and secured creditors a priority. The reality was that in spite of what appeared to be initiatives by various federal governments the results were that the bills all died on the Order Paper.
In 1986 the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicated that amending the Bankruptcy Act to give more protection to employees was one of his priorities. Here we are in 1991 and we are still dealing with it. As a matter of fact we still have a long way to go. Hopefully, though, we will now move expeditiously because of the work done in pre-study by the committee.
Earlier this year a member of cabinet had promised us a new and more equitable bankruptcy law for the spring of 1991. Seven years after this government had been in power and four ministers later we finally have a new bill before us, Bill C-22. It was introduced and read the first time back in June 1991 and the Standing Committee on

November 1, 1991
Government Orders
Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations conducted a preliminary study of this bill in September 1991.
The representative of the New Democrats participated in that study. I must first of all acknowledge and give the individual a great deal of credit for working with his colleagues in a co-operative and productive way. He has come up with a piece of legislation. While there are certainly concerns, and they have been registered by members from all sides, it is a relatively positive piece of legislation that benefited greatly from the pre-study that took place in that standing committee.
I must say in terms of the basic principle of the bill that we do agree that the principle itself provides compensation for Canadian workers for a situation in which they have no control and cannot be held responsible. I am referring to wages and vacation pay protection for up to $2,000 for 90 per cent of their claims and possibly an extra $1,000 refund for travel expenses incurred by those people involved in the sale of business. It also gives bankrupt firms some breathing time to reorganize, negotiate and possibly recover before secured and unsecured creditors move in. This gives a 30-day moratorium which the court could extend up to five months if it sees appropriate.
However, Bill C-22 has some major weaknesses and the work done at the committee level clearly addresses virtually all of them. The Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs has tabled for us 21 recommendations. I think it is fair to say that almost all of those recommendations are the result of thoughtful and dedicated work by members of the committee. Having looked over them, all but one or two I think we support enthusiastically.
However the question is: Will the minister incorporate them in the legislation? This will be in a sense the acid test or the litmus test of parliamentary reform. If the government believes that the work of committees is legitimate, if the government really believes those members of all political parties who contribute unbelievable amounts of time and talent to those committee hearings and committee proceedings, and if the government believes that this is important for this institution, which most of us certainly share as a very important part of our work, it is up to the minister to indicate his good faith and introduce these recommendations into the legislation.
I hope we will see the majority of these recommendations being accepted and incorporated. It is, however, unlikely that the minister will have the political courage to adopt some of the fundamental recommendations, particularly those pertaining to the Wage Claim Payment Act. If that is the case, Bill C-22 will pass at second reading and proceed to committee. I believe at committee stage members participating in that committee considering the multi-faceted legislation will be provided with an opportunity for them to introduce these particular changes.
I want to concentrate on the major weaknesses of the bill which were addressed by the committee and that the government is least likely to correct. They are primarily in two areas: the priority of claims for workers and what they call walkaways coverage.
Bill C-22 does not really give a judicial priority to workers and really does not challenge the traditional hierarchy of creditors, with the exception of course of the Crown priority being reduced on one minor point, that is when the Crown is acting as a regular creditor to the firm it will be considered to be so. The project cost of this is $25 million.
The government has merely built in a wage claim payment that is external to the bankruptcy settlement process and the workers' compensation will be financed through a tax levied on employers and collected through the UI system.
Mr. Speaker, you are probably asking as you listen: Why a super priority? Workers are morally on top of the hierarchy of creditors and should be legally treated in that fashion. This has always been one of the pillars of our position on this issue. In that spirit I refer back to the member who represented us on this committee and his private member's Bill C-217 which seeks to amend the priority of claims section.
Mr. Speaker, I notice you are indicating my time is unfortunately coming to an end. There really is so much more to say, but perhaps we will have another opportunity to do so at committee, report stage and third reading. With that I will say there is much more to say but I will use another occasion to say it.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate most of the time in my office. I want to take about three or four minutes to say
November 1, 1991

something particularly to my good friend, the hon. member for Mississauga South.
It seems to me there is something we are forgetting in the arguments that have been made from all sides on this legislation, that is employees, whether they are management, working staff, those on commissions and whatnot, should be the lenders of first resort and have first priority in compensation in the event of a bankruptcy or being forced into receivership.
I want to remind my colleagues that employees, whether in management, on the production line or on commission, lend their physical presence, lend their minds and lend their labour in the production of whatever the company is producing. What they have lent is only repaid as and when they receive their salary, wages or commission. That is why I want to submit that these people in a company in bankruptcy, large or small, are the lenders of first resort.
The institutional lenders, the financial institutions, shall be next in line. There is the case of the suppliers who I believe should have the right under a receivership or a bankruptcy to enter a premises and take back any of the unsold product that was sold to the company but had not been paid for. It should also apply to any unpaid holiday pay, expenses that are eligible for reimbursement and sick pay. They should all be included because they are part of the costs of labour. They are included in the total cost of a labour package of any corporation. I just wanted to say that the employee of a company that has gone into bankruptcy is just as much a lender as any bank or other financial institution. If he has not been paid for the labour he put in, then he should have first priority on the recovery out of either any cash that is on hand or any assets that will be sold. They should be first in line before anyone else.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, the hon. Associate Minister of Defence said earlier that she would like to come into the House and report on the air crash in the Arctic.
Is it agreed that the hon. minister will have an opportunity to report?


An hon. member:: Revert to statements by ministers.
Government Orders


An hon. member:: Will we get back to debate?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes. I have to recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley for debate after. The hon. government Whip.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, in terms of order, I am not sure whether the entire House would like to see this matter disposed of in the sense of a voice vote which would then incur a referral until Monday at six o'clock.
I believe there are about 13 minutes left in the normal time.


An hon. member:: There are four minutes left.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: There are four minutes left. If that is not the predisposition of the House, should we maybe just take a minute and do the voice vote and get rid of that item, then have the minister's statement? I just raise the question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I think we are going to run out of time. I know there is at least one other speaker and unfortunately he will not have time to complete his remarks. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to simply call it 3.29, which is the end of the debate period, and then move directly to ministerial statements.


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


An hon. member:: We will agree to let him finish his remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is whatever the House would like me to do. Shall I ask the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley to complete his remarks, or start debate and I will cut him off in two minutes? The hon. government Whip.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can be helpful. I am not sure what my hon. colleague was saying. If we wanted to go on for 10 minutes after the remarks of the minister of Defence to allow the completion of the remarks and dispose of the item, I think there would be a large majority of the House quite prepared to do that. If they do not want to dispose of the item today in terms of bringing it to vote, that clarity would help us and then the suggestion of calling it 3.29 would be appropriate.
If we need more time for debate on this bill on another day, that is one thing. If all we need is 10 more minutes, I think the House would unanimously agree to complete those 10 minutes and then vote.

November 1, 1991
Routine Proceedings


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that we need a few more moments to complete our remarks beyond what we are able to complete today. Therefore, I suggest to my hon. friend, and to members of the House, that we call it 3.29, resume debate and finish this off in a matter of minutes, perhaps, on Monday. Now we can go directly to the ministerial statement.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Therefore it is 3.29.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to understand where we are and where we are going on Monday. It is very important for us and for everybody to know.
I thought we had an agreement on that. I just want to make sure. If the member needs a few minutes more to finish his speech, I understand that. We had an agreement about the time from all three parties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I find it now to be 3.29 p.m.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, for goodness' sake, we called for the minister to make a statement. We are prepared to listen to that statement immediately. It is important that we do that. I think we should suspend Private Members' Business to allow the minister to make a statement and if the parties want to respond appropriately as per usual that ought to be allowed as well.
For goodness' sake, this is a serious issue and the minister has agreed to be here. She is here. Let us hear her.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall I revert to ministerial statements?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the co-operation of the House at this late hour on Friday afternoon.
Before the weekend began I did want to rise in the House and provide you with the most recent information on the search and rescue efforts which are continuing at this time near Alert in the Northwest Territories.
All hon. members know that on Wednesday, October 30, a Hercules transport aircraft crashed with 18 persons aboard while on approach to Canadian Forces Station Alert.
Soon afterward, a massive search and rescue operation was mounted by air and land from several bases and installations across Canada, including CFB Trenton, CFB Edmonton, and of course CFS Alert.
I think all hon. members will know that at this time of the year the conditions in the high Arctic are harsh and unpredictable. The temperature fell to minus 20 degrees Celsius. There were severe winds which created wind-chill factors and poor visibility, including total white-outs. Last but not least, the terrain in that area is extremely rugged and efforts to reach the downed aircraft were hindered by these very inhospitable conditions.
The personnel persevered and, at a brief break in the weather last night, specially trained search and rescue technicians were able to parachute into the crash site. Shortly thereafter the ground search party also reached the crash site.
However, it is with deep regret and sadness that I must inform the House that five members of the Canadian Forces have perished in this most unfortunate incident. They are: Captain Couch of CFB Edmonton, Captain Trepanier of Canadian Forces Communications Command Headquarters in Ottawa, Master Warrant Officer Jardine of CFB Trenton, Warrant Officer Grimsly of the Canadian Forces Communications Command Headquarters in Ottawa, and Master Corporal Pitre of CFB Edmonton.

November 1, 1991

Their families have been notified of the loss of their loved ones. I am sure that all members of the House will join me in extending our very heartfelt sympathies to the families of these personnel.
The rescue effort is continuing. I am informed that at two o'clock this afternoon the first four of the injured survivors were evacuated to the Canadian Forces Station Alert.
Our skilled search and rescue technicians are on the scene and a medical evacuation of the remainder of the survivors is currently under way. It will take time because of the very demanding circumstances, but progress is being made.
The casualties are being evacuated by helicopter from the crash site to CFS Alert. From there, after further assessment and treatment, they will be evacuated through the Thule Air Force Base to the most appropriate locations for required medical care.
I would like to acknowledge the generous assistance that has been provided by the United States Air Force to this rescue operation.
Finally, on behalf of all Canadians and the families involved, I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude for the outstanding efforts that have been made by all the men and women involved in the search and rescue effort.
Obviously at this point it is premature to speculate on the cause of the crash. There is an investigation which is under way and I will be sure to keep the House informed, perhaps on Monday, of further details on this. Over the weekend we will be making information available through the media about any further circumstances and the location of the injured.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister taking the time out of her busy schedule today to come back to the House with this statement. I know that this problem must be preoccupying for her and I appreciate her taking the time to inform the House, and all Canadians, of the situation that has arisen in this tragedy on Ellesmere Island.
Like the minister, we would share the sense of loss that has occurred here for the five who have died in the crash. We extend our sympathies to the families and friends of those persons. It must be very difficult for
Routine Proceedings
them when these persons have been killed in the line of duty. We appreciate their service to our country and particularly in the very difficult circumstances they found themselves in in northern Canada at this time of year.
I want to commend the rescue efforts that the minister has indicated are being undertaken. I am pleased to hear that some of the persons on the site have been returned to safety. We hope, as does the minister, that the rescue efforts will continue successfully and that all the persons who are currently on Ellesmere Island can be removed safely to Alert and other places and receive the required medical treatment.
Our prayers go out to the survivors of the crash, that they may be returned safely to their families and friends in due course. We will certainly bear them in mind over the course of the weekend. We look forward to progress reports being forthcoming in the course of time and to hear that everyone has been safely removed and that everything will work out for the best for them.
Again I wish to express the sympathy of the opposition for the loss of these people who have died in the line of duty. On behalf of all Canadians, I wish to express our gratitude for their service to their country and our sense of bereavement at their passing to their families and their friends.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, all members of the House will join I am sure in offering our condolences to the families of those who died in this very tragic accident. They died in the service of their country and we honour them for the service they have given and say to those who have suffered this loss that, as my predecessor said, they will be in our prayers this weekend.
We also join in the minister's words of praise for those who have worked on the rescue effort. Obviously it was an outstanding effort and we want to acknowledge that today.
The minister has been very helpful and forthcoming in saying to the House that there is an investigation going on into the causes and that the results will be made available to the House.
I would just like to say that all members of the House will be aware that this is not the first accident with a Hercules aircraft. It is not to suggest any prejudgment of the cause of this accident to say that I hope this House

Private Members' Business
will have an opportunity to review the report and to assure all Canadians that every effort is being made to understand the causes of this accident and previous accidents that have taken place so that we can do everything we can to ensure that it simply does not happen again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden, on Tuesday, October 22, 1991 the House was informed that Bill C-251, an act to amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, standing in the name of the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden was causing the Chair some difficulties from a procedural point of view.
This bill proposes to include merchant seamen as war veterans, thereby entitling them to all benefits that are presently enjoyed by Armed Force veterans.
This proposal seems to infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown and to attempt to accomplish indirectly what procedure precludes from doing directly regarding disbursements of public moneys.
I would appreciate receiving the benefit of comments from hon. members regarding the procedural acceptability of proceeding with this bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, very quickly, I want to react to your call for comments regarding the appropriateness of whether this bill requires royal recommendation or not.
I submit that for the answer to this question, it is necessary now to determine an answer to the following questions. Will the passage of this bill necessarily result in an expenditure of funds? Could any funds be spent pursuant to this bill without a royal recommendation supporting those funds?
The requirement that a royal recommendation be attached to proposals for taxes and expenditures is not only core to the British parliamentary system, it is engraved in our Constitution and in our Standing Orders.
The same provision is contained in Standing Order 79(1) as is found in section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1967, and it reads:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
This requirement is stringently applied in the House and prohibits private members from introducing taxation or expenditure bills and requires all private members' motions, all opposition motions, et cetera, to be worded in such a way that despite the unlikelihood of their passing without the implicit consent of the Governor in Council, they would not, if adopted, result in the necessary expenditure of public money or the imposition of tax.
However, the House does not restrain from debating or even passing motions which relate to taxes and expenditures. In order to permit debate, we adopt a basket clause which permits debates on such issues. The basket clause in motions is usually phrased as: "That the government consider the advisability of". Basket clauses provide a means for the House to adopt suggestions that expenditures or taxes are desired to lend moral or political support to such proposals without imposing on the Crown a duty which is beyond the authority of the House to do so.
Legislation can also contain a basket clause. A basket clause is used in Bill C-251. On page 1 at line 24 we find the phrase:
(g) subject to such appropriations as Parliament may provide.
Is there any reason why basket clauses should be less acceptable in bills than they are in motions? Is there any real difference? If Bill C-251 were adopted and proclaimed there would be no automatic expenditure of funds at all. The bill is only permissive. It allows the Minister of Veterans Affairs to extend veterans' benefits to merchant seamen. It does not require him to do so.


Nor can the Minister of Veterans Affairs extend such benefits unless a royal recommendation is attached to the Appropriation Act which would approve such funds.
The answer then to the question identified above is clearly no. The passage of this bill does not necessarily result in an expenditure of funds. No funds could be spent pursuant to this bill without a royal recommendation supporting the expenditure of those funds.
Thus I submit that the bill does not require a royal recommendation.
This point of order raises a secondary important consideration concerning our Standing Order 79(1). That Standing Order requires that no vote be taken in this House on any tax or expenditure bill without a recommendation, but all bills, once introduced, are given an automatic vote at first reading. In other words, it is left entirely up to The Speaker to decide whether or not a bill is in conformity with the provisions of Standing Order 79(1).
The Speaker has, it is clear, found Bill C-251 to be in order. He permitted it to be introduced, to be given first reading and to be printed. To suggest now that Bill C-251 is out of order is to implicitly criticize the earlier decision of the Chair to permit introduction of the bill.
I do not suggest that the hon. member for Peace River was challenging the Chair's ruling that C-251 was in order, but all members are in a difficult position when all such rulings are made and resolutions adopted before a bill is actually printed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I will speak simply to your request for some input on the procedural aspect of this.
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Standing Order 79(1):
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
The reason for that, and it is a Standing Order of long standing, is that in our system of government, the Queen as represented by the Governor General in Canadian
Private Members' Business
terms is responsible for paying the bills and he must have the concurrence of the bill payer to pay the bills. That is where it begins. If we expect the Queen, through the Governor General, to pay the bills then we must have some notification from the Queen, Governor General, royal proclamation it is called, that there is a willingness to pay the bills.
If you go to citation 599 of Beauchesne's, it reads:
(1)	If any motion, whether in the House or in a committee, requires, but fails to receive, the recommendation of the Crown, it is the duty of the Speaker to announce that no question can be proposed upon the motion, or declare the bill out of order, or to say that the problem may be rectified by the proposer obtaining a Royal Recommendation.
It goes on to say:
(2)	In like manner after the question has been proposed on an amendment-
Right down to the level of an amendment.
-and it has appeared that the amendment would vary the
incidence of taxation or increase the charge upon the Consolidated
Revenue Fund, the Speaker has declined to put the question.
Speakers have followed that principle through to another level. We have established that it is against the rules to propose something to spend money and that it is the duty, not a decision for the Speaker to make but simply a duty of the Speaker to impose on the House not to take it further.
Tb bring just two precedents to your attention, Mr. Speaker, one going back 12 years to February 1979 when Speaker Jerome was in the chair. One short paragraph is germane because it speaks not to the wording of a bill but to the objectives of a bill. He said:
It is also difficult to believe that the objectives of the bill can be achieved without some substantial expenditures, at least for an initial period. Of course, this could only be of indirect consequence to the public purse and it could be corrected through the voting of a subsidy or a grant through Estimates.
In a case not as pronounced as this Speaker Jerome did move that the motion was not in order because of the achievement of the objectives. The objectives of this bill are compassionate. They are ones which most members of the House could support. However if those objectives are to be achieved, if money is to end up in the hands of the merchant seamen, then we must have the royal prerogative and it is the duty of the Speaker to indicate that the bill is not in order.

November 1, 1991
Private Members' Business
A more recent precedent was nine days ago in our own Senate. I would like to read just a couple of parts of that ruling on a bill remarkably similar to the one before us in subject matter.
The Speaker said in the Senate on October 23, 1991:
After carefully reviewing the parliamentary authorities, the Chair has concluded that this interpretation of the general rules and practices of financial procedure is much too narrow. Our parliamentary tradition, strictly adhered to over many years, consistently indicates that bills emanating from private members which bind the House to future legislation appropriating monies is not in order in either Chamber of Parliament.
He goes on to say later about Bill S-5 in the Senate:
If Bill S-5 were enacted it would seem that many Canadians, including the merchant seamen of Canada during World War II, and their spouses, would feel that Parliament is obliged to directly appropriate monies to provide the benefits promised by the bill, since the bill amends the appropriate categories of the Pensions Act and the War Veterans Allowances Act to include wartime Canadian merchant sailors. It seems clear to the Chair that the provisions of Bill S-5 represent liabilities to the Crown. Erskine May, 20th edition states at page 797, "a charge is also involved by any proposal whereby the Crown would incur a liability or a contingent liability payable out of money to be voted by Parliament". On these grounds, Bill S-5 requires a Royal Recommendation.
That is an additional caution to the Chair that the passage of something which creates an expectation on behalf of Canadians would bring the entire process into disrepute if the expectation were not met. We cannot have the expectation of the Queen, through the Governor General, paying a bill without the royal recommendation that must precede it. It is perhaps unfortunate but I think it is the duty of the Chair to rule in that fashion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before the hon. member for Kingston and the Island commences I should inform the House that because of a ministerial statement an additional eight minutes will be added to Private Members' Business today. It will be 4.37 when we finish.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the hon. member for Kamloops and the government Whip. I basically side with the hon. member for Kamloops in my argument because I think the government Whip was correct in his initial statements but then he cited as his
authority the Speaker of the Senate in a recent ruling in the other place.
With great respect, aside from any doubts one might have on a ruling from the Speaker of the Senate after the rulings he made in the GST debate, I can tell the hon. member that I would have very grave doubts about any ruling of the Speaker of the Senate.
This one deals with another bill entirely. The other bill seeks to amend two acts which are not touched by the act that is before this House. It deals with a rule in the Constitution requiring that bills involving the expenditure of money not be introduced in the other place. Frankly it is a ruling on a different bill and a different aspect of the law relating to the royal recommendation.
I know that my friend from Calgary West will want to agree with me in that respect. To turn, as I must, to the provisions of the bill, I point out that in the bill itself the amendment that allows for the payment of money to veterans is couched in very careful language. The new section 5(l)(g) of the Department of Veterans Affairs Act says: "Subject to such appropriations as Parliament may provide" and it goes on.
There is ample authority for the idea that clauses can be inserted in bills that will prevent money being expended under the bill unless and until Parliament appropriates money for the purpose set out in the bill. I refer Your Honour to citation 613 of Beauchesne's sixth edition where it states:
A bill, which does not involve a direct expenditure but merely confers upon the government a power for the exercise of which public money will have to be voted by Parliament, is not a money bill, and no Royal Recommendation is necessary as a condition precedent to its introduction.
That is the first point. This bill does not require that the government pay pensions to these persons. It says that the payment of the pensions is subject to appropriations as may be given by Parliament. The government in order to pay these pensions would have to bring in an estimate in the usual way with a recommendation from His Excellency recommending that estimate to the House.
I submit that it falls squarely within the ambit of citation 613 of Beauchesne's. I could cite in further aid citation 614 which states:
November 1, 1991

A bill, designed to furnish machinery for the expenditure of a certain sum of public money, to be voted subsequently by Parliament, may be introduced in the House without the recommendation of the Crown.
There is a supporting citation in Journals of the House of Commons of Canada, Tuesday, January 16, 1912. The Speaker in a ruling that day was confronted with a bill that had been introduced to amend the Inquiries Act. It provided for the appointment of additional commissioners under the Inquiries Act who would be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
If I may cite from page 119 of the Speaker's ruling, he stated:
It has been urged that though the present bill does not deal with the question of payment of the persons to be engaged by the commissioners, they might under its terms incur expenses which will be payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and thus be a charge upon the people without Parliament making any provision for their payment by a resolution in supply.
Your Honour will recall that a supply bill had to be preceded by a resolution tantamount to the procedure that the Royal Recommendation fills in for today because that resolution required the royal recommendation at that time.
Then he stated:
The question is not free from difficulty. Mr. Bourinot in his observation seems to have extended the scope of the rule rather beyond the terms in which it is worded. What those terms cover is ''a motion for any public aid or charge upon the people". This bill does not constitute such a motion. The most that can be said is that under its provisions something may have to be done which may rise to a claim against the government. If this be sufficient to bring it within the rule, then it would have to be held that every bill conferring a power upon the government in the exercise of which expense might be incurred, it comes under the rule. This, in my opinion, would be giving altogether too extensive an interpretation to the words "a motion for any public aid or charge upon the people".
And he went on:
While the authorities are not absolutely reconcilable, I am not disposed to attach to the rule this very enlarged meaning, I am therefore of the opinion that no resolution is necessary.
In this case, since the bill has the very specific provision in it that it is subject to such appropriations as Parliament may provide, Your Honour could follow the precedent established in 1912 and rule that this bill does not require a royal recommendation. However before any payment could be made under the bill the government would have to, if it chose to do so, bring in estimates to permit it to make the payments. In the
Private Members' Business
absence of such estimates the payments would not have to be made. I think that is the test.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am on the verge of tears but I will wait until you have made your ruling.
I will not repeat the arguments of my colleagues from Kamloops or Kingston and the Islands. My bill is deliberately worded as it is in order to obviate any requirement for a royal recommendation because I cannot provide one. I know that. I sought out the best legal advice I could find.
We have been 45 years in failing to redress a wrong to the merchant seamen of Canada. They suffered higher casualty rates than any other service in the forces and were paid less than people in the Royal Canadian Navy. There were 12,000 of them and there are now 3,500 left.
Mr. Speaker, let us assume that you rule the bill in order. What happens? It passes second reading, it goes to the committee and passes there, passes report stage and passes third reading. As a result of lines 24 and 25 in my bill nothing happens with that legislation as passed. Assuming it goes through the Senate and receives royal assent still nothing happens with it. It remains lying there in the Statutes of Canada unless and until the government attaches a royal recommendation for its expenditures of money to fill the purposes and intent of this bill.
This does not fly in the face of the traditional practice. I want to thank my hon. friend for Kingston and the Islands for his fine research on precedents which fly in the face of the arguments put forward by the government Whip.
I am certain that the overwhelming majority, if not all members of the House, want this done. That is why the bill is worded as it is. I would hope, Sir, that if you were thinking of ruling it out of order you would be willing to reconsider and report back at a later time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize any further speakers here I want to thank the hon. member for Kamloops, the hon. government Whip, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, and the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. I will take this matter under advisement. Meanwhile, I will permit debate to take place on the item until the end of the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business.

Private Members' Business
However no question may be put on this item which, in any event, is not a selected item.
Once we get to the end of the debate, I will have another pronouncement to make.
I will call upon the hon. member for Regina-Lums-den on debate.
I am sorry. After listening to all the arguments, I guess it would be nice if I did put the question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: that Bill C-252, an act to amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee G.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity you are providing me to make my speech on this bill and I will wait with great trepidation as to what you are going to decide on it.
I am proud to be able to rise today and speak in support of this bill, an act to amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Act. This bill, if it became law, would define those who served in Canada's World World II merchant fleet as war veterans. These former merchant mariners would thereby become eligible for all of the benefits that have always been extended to all other war veterans.
Anybody who would deny that these merchant mariners are not war veterans is totally wrong. I am afraid I cannot use the language that I am thinking of. They are war veterans, period. The bill would also, finally and forever, extend to our wartime merchant mariners the status of war veterans, recognition which they purchased at a terrible price.
Following World War II, the Government of Canada extended 18 benefits to veterans of our Armed Forces. Of those 18, only four were granted unconditionally to the merchant seamen. A further seven were extended only under certain conditions. For example, in the Veterans Land Act, a merchant seaman could qualify for it only if he was disabled. How the hell is he going to farm if he is disabled? What outrageous stupidity we have perpetrated on these veterans.
Twelve thousand merchant seamen served their country in World War II. About 3,500 are still living, while
1,259 of them died in combat. This was one of the highest casualty rates of any allied service during the war. Canadian seamen served with distinction on all oceans of the world during World War II. Nearly 200 were imprisoned, some of them for many years. The loss of seamen's lives during the battle of the Atlantic was the highest proportion of any other allied force.
Those Canadians who served in dangerous waters during the last great war seek today what they have sought since the end of the war: equal recognition, entitlement and the benefits now received by their fellow veterans.
We are approaching Remembrance Day and, my God, it is high time, 45 years past time, that we remember our merchant seamen.
Last year for the first time the Royal Canadian Legion agreed that World War II merchant seamen should be given full war veterans status, as have several other veterans organizations. That is why I have moved this legislation before the House, because it is high time to extend those benefits.
It is time Parliament acted on this, past time, and if it would become law it would give veteran status to those merchant seamen who served in our merchant navy.
I want to remind the House that this question has been studied for almost a half a century, 45 years. We have had all kinds of reasons and foot dragging, procrastination and outright refusals over that 45 years. One put forward in the early years of the merchant seamen's fight was that they got paid more. The fact of the matter is in all but one or two categories in the merchant navy, they got paid less than members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and particularly the Royal Canadian Navy.
During the war they were not only paid less but they faced risks that were just as great, if not greater, than those in the other Armed Forces. To say that they were civilians and they could move or work for one company or another, from one ship to another, was totally false. That was another excuse that was put up for years after the war.
Members of the merchant service during the war could not leave that service. They were compelled to remain in that service. They were bound by military discipline and military orders for the duration of the war. We have still

failed to repay our debt to these veterans of the war against fascism.
Successive governments, in my opinion, and successive Parliaments have shamefully failed to act in refusing to recognize adequately the contribution of these courageous Canadians and what they did during those terrible years. I find it therefore especially gratifying to see the members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, members of Parliament from all three parties, coming together with such unanimity on the need to act now. After the war, merchant seamen were not provided with the same rehabilitation benefits given other Canadian veterans. That is why I and other members of the committee are calling for it as being urgently required.
It is puzzling. Merchant seamen have been awarded the same medals as those given to Royal Canadian Navy veterans. It seems to me that successive governments and Parliaments have been trying to have it both ways.
The United States, the United Kingdom and Australia recognize their merchant mariners as veterans. Since January 1988 merchant seamen in the United States have been eligible for full benefits of the Veterans Administration.
On this issue, the ball is in the government's court, and Parliament's for that matter. We are all on the hook on this one. During the Battle of the Atlantic, as I mentioned, they suffered the highest casualty rate of any other service. On October 2, 1991, the standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs unanimously passed a report on this issue. The minister, of course, has 150 days in which to respond to the report in question.
I would not want to prejudge his response. However, I have no doubt that while he considers the committee's recommendation he will be asking his officials to consider the cost. I hope that at some point he will present his findings in this regard to cabinet for approval of the action required to implement the recommendations of the committee.
I do not quarrel with the government's responsibility to examine the fiscal implications of any policy initiative. That is why that clause is in my bill, subject to any appropriations by Parliament. In considering costs of acting on the committee's recommendations, the government must not lose sight of the ethical and moral
Private Members' Business
obligations Canadians have to our World War II merchant mariners who have never received the recognition and reward they earned during their wartime service.
There can be no price tag on doing the right thing because we can never fully repay our merchant seamen as well as all other veterans. We as a people must not let any costs of these benefits cause us to deny them to those who have earned them.
Our committee was unanimous in its support of the merchant mariners' quest for justice. We agreed that our recommendations are long overdue. Even we felt some shame as to them being so overdue.
Another thing happened following the end of the war. A certain Hal Banks was brought into Canada. Merchant mariners who served during the war all of a sudden found themselves without jobs, frozen out, black-balled. They could not work at their trade. Many of them who survived the war and stayed in the fleet found their jobs sold out from under them and U.S. gangsters imported to destroy their union.
The destruction of the merchant fleet, the importation of Hal Banks and his methods, meant that many merchant seamen were deprived of their livelihood after gallantly serving their country at great personal risk, which means that our obligation to them is even greater than to other veterans.
Arguments have been made over the years in favour of extending merchant navy veterans the same vocational training benefits as given to other veterans. It is too late now to do so, but there remains the question of retroactivity for some other benefits. Why not, for example, extend to merchant seamen, merchant navy veterans who are eligible, retroactive disability benefits?
The other benefits that merchant seamen were denied could and should be at least partially restored. For example, the clothing allowance. I got $100 when I got discharged. For $100 in 1946 I was able to buy a hat, new suit, shirt, tie, socks, underwear and shoes. I will not say I went to the fancy stores in Calgary, but it sufficed to get me home in civilian clothes.
Why not give them some kind of recompense? Maybe we do not have to call it a clothing allowance, but why not give them a few hundred dollars, allow for a bit of inflation even though we have had lots of it, to use in

November 1, 1991
Private Members' Business
some other way? Maybe there are a few who desperately need some clothes. No doubt there are.
Last spring a man whose name is honoured in this city and among veterans, Gordon Olmstead, came to Parliament looking for something denied him for almost half a century: recognition. Gordon Olmstead, the Second World War veteran and prisoner of war, should have been entitled to the benefits offered to other veterans by a grateful nation. Elowever Gordon Olmstead served with Canada's merchant marine, and the federal government and Parliament still refuse to acknowledge the contributions and sacrifices made by those who served in that fleet. Mr. Olmstead and other merchant marine veterans appeared as witnesses before the House of Commons committee. Their goal was to obtain legal recognition of their status.
Olmstead served as a prisoner of war, captured by a German submarine, and spent years in a prisoner of war camp. We have done nothing for him.
We heard from all the witnesses, the nearly 200 letters I have received, most of them from merchant navy veterans from across Canada, would wring tears out of a jury full of bankers.
It is no wonder that Canada's wartime Minister of Transport called the merchant seamen the fourth arm of the fighting services. On many merchant ships there were four, five or six Royal Canadian Navy men who were there as gunners. On the same ship there were merchant mariners who were trained by the Royal Canadian Navy to man those guns.
Who says they were not subject to military discipline and military law? Sadly the sentiment of Canada's wartime Minister of Transport about them being the fourth arm of the fighting service was conveniently set aside when the war ended in 1945. Then it was time to award and honour our merchant seamen but their service was ignored.
I mentioned that there were some 18 benefits provided for veterans of the regular armed forces. The merchant seamen got four of them. We must undo this injustice. That is the least that our nation, this Parliament and this government can do in order to show our gratitude. We can do no less, because to do less would demean not only them but us and all the other veterans who are unanimous in wanting these merchant mariners to receive
these benefits. Nor were their dead given the same honours they had purchased at so dear a price.
There is not a single taxpayer in Canada who has or does object to benefits paid to our veterans over all these years. There is not a single taxpayer in Canada who objects or will not be willing to help pay for additional benefits for merchant mariners. I defy anybody in this House to bring forward one person who opposes this, one person.
This must be acted upon without delay. My bill does no harm or injury by way of financial implications because of the clause in my bill, subject to appropriation by Parliament. The government may or may not as it sees fit act upon that veiy provision. That is up to the government. You will not hear me crying about it if it chooses for a variety of reasons not to act on it. That is its prerogative. It is the government.
May I close by saying that I have another objective and motive behind this bill. I have been praying we could get it past second reading so that the House could express its wishes on this matter. I am not going to get into arguments about free votes and that sort of nonsense. I know there are members on all sides of the House who want to support this in no uncertain terms.
My colleagues from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party on the veterans affairs committee were adamant and made no bones about it: merchant mariners are veterans, period, and should be so recognized.
May I make a final point. If this bill could pass second reading, when it is in committee I will offer to the government that it can take the bill, make it a Government Order and bring in the appropriate royal recommendation. The government can have the credit for it. I do not give a damn, as long as we do it. I for one am sick and tired of the foot dragging, procrastination, obfuscation and sometimes deliberate stalling. The time for stalling is over with. The time for delay is over with. This has to go and it has to go now.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislation continues to keep the spotlight on the vital and gallant part played by Canadian merchant seamen in wartime. Some of these mariners have been hurt by the

November 1, 1991

lack of attention given to their wartime efforts. The bands played and the crowds waved for members of the armed forces at the end of the war, but the reception given to our merchant seamen was too often muted. There was that perception and it has been the same ever since.
Until recently the story of our merchant navy has been lost in a fog of indifference. Only the perseverance of a handful of former merchant seamen has brought this story to the attention of members, the media and the public.
The history of our wartime merchant navy is one of bravery, stamina and success. They did indeed deliver the goods. Just how important was the merchant navy during the Second World War? Was it, as some claim and as the hon. member has mentioned, the fourth arm of the fighting services? Here is how General Eisenhower saw it.
It was 1944 and the allied advance toward Germany had stalled through lack of supplies. It was vital for our Canadian troops to clear the approaches to the great port of Antwerp. This they did and in November 1944 the Canadian built vessel Fort Cataraqui sailed into Antwerp to a joyous reception. Said General Eisenhower:
The end of Nazism was in clear view when the first ship moved
unmolested up the Scheldt.
High tribute, Mr. Speaker. The three fighting services relied upon the merchant fleet who with courage and stamina maintained the lifeline between North America and Europe. We have not forgotten their efforts.
Canada has indeed done a lot for its merchant seamen for a very long time. For example, a Civilian War Allowance Program was introduced in 1962 that gave merchant seamen the equivalent of the War Veterans Allowance. Today's legislation is asking us to do more, but that does not obscure the fact that there is a generous and varied package of programs available to our merchant seamen right now.
It has been said that the United Kingdom and more recently the United States and Australia have given their merchant seamen the status of veterans. The United States declared the service of their merchant seamen to be active service and that triggers the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs benefits. Australia has not given
Private Members' Business
them veterans' status but has given them health care benefits comparable to those of veterans. In any case I very much doubt if any of those three countries has done as much for its merchant seamen since the end of the war as we have done for ours in Canada. This is something this House and the Canadian public should understand. Canada has probably the most generous package of veterans' benefits and programs in the world. The large majority of this package is already available to our merchant seamen and has been available for many years.
Now the member for Regina-Lumsden wants the government to eliminate all differences in treatment between those who served in the army, navy and air force and those who sailed with the merchant navy. He wants merchant seamen to carry that proudest of all titles: Canadian veteran.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Hear, hear.


Lee Richardson: However the title wartime merchant seaman is also a veiy proud title, one that was earned at great sacrifice. The challenge now is to ensure that we are being absolutely fair to them but not to confuse the issue by improper and insensitive use of two justly proud titles. These arguments deserve every attention.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs has shown a great interest in this matter. He has met with individual seamen and representatives of their associations. He has asked the leaders of our veterans' organizations to get together and give him their views. This they have done. The Senate subcommittee on veterans affairs has also presented the minister with a set of recommendations.
The House Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs has released a comprehensive report on the subject, complete with recommendations. The member for Regina-Lumsden is a member of that committee, and it is a bit surprising to see that he has decided to go outside the committee and freelance on his own.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I rise on a point or order. Maybe the hon. parliamentary secretary does not know any better but my bill was put in long before there was any veterans affairs committee report.


Lee Richardson: As usual an irrelevant comment from the member, Mr. Speaker.

Private Members' Business
As members have heard, our merchant seamen have certainly received attention in the last year. I suggest this interest has been helped by way of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He has gone a long way and has welcomed this advice.
He and his officials have a lot of material to work through. There are matching recommendations in some cases but there are some differences. This legislation containing a retroactive measure adds to the suggestions for consideration.
Surely the member for Regina-Lumsden would have the minister properly assess and compare his amendments with the recommendations he has received from other quarters. Surely he expects more than a cursory review. Officials of Veterans Affairs will obviously have to cost out the individual proposals. Surely proper consideration requires more than a few hours of review.
Appropriately the minister is not yet in a position to say whether or not some or all of the various recommendations can be acted upon. After all, it has been less than a month since our own House of Commons committee released its report.
In the meantime let me repeat that our merchant seamen will continue to enjoy the vast majority of the generous benefits available to all other veterans of Canada.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it an honour to be able to speak on this Bill C-251 presented by the hon. member for Regina- Lumsden.
In so doing I am pleased to be able to speak on behalf of not only myself but a number of members of my party who would have liked to contribute their thoughts to this debate, including the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace who has been concerned with this issue for many years, the members for Hillsborough and Kent who are critics of Veterans Affairs and who I think share the deep feelings of the member for Regina-Lumsden.
It is unfortunate that the tone taken by the parliamentary secretary suggests something of a partisan element, particularly in light of the report the House of Commons committee recently released. I would like to read from that report, because it does set a very clear tone for the matter we are considering: "On the basis of evidence
heard before the committee, there can be little doubt that our wartime merchant mariners have been unfairly treated. We are unable fully to correct old mistakes, but we believe it to be appropriate and necessary for the Government of Canada to recognize the errors of the past and make the proper amends".
It goes on to say: "The committee is in full agreement with the Royal Canadian Legion when it stated: 'Let us now obtain full access to all veterans benefits for those who so gallantly served in wartime aboard the ships of the merchant navy. The Royal Canadian Legion has long accepted these men as veterans but the name veteran without access to the benefits is cold comfort indeed. We should treat them as full veterans and identify them as such".
For many Canadians it would be helpful to think back to the days particularly of World War II. I was not bom yet but I have heard and read the stories. It is a fascinating tale. There was a German naval staff memorandum dated 1939, for example, in which the German high command defined the target of its principal strategy as: "The merchant ship, not only the enemy's but every merchantman which sales the sea in order to supply the enemy's war interests". The memo goes on to say that: "The final aim of such attacks is to cut off all imports into and exports from Britain".
Of course the merchant navy played a role in World War I, as well as in the Korean War. Its role in World War II is that I suppose for which it is most famous and most well known. If we follow the speeches of Churchill, for example, in those early days of the war, 1939-1940 and on into 1941, we find the incredible peril Britain was in. The Nazi war machine swept across continental Europe, took France almost without a battle, marched to the very shores and began the aerial invasion of Britain, the Battle of Britain. Had Britain been lost, according to President Roosevelt: "All America would be living at the point of a gun". I think he is referring to the North American continent.
Some of the statistics have already been introduced into the record by my colleagues. However, I think it is important to highlight the fact that of about 12,000 Canadian merchant seamen 1,146 were killed in the line of duty, a ratio of nearly 1 in 10. This compares with a ratio of 1 in 47 for the Royal Canadian Navy. The
November 1, 1991

dangers faced and undertaken by these individuals were enormous.
The situation in the North Atlantic is well described in this tale by Joseph Schull, in a volume entitled Canadians at War-1939 to 1945. He states:
In March 1943, about 70 U-boats were in the northwest Atlantic, in three great lines of patrol: one between Labrador and Greenland, another running due south and to seaward of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, a third paralleling the Nova Scotia coastline to a point below New York. They barred every exit and entry for the ocean convoys. Eastward, to the fringe of British coastal waters, were 40 more U-boats.
This North Atlantic force of 110 U-boats was by no means the total. On one day, March 9, five convoys were attacked simultaneously: two transatlantic convoys, a north Russia convoy, a convoy bound from Brazil to Trinidad, and one on passage from Britain to Gibraltar.
But the North Atlantic was still the crucial area. Three escort groups, struggling to keep convoys together in the great gales, had the impossible task of warding off attackers who came from many directions at once, often outnumbering the defenders two to one, sometimes more heavily than that. Evasive routing was practically useless in view of the number of U-boats at sea. Every sailing was made with the virtual certainty of encountering a larger German concentration. Losses were outpacing the entire shipbuilding efforts of the allies. So many escort vessels were laid up for repair or weather damage in March that the group system was in danger of disorganization. It began to seem that the convoy system, after all the years of effort, could not be maintained.
March losses were 627,000 tons of merchant shipping. It was not the highest figure of the war, but the ominous fact was that for the first time 75 percent of the ships had gone down while protected in convoy.
An amazing statistic.
It is clear from the statistics that I have mentioned and from the facts that surrounded the important role that the men of the merchant navy played that these were people of courage and gallantry who performed an essential and necessary service, not only for Canada but for the protection of freedom in the world. One wonders what would have happened had it not been for the sacrifice and contribution of these individuals.
Thirty-five hundred of them are left today.
When they came back from the war they lacked many of the benefits that the regular servicemen received. They did not have full access to the Veterans Land Act which many veterans took advantage of to get a foothold, to re-establish themselves when they returned. They lacked the educational programs. Many veterans were
Private Members' Business
able to achieve their higher education as a result of the programs available to them.
I am almost out of time but I would like to say in closing that one of the finest Canadians that I know was a merchant seaman. He wanted to join the air force but was unable to do so because he did not meet the educational requirements. Therefore to serve Canada he joined the merchant navy. He married on a shore leave and still continued to serve. He returned at the end of the war ineligible for education benefits. He and the wife he married during the war had a daughter who is my wife. I am very proud of him and think that he deserves every bit of recognition that any other veteran has received.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to take part in this debate. I do want to thank the hon. member who was responsible for this debate today. Since I have been here, it has been an issue that he has brought to the floor of this House of Commons on many occasions. I think we all have sometimes a grudging respect for the member, but certainly a very deep respect for the concern and absolutely genuine respect for where his heart is in respect of this issue.
It is a strange irony, or an unsettling irony, that we are taking this debate up today given the fact that the Associate Minister of Defence spoke in the House today on the latest tragedy that has struck our Armed Forces. She spoke of the ultimate price that some of those individuals paid, that families are experiencing today, for serving our country so very well. We, as a nation, are only two weeks away from the day that we remember all of our war family people and past war experiences. I think it is very fitting that we do debate this today.
There is no question that the merchant seamen served us very well in World War II, exceptionally well. They were just some of many hundreds of thousands of Canadians who served us during the war that in a sense have gone unrecognized. That is not right. I believe they do deserve more recognition than they get.
One of the things that I want to do today, to the benefit of the member from Saskatchewan, is bring to the member's attention the benefits that we do give to the merchant seamen in recognition of the great service that they have given this country of ours. I do not think the member dismisses this. In total, that amounts to

November 1, 1991
Private Members' Business
about $20 million from the Government of Canada every year. That is from, of course, the taxpayers of Canada.
It is a real recognition of what they have done. These benefits are indexed benefits, indexed to the rate of inflation. They are also tax free and deservedly so. We will not argue whether it is enough or not. I guess enough is never enough when we come to repaying those service people, war veterans and merchant seamen for what they have done for us. Mr. Speaker, I guess my time has elapsed. Could I have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is agreed for just a couple of minutes.


Gregory Francis Thompson: I appreciate that very much, Mr. Speaker. It is a generosity that is very seldom extended in the House, and I very much appreciate it.
In addition to that $20 million, I want to identify some of the areas in which that is spent. It is spent in terms of income support health care. We provide a number of services. One of them is health care benefits not covered by provincial governments. That includes such things as eye glasses, prescription drugs, dental care, hearing aids and chronic care and community beds.
One of the things, and very rightly so, brought up by the member that is not covered is the availability of extra-military to these people in regard to civilian access to departmental or contract bids throughout the nation which is, of course, available to those designated as veterans. That designation as veteran is the area in which we will end this debate today, given your consideration.
We do not officially recognize merchant seamen as veterans. Some countries do. For example, the United Kingdom recognizes its merchant seamen as veterans.
This is a very important point for all of us to recognize. They recognize them as veterans but do not give them the same kind of income support as we do here in Canada.
In a sense the question becomes one of definition. It is fine to be designated as a veteran but it is another thing to receive the programs and support that you need.
I will quote from a Royal Canadian Legion submission to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs which sums it up much better than you or I. It simply states: "The name veteran without access to the benefits is very little comfort indeed". It says it is cold comfort indeed.
We do not recognize them officially as veterans but we do have support programs for them and their families, their dependents, which may not go far enough. However the government certainly recognizes the great service the merchant seamen performed for this country during a time of war and will continue to recognize them in the manner that we do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
Even though this item is dropped from the Order Paper I will nevertheless give my ruling on the procedural acceptability of this bill at a later time, for the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden.
This House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.41 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 4, 1991