1992-06-10

Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people in the Digby, Annapolis area who have seen the economic spin-offs from CFB Cornwallis slowly eroding.
Over the past year we have seen the continuous reduction of jobs, resulting in the closing of businesses, the threat of school closures, and the downsizing of a base to a station. All this activity is taking place without the government being honest in stating that the base is gradually closing.
Today we have a group of non-partisan politicians from Nova Scotia presenting to the government, parliamentarians of all stripes both in the Senate and the House of Commons, the need to find some activity for Cornwallis until the Department of National Defence starts recruiting English speaking new recruits again.
This is a cruel process to impose on the people of South West Nova. People already have been adversely affected by the bad economic policies of this government in this area.
I call on the government to stop this downsizing and to act on the proposals put forth in the past and today by this group of non-partisan politicians from Nova Scotia to keep Cornwallis working both for National Defence and the people of South West Nova.


THE ECONOMY
Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, there are increasing signs that the Canadian economy is expanding. Production rose during the first quarter, and exports reached record levels last March. Operating profits also rose during the first quarter of this year.
In May employment went up by 0.3 per cent. The manufacturing sector showed the most significant improvement with an increase of 41,000 jobs over the past two months.
In 1991, despite economic problems, business productivity increased by 1.5 per cent, the biggest annual gain since 1985. As a result the cost of doing business went down, which in twin makes us more competitive.
What is particularly welcome, is the permanent aspect of Canada's economic recovery. Thanks to this government's economic policies, economic recovery will accelerate during the months to come and, more important, we have the assurance of durable and non-inflationary growth of the Canadian economy.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is home to the largest population of Sikhs living outside India. Canadian Sikhs have declared this week a week of mourning in commemoration of those who lost their lives during the vicious attack by the Indian army on the Golden Temple at Amritsar which took place on June 4, 1984.
The Indian government's two-day military assault resulted in the deaths of thousands of Sikh men, women and children. To this day the Indian government contin-

June 10, 1992
ues to engage in activities that violate the most fundamental of human rights.
Amnesty International reports that Sikh prisoners have been detained for months or years without trial, that incidents of torture during interrogation are common, and that the arrest and detention of some detainees remain unacknowledged for weeks or months.
This is a damning record for a country that billed itself as one of the world's largest democracies.
Canada has very good relations with India. I would ask the minister of external affairs to urge the Indian government to cease its persecution of Indian Sikhs. India's actions against its own population are deplorable and thought should be given that present or future bilateral aid to India be made conditional on the commitment of the Indian government to solve its internal problems peacefully.


LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, now that the last chance constitutional talks are getting started, the federal government and the provinces should agree to enshrine in the Constitution a provision that guarantees the growth, promotion and protection of Canada's linguistic minorities. It is essential to amend the Constitution to include a clause recognizing the equal status, rights and privileges of francophone and anglophone linguistic communities in New Brunswick. Equality must extend to the right to have separate educational institutions and the cultural institutions that are needed to protect and promote these communities.
I hope the Government of Quebec will agree, without reservation, that our new Constitution makes it possible for Francophone minorities across the country to take their rightful place in Canada's great bilingual multicultural family.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, the free trade agreement again has proven itself to be a great asset to Canada in a trade dispute with the United States.
Yesterday the minister of trade announced that a dispute settlement panel voted unanimously in favour of Canada's position on yet another important trade issue. Canada has strongly opposed the U.S. position over how to deal with the interest costs in determining the North American content of Canadian built Japanese cars.
We have said from the beginning that these costs were indeed a part of the calculation and once again we have been proven right.
This victory will have very positive direct results on the GM Suzuki combined car assembly factory in Ingersoll, Ontario. The decision is also an important step down the road toward a positive resolution to the Honda dispute.
This panel decision again demonstrates the FTA dispute settlement mechanism works and works well.


EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CANADA TRAINING CENTRE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, in September 1988 the government made an announcement which stated that it was going to construct a new residence building at the Emergency Preparedness Canada Training Centre in Amprior.
It was to be completed by December 1990. Nothing has been done yet. From time to time rumours have been floating around to the effect that the government was going to move the training centre to another location. In recent months this rumour has been very strong and seems to be coming from very valid sources.
The community was upset. The employees were upset. People from across Canada who had taken courses there were upset. Over the weekend the mayor of Amprior and I organized a meeting for Tuesday evening, June 9.
June 10,1992

Mayors, county councillors, other elected people and a large segment of the population and media came to the meeting. Recent publicity on last night's meeting obviously brought the rumour mongering to a halt because the Minister of Supply and Services as the regional minister sent a letter to the mayor late yesterday afternoon stating that the Emergency Preparedness Canada Training Centre would remain in Arnprior.
I congratulate all concerned and I thank the minister for his help.


CANADA-FRANCE MARITIME BOUNDARY DISPUTE
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, not only have we won an important dispute under the free trade agreement but we are winning in other international forums, as we said we would.
On behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I am very pleased to inform this House that the International Court of Arbitration rendered a decision today in New York City on the Canada-France maritime boundary dispute. The decision has largely confirmed Canada's jurisdiction over the disputed waters located south of Newfoundland and St.Pierre and Miquelon. The court has awarded France very little of the area that it had claimed. France had claimed an area outside the 12 mile territorial sea of 13,703 square nautical miles. It was awarded 2,537 square nautical miles, part of it in the deep waters of the Laurentian Channel which contains virtually no fishery resources.
The elimination of the large disputed zone means that the management of the groundfish resources in subdivision 3PS is now under Canadian control.


DAKOTA OJIBWAY PROBATION SERVICE
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Albemi):: Canada's only native run probation service will die this Friday and its case files will be handed over to the province of Manitoba if the Solicitor General will not renew its funding.
The Dakota Ojibway Probation Service has served native communities in southern Manitoba for seven
years, recording success levels 5 to 10 per cent higher than the provincial average, according to a University of Manitoba study.
Native parolees are counselled and supervised in their aboriginal languages, referred to drug and alcohol treatment programs in their own language, and receive guidance from their elders in a traditional way.
Manitoba is willing to continue funding on a 50/50 basis but the federal government refuses to renew funding because of a manufactured jurisdictional dispute with the province over probation services on reserves.
If the federal government could find just $180,000 out of its massive constitutional or PR budgets, it could fund this probation service for a whole year. If it had its priorities straight, it would fund the program permanently* * *


CANADA-FRANCE MARITIME BOUNDARY DISPUTE
Mr. Ross Reid (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, today in New York the arbitration panel adjudicating the boundary dispute between Canada and France rendered a very important and historic decision.
The decision reassures Canada and the world that the position the Government of Canada has taken has been accepted. About one-sixth of the St.Pierre bank will be under the control of St.Pierre and Miquelon and the French, and less than 20 per cent of the claim made by France outside the territorial sea has been accepted.
There will be no groundfish controlled by France off the south coast of Newfoundland. It is in 3PS, an area depended upon by the fishermen of the south coast of Newfoundland. Canada has achieved effective control over this area and its management system will be held intact and unchallenged.


JOB TRAINING
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to condemn this government for removing without notice funding for two important job training programs for mothers on social assistance in metro Toronto.

June 10, 1992
The government removed funding on April 1 for the YWCA's Focus on Change and the Dixon Hall Neighbourhood Centre's STEP program, and it did not give either program an opportunity to find alternate sources of funding.
By its decision to gear job training programs only to those who qualify for unemployment insurance payments-and I believe this program is the creation of the minister responsible for that area of the city-the government risks creating systemic barriers to job training and permanent welfare statistics out of these women.
If these two job training programs for sole support mothers are lost, choices for women will be seriously limited. The decision to cut funding defies reason and shows a lack of compassion.


TRIBUTE TO JULIE PAYETTE
Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Ahuntsic, I am very pleased, on behalf of my constituents and myself, to congratulate Julie Payette who is originally from Ahuntsic, on being chosen from among 5,330 male and female candidates as Quebec's first and Canada's second woman astronaut-no doubt the youngest woman ever to participate in the space shuttle program.
Ms. Payette is an important symbol not only for women but for all young Canadians, whether they live in Quebec or any other province of Canada.
I want to point out the great scientific, intellectual, artistic and athletic abilities of my riding's new heroine. Good luck, Julie. We are very proud and honoured in my riding.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, on April 1, I met with the Prime Minister regarding Mrs. Henriette Haddad, a Canadian citizen taken hostage in Lebanon in 1985 and not heard of since.
This meeting was held in the presence of Mrs. Haddad's son and friends of the family where the Prime Minister promised he would do everything possible to locate Mrs. Haddad and obtain her release.
To the Prime Minister's credit, he did write to the presidents of Syria, Lebanon and Iran requesting their co-operation and the government also sought UN assistance.
Consequently I was shocked yesterday to read a report that authorities were working to obtain the release of the last two western hostages in Lebanon, two German citizens, with no mention of Mrs. Haddad.
I plead with the government to follow this up immediately to make sure that Mrs. Haddad, the only Canadian hostage, is not forgotten and that a release is actively pursued.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, research and development lay the groundwork for industrial success and Canadian companies are proving that the policies of this government have provided an environment where innovative technology can flourish.
Since the implementation of increased patent protection for pharmaceuticals five years ago, Glaxo Canada Inc., based in Mississauga, has increased R and D funding to nearly $30 million annually.
Over the next five years, Glaxo expects to spend over $270 million on R and D in Canada. These investment levels far exceed the commitment undertaken by pharmaceutical manufacturers to spend 10 per cent of sales on R and D.
Increased investment has meant increased employment opportunities for Canadians as Glaxo's work force has increased from 400 to more than 1,000 in the past five years.
Glaxo's commitment to Canada continues. In April the company inaugurated new corporate headquarters in Mississauga and broke ground on the same site for a $70 million manufacturing facility slated for completion in 1995. I congratulate the people of Glaxo Canada Inc.-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.
June 10,1992



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Prime Minister confirmed that the government was indeed considering spending $4.3 billion to acquire military helicopters designed for fighting Soviet submarines, a threat that no longer exists today. Furthermore, these helicopters would be made in Europe, contrary to what the Minister of National Defence suggested yesterday to reporters.
Does the Acting Prime Minister not find it strange that the government is preparing to spend billions of dollars to fight Soviet submarines, when next week he will dine with Boris Yeltsin, the President of Russia? At that time the Russian president will ask for money not to fuel his submarines but to feed his people.


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, the minister also indicated yesterday that no decisions have been made on this matter.
Obviously we take into consideration the change in the global situation as we look at our requirements. It is important to recognize that what we are looking at are replacement helicopters for our search and rescue missions over the oceans.
I am sure my hon. colleagues would agree that is a very important mission for our Canadian Armed Forces. I think there were over 200 lives saved as a result of those missions in the past two years. We must have capable equipment.
On looking at any decisions of this nature we will take into account not only the global situation and the capability but obviously the cost effectiveness of whatever equipment may be required.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when asked about whether we even need these helicopters the Prime Minister said: "I have not the foggiest idea".
That is the problem with members of this government. They do not have the foggiest idea what they are doing in this file and many other files. When we ask for money for
Oral Questions
infrastructure they have none, but when it comes to high-tech toys they spend money like drunken sailors. Tb be fair, drunken sailors spend their own money, not taxpayers' money.
How come there is money for helicopters like that and none for infrastructure when a lot of experts say that of course we will need some helicopters sooner or later but not these very expensive helicopters? They are not needed any more to fight Soviet submarines.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, first, with respect, I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition would want to reflect on the words he used to describe sailors. Men and women who serve in our navy are honourable and outstanding representatives of this country.
Second, I would also suggest to my hon. colleague: Is he saying, for example, that we should not have safe, capable equipment to provide search and rescue over the oceans? Should we not have safe helicopters that we can provide the fisheries patrol which I know is so important to members from the eastern provinces?
All of these are ongoing tasks of our naval requirements. We will be going through a process of review. The Minister of National Defence will be making recommendations in due course to cabinet about what the most appropriate equipment should be, taking into account all factors in order to meet those needs.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
When asked about infrastructure programs the government has the habit of saying-and I have heard the Minister of Finance saying it in this House-that the municipalities do not have money to pay their one-third.
At the conference in Montreal the Federation of Canadian Municipalities did a survey and 87 per cent of the people there said that they were in favour of this program of one-third, one-third, one-third, and 83 per cent of them said they would have no problem finding the money to do the job at the moment. By a margin of five to one they said that the problems they were having in the cities today with their infrastructure were hurting business opportunities.

June 10, 1992
Oral Questions
What do we need more at this moment: to help our cities, to create jobs in Canada and not in Great Britain, or to buy expensive helicopters that are not needed, that type of helicopter, at this time?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows very well the security of our nation is clearly the responsibility of the federal government. Our defence capability is clearly the responsibility of the federal government. Those are clear priorities the federal government has to observe and has to implement.
Obviously he knows very well that the kind of infrastructure program he is talking about is essentially the responsibility of the provinces and the municipalities. I indicated to the hon. member on many occasions that he wants to go on a spending spree. He wants to go on a spending spree, suggesting that the provinces put up one-third, the municipalities put up one-third and the federal government puts up one-third.
There is only one taxpayer. The priorities of this government are to respond effectively in those areas of responsibility and jurisdiction that are clearly within the domain of the federal government.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It is not a matter of spending but a matter of priorities. Yesterday the Minister of National Defence said that those criticizing the government's priorities regarding the acquisition of the British helicopters were guilty of appeasement. What an outrageous analogy.
Are 1.5 million unemployed Canadians across Canada who want jobs guilty of appeasement? Is the mayor of Montreal who wants jobs for the unemployed in his city guilty of appeasement? Are one million children who line up at food banks guilty of appeasement? Are 8 million Canadians who do not have adequate sewer systems guilty of appeasement?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, if I could iterate once again, I am sure my hon. colleague is quite aware of the national defence policy which came out last fall and was updated. It clearly set out what are the roles and responsibilities of national defence.
We have a budget within which we have to operate. Part of that budget goes for capital equipment. One of our approaches is to increase the amount of our existing approved budgets for capital equipment in order that our men and women will have the appropriate equipment. One of the projects within that existing budget is replacement helicopters.
This is a question of how we are going to deal with the issue within the Department of National Defence, recognizing that our budget has been constrained over the last few years and will continue to be constrained.
Nevertheless, we do believe that the replacement helicopters for search and rescue, for fisheries patrol, for drug interdiction, for all the new roles that our navy will be taking on, are very important priorities.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in order of importance are the 1.5 million Canadians who are looking for work not important to this government?
What about the one million children right now who are lining up at food banks? Are those children important to this government? What about the eight million Canadians who do not have sanitary sewers?
We ask the government once again: Would it not be a better priority to put money into a public works program now to get Canadians working and help rebuild our cities? Is that not a question of real government priority?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member suggesting that the Government of Canada should put Armed Forces personnel into equipment that is unsafe?
The helicopters that are proposed to be replaced are 35 years old. Surely she should take that into consideration.
June 10, 1992

In order for our men and women to carry out their responsibilities, to carry out and preserve the security and integrity of the country, we need not only personnel but equipment to do the job.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, further on the helicopters, I give government members the benefit of the doubt and suggest that they do not know what they are talking about rather than suggest they are intentionally misleading the Canadian people.
The helicopters that are being proposed and publicly recommended by the chief of defence staff are EH-101 helicopters specifically designed for anti-submarine purposes. That is why they are so expensive: $91 million a crack.
Those helicopters are simply not justified now that the Soviet threat is over. I call on the Minister of National Defence or the associate minister to kill the program today.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make clear to my hon. colleague, who I know is a member of the national defence standing committee and is very knowledgeable in matters of national defence, that whatever choice of helicopter is made it has to meet certain requirements that we have. It has to be capable and it has to be cost effective.
The EH-101 has some of those capabilities. It may or may not be the helicopter that would come forward as a final proposal to cabinet. No decisions have been made. No recommendations have yet been made, and we are going to be looking at all these factors.
I think of the bottom line. I hope my hon. colleague would agree, because just recently in British Columbia there was an incident, a very sad incident, involving the use of one of our old Labrador helicopters. We have to move to replace them with modem, safe, effective equipment not only for our own men and women in the Armed Forces but to ensure we maintain the safety of Canadian lives that may be at risk from time to time on the oceans off both our coasts.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, if the government spent its defence dollars on maintaining equip-
Oral Questions
ment that was used for search and rescue instead of on cold war weaponry that is completely useless, then it would have the support of this side of the House.
Yesterday, in trying to defend the indefensible, the expenditure of $4.3 billion on these Soviet seeking helicopters, the Prime Minister said: "We must be ready to meet threats that affect the national interests of Canadians".
Will the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that with the end of the Soviet threat the national interest of Canadians is best served not by wasting $4.3 billion on these helicopters but on having Canadians fully employed, our young people properly educated, and our children properly fed?


An hon. member:: And the NDP would wipe out the armed forces. An interesting policy.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I feel the hon. member is really giving the wrong impression. It is not a choice of one or the other.
The question is within the Department of National Defence, within our budget which is allocated and which the hon. member approved at committee, how we will spend those moneys most effectively to meet our missions.
In the National Defence policy statement which we put out we talked about the new roles for the Canadian navy, not the old role of fighting the Soviet Union. We know that is gone, we all know that. There are new important domestic roles: the protection of sovereignty, the protection of our coastal resources, drug interdiction, search and rescue. All are important missions that I am sure all hon. colleagues would support us on.
We need to ensure we have the capabilities to provide those missions and to provide the equipment for them in the best and most cost effective manner.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the minister must surely know that if the role is as she defines it, search and rescue, fishing patrols, then a totally different helicopter is required.
I come back to the Minister of Finance.

June 10, 1992
Oral Questions

How can the government justify this kind of expenditure when it was unable to find $40 million to finance summer employment programs or $2.7 million for the Court Challenges Program or $20 million for housing co-operatives?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member recalls the budget when it came out earlier this year. Within that budget the government set out expenditure priorities for a whole range of activities.
One of those activities that is clearly within the federal government's responsibility and a major priority, is the defence of our country. Within our budget, which has been allocated despite the reductions we have had to take over the past few years, one of the priorities in terms of capital equipment is the provision of new modem helicopters which will enable us to undertake the tasks we have been mandated to do.
I am sure my hon. colleague would agree with that and will be working toward providing that equipment in the most cost-effective manner possible.


CRIME PREVENTION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Canadians living in our large urban centres are becoming increasingly fearful over the rising tide of crime which is undermining both public safety and quality of life. In fact, since 1984 violent crime in Canadian cities has risen some 40 per cent.
Given that our national government spends very little on crime prevention programs in comparison with per capita figures of many other countries around the globe, when will the minister finally reverse this trend? When will she begin to lend greater support to existing preventative organizations like Block Parents and other possible creative solutions so we can assist municipalities in winning back their communities?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Canada does participate in these kinds of programs. We funded a research project recently by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to develop strategies for crime prevention.
As the hon. member will know, if he has been in the House over the last few months, I have been working actively with the caucus of big city mayors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I have been meeting with police chiefs across the country to develop a strategy to create a national strategic and co-ordinated approach toward the questions of urban crime, urban safety, broadly based urban justice issues.
I welcome the input of the hon. member on how he may be able to discharge that function more effectively. It does require the co-operation of all three levels of government, each exercising discretion in its own jurisdiction as effectively as possible.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
A major component of that rising urban crime is directly related to the chronic problem of drug abuse. Unless local municipalities, police forces and community groups, which are on the firing line of this battle on drugs, get immediate and urgent assistance this war will never be won.
When will the government finally amend its proceeds of crime legislation so as to ensure that moneys secured from drug seizures, which last year alone amounted to over $38 million, will be shared with local municipalities and organizations rather than going exclusively into the federal coffers? It has been promised many times by this government. When will it finally act?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is not simply a question of legislation under the level of the federal government. The provinces themselves are extremely resistant to direct payments by the federal government to the municipalities in this area.
As my colleague, the Solicitor General, has indicated in the House on a number of occasions, we are reviewing this to try to find a way to answer that question.
I also point out that I think my hon. colleague exaggerates the amount of money that is available through the proceeds of crime to distribute.
June 10,1992

Recently we have established three task forces in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, the three major drug trafficking centres of the country, to make sure that we get the most benefit out of the proceeds of crime legislation. We are looking to maximize the receipts from the proceeds of crime. Then we can address the question that the member quite rightly raises of the fair and equitable distribution of those proceeds.
I would also point out that in fact the lion's share of the costs of implementing the drug legislation to fight drugs in Canada is borne by the federal government.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice.
Canadians are tired of endless studies on the relationship between visible minorities and the justice system. We need people on the bench who share or at least understand the experience of visible minority youth in our big cities. What will it take for the minister to recognize this and when will she do something about it?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, in 1987 our government established for the first time in Canada a Canadian judicial centre to provide education to federally appointed judges across this country. Among the kinds of courses that are offered are courses in gender sensitivity and in cultural sensitivity.
In addition I have worked very pro-actively to try and expand the range of people who sit on the federal bench. If the hon. member were to go through the law schools in most Canadian universities she would see that until recent years there is a remarkable absence of visible minorities graduating from law school.
She will also know that one must have been called to the bar for 10 years before being eligible to be appointed to the federal bench. I expect that within the next 10 to 15 years the variety of candidates available for judicial appointment will be much greater and much more consistent with the proportions of people in society in general.
Oral Questions
I welcome suggestions from anyone about competent and able people who would be capable to go to the bench and who could illustrate what has been one of my major priorities as Minister of Justice and that is inclusive justice to make the system reflective of all Canadians.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
For five years we have been asking the government to enforce the Employment Equity Act in the Public Service. Why does the minister not stop dragging his feet and take action now?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not agree with the hon. member's description of the work being done by Treasury Board.
I will give her some figures, I know opposition members are not very fond of statistics but it is the only way to evaluate the progress we have made. In each of the groups that were designated we have made significant progress. The recruitment rate for women, for instance, has gone up from 42.4 per cent in 1987 to 44.9 per cent in 1991. For native people, there was an increase from 1.8 per cent to 2 per cent; for the disabled, from 2.6 per cent to 3 per cent; and for visible minorities, from 2.7 per cent to 3.6 per cent, in 1991.
This kind of progress may not be satisfactory but it is significant.


JOB TRAINING
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Over half a year ago, the task force on professional training in the arts in Canada delivered its report. This task force, as I am sure the minister remembers, was established in April 1990 by his ministry and the Ministry of Communications. It was recognized that improve-

June 10, 1992
Oral Questions
ments had to be made in professional training for the arts in Canada. Yet the minister and his department have not responded to this important report and recommendations.
Can the minister tell us when and if he will respond to the report on professional training of the arts in Canada?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the evaluation of that report is ongoing in the department. I have had conversations and contacts with the Minister of Communications who is responsible for the arts sector in Canada. I cannot give a definite date when we can respond or when we will, but we are well advised of the recommendation and are looking at it.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker a supplementary question to the same minister.
Mr. Minister, your department through its labour force training programs play a vital-


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members know that in this Chamber we do ask hon. members to put the question through the Chair. I know the hon. member would want to do that.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister. I am sure the minister is aware that his department through labour force training programs plays a vital role in the professional training of the artist.
Yet people in his department whose expertise is with the cultural sector are not having their contracts renewed. Arts organizations have not been able to meet with the minister or his deputy. In fact, it is being stated that the job of the department is to shut doors to the arts community, not open them, and that the minister has no interest in the arts.
Can the minister tell us if he has any commitment to the arts and if he recognizes the special needs of the artists as well as the important economic role the arts play?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, yes, I do.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In 1968 the northern cod stock catch was 815,000 tonnes. Last year it was 127,000 tonnes. This year it is likely to be zero. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans talked about the possibility of his having to close down the fishery for one year, two years or maybe five years.
This means that the plants are going to be closed, the doors locked, boats are going to be tied up and secured, and 30,000 fishermen and fisherpersons will have no jobs and no income.
I ask the minister what contingency funding does the government have to compensate for this lost income?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, this is a hypothetical question. No decision has been made in that regard.
Fishermen and plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador can be reassured by the record of this government to help these persons when in need. Without conjecturing on what can happen in the future, the hon. member can be assured that if the circumstances call for measures to be taken to help these people, we will be true to our tradition as a Parliament and as a government and will do it.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, the government was responsible for managing the fishery for the last eight years. It has failed and it is responsible for the fallout.
The minister talks about a hypothetical situation. The government is preparing, as has been discussed in the House, to commit $4.3 billion to something that may or may not happen. By its own admission the government expects and is not prepared to commit one cent to it. That is not only inconsistent, it is also incredible.
I would like to ask the minister one more time, would he consider telling this House what contingency funding, what action plan he has for these Atlantic Canadians who are going to face a situation, possibly, that they have not faced in 500 years?
June 10, 1992


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my answer. This is exactly the same question he asked the first time. I told him and I repeat to members that there is no point in trying to answer a hypothetical question. If he wants to measure the degree of caring of this government for the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador and all of Atlantic Canada he has only to recall all the programs we put in place to help these people. If the need arises we will be there again.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
As the minister would know, the United States is currently draining about three times its regular flow from the Columbia River basin, causing major economic loss and very serious water shortages in southern British Columbia.
The premier of British Columbia stated that they are now engaged in short and long term negotiations on water exports to the United States but our own external affairs officials said we are not even involved.
On such a crucial issue as the export of Canadian water, why is the federal government not directly involved to ensure the protection of Canada's national interest.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would know that this issue relates to the Columbia River Treaty. The treaty I believe is effective to about the year 2024.
I want to assure the hon. member that we take seriously our responsibilities concerning the treaty and want to assure him that while the chief parties are the Bonneville Power Administration and B.C. Hydro, the officials that I have named with responsibilities under the act and under the treaty, are closely involved in the discussions that are taking place.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, just a small correction. The minister should
Oral Questions
know that the Columbia River Treaty is up for renegotiation in a matter of a few years.
The British Columbia government will be taking off the moratorium on water exports in a matter of a couple of weeks. We have the New Democratic premier of British Columbia talking about water exports to the United States. Yet there is no study of the impact on jobs, recreation and wild life.
I want to ask the minister today if the federal government will initiate a major assessment of the impact on the water basin, particularly in the Columbia River, on jobs, recreation, hydro power as it affects Canada before serious and irreversible decisions are taken by the government of British Columbia.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member says is correct. We need to preserve water and also protect it for both farming and recreational purposes in the areas affected.
I point out to him that my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, also has been active in this regard. Officials of the federal government will address the issue at a meeting with their U.S. counterparts in Washington on June 12 and will outline a proposal for resolution at that time.
I thank the hon. member for bringing it forward and also giving us an opportunity to say what we are doing.


TRADING CARDS
Mr. Bob  Homer@Mississauga West: Mr. Speaker, for years in this country Canadians of all ages, but mainly young Canadians, have collected trading cards. There were hockey cards, baseball cards, cards on antique cars. It was a healthy hobby.
But a new card which is produced in the United States has started to make its way on to the market. These cards feature serial killers, mass murderers, and gangsters. Tb say that this is disturbing to me is putting it mildly. I find it disgusting and sick and I ask the Minister of National Revenue what he plans to do to stop the importation of these cards into Canada.

June 10,1992
Oral Questions


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. This sort of material is obscene, disgusting, and has no place in a civilized world. In fact I believe this sort of thing breeds violence.
I can assure the hon. member that since this matter was brought to my attention by our colleague, the hon. member for Burlington, I have instructed all customs officers at all border points to be on the lookout for these cards and other similar material. I for one and others on this side of the House are going to make every effort and take every step necessary to make sure this sort of material is not allowed into Canada.


AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of industry.
McDonnell-Douglas near Toronto has cut over 1,500 jobs and plans 1,200 more lay-offs in the next year. These 2,700 job losses seem to be tied to the planned sale of 40 per cent of the commercial operations of the U.S. company to a corporation backed by the Taiwanese government.
Given this government involvement and the pressure that could exert on where supplies are purchased by McDonnell-Douglas, I want to ask if the federal government will intervene to fight these job losses as part of the strategy to maintain a high-tech aircraft industry in this country?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, certainly my hon. friend is aware of the importance which this government attaches to the existence and the growth of a high-tech aircraft industry in Canada. That was exemplified by the support we provided for the acquisition by Bombardier of de Havilland.
We have been in touch on an ongoing basis with the representatives of McDonnell-Douglas Canada Ltd. and continue to be in touch with them to follow what steps might be being taken by their parent company in relation to the Taiwanese interest and what the implications might mean for Canada. At this point I am not in a
position to be more precise than that but I appreciate the hon. member raising the question.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact the local CAW union has today faxed a letter to the minister outlining how hard workers are being hit by this situation and requesting an urgent meeting.
I want to ask the minister if he will commit himself to meet with this union in order to try to save these thousands of jobs that are so important to the economy of Toronto and Ontario.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is curious that my hon. friend would have a copy of that letter before I would have it.
I will look out for this letter. Obviously the maintenance and increase in the number of jobs in that part of the country is very important to the government. I might say on a personal note that it is very important because it is very close to my own constituency. That is why I take an ongoing interest in it, as my colleagues from Brama-lea-Gore-Malton and Brampton ridings do as well.
I look forward to receiving a copy of that letter and making some decisions accordingly.


EMPLOYMENT
Marie Gibeau: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The recession was supposed to be over in March 1991. However, for thousands of Montrealers, Quebecers and Canadians who are still unemployed, the situation has not improved. According to the latest issue of the magazine Commerce, large Canadian companies in the resource sector have been severely hit by the recession.
Does the minister hold out any hope for better days in this industry?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
There were a number of initiatives in the budget that are beginning to show positive results to complement the medium term macro economic policy that we have established of price stability and sustainable growth.
June 10, 1992

She will note that there has been positive growth in the first quarter of this year. There has been a tremendous upturn in merchandise trade, $12.8 billion in the month of March, which establishes an all-time record. There has been increasing activity in the manufacturing sector. Orders are up by 9 per cent. Shipments are up by .8 per cent and .9 per cent. There has been an increase in the number of jobs in the manufacturing sector of 41,000. There has been a total increase in employment by 31,000, as registered last month.
While the recovery is not as robust as we would like to see it, there are clear signs the positive measures in the budget that we have brought in are taking hold and producing positive results.


STEEL INDUSTRY
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
He will know that the Canadian share of the U.S. steel market has remained at about 3 per cent from 1988 to 1991, whereas the American's share of our steel market has climbed from 7 per cent to 16 per cent in the same period.
Will he tell the House how he expects to defend Canada's steel jobs under the free trade agreement as it is now, when a binational dispute panel would be limited by the FTA to deciding only if the Americans had applied their own trade laws correctly?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that my hon. friend puts down the successes of the dispute settlement panels.
We just had one announced yesterday in the acceptance of the Canadian position on non-mortgage interest, a very important feature for a matter that has been raised by members on his side in relation to the Honda Motor Car Company.
I raised the very same issues, the very same statistics, with Mrs. Hills yesterday. I sought her assistance and encouraged her to make sure that the industry there was aware of the integrated nature of the Canadian and the United States industry, and in that way, hopefully, head
Oral Questions
off some of the actions that could be taken by the U.S. industry.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate that the minister did not answer the question or even grapple with the question.
IPSCO Steel Company, which is based in the west, during the eighties transferred a good deal of its production and jobs to the United States because of a countervail of 30 per cent.
Unless the subsidy negotiations are completed, how will the minister defend Canadian steel jobs now when the U.S. Congress can, under FTA article 1902, amend its trade laws without the consent of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the point my hon. friend has just made is quite valid. It underscores the strengthened position that Canada has in comparison to any other country in the world.
The point that my hon. friend made about IPSCO is only part of the story. The other part of the story is that they have just recently announced they had very successful operations last year.
Regarding the negotiations on countervail and the definition of subsidy, my hon. friend is very well aware that these have been carried out in the Uruguay round. We are hopeful that we will see a successful Uruguay round and the features of the Uruguay round that apply to the definition of subsidy and countervail will be applied to the free trade agreement to our benefit.


WESTRAY MINE
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The minister's own department, through CANMET, did a study on the Westray mine. That study revealed various concerns which related to the ventilation system and to the risk of spontaneous combustion.
I know the minister shared these concerns with his cabinet colleagues. Did he share these concerns with the Nova Scotia government? If so, did he get any assurances as to safety from the Nova Scotia government?

June 10,1992
Tributes


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the CANMET review is not a study; in fact, the CANMET review is a review of all the other mining consulting studies that went before- the Dames and Moore study was prominent among them-but there were four or five studies, all of them well known to the Nova Scotia authorities.
It was on the basis of those studies that they made their determinations, and it was on the basis of those studies that we decided to give a loan guarantee to the bank for this mine because of the job creation potential that was there.
In fact, the CANMET study did not do what the hon. member refers to, it gave a very balanced review of all the previous reviews and said that this mine was technically feasible, economically feasible, and that the dangers to which the hon. member refers are not uncommon in all coal mining enterprises. They were to be looked at and accommodated when the mine was developed.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the concerns raised by CANMET were in the documents that the minister released to the House. Surely he cannot deny them.
Bearing these concerns in mind, all we want to know is: Why did he not go to the Nova Scotia government and ask for assurances that these safety concerns would be addressed and what the Nova Scotia government would do to address these concerns?
Will the minister tell us what the Nova Scotia government said and, if not, will he please agree to a parliamentary inquiry so that we can get to the bottom of this?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, let me help the hon. member with the chronology. The next step after the review would be to have the mine developed.
When the mine was developed it then became the responsibility of the province, not only to inspect the mine on a regular basis for safety and for health but also to make sure that what was being done there was in compliance with all provincial regulations.
The CANMET review was very helpful in pointing out various things that the inspectors and the Nova Scotia
authorities would look to when they did their inspections of safety and health. But the CANMET review was only one brief document of many more important documents which of course were also available to the provincial government.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Zsolt Zetenyi and Mr. Gyorgy Szilasy, members of the Hungarian Democratic Forum Party.
Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


THE LATE SENATOR GEORGE CLIFFORD VAN ROGGEN
A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak on behalf of all British Columbians and to express our sadness at the loss Monday night of a great British Columbian, Senator George van Roggen, who died in Vancouver at the age of 70.
Senator van Roggen and I did not share the same party, but I think all members in this House agree that there are people in public life in this country who transcend the definitions of partisanship and who win the respect, admiration and affection of all who come to know them and have had the opportunity to work with them.
George van Roggen was part of a long tradition of British Columbians who have excelled both in the law and in public life. He not only lived up to that tradition but he advanced it.
He was bom of a Dutch family and attended the University of British Columbia for his undergraduate and law degrees. Despite a physical disability, he served his country in World War II with great distinction as a member of the Canadian Scottish Reserve.
As a young lawyer who practised law in Yukon, he often referred to his Yukon years as among the best of his years before the bar. Back in Vancouver he rose to a partnership in the very distinguished Vancouver firm of Douglas, Symes and Brissenden.
June 10, 1992

During his successful legal career, Senator van Roggen always held a passion for politics. For 30 years he nurtured the Liberal Party in British Columbia both provincially and federally. His many friends of all parties will remember his efforts and achievements to make politics more relevant to the concerns of all British Columbians and to ensure the quality of public debate and service.
Prime Minister Trudeau brought Senator van Roggen to Ottawa in 1971. Much is said these days about the Senate, but let me say that Senator van Roggen worked as hard as any person in Ottawa to bring B.C. concerns to the national stage.
His interest extended beyond just domestic issues. He thought deeply and wisely about Canada's role in the world. He served as chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs from 1974 to 1988 and served as co-chair and member for the Canadian Interparliamentary Committees for Europe and the United States. He was no less aware of Canada's potential role in Asia and travelled to Japan in 1976 as a member of a Canadian parliamentary delegation.
It was his devotion to the interests of British Columbia and his perspective on Canada's role in the world that made him an articulate spokesman for free trade. He may be best remembered recently for his support of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and his eloquent analysis of the threat to Canada of international protectionism.
We remember George van Roggen as a man of service, as a man of commitment and as a man of courage. I might just say that last evening when I talked to members of the British Columbia caucus about my plan to rise in the House today to pay tribute to George van Roggen, I was struck by the warmth and the spontaneity of their remarks about this remarkable man and how much they see him as really an outstanding figure on the national stage and how much they regret his loss.
That is a sentiment shared by all British Columbians and all members of this House who I know will join with me in extending personal condolences to his wife Jane and his two children Norman and Trish.
Tributes


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to associate fully the members of the Official Opposition with, to use their own words, the warm and spontaneous tribute which the minister has paid to our colleague, the late Senator George van Roggen.
Senator van Roggen was hailed yesterday in the Senate by one of our colleagues as a prince of a man. He was refined but with a common touch. He was wise but not pompous. He was thoughtful, articulate and a thorough gentleman. He was highly esteemed and greatly respected among all our contemporaries.
The reason why Senator van Roggen earned that tribute, which I am sure we all share, was out of his deep conviction and his deep commitment to the future of Canada. His participation in the political process was of long standing. It was productive, imaginative and it was rewarded in due course by the possibility of participating in the upper Chamber. There he made his reputation in a very short time as a most capable chairman of the foreign relations committee of the Senate.
He took a leading part in the review of our trade policies in a way that not only has been evident in his participation in the free trade discussions, but on a much broader scale as well with his interest in Asia and the Pacific in particular which arose in part from his deep love and commitment to British Columbia.
As a fellow Vancouverite, I share his commitment to the interests of his native province and his native city and I want to associate very much with the minister's tribute to George van Roggen today. We will miss him. We will miss his wisdom, his very real courage in bearing a personal handicap. We want very much to send our condolences and our sympathy to Mrs. van Roggen and their two children on their loss, which is not only a personal one but a loss to all of Canada.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament from the lower mainland of British Columbia, I had the privilege of knowing Senator George van Roggen and working with him as one of the senators from our province.
When you knew George van Roggen, you were struck by his tireless work for Canada. He was a man who was interested in Canada and Canadian affairs and was a tireless advocate of the positions he took.

June 10, 1992
Tributes
I knew him and worked with him on the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Group, one of the most important groups we have in this Parliament. We get a chance to work with American senators and other members of Parliament in dealing with the great issues between us and the Americans.
Senator van Roggen had strong views on issues, especially the trade issue, and he advocated those views very effectively, to some of us on the other side almost too effectively, but he advocated them and one admired that and saw it as the work of a very good senator.
He was a long-time member of the B.C. and Yukon bar associations. I am told that at one point he was the only lawyer in the town of Whitehorse. Of course, he did that job very well.
He had a long-time practice with a large Vancouver law firm and he practised there, I am told, from 1957 until 1981. Mr. Speaker, you and I practised law in Vancouver over the same period and we shared memories, times and work with Senator van Roggen.
When he went to the Senate in 1981, he was interested in areas of foreign relations, trade, Asia Pacific, matters that really concerned the people of British Columbia. He took on those issues and advocated his position very effectively. To his wife Jane, son Norman and his daughter Trish, I want to extend the sympathy of the members of my party, the New Democratic Party, especially those members from British Columbia, for their loss and a loss to all of us of a very dear distinguished Canadian.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add just a few comments about the loss of a very great British Columbian.
Senator van Roggen was a forthright, powerful person in political life in the province of British Columbia. Like all British Columbians, he did not hesitate to share his opinions, whether they were contrary or in favour of where you stood in public life.
During the brief period of time that I was premier of the province of British Columbia, Senator van Roggen and I disagreed on almost every single issue. In every instance he was a perfect gentleman. I hope people can say the same about me.
There is a spirit of British Columbia that perhaps separates us from other regions as their spirit separates them, but in our province bluntness, frankness and openness is a hallmark of some of the tremendous leaders in our province.
The one comment that I want to make on the area that we agreed on completely was in the expansioned Asia Pacific. Senator van Roggen was a forceful speaker throughout Canada for our position and its peculiar needs in Asia Pacific.
Senator van Roggen will be greatly missed, but he will be remembered lovingly as the kind of British Columbian who comes to the province, becomes totally absorbed in Canada and in British Columbia and gives full measure of his life to the area that he comes from and to all people in this country.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, firt of all, I want to thank you for your kindness in giving me this opportunity to say a few words about Senator van Roggen, whom I have known since 1964.
He was a proud citizen of your majestic province. To know him was to know the other person's point of view. The previous speaker, Mr. Barrett, said that one could disagree with him, and I know he himself did. However, although one could profoundly disagree with some of Senator van Roggen's positions, in the process one came to understand the real meaning of democracy and friendship.
I had the good fortune to know him as far back as 1964, and in 1968, at the convention where we were both on the same side-not on the winning side, I admit-I started to understand what was meant by western pride. In all modesty, I hope that our friendship also helped acquaint him with the point of view of a French Canadian from Quebec, which I am, have always been and shall remain.
I think students would do well to read the lengthy reports of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs which the senator chaired so brilliantly. The reports on Canada's relations with the Middle East and on free trade are still very topical and also interesting for what they reveal about the personality of Senator van Roggen, whose passing we mourn today.
June 10, 1992

We wish to extend our sincere condolences to his wife Jane and his children, and we hope that many parliamentarians will be able to take the time to show their regard and appreciation for the true aristocrat we learned to know so well.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I mourn as well personally for the late Senator George van Roggen and want to add a word about my own contact with him over the decades, not as a close friend but certainly as one who was a great admirer of his.
Senator van Roggen has been spoken of here today as a great Canadian and as a great British Columbia and, of course, he will be remembered in those regards.
I think of him also as a great Liberal, one who contributed to the stream of thought which characterizes the evolution of ideas within the Liberal Party.
George was a great contributor of ideas, a stalwart who stuck to his guns, had a very firm view of how this nation should evolve, and whether our party ended up agreeing or disagreeing with him he remained loyal to us. At a time when Liberals were strong in Toronto perhaps but not so strong in the west, he remained one who would always stand up and carry our banner forward. I think in that all members would agree, in keeping any political party strong and helping to strengthen the democracy of Canada.
I will miss also a man of great personal courage who was constantly in pain, yet constantly ready as someone in the other place said like a teenager, constantly ready to come forward with enthusiasm to put his ideas on the table, to debate them, to engage your own ideas, to try again and again to carry forward his own Liberal vision of our country.
He was a wonderful example and I was inspired by him when I first arrived. As I got older and older, I watched him remain as young, enthusiastic and committed to putting forward ideas and winning arguments as ever.
He was a pioneer in his part of the country. He is an inspiration to young Candians, he is an inspiration within our party, someone of whom we will always be very proud, and someone whom we shall miss.
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to report to the House today on the latest developments in the situation in Bosnia and Hercegovina and on my recent meetings in Europe.
I want to talk about peacekeeping in this context and in the context of the UN Secretary General's efforts to secure the Sarajevo airport. I will also talk about our continued participation in the peacekeeping operation in Cyprus.
The situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina has deteriorated to the point where even relief convoys are attacked with impunity. This is a direct challenge to the credibility of the UN's current peacekeeping operation. For this reason and after considerable thought, we have agreed to a request from the UN Secretaiy-General that in the event the ceasefire holds he reassign Canadian peacekeepers to keep the Sarajevo airport secure to allow humanitarian relief to reach the general population.

The mechanized infantry batallion of 850 Royal 22nd Regiment soldiers will be redeployed from Croatia once circumstances permit.
The first phase of the Secretary-General's plan for securing the Sarajevo airport is already underway with the deployment of 60 unarmed military observers today under the command of Canadian General Mackenzie.

June 10, 1992
Routine Proceedings
On the basis of the mission's assessment, the security council will decide if conditions permit entering into the second phase of this operation. These conditions were established by the UN last Friday with Serbian, Bosnian moslem, and Croatian parties to the conflict: That artillery and anti-aircraft weapons capable of reaching the airport be withdrawn and placed under UN supervision.

We fervently hope the mission can achieve the conditions necessary for the deployment of UN forces.
This may continue to be a difficult situation to manage. As on numerous occasions since the beginning of the Yugoslav conflict, risks of the cease-fire collapsing are very high. It is also imperative that the UN protect the humanitarian operation once forces have been deployed.
Dangers will still exist in Sarajevo, but our Canadian forces leadership has determined that these difficult assignments are feasible provided initial conditions can be satisfied. I believe that Canada had to respond favourably and actively to the Secretary-General's request, after considerable thought about the implications.
His decision is consistent with our commitment to bring an end to the fighting in Bosnia and bring relief to the innocent. It is also consistent with the statements we have made and the calls to action that we have given to the United Nations throughout the tragic series of events over the past months.
It also confirms that our commitment to security in Europe remains undiminished. I was able to reinforce this commitment during a series of meetings in Europe last week.
NATO made an historic decision in Oslo. In the past, NATO's role was to provide security against attack on alliance members from the countries in the east.
Today, those same countries in the east look to NATO for security from attacks by each other or from ethnic and nationalist violence resulting from the breakup of the Soviet empire.
We trust that our common commitments to the principles of the CSCE-democracy, the peaceful settlement of disputes and, above all, the legal acceptance and tolerant treatment of minorities-will be a formula for
peace. However, if there is a need to resolve conflicts through peacekeeping all of Europe welcomes the application of NATO's unique abilities to provide real resources and expertise.
In Oslo NATO agreed to consider just such CSCE requests. In my view this could well prevent Yugoslav-type tragedies from occurring in the future.
Canada was one of the originators of the concept of peacekeeping. Since the 1950s Canada has served in virtually all UN peacekeeping operations. At this moment Canadians serve around the world, in the Middle East, Cyprus, Central America, Europe and Cambodia.

The most important test of the effectiveness of peacekeeping is the length and strength of the peace once the peacekeepers have gone. Our troops have been with the UN peace-keeping force in Cyprus for 28 years. Clearly this is not a model for peacekeeping.
The absence of peace must not be allowed to contaminate the relations between new generations of old rivals.

I have just visited Cyprus and discussed the situation there with its president and with my colleagues in Ankara and Athens. I said that unless there is progress toward a solution Canada would withdraw its forces.
I can report that in this case there is some progress. Over the next few weeks, and the next couple of months, a set of ideas will be discussed among leaders to establish the basis for peace without peacekeepers.
As a result of this positive development Canada will not completely withdraw its forces this year. However, we must take this opportunity to force the search for a definitive settlement of a long-standing grievance, which has gone on for far too long.
While in Cyprus I had the privilege of visiting the Canadian forces assigned to Nicosia in their role as peacekeepers. I also had a chance to visit the troops on duty and in their barracks right in the peacekeeping zone, in the buffer zone in Nicosia.
I was able to see firsthand the very high degree of professionalism that they display and the fact that it is recognized and appreciated by all of the parties to this dispute, by all sides. All Canadians should be very proud of their actions and the honour that they bring to our country.
June 10,1992

However, the risk of conflict in the world in the coming years remains real. Our challenge will be to make the UN and regional organizations respond in timely and effective ways. We are very sensitive to the fact that some of these decisions will be difficult and that risks to the safety of soldiers and civilians will be high.
The financial burden will also be higher than in the past. Canada may not be in a position to participate in every mission as it has in the past.
How we contribute to peacekeeping missions in the future may also vary. However, we must encourage changes in the international institutions and in the international management of peacekeeping, and we must be flexible in our support of peacekeeping operations.
Canada has a long and distinguished tradition of leadership in peacekeeping and we intend to retain that position in the UN, in NATO and in the CSCE. However we must also build on those efforts in the newer area of peacebuilding and the negotiated settlement of potential conflicts before they erupt into violence. We look to the CSCE summit in Helsinki this summer to consolidate progress in peacebuilding for Europe.
[Translation}
In the months ahead, as our Canadian peacekeepers continue to provide a measure of stability in troubled areas of the world, we must work vigorously to identify and resolve the underlying motives and forces which generate conflict in the first place.

We must not squander the opportunity that history has afforded us. I can assure this House and all Canadians that Canada will continue to be in the forefront of the movement toward global peace. I will continue to report diligently on our progress toward that end.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that we welcome the discussion that the minister has introduced on the serious situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina and other parts of former Yugoslavia. We appreciate the minister reporting to the House on her visit. We share, as do many other Canadians, the incredible sense of tragedy and sadness at watching the
Routine Proceedings
unmitigated and unrestrained killing that goes on day after day, especially of helpless people.
We also want to join in complimenting the Canadian peacekeepers who are serving that region. We often debate the role of the Armed Forces, but there can be no more significant role that our Armed Forces are playing today than in the interventions they are making in several spots around the world, such as Cambodia, Cyprus, Yugoslavia, the Middle East and other areas. It is unquestionably one of the real contributions that Canada can make to peace.
At the same time there is also sadness because the breakdown and failure that is happening in Yugoslavia represents the world's inability to make an effective response. This conflict did not just occur this week. It has been happening for well over a year. There is no question that the response of the western community- the Europeans, Americans, Canadians and others-has been far too little and far too late.
We only have to compare the reaction to the way in which the western community responded to the invasion in Iraq, when there were immediate sanctions within days. Yet it took months upon months for us to get our act together in Yugoslavia. We knew that conflicts were emerging.
In this House only three weeks ago I posed a question to the minister asking for the withdrawal of diplomatic approval of the regime in Belgrade and the minister refused to do it.
The minister was overturned in three days by the Prime Minister, but the fact of the matter is that we have been reluctant and slow in our reactions. We have not understood the important precedents that this incredible conflict sets. All those brave words about the new world order that we heard after the Iraqi conflict have given real cause to the sceptics to ask what has gone wrong.
The international community has not responded to protect the basic human rights of people in Croatia or Bosnia. I suppose we are making the same mistake in the emerging conflict in Kosovo, another part of that tragic region. Again nothing is being done to prevent the conflict from emerging.

June 10, 1992
Routine Proceedings
Even last week when we again raised specific questions in the House of Commons directly to the Prime Minister, asking whether the Government of Canada was prepared to support active intervention in Sarajevo by the United Nations to deal with humanitarian relief, he refused to answer.
We were not prepared to take a stand or to take leadership on that crucial issue. We were waiting, holding back. Therefore, while we must pay brave tribute to the peacekeepers I am afraid that the policy makers are not giving them the kind of support they deserve. We are not responding in the way that is required to build a new regime of security.
I noticed with interest that the minister said in her statement that the meetings at Oslo this past week confirmed a new role for NATO to take under the CSCE. Once again the government was confirming that the CSCE might be able to prevent future Yugoslavias from happening.
Why is it not being asked to step in on this conflict taking place now? If there is now an agreement that NATO troops could be used under CSCE direction why is Canada not asking for a CSCE meeting immediately to discuss the problem of whether there will have to be further actions taken to stop the fighting, not just in Sarajevo and not just to provide humanitarian relief but to stop the conflict throughout that whole area?
Once again we are laying back, holding back and reserving. We are not initiating, not taking leadership, and not moving into the vacuum that is clearly there when we know that more blood will be spilled and more innocent lives will be lost.
The minister says that we must prevent further conflicts. Yet the minister's own department withdrew its funding, under this year's estimates, from the centre for conflict prevention of the CSCE. How can we stand in the House and say that we are fully committed and we are going to do everything we can to stop the conflict while the Government of Canada has withdrawn funding from one of the major new initiatives that the CSCE has sponsored?
It is hard to reconcile the rhetoric with the action or the action with the rhetoric. The two simply do not mix.
Maybe it is not the minister's fault, it may be her colleagues who are the problem. However, we cannot have the Department of Finance making crucial foreign policy decisions and nickel and diming on the crucial issue of international security. That is what is taking place.
Even in today's debate the minister said in the final part of her statement that it may not be possible for Canada to be involved in future peacekeeping because we may not have the financial support to do so.
The minister said that there may not be sufficient support or funding for these actions, yet at the same time the government is talking about spending $4.5 billion on a piece of military equipment that is already obsolescent. We are no longer engaged in anti-submarine warfare because the submarines are not there any more.
It may be that we need good helicopters for peacekeeping missions because one of the problems that our own peacekeepers found in Croatia, and are certainly finding in Cambodia, is the lack of equipment and the lack of proper logistical support. The UN Secretary General and UN officials have said repeatedly that our inability to mount full peacekeeping ventures and provide the proper support is a result of the lack of funding.
We know the Americans are withdrawing. They are in arrears by close to $800 million. Even our own government in its defence review gave only one line in the entire review to peacekeeping. The end result is that we have a minister rushing off to buy helicopters that are no longer necessary while we are not tailoring the configuration of equipment or support that our own forces will need if they are going to engage in a number of' peacekeeping ventures around the world.
That should be our priority. Our primary objective should be to support international efforts and international collective security, not to be engaging in ghost conflicts left over from the cold war.
I want to raise concerns with the minister about the statements or policies emanating in a variety of ways about Cyprus.
It is not good enough to say we have been there too long. We must ask ourselves whether the fighting will resume if the United Nations withdraws? What is the point of withdrawing if the conflict has not been resolved? What do we gain by creating another serious
June 10, 1992

confrontation between two groups who have not resolved their differences?
If we are talking about withdrawing our troops, surely t.he obligation is to ensure that we are leading the initiative to try to resolve that conflict and, if need be, to stay there until it is resolved. We stood at NATO for close to 45 years to stop a conflict in Europe or a potential invasion. Surely, our patience on peacekeeping deserves the same end.
I do not deny and I do not in any way reject the minister's statement that we must be more diligent in trying to resolve the conflict but I do not think it is to be done by threatening to withdraw troops. That is not the way to build a peacekeeping venture.
I will conclude by saying that I think this whole situation and the lack of action, the lack of funding and the lack of support demonstrate that if we are not careful that great Canadian invention called peacekeeping which Lester Pearson put forward at the UN in 1956 could be in very serious trouble. It could really be in danger of losing its credibility and effectiveness to protect peace in this changing world.
I would like to recommend to the minister, because we were the authors of the original idea of peacekeeping, we should maybe author the reconstitution, the redefinition of peacekeeping.
We are going to have to get new mandates for the United Nations and for regional organizations so that troops going into dangerous situations know that there is a risk and are going to have to be prepared to accept it.
We are going to have to deal with the crucial question of funding. It may be that Canada should initiate calling a major international conference on peacekeeping so that the major countries involved can come together and discuss and decide on peacekeeping.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has 15 more seconds.


Lloyd Axworthy: I have the same amount of time as the minister, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has had a minute and a half more than the minister has had right now. Please wind up.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will just simply say that we should have learned our lessons at this point and without any criticism say that Canada does have a a special responsibility and a particular role to
Routine Proceedings
play in helping the world come to grips with the importance of peacekeeping and peacemaking.
We could initiate and take responsibility for bringing concerned countries together and put to them their responsibilities to pay for the important role peacekeeping provides and to redefine the mandate the UN should have redefined. That way it is not simply a matter of sending troops overseas; it is also making sure that the governments of this world, through the United Nations, will make sure those troops have the best equipment and the best support possible.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to express my appreciation to the minister for her statement today which gives the House an opportunity to comment on some of the very serious, very important and very tragic events which are taking place in Bosnia-Hercegovina today.
I want to take this opportunity on behalf of my New Democratic colleagues to respond to two or three of the points raised by the minister and to raise a couple of other issues as well in this context.
First of all, with respect to the situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina, many Canadians have been asking themselves why it is that the community of nations has been unable to respond to the tragedy, to the bloodshed, to the violence, to the death that has taken place there and why it is, in particular, that our government to which we look for leadership has been so slow in responding to this tragedy.
It was almost a month ago that the member for Winnipeg South Centre and I urged the minister to act and to show some leadership on behalf of Canadians.
I asked the minister specifically, in view of the desperate need of the people of Bosnia for food and medicine: "Will Canada support the very urgent request by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for UN troops to protect the humanitarian convoy which will be able to bring in food and medicine to the people of Bosnia?"
That was on May 12. It is now a month later and we are finally, at last, responding to the desperate plea of the United Nations and others for assistance to enable us to get humanitarian aid to Bosnia-Hercegovina. The reality is that too much blood has been shed and too many lives have been lost while the community of nations has failed to respond effectively through the United Nations to this crisis.

June 10, 1992
Routine Proceedings
I would note as well that the minister refused to take even the minimal steps that we called for at that time in terms of the withdrawal of our ambassador after the European Community had taken that step. It was only after the Prime Minister returned from a visit to George Bush that he announced, not the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but he announced that we were taking this action.
I have to ask: Where is the leadership? What role is Canada playing in ensuring a significant supply of humanitarian aid, particularly food and medical aid, to assist the people who so desperately need that aid? There are over 1.3 million refugees, many of whom have moved into Bosnia from Croatia and are in desperate need. I have to ask our government to do far more in terms of humanitarian aid, particularly food and medical aid, in this time of need.
There are other issues as well. There is the whole question of the very difficult situation in Kosovo and the question of the delay of this government in establishing diplomatic relations with Croatia and Slovenia. The government announced some time ago that we recognized the independence of these countries and Canadians welcomed that. But why is it that this government has failed to establish formal diplomatic relations with Croatia and Slovenia? Why is that? There is no explanation in terms of diplomatic relations.
As well, I believe many Canadians are asking for our government to exercise great caution with respect to the recognition of the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, now Skopje. Canadians are also seeking assurances that there will be full constitutional and political guarantees that there are no territorial claims against Greece and that the name Macedonia, which implies territorial aspirations, is not used. We are looking for those guarantees as well in the context of this discussion.
The minister visited Cyprus. As the member for Winnipeg South Centre and the minister pointed out, I am sure we all want to pay tribute to our peacekeeping troops who have been there for at least 28 years and to our other peacekeeping troops in Croatia and around the
world. However, it does not help at all to achieve a peaceful solution to this long conflict to threaten that we will simply unilaterally pull out our troops.
I know the minister is now saying that we are not going to pull out our troops before the end of this year, although she seems to imply we might pull out some. She said: "We are not pulling them all out before the end of this year". Does that mean the minister is going to pull out a number of Canadian troops? There is a real risk that this could simply aggravate the conflict.
Our role surely is to urge negotiations and again to provide leadership with respect to a negotiated and peaceful solution.
As I mentioned, our peacekeeping troops are doing fine work, whether it be in Croatia, Cyprus or elsewhere. But it has been pointed out by Canadian military officials, in fact Sergeant Mario Grenier who has helped to train Canadian peacekeepers in Yugoslavia said: "We are sending unqualified people to do qualified jobs. We do not have enough training when it is time to get jobs like this done". He has urged that Canada provide more training for our peacekeeping troops.
I want to take this opportunity to urge our government, in the context of this debate, to look very seriously at the establishment of a peacekeeping training centre at Canadian Forces Base Cornwallis in Nova Scotia. Canada has an outstanding international record in peacekeeping and this is the kind of role that we could play effectively in Cornwallis. Indeed, we committed ourselves to that kind of role in a recent resolution which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in October 1991.
Finally I would like to say a word about the minister's ringing affirmation of Canada's role in NATO. With the demise of the Warsaw pact, with the effective disappearance of the enemy, NATO strategists, the generals, are obviously searching desperately for a new raison d'etre.
Surely the time has come for Canadians to show leadership with respect to the definition of security, to call for the dissolution of this archaic and outdated and ultimately irrelevant military alliance, and to recognize the Citizens' Inquiry into Peace and Security which held public hearings across Canada.
June 10, 1992

We should be redefining the concept of common security. Canadian security policy should be focused on strengthening regional security bodies, strengthening the CSCE, strengthening the United Nations, ensuring that the United Nations is properly funded and that peacekeeping forces are properly funded. In Cambodia right now, the United Nations peacekeeping operation is in danger of foundering because of the lack of proper funding.
At a time when NATO is clinging to a policy of the first use of nuclear weapons, at a time when NATO insists that we in fact not adopt a policy of nuclear weapons-free harbours in Canada, at a time when NATO continues to have low-level flight testing over Innu land, surely now more than ever, it is time for us to recognize that Canada's role should be within the United Nations, a strengthened United Nations and the CSCE and pushing for a comprehensive test ban treaty.
In closing, Canada does have an important leadership role to play in Bosnia-Hercegovina within the United Nations and ultimately in redefining the concept of security on this globe to ensure that when we talk about security we are talking about the right to food, to shelter, to health care, to education, to human rights, to a clean and sustainable environment and to a world at peace.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the report for the special joint committee on conflict of interest as its report has today been tabled in the Senate.
The members of this House taking part in the report are myself, the member for Mississauga South as cochairman; Edna Anderson, Simcoe Centre; J. W. Bud Bird, Fredericton-York-Sunbury; David Bjomson, Selkirk-Red River; Don Boudria of the Liberal Party and the critic for the Liberal Party on this matter, from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell; Patrick Boyer, who was the former counsel of the report filed on this matter by the hon. Mitchell Sharp and the hon. Mike Starr some years ago, from Etobicoke-Lakeshore; Mike Breaugh, the New Democratic Party member, from Oshawa; Catherine Callbeck, from Malpeque; Michel Cham-
Routine Proceedings
pagne, from Champlain, Quebec; Robert Layton, from Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louise; John Nunziata, from York South-Weston; and Marcel Prud'homme, from Saint-Denis, Quebec.
Mr. Prud'homme took a special trip to Australia to go over the conflict of interest rules there and contributed greatly to the report. He is here today, smiling and wanting to make sure that I said these things because these are important considerations in this report.
Also on the joint committee were Jean-Marc Robi-taille, from Terrebonne, Quebec; and the inimitable John Rodriguez from Nickel Belt.
Mr. Speaker, I have the report in both official languages and I believe this report will do justice to this House.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate very much the kindness I rise of my colleague to have mentioned my name. Yes, indeed I was in Australia, but I wish to say that it was not at the expense of the House of Commons and I brought back all the documents free of charge.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-350, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda).


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


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the bill I am seeking leave to introduce today is to amend the Criminal Code in respect of hate literature. The present act provides that hate literature against an identifiable group is prohibited.
An identif iable group consists under the current act of persons or groups of persons who are distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.
My proposed bill will add to the list of groups those persons who are distinguished by age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.

June 10, 1992
Routine Proceedings
I hope the bill will commend itself to all hon. members.


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


Mr. Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion on electronic voting for the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I have two bills on the Order Paper which have been superseded by events and I do not propose to proceed with the bills. They are private members' bills, but in both cases they have been dealt with by legislation in this House. I would seek leave of the House to withdraw the bills.
The first one is Bill C-207, an act to amend the Penitentiary Act (visits to penitentiaries). The matter was recently dealt with in proceedings on the new Corrections Act. Admittedly it was voted down but my bill is no longer appropriate to do the job it was intended to do. I seek leave of the House to withdraw that one.
The second is Bill C-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder). That particular matter was introduced by the government and dealt with in this House. The bill has become law and there is no need for my bill to proceed. Again I would ask for unanimous consent to withdraw that bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to withdraw Bills
C-207 and C-228?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Orders discharged and bills withdrawn.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today. One of them deals with the Court Challenges Program.
These petitioners would like to call upon Parliament to re-establish this very important program which, as we know, gave minority groups and individuals the financial assistance to be able to go to the courts and have their constitutional rights clarified.
These petitioners come from all over Canada and I am pleased to table this petition in their names.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition dealing with housing problems.
The petitioners would like to draw the attention of the House to the following. Many Canadians are experiencing serious housing problems. The Government of Canada terminated the federal Co-operative Housing Program on February 25, 1992. The federal non-profit co-op housing program was highly successful in creating a healthy mix in communities. The action of this government has eliminated 2,000 co-op units for 1992 alone, along with 4,000 construction and manufacturing jobs in the same period.
Therefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the government to reinstate the federal Co-operative Housing Program immediately and to commit the $6.1 million to the program which had been planned for 1992 and permit approximately 2,000 co-op housing units to be sponsored this year.
June 10, 1992


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present, both of which are involved with current and ongoing issues.
One deals not only with the specific murder of Nina de Villiers on August 9, 1991, but also with a move to reorient the justice system.
I know that her mother, Mrs. de Villiers, is going to be in Ottawa tomorrow meeting with the justice minister and the critics for the opposition. She has certainly been a crucial person in literally encouraging thousands of Canadians to sign the petition.
The murder of Nina de Villiers on August 19, 1991, has exposed serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system. There are many vulnerable persons who have little protection under the current system. Women, children and disabled persons are at particular risk.
Crimes of violence against a person are intolerable and constitute the most abhorrent crimes society faces.
Current criminal law does not require bail hearings in crimes of violence to be presided over by judges.
Current criminal law may require only a simple signature on a document with no money posted as surety for the release of accused perpetrators of crimes of violence.
Current criminal law does not hold agents of the Crown directly accountable to the public for their actions or omissions in permitting known offenders and accused with violent backgrounds to be free, or in failing to seek orders prohibiting possession of weapons.
Sentencing in crimes of violence does not appropriately reflect society's abhorrence of violence in order to act as a true deterrent and to protect the public by removal of offenders from society. The risk to society proposed by early releases is of secondary consideration. Statutes governing the criminal justice system in Canada must be revised.
Therefore, your petitioners request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against persons are serious and abhorrent to society and amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act, 1972, and the Parole Act accordingly. I know this petition has the support of literally thousands of Canadians.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my second petition in part has been transcended by events but in part is certainly very relevant to the discussion that
Routine Proceedings
we just underwent with respect to the desperate situation now being faced by people in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
The second petition deals with the recognition of the right to self-determination by republics like the republic of Croatia, the republic of Slovenia and indeed the republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina. It calls upon the government to condemn aggression by the Yugoslavian army and demand its withdrawal of all troops from Croatia immediately, and initiate the establishment of an international commission.
I think this petition certainly reflects the view of many people around the world that the international community must bond together to fight the slaughter that is going on now in Bosnia-Hercegovina, in Croatia and in other parts of the former republic of Yugoslavia. Certainly, the thousands of people who have signed this petition really hope that the Canadian government will act.


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.
One is signed by approximately 400 people in the riding of Durham who call on the government to establish legislation which would result in a binding referendum of the people on constitutional amendments.


JUSTICE
Kenneth Ross Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, the second is also from the riding of Durham, and is similar to the petition just read by the member for Hamilton East.
The petitioners call on Parliament to change the Criminal Code, the Bail Reform Act and the Parole Act as they relate to crimes of violence.


NARCOTICS CONTROL ACT
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting the House with a petition collected by Mrs. Rita Hogg.
The petition deals with numerous signatures from the metropolitan city of Toronto petitioning and requesting the government to amend the Narcotics Control Act so that the profits from the seizures of drugs, which are proliferating unfortunately in the streets and communities of metro Toronto and elsewhere, will be shared with local municipalities, police forces and community organizations, which are the principals in the fight against

June 10, 1992
Routine Proceedings
drugs, so that the proceeds, rather than going completely and exclusively into federal coffers, will be shared with those entities so that in fact we may win the war. It was a pleasure as well to be able to raise it during Question Period earlier today. It is hoped by this party and by many Canadians that the many repeated promises of the Solicitor General to amend the Narcotics Control Act will see the light of day in the very near future.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my first petition is from my constituency and other sectors of Manitoba asking that the taxation system be made much more clear.
The petitioners point out that the tax act is complex, unfair, and somewhat unintentionally discriminatory. They point out, for example, the child care credit that some people get while others who choose to stay home to rear their children do not.


RADIO AND TELEVISION
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my next petition deals with a request from petitioners, many of them from my constituency, who want the CRTC to monitor very closely the use of language on radio and television.
Many feel that there is foul and inappropriate language being used and it counteracts the efforts of the family to set a good example.


EDUCATION
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my final petition represents petitioners from Labrador. They point out that in today's society we need the best educational systems possible, particularly to meet challenges of globalization, increased competitiveness and enhanced productivity.
They indicate that there have been serious cutbacks that will affect the education of young people in Canada and asks that all policies that could prevent young people from attending college and university and other training programs be reviewed immediately.


NORTHERN TAX ALLOWANCE
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the residents of Bella Coola and Hagensborg, B.C. asking by way of petition that the House restore a full northern tax allowance to the residents of northern and remote communities.
The petitioners point out that small, remote single-industry communities pay very high prices. They do not have access to basic medical services, health care, government services, and the cost of transportation is extremely high. They ask that the full northern tax benefit be restored to those communities.


SRI LANKA
Hon. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and as the member of Parliament for Scarborough Centre, I wish to submit this petition on behalf of my constituents this petition.
It outlines the petitioners' concerns relating to issues in Sri Lanka. They request that the parties in Sri Lanka negotiate and settle differences in order that all the people in that country may live in peace and freedom.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present to the House a petition that was gathered and prepared by my constituent, Mrs. Eileen MacDonald. All of the signatures on the petition are exclusively from the Don Mills area of my own constituency, and most of them from 18 The Donway East.
This particular petition relates to a matter that was before the House a short time ago, that being the referendum bill. It calls upon Parliament to enact a referendum bill that is binding upon Parliament in order to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government, the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada, together with a majority vote in a majority of provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.
The government and the House has dealt with part of this. I trust that we will be receiving a positive response from the government and the House on the other part of it.
June 10, 1992

Routine Proceedings


HOUSING
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. Janies):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour and privilege of presenting a petition on behalf of many residents of my riding. The petition cites the cancellation of the federal Co-operative Housing Program which was highly successful in creating healthy mixed income communities.
Its cancellation has eliminated 2,000 new co-op housing units for 1992 alone, along with 4,000 construction and manufacturing jobs for the same period. Moreover, approximately 164,000 renter households want to move into co-op housing.
Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the government to immediately reinstate the federal Co-operative Housing Program and commit the $6.1 million to the program which had been planned for 1992 and permit approximately 2,000 co-operative housing units to be sponsored this year.


RECOGNITION OF STATUS OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of Montreal, Quebec City and Rouyn-No-randa.
The petitioners declare: Whereas many Canadians object in conscience to any warlike or military activity, we in no way want to participate in it, given that many Canadians refuse to be obliged to kill or be killed in a conflict which they condemn or deplore;
Whereas some religious groups are already granted the right to conscientious objector status and given, article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the resolution accepted by the United Nations Human Rights Commission on March 8, 1989 on this subject. Whereas the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes that all Canadians have the right to freedom of opinion, the petitioners ask the Canadian government to pass legislation recognizing the status of conscientious objector for any Canadian who desires it.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present another petition that was collected by the Glad Day Book Store in Toronto. It notes that in February 1985 the House of Commons mandated the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to prepare a report on equality rights in Canada.
In October that committee did prepare that report and unanimously recommended that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all areas of federal jurisdiction.
The petitioners note that in March 1986 the government promised to accept this report and enact the recommendations. Yet today, some six years later, the recommendations have still not been enacted. They note that other jurisdictions including Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Yukon have such protection and that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has called for this protection.
Therefore they call upon Parliament to ensure that government and Parliament act to bring forward immediately an amendment to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which has been signed by residents of Vancouver, Burnaby, Langley and a number of other communities in British Columbia.
The petitioners note that two Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer who have been sentenced to 28 years each in a Brazilian prison, have suffered miscarriages of justice, cruel and unusual treatment in Brazilian prisons and discrimination in sentencing and parole. The cumulative effect of these irregularities provides ample ground for the Government of Canada to seek a remedy on their behalf. The only relief available from such severe punishment is for Canada to request expulsion in accordance with Brazilian law.

June 10, 1992
Routine Proceedings
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada.


CANADIAN UNITY
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present the following petition to the House of Commons.
It is a petition that I would have been proud to affix my name to. It is a petition gathered by the Kinsmen and Kinnette Clubs in the community of Spiritwood, Saskatchewan.
The Kinsmen and Kinnette Clubs and community members who have signed this petition indicate how appropriate it is to encourage all Canadians to take pride in a united, strong and independent Canada. They indicate that the Kinsmen and Kinnette Clubs of Canada have created an opportunity for all Canadians to participate in the proud to be Canadian project during the celebration of the 125th anniversary of Confederation in 1992.
The petitioners are supporting the proud to be Canadian project as an opportunity to nurture a positive, life-long relationship with our heritage and our flag, to encourage stronger ties among all Canadians for the further advancement of Canada as a leader in world circles, and to promote our tremendous pride in being Canadians.
I salute the Kinsmen and Kinnette Clubs of Canada for this initiative.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton Northwest requests unanimous consent to table a committee report. Does he have unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
15TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
In accordance with its general mandate under Standing Order 108(2), your committee has considered the question of deductions in respect of employees' expenses.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 299, 306 and 321.


Mr. Parker: For the period 1992 to 1996, in relation to the recovery of assets related to enterprise crime as a result of the creation of the joint police force anti-drug profiteering units (a) what is the estimated increase in recovery of assets (b) what are the total amounts expected to be recovered for each year (c) how much money was not seized as a result of the failure to have such units in place when the proceeds of crime were proclaimed?


Hon. Douglas Grinslade Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: The joint force Anti Drug Profiteering (ADP) units are intended to provide additional resources and promote greater degrees of co-operation among RCMP, municipal and provincial police in proceeds of drug crime investigations. These units will augment the existing ADP program established by the RCMP in 1981, which has a current establishment of 85 investigators.
In addition to the identification of assets derived from drug trafficking, a primary objective of this enforcement program is to develop evidence to support prosecutions for drug proceeds and money laundering offenses.
(a)	It is very difficult to provide a valid estimate of the increase in seizures of drug assets which would be attributable to the joint force ADP units. These units are expected to generate increased seizures and related prosecutions. Given that this function involves the enforcement of serious criminal offenses, the establishment of quotas of asset seizures will not be entertained.
(b)	A projection of the total amounts of seizures of drug assets in Canada during the period 1992 to 1996 presents similar difficulties. Since the inception of the proceeds of crime legislation on January 1, 1989, the RCMP Anti-Drug Profiteering Program, until recently staffed with 58 investigators, seized approximately $60 million in assets, with a further $46 million in assets referred to other Canadian or foreign agencies for appropriate action. Seizures are expected to exceed this amount during 1992 to 1996; the amount of the increase cannot be predicted.
June 10, 1992

(c)	It is not possible to provide an estimate of the amounts of assets that could have been seized in the past by a group of enforcement personnel that did not then exist. The establishment of these new units represents an evolutionary development in order to promote more effective use of relatively new legislation.
The joint force Anti-Drug Profiteering initiative will have a monitoring and evaluation component which will keep track of the actual amounts seized as a result of investigations by the units.


Mrs. Gaffney: What is the total amount of money spent by the Department of National Health and Welfare on the production and distribution of the video entitled "What's Wrong With This Pictured"


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: This video was funded in part by the AIDS Community Action Program (ACAP) of the Department of National Health and Welfare. A grant of $69,210 was provided under ACAP for the period of March 19, 1990 to April 30, 1991 toward production costs. Additional funding was provided by the City of Toronto Board of Health, the Canada Council, the Laidlaw Foundation, Theatre Ontario, the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ontario Arts Council.
The promotion of the video is the responsibility of the Second Look Community Arts, sponsor of the project.
The purpose of this community initiative was to enable young people to make informed, positive choices about high risk behaviour, thus reducing the risk of HIV infection. The video's primary target audience is street youth. These young people are often school drop-outs who have limited formal education.


Mr. Gardiner: With respect to the government's newspaper ads relating to the Human Development Report of the United Nations, (a) what was the total cost (b) what were the costs of production and placement (c) what
Routine Proceedings
persons or companies received contracts for these ads and what were the dates and amounts of these contracts?


Hon. Robert R. de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: Insofar as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned, the answer is as follows:
(a)	The total cost of the newspaper ads relating to the Human Development Report of the United Nations was $1,044 million.
(b)	The cost of production was $67,000; the cost of media purchase (placement) was $977,000.
(c)	The production was done by PNMD/Publitel at a cost of $67,000.
The placement was done by Media Canada, the media placement agency of record for Government of Canada, at a cost of $977,000.
The dates of the contracts were:
PNMD/Publitel-April 28, 1992
Media Canada-April 23, 1992


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 249 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 249 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Boudria: Since September 4, 1984 has the government ever utilized the services of Interpost Systems and, if so, why and which department has done so, on how many occasions, and what was the expenditure of each government department each time the service was used?
Return tabled.

June 10,1992
Routine Proceedings


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, your smile indicates that you can guess why I am on my feet today.
I filed a request for the production of documents in respect of the establishment of a military supply depot in Montreal, a decision made by the Minister of National Defence in either late March or early April of this year contrary to the earlier study that was done for the department, at some considerable cost I may say, which recommended another site that just happened to be in my own riding.
There has been a subsequent study, I assume, done to justify this decision. My motion for the production of papers merely requests that that be produced.
I am certain that under the Access to Information Act it is a producible document. This is a request for the document in this House. I would hope that if the parliamentary secretary can locate the Minister of National Defence-I know that he is not often in Ottawa- perhaps the document could be turned up and produced before we adjourn for the summer.
The second motion I have on the Order Paper has been there since May 6.1 raised it with the parliamentary secretary a couple of weeks ago and he said he would look into it. It deals with the expense accounts of persons who travelled with the Prime Minister on a trip to Calgary in April 1991.
This is not new information. It has been requested under the Access to Information Act. Heavily censored versions were released. We are asking for the facts. Surely this House is entitled to them.
If the parliamentary secretary has any reluctance in this regard, perhaps we could instead of transferring it for debate, where he knows it will get buried and never get called, just bring it to a vote immediately and have the question decided in the House. I suspect a lot of his own members would like to see these expense accounts too.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall that the Minister of National Defence answered quite a number of questions yesterday in Question Period. I would be very happy to relay the hon. member's query to that minister.
With reference to the second question, my hon. friend is quite correct that it was posed on May 6. We are looking into that. I believe that our inquiries are meeting with some success and I will be able to report, I hope without undue delay, to the hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Halliday:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise under motions if I might. Am I too late for that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry. We did pass by it. Do we have unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek leave of the House to adopt the following motion. I think Your Honour will find consent for it. I move:
That, notwithstanding Standing Orders 132 and 140, the petition for a private bill from the Royal Society of Canada, presented on Tbesday, March 31, 1992, and reported upon by the Clerk of Petitions on Wednesday, April 1, 1992, be deemed to have been filed within the required time limit and received by this House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
June 10, 1992


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that Bill C-84, an act to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek and I believe you would find that there is unanimous consent in relation to Bill C-84, an act to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, to proceed with all stages of that bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to give our agreement to this. I just note the great co-operation shown by the opposition on this occasion. It is a shame that the government did not do that yesterday when it used closure.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use the occasion to score a point off the government. I want to use this occasion to join all sides of the House in saying that we are very pleased to agree to the procedure. It has been agreed to push this bill through today. We will have a full discussion of the various points. I am not overwhelmed by the fact that we are in this position, and I will describe the details of my views on that when we get to it. But we all agree that this is an important bill and we are happy to proceed with it today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.
I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the ministerial statement
Government Orders
Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes to 10.30 p.m.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, this is a day when Canada's merchant mariners will be very happy indeed. Those sceptics who believed this time would never come can now abandon ship.
The legislation we are considering today will put merchant navy veterans on a par with veterans who served in uniform during World War I, World War II and in Korea. Members will note that the bill also deals with the allied resistance members and their access to the War Veterans Allowance program. I will say just a few words on this aspect of the legislation before returning to the good news for our merchant navy veterans.
What we want to do here is to return the War Veterans Allowance program to its original purpose, that being to provide income support to qualified Canadian veterans and to allied veterans having formal military service. It was never the intent of Parliament to include those having resistance service, and indeed no other country in the world provides military benefits to allied resistance members.

Our forecasts show that if we did not make these changes, the War Veterans Allowance Program would soon benefit mainly persons who had fought in the resistance.
Obviously that is not acceptable and you will realize that the great majority of veterans agree with these changes.

As I said earlier, this is a day for our merchant mariners and a day to recall their magnificent contribution to the war effort. The commemoration of the battle of the Atlantic in May reminds us once again of the debt the free world owes to those who faced the perils of the sea.
One statistic from the battle of the Atlantic says so much about the courage of those who manned our merchant fleet. During July 1942 the allies lost one ship of 10,000 tonnes or more every 10 hours, day and night, for the 31 days during the month of July 1942.

June 10, 1992
Government Orders
The mental fortitude of those who climbed aboard cargo ships in the face of those statistics was remarkable. Their courage was not a production of an adrenalin rush. They had plenty of time to consider the risks, like the fine soldiers who went over the top in the First World War and the crews of bomber command in the Second World War, our merchant mariners put duty before self.
The stoker who faced almost certain death if his vessel was struck by a torpedo volunteered to risk his life. Time and again merchant mariners signed on for danger. Canada's merchant mariners earned our gratitude. That is why I would not like it thought that the Canadian people, through their governments, were ungrateful once victory was ours.
Our merchant mariners and their families have been beneficiaries of many of the finest programs in the world. Most of the veterans' programs and benefits have been available to merchant mariners for a number of years, but not all. Neither have they had the ease of access to some benefits enjoyed by those who served in the Armed Forces.
Such unequal treatment rankled them. Merchant mariners felt it diminished the importance of their role in the war. They want to be regarded and treated as veterans. Today, we are doing just that.
Bill C-84 is more than just another piece of legislation. It is an acknowledgement of the wartime contribution of some very brave veterans. This legislation introduces the designation of merchant navy veteran. It will give them full veteran status. The omissions and the obstacles are being removed.
Let me make it perfectly clear, Bill C-84 will entitle merchant navy veterans to the benefits available to their wartime comrades in the army, navy and air force, at a cost of about $100 million over the next five years.
Who becomes eligible for the designation of merchant navy veteran? The answer is basically anyone who served in a Canadian registered ship engaged in home or foreign trade on the high seas during either of the two world wars or Korea. Any Canadian with first world war or second world war high seas service in an allied ship is included. Wartime service would normally have entailed the signing of articles of agreement.
Allow me to tell hon. members about the benefits this bill will give to our merchant mariners, because that is the important thing. That is the reason we are asking for
expeditious passing of this piece of legislation this afternoon.
I do not have to tell the House just how popular and effective our veterans' independence program is. There is no program like it in Canada, or as far as I know in the world. It is an economical and versatile way of helping veterans stay in their own homes with their families and out of institutions.
Naturally, many merchant mariners wanted to receive the veterans' independence program. However, as things stand now only merchant mariners who receive VIP because of their disability pensions are eligible. Regulatory amendments made in concert with this legislation will allow up to some 1,800 additional merchant mariners to join the veterans' independence program.
For the first time merchant navy veterans with a non-pensionable condition will be able to apply on an income tested basis, as are our uniformed veterans.
This brings them in step with the veterans of the Armed Forces. The average age of our veteran population is now over 71 years, and it is even higher for merchant mariners. Not surprisingly then, merchant mariners have long campaigned to have the same access as other veterans to care in a departmental medical facility or a contract bed in one of many institutions across the country.
Regulations being brought into force with Bill C-84 will allow merchant navy veterans the institutional access they have long sought. Other long-standing grievances will be removed with the passage of this bill this afternoon.
Take the six-month rule. In order to qualify for income support and some health care benefits merchant mariners have to show six months of wartime service at sea plus one voyage through dangerous waters. Merchant mariners have argued that the six-month qualifying period was unfair, and it will be removed for merchant navy veterans.
Another significant breakthrough contained in this legislation deals with disability pensions. Merchant mariners can now only qualify for disability pensions if they were injured as a direct result of enemy action. A sailor who suffered an injury while his vessel was at sea was out of luck as far as the present legislation is concerned. Any injury suffered away from enemy action was a matter for the merchant mariner and the shipping company he worked for.
June 10, 1992

Bill C-84 takes a different view of this. It recognizes that merchant mariners were covered for disability pension purposes from the moment they climbed aboard their vessel in port for a high seas voyage.
The removal of the enemy action provision will result in another estimated 230 merchant navy veterans, or their dependents, qualifying for disability pensions for the very first time. I am sure the House will agree that these are welcome changes. They certainly mirror the recommendations made by the House Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
I want to thank that committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Crowfoot, Arnold Malone, who is ill today, for the attention it has given to the concerns of merchant mariners. I might also add thanks here to all of the members who served on that committee. Some of them are present in the House today.
The committee made other recommendations that do not need legislation. I want to discuss these, however, because I want to put on the record the position of the government on these other recommendations made by the standing committee.
Merchant mariners want the names of their compatriots who were killed in wartime to be honoured in a special book of remembrance in the Peace Tower.

The government agrees that there should be a Book of Remembrance dedicated to the merchant marine and personally I would like it to be placed in the Peace Tower as soon as possible. We are now working to make this wish a reality.

Another recommendation made by the House committee is for the government to encourage the erection of a monument dedicated to those killed in the wartime merchant navy.
I certainly hope such a memorial will be built. The government cannot help financially, with the exception of the one monument we do own. That is the National War Memorial here in Ottawa. It has a long-standing policy not to get involved with war memorials.
Government Orders
The National War Memorial honours everyone who served in Canada in the World Wars I and II and Korea. Obviously, merchant mariners and merchant navy veterans are very much included with those we honour on the National War Memorial.
I might add here that this is the exact position that the major groups of veterans, like the Royal Canadian Legion and others, asked us to do.
There are many war memorials across the country. They were erected by provinces, municipalities, associations of veterans and through the subscriptions of grateful citizens. Even today war memorials are being built. I get letters from schools and other organizations proudly telling me about the memorials they recently erected with funds raised through fund raising activities and by public subscription.
Given the high esteem in which merchant mariners are held, I would think that the public would be prepared to support any campaign for a merchant navy memorial and I would certainly encourage such a campaign.
The government has given careful attention to the work of the House committee, just as we have to the recommendations of the Senate subcommittee on veterans affairs, the advice of Canada's associations of veterans and, indeed, the coalition of merchant navy organizations that worked so hard on this piece of legislation.
At my request, they got together to study the whole question. Together we gave the merchant mariner issue the most thorough policy review since the end of World War II. I am grateful for the input of all those who worked hard and intelligently to recommend solutions to the government. For the most part, the government has accepted their recommendations.
Let me say in conclusion, that it has taken 47 years for merchant mariners to get their total due. I do not intend to lay blame for that delay nor do I intend to take the blame for it. I am proud that Bill C-84 has been presented during my watch. I ask members of all parties to give this legislation speedy passage. Canadian merchant mariners have waited long enough for this day and as I said to them when we announced this in March in Halifax: "Welcome aboard".

June 10,1992
Government Orders


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise today to take part in the debate on this very famous Bill C-84.
This bill was designed to create some very positive, but also some very dramatic changes in Canada's veterans legislation.
It has been my privilege to serve for some time as the Veterans Affairs critic for the Loyal Opposition. In that time I have managed to make myself very familiar with veterans legislation and with the workings of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
In addressing the merchant mariners it is important to give an overview of this group of people. It all started on November 16, 1939. Two weeks after Britain declared war on Germany the first merchant marine convoy steamed out of Halifax harbour. This convoy began tracing the wartime route to England and the Soviet Union by which merchant seaman shipped vital aid to overseas allied troops and where many lost their lives.
Before the beginning of World War II, the German navy had planned a campaign to strike allied merchant ships coming from North America. In a German naval war staff memorandum dated 1939, the German high command defined the target of its principal strategy as the merchant ship. It was not only the enemy's vessels but every merchantman which sails 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. In accordance with this war staff memo, the destruction of the poorly armed and armoured merchant ships became the principal aim of Nazi surface warships, aircraft and submarines. German U-boats roamed the Atlantic in packs of 10 to 12 submarines to damage and to sink supply boats. German aircraft would bomb delivery ships as they neared the European coast. German warships, disguised as cargo vessels, would use their concealed deck cannons to tear into allied merchant fleets at sea. Alone or in convoys, merchant ships were vulnerable to attack on any part of their sailing route.
As these orders of the German high command indicate, merchant seamen were the focal point in this battle of the Atlantic that the minister just spoke about.
While merchant ships were vigorously pursued by enemy attack craft, allied warships were not able to track or combat the U-boats. Until 1942 the sight of a submarine tower would set a convoy into flight. The slower supply vessels of the convoy were left behind to be sunk by torpedoes. The merchant ships and the sailors were not themselves prepared for serious combat. Though anti-aircraft gunnery, gas and fire-fighting were required courses, mariners during wartime rarely could defend themselves against the torpedoes, bombs and shells of the heavily-armed enemy craft. Such was the lot of the merchant mariners during the war.
The minister has finally brought forth this long-overdue legislation some 47 years after the end of World War II. There are many reasons why this was not done earlier. It would be rather counterproductive at this point to go into all the reasons and to rehash the old arguments. What we do know is that all parties are in agreement that this is something which is long overdue and we have made this fact known to the minister by way of the all-party standing committee report which he had in his hands last fall.
I am pleased to see this legislation and I thank the minister for his efforts, but I wonder why this could not have been done six months or a year ago. When you consider the age of the potential recipients of the benefits of this legislation, any delay means that more and more will never get to reap the benefits or the recognition that they so deserve.
On this point I cannot emphasize enough the important role and contribution of standing committees in bringing such priority issues to bear in the legislative process. In contrast with the partisan, all-consuming ritual of adversarial combat so often witnessed in the front benches of this House, standing committees foster a rare collegiality among members conducive to bringing practical solutions to practical problems. Notably, when there are no party positions for matters under study, our standing committees have demonstrated a remarkably impressive record of consensus making.
The system has also shown that where there is both the political will and the personal flexibility for give and
June 10, 1992

take, constructive results responsive to the needs of Canadians can be achieved.
Structured to mirror the organization of Cabinet and empowered to initiate its own studies, the system of standing committees provides Canadians with an important mechanism to shadow the activities, the policies and the programs of each department and agency of government. It ensures that the fundamental principles of accountability and responsibility which are vital to democratic society are safeguarded. Its very ability to initiate studies, address specific questions and call witnesses also contributes greater confidence, specialized knowledge and expertise within the political system.
By enabling members to expose themselves to a wide spectrum of public opinion which would be otherwise a practical impossibility, as parliamentarians we are made more effective both in this House and in our constituencies.
Indeed the final measure of the standing committees' contribution to democratic institutions is the value of committee work in improving the relevance and the efficiency of Parliament. We have in this legislation before us today an important example of the result of this process.
Before continuing on, I would like to make one comment to recognize the invaluable professional expertise and support of the Library of Parliament research staff and those who work in the Department of Veterans Affairs for their expediency in bringing about this significant legislative action. I also want to thank the veteran's organizations for the many hours and weeks of work they have put into it.
Having said so much about institutions involved in the process, I should remind hon. members there were some benefits in place for merchant mariners over the past number of years under the terms of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
To briefly summarize some of the provisions of those acts, a merchant mariner was entitled to receive a disability pension if they were injured as a result of direct enemy action. Merchant mariners were also eligible for a civilian war allowance, the equivalent of the war veterans allowance, if they had served at sea for at least six months and made one trip through dangerous waters.
The new legislation extends what is known as the insurance principle to disability pensions, meaning that as long as a merchant mariner was signed on for a voyage
Government Orders
he was, in fact, covered if he sustained any disease or injury, not just one as the result of enemy action.
The terms service at sea and dangerous waters have been removed from the legislation and we now have a high seas voyage as enabling criteria. For the most part, I see this as a positive step because over the years many people were denied benefits because they were a few days short of service. This lead to the situation where a member of the military could go beyond the territorial waters for only a day and qualify for the war veterans allowance, while a merchant mariner could have served in the same area for 179 days and still did not meet the requirements of the act.
I hope the minister will assure us the changes introduced will not have a negative impact on the applicants who served on the Newfoundland coastal trade. Many of these people provided a very necessary and important service by being the transportation lifeline to the outport communities in Newfoundland and I would find it most unsettling to see this legislation harm them in any way. What I seek from the minister is the assurance that those people will continue to enjoy the benefits and privileges they have now.
If I may digress for a moment, I think the recognition we are extending to the merchant mariners by designating them as veterans is a very important element of the proposed legislation. I know these merchant seamen who are still with us today, some of whom are in the gallery, will be thrilled with the new designation of merchant mariner veteran and will bear this recognition with the pride they demonstrated in service to their country. Grateful for their commitment in service we, on behalf of the people of Canada, hold them in highest regard and today formally say thank you.
I have long maintained we do not honour our heroes enough in this country. These men and women we are designating as merchant mariner veterans today were heroes whose courage and conviction made a difference in all our lives and today I salute them.
I also noted when the minister announced this legislation and when he appeared before the committee said he agreed in principle-again today he said this-with a book of remembrance. I would urge him to carry on with all possible speed in seeing that such a book is produced. So many people come to Ottawa and share in that very moving part of our history in the Peace Tower. Surely the minister will make a firm commitment to include the merchant navy veterans in this hall of honour.

June 10,1992
Government Orders
The second part of this legislation is of a different nature. It terminates benefits for a group of people who were awarded those benefits by a quasi-judicial board of the department in accordance with the 1985 interpretation of the existing legislation handed down by the Federal Court of Canada.
The bill before us specifies that resistance fighters will no longer be able to apply for benefits under the War Veterans Allowance Act as allied veterans. Those who are currently in receipt will be able to continue to receive the benefits, providing they reside in Canada after March of next year.
I understand this change in legislation came about because there was a perception by the Department of Veterans Affairs that the actual application of the provision was inconsistent with the original intention of Parliament. Moreover, since the war veterans allowance is an income tested program, it is very difficult to monitor the income of recipients who do not reside in the country. I can see justification for some of these matters but I do hope that we are not throwing out the baby with the bath water.
The minister has said on several occasions that this is part of a plan to return the war veterans allowance to its original purpose. This may be so, but I remind him that those words caused some concern when he announced them last March. The minister should also remember, and I know that he does, that the boards and the commissions within his portfolio can only interpret the words which are written in the act. They cannot decide what was or is the intent of Parliament at any given time. That is why I urge the minister to be careful in statements and very careful when he presumes to know what the people intended many years ago.
The fact remains that we have a bill before us which will in the future prevent resistance fighters from receiving benefits under the War Veterans Allowance Act. That is spelled out very clearly in the legislation and as members of Parliament we have to bear the responsibility for passing this bill.
While I have this opportunity, I would like to say a few words about the Department of Veterans Affairs in general. As members know, the head office of the department is located in the riding of Hillsborough and is
a major employer in that area of my province. The people of Prince Edward Island take a very keen interest in the affairs of this department and are perhaps better acquainted with the Department of Veterans Affairs and what it does and its programs than any other area of Canada.
I must say that I am very proud of the work done by the public servants at DVA. TTiey treat this very important clientele with courtesy, generosity and speed. The employees will go the extra mile to help the veterans and this is the way, I am sure, we all want it to be.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the relocation of the department to Charlottetown was announced during the time that the Hon. Dan MacDonald, a great veteran and a great Canadian, was the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
There were sceptics at that time who said that the head office of a national department could not function outside of Ottawa and it especially could not function in Charlottetown. A later minister who served in 1984 made several comments about the appropriateness of the move. I assure all members of this House that the move of the department to Prince Edward Island was a wonderful thing, both for the economy of my province and for the veterans and the people who work there.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is changing as its clientele ages. Hopefully young Canadians will never again have to answer that call to battle and the role of this department will be phased out eventually. This will require orderly change. It will require innovation on the part of the employees and on the part of the minister and his staff. It is most important that the service to veterans does not suffer over the next few years.
I understand there is currently a pension process review going on in the department which is an attempt to streamline the operations and to make it operate more efficiently. My advice to the minister is to carry on with the reviews but always remember that a promise has been made to the men and women who served Canada. It was first made by Sir Robert Borden and it has been made by countless prime ministers and ministers and other legislators since. That promise was to care for the men and women who served Canada. While one of them survives it is our duty to serve them as well as they served us.
June 10, 1992

At times like these when we are discussing new legislation, part of which will extend further benefits, it is very easy for us to become very smug and feel that everything has been done now for the veterans of Canada. There are still many veterans across the country, people who have served Canada in wartime, who are having a very hard time. They still require our care and our compassion.
Let us make this a part of our vow to them, that we as legislators will not forget them. Let us make sure that the Department of Veterans Affairs is maintained while there are still those who require its services.
In these times of downsizing and cost cutting, it is very much in vogue to point at one particular government department or the other and say that it could be done away with. I know that all hon. members will join me in expressing to the minister our support for a strong, vibrant Department of Veterans Affairs.
We are moving today one step closer to fulfilling our national obligation of looking after our veterans. It is no less incumbent upon us today as we recognize Canada's merchant navy veterans to continue to work relentlessly to resolve the remaining issues touching upon the lives of those who served our country.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying to the minister that he was right in his remarks that this is not his fault, it is the fault of all of us and all Canadians for 45 or more years. But at long last merchant mariners will be getting what they should have had all that time.
I am assuming that in the bill and in the regulations which the minister will bring down subsequently, there will be no exclusions. The former member for Winnipeg North Centre who now graces the Clerk's table as an honorary officer of the House first raised this issue in 1946 and there were other members from all parties who raised it from time to time.
I want to also say at this time, in light of some remarks from my good friend from Hillsborough, if there is any one committee in the whole Parliament of Canada, if there is any one item of legislation which is totally non-partisan, it is veterans affairs. I cannot recall in my 24 years in this place ever any hon. member making a
Government Orders
partisan political issue of veterans affairs. We kicked each other around as to whether or not we were doing enough or not, but it was never partisan, it was never made a political issue.
That is also the case in this current committee and every committee before this. I want to warn the minister there is another matter that I and others will be raising-and I am sure he has already heard about it-but some time over the next several months the whole issue of benefits received by aboriginal people within DVA is equally long overdue for a review and redress. I think in particular of the Veterans Land Act.
I talked to a native person last Remembrance Day who had medals all the way across his chest. He went through everything in Italy and the rest of Europe and when he tried to buy some land under the VLA, because the land was in the reserve he could not get it. When he wanted to buy some next to the reserve, and add it to the reserve, he still could not get it. He ended up farming anyway. He found other ways of going about it.
This is one matter and I know this minister is the only one in all these years to have brought this to a head and to fruition. I am confident he will want to help in that matter as well.
The only complaint I have about the general thrust and principle of the bill is one that I have raised before, both with the minister in committee, and in this House. He, the department and I am afraid some veterans organizations have a mental block about merchant mariners being covered under the veterans legislation.
Why? One of the reasons given is that they were not in uniform. Hell's bells, we are paying benefits to resistance fighters who did not fight in uniform. In fact some of them fought with pieces and parts of German uniforms. After they shot them they had to have something to wear. You know this does not stand up. It does not hold water.
If that is logical that they were not in uniform, then what about fire-fighters and nurses under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act? A lot of them went overseas and did a fantastic job and all were in uniform. They were in fire-fighter uniforms and nurse uniforms.

June 10,1992
Government Orders
The merchant mariners, however, were in all their grubbies, whether they were working in the galley or down in the stokehold, or wherever. Most of these were coal fired ships. Some of them were oil fired but most of them were coal fired. It was not the class of job where you would be in a full-dress uniform, but what the hell has that got to do with the price of wheat in China? It is totally irrelevant.
I want to say to the minister now that I never understood why we have not amalgamated the legislation for veterans under the DVA and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act under one administration. They are all treated as veterans, period.
As my hon. friend, Mr. Darling, said in the standing committee: "Damn it, they are veterans. There are no ifs, ands, or buts".
I want to thank him and my other government colleagues who are on the standing committee who were towers of strength in giving a unanimous report to the minister and to the House.
It could be under one administration. I suspect the department could even save some money. Why the heck there are two administrations-one handling civilian war allowances and one handling veterans war allowances- when they are all veterans anyway, is totally beyond me.
I know the minister inherited this, but this is another first move he could make. I hope he will take it up with his deputies and a few others around his kingdom.
The minister paid tribute to the merchant mariners. Bless him for that. One of the problems they were having was that they were not accepted into the armed forces for physical reasons, as a rule. They might also have been underage or overage. You would be surprised as to how many teenagers as young as 13 ended up as mess boys on a merchant ship during the battle of the Atlantic or on convoys to Murmansk. There were also men as old as 45, 50 and 55 years old who were working as merchant seamen only because they could not qualify when they tried to volunteer to serve in the armed forces.
I want to thank my colleague at the outset for cariying the ball for me and my caucus on this issue and because
of other matters which I will not mention here. I hope the minister, when we get to committee stage, will put something in the bill about VIP benefits for merchant mariners. We have been told that it will be in the regulations. However, I have seen too many times and on too many pieces of legislation that when it comes to drafting regulations the Department of Finance and Treasury Board hung over the minister's shoulder and the regulations got narrowed down and shortened up.
The minister can have only one sentence. Will he move an amendment or will he accept one from us? This would say that merchant mariners are entitled to all the benefits available to those who are covered by the Department of Veterans Affairs Act.
I must say something about retroactivity. The government could have put in a little bit of retroactivity even on one item that merchant mariners did not get, but guys like me did get. There was the $100 clothing allowance. By the way, in 1946, for $100 I bought a new hat, a two-piece suit, new shoes, socks and underwear. The whole outfit cost $100. They were not very stylish. I forget whether it was at Eaton's or The Bay in Calgary the day after I got discharged because they gave me $100 cash.
Why not give these guys a $500 clothing allowance? It would give a lot of them a half-decent outfit to be buried in because most of them are not going to be around long. This is one of the reasons why we have agreed to this bill going through quickly. If we wait any longer some of them will not be here to get the benefits.
I want to say that if there is any one thing-and it may well be the only thing-that no taxpayer or citizen of Canada will ever object to, it is what we do for our veterans. It should not matter what the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board say about any increases we bring about. The minister must fight harder and members on all sides of the House will support him for any extra money or any amount of money he needs to fulfil what we owe to all our veterans. This includes merchant mariners. It will damn well be there. There is no taxpayer anywhere in this country who is going to object to that. They may object to a lot of other things that taxes go for, but that is not one of them. It never has been and never will be.
June 10, 1992

On the matter of what we spend, the Department of Veterans Affairs for the past eight years has underspent its appropriated budget by an average of $47 million. It was not as though the minister of this department got to keep the money. They do not have it stashed away in Zurich.
It was just never used, therefore the Minister of Finance took it back. This occurred every year for the last eight years. I want to say, to be fair, that under previous governments the same thing happened every year. While members of this House from all sides were fighting to get benefits for veterans of all kinds from all parts of the country, poverty was pleaded, restraint was pleaded, other things took higher priority. That just cannot be allowed to go on.
I want to thank the minister for bringing this in as quickly as he has. I almost raised a question of privilege when he replied to our committee's report because that was totally out of order and the Speaker was too nice.
He got away with it, but at least he has brought in the legislation. All I can say is let us get this through by ten o'clock tonight. I encourage all hon. members to take part. We waited 47 years. It is like the guy who came from Mars and landed on earth. He was running around examining all these human beings. He finally found two of them who were making love. He watched this performance for a while and he said to the guy that was with him: "What are they doing?" The guy replied: "They are trying to make a baby". "When will they have that"? "It takes nine months". "Could you tell me what all the hurry was the last 90 seconds?"
After 47 years what is all the hurry that we cannot have a few hours on a matter such as this. I hope that the bill will pass and pass unanimously. I hope the minister is prepared to answer some questions at committee stage. He certainly will have the co-operation of my party and my colleagues in the official opposition in getting this passed.
Do not deny us our day in court to remind not just the minister but the whole country that we are finally paying some bills that are long past due. We might move amendments. We will try but will get ruled out of order because they cost money. Surely some of these benefits could be made retroactive, particularly for those who are in such terrible need for mental or physical reasons.
Government Orders
I do not think we should be chiselling on that. Let us go for broke. Let us make up as much as we can what we have denied several thousand Canadians for too many
years.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, just briefly to put a few comments on second reading I did not understand that we had agreed to limit it, but I will not be very long.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You can put them
in Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 100, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.
House in committee on Bill C-84, an act to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof-Mr. Paproski in the chair.
On Clause 2-Short title


John F. Brewin: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can just explain that we have all agreed to try to see if we can get this bill through today because of the crowded parliamentary schedule.
All members wish to see the bill and the regulation through by July 1 so that the benefits can begin on Canada's 125th birthday. As part of that procedure, some of us have agreed to make our general remarks on clause 1 of the bill. I have also a number of specific comments that I would like to make, but first let me just make a few general remarks.
This is of course a very important bill. It provides, as has already been described, for Canada's merchant mariners to finally get what is due them as veterans of Canada for their service during the two world wars and the Korean war.
This day has come to this Parliament as a result of the efforts of members on all sides of the House. Already my colleague from Regina-Lumsden has mentioned Stanley Knowles. I would like on behalf of our party, however, to put on the record of Parliament the particular efforts of the member for Regina-Lumsden who has served in this House for 24 years, who has been pressing

June 10, 1992
Government Orders
this issue, who has introduced private members' bills and is here today to see this bill through.
I pay tribute to the minister for having pushed the bill through and for responding to the standing committee report and to the pleas of those who have felt that this injustice had to be corrected.
I would also like to pay particular attention to two other members of this House and I am going to refer to them by name. I know that is a breach of the usual rules: One is Arnold Malone who is chair of the standing committee and as has already been mentioned is sick at home. He is not here today to join in this debate. As well, there is the veteran member from Parry Sound- Muskoka, who has also contributed much to this. Further, a member in the other house, Senator Jack Marshall, is due recognition for a major contribution to having this bill introduced in the House.
Reference has been made to the standing committee report. The Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs studied this issue last year and produced a unanimous report recommending that Canadian merchant mariners with one or more high seas ocean-going assignments during war time be fully recognized as veterans and that veterans benefits be extended to them.
The committee also recommended that a book of remembrance be prepared and placed in the Peace Tower dedicated solely to the merchant mariners who died in Canada's wars. I am pleased to hear the words of the minister that that will be done. He said it will be done as soon as possible. I hope the emphasis will be on the soon because the issue is an important one to the merchant mariners. I hope arrangements can be made within months for that book to be opened and dedicated in our Peace Tower.
As well, the committee recommended that the Department of Veterans Affairs encourage the construction of a suitable monument to honour the memory of Canada's war-time merchant mariners. The committee also suggested a suitable site in the area of Halifax, and that has now been started.
I hope the minister is prepared to ask the government to match grants on this particular monument. I know the policy to which he referred, that the government does not usually get involved in monuments for veterans, but this is a special case. There have been years and years go by and this is one particular monument in a special location. I would ask the minister to agree to put it to the government that on this particular occasion the government would be prepared to match any contributions made toward the establishment of a suitable monument.
Finally, let me cast a slight cloud on the feeling of unanimity of this discussion. We have all said that we want this bill through today, but we have been put in a very difficult position by the government. It is our special responsibility on the opposition side to make sure that this bill achieves that which our constituents have sent us here to do.
Members of the government side also have that responsibility. They exercise that responsibility often in different ways. When a bill comes before the floor of this House we have a special responsibility to see that that happens. In fact, the procedures of this House normally provide that after second reading the bill goes to a legislative committee. At that legislative committee, experts on the bill and those who have a special interest in it have an opportunity to come before the committee and advise this House of Commons on the possible errors or omissions that there may be in the bill.
We are going to miss the benefit of that exercise in this bill. For most of us this bill surfaced just last week when the minister introduced it at first reading on June 2, 1992. It is a bill which contains 22 clauses. Some of those clauses have complicated inter-relationships with other legislation. It is very difficult to get a bill like this right the first time.
I realize that the minister has highly qualified advice at his disposal, but I practise law and I can understand that it is possible that others have seen something which one misses in the draft of an agreement or the draft of legislation. Therefore, by following the procedure we are prone to making some mistakes.
This bill could have been drafted months ago. The committee report was available last year. It took the department a very long time even to make a preliminary response.
June 10, 1992

If this bill had been introduced before the House of Commons months ago, even weeks ago, we could have had a legislative committee review the procedures and review the sections of the act to ensure that there are no mistakes.
In the course of this committee discussion we will look to the minister for the various interpretations that his officials have of this act and get him to put on the record responses to the concerns that have been placed before us as members of Parliament. All we can do in the time available is to ask the minister for those assurances.
If there are to be any complicated drafting changes it would not be possible under the procedure we have agreed to today. Therefore, we are all going to be, the minister included, in the position of putting this bill through without the benefit of third party advice, as in the process that this Parliament usually sets down for important and complicated pieces of legislation.
Therefore, I am going to ask the minister if he will undertake to keep track of the interpretations placed on the bill and the effect of it and if he will agree, on behalf of the government, to a review of this bill within two years to ensure that every intention expressed today by the government with respect to this bill meets the language of the bill and that the minister will open up the bill for revisions if necessary.
Finally, let me pay tribute to the Merchant Navy Coalition, a group including the Canadian Merchant Navy Association, the Canadian Merchant Navy Prisoner of War Association, and the Company of Master Mariners of Canada. I would particularly like to note the work of Mr. Olmstead, who is the chair. The Coalition has worked long and hard to have this day come to pass.
Winston Churchill once said, and it would apply not only to those who fought in the Battle of Britain over Britain but to the merchant mariners of Canada and other countries: "Never have so many owed so much to so few". We finally say to the merchant mariners today: "You are not forgotten".


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Chairman, I really had not planned to speak before the Committee of the Whole. I know we are anxious to get on with other business, but this is a great victory for merchant seamen, for the House of Commons, and for our process. It is one of the few victories I have seen.
Government Orders
While some people may say it has taken a long time to achieve, I am personally delighted that the committee sat. The last committee report was signed about a year ago.
I do not think it is fair to let the proceedings continue without some kind of a poignant tribute to those merchant seamen who have achieved this victory today. I would like to take some time in the Committee of the Whole to record the reason we are about to take this decision.
At the outset of World War II the merchant navy was not very large. It had 37 ships and 1,400 people. By the end of World War II it had 180 ships and a total of 12,000 personnel. More than 70 Canadian ships were lost in World War II. To me it is very significant that the loss of life was about 10 per cent. In other words, a young merchant seaman who joined a ship and went on one of the voyages that we have discussed today had a 10 per cent chance of not coming back. That is very meaningful to me, and I am sure to all members of the House.
Most of the losses occurred from 1941 to 1943 during the period we know as the Battle of the Atlantic when the enemy forces were consolidated in the low countries, France and Norway. They were able to take their fleet out of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea and send it out to the Atlantic to attack merchant shipping during that very difficult period in time.
They went beyond the Atlantic. They went up to the gulf of St. Lawrence. They sank ships along Bell Isle. It was in this period that the war was brought home to North America.
I was not very old but I do remember the sinking of the Caribou, for example. It was a very tragic situation that will forever remain in the minds of certainly all Newfoundlanders, and I think it is safe to say most maritime Canadians.
The motto of the merchant navy was: "We deliver the goods" and deliver the goods it did. It was estimated by some that on average one ship carried enough foodstuffs to feed 225,000 people for one week. That is a fantastic statistic considering the rationing that was taking place and the fact that people in Europe were hungry. The cargoes also included strategic war materials.

June 10, 1992
Government Orders
These ships became a target for the enemy. When the wolf pack submarines were at sea during this period they were not out to hunt down destroyers, frigates and corvettes. They were there for one purpose, which was to kill the merchant ships and prevent the cargo from reaching Europe. This was a strategic effort that these brave men made during this very difficult period.
I would like to provide a feeling of what was involved in this. Essentially merchant navy veterans, as they are now called, found themselves in a combat role for which they were ill equipped. They did sail in convoys under the protection of naval vessels, but a convoy of 100 ships had an escort of three, four, or five escorts. I am not sure that is the kind of protection I would have felt safe under, but the statistics speak for themselves.
When they got closer to Europe long range German airplanes bombed and strafed them and they were also at the mercy of floating mines. Compounding all this was every mariner's traditional antagonist, the weather. There was the close proximity of ships in convoy formations, complex zigzag patterns governed by the clock, bad weather, and a darkened ship. The only way I can convey the feeling to the House and the audience this afternoon is to remind them of the movie The Cruel Sea, which depicts the convoys at sea and the torture, discomfort and even panic that they went through.
We can imagine being on one of those ships in the black of night and being torpedoed, our ship sinking in the North Atlantic, where we can only live for two minutes if we are not rescued, in certain parts of it. Some of them survived to go back to sea to be sunk again, and some were sunk a third time and still survived.
It gives me great pleasure and it is a great honour for me to be able to be part of the very historic action that we are about to take in the highest court of our country today.
There is one other thing I want to mention. I said these merchant ships were not armed but some of them were. Some of them had trained gunners who were trained by the navy in a very short course. They went to sea as boys. Not only did they serve as merchant men but they also served as gunners. They had additional duties in ships that were called DEMS, defensively equipped merchant ships.
From speaking to some merchant navy veterans I can tell the House that they were very pleased to have the DEMS in their midst. Sometimes there would perhaps be only one, two, or maybe three escorts.
The minister, the hon. member for Hillsborough, and my hon. colleague from Regina spoke very eloquently on the details of the bill and to whom it applied. That has been useful to all those who have been watching.
As a Newfoundlander I am particularly pleased that the limitation of 180 days has now been removed because in the last three years I have been involved in many cases in which there was a dispute over whether it was 180 days or 170 days. Memories fade, and there are depositions and the legalities of things. I am very pleased that there are at least three or four cases that I know of that can now be sorted out with relative ease.
I have great admiration for those merchant seaman and merchant navy veterans organizations. I am not going to list them all. They know who they are. I know who they are.
I am a relative newcomer to the business of fighting for them politically so I am not going to take any credit at all. There are people in this House and others who have fought the battle for them for over 47 years.
However, the credit goes to them because in my mind the tenacity, the determination and the skill they showed in fighting this political battle was equal to the seamanship and courage they showed during the period under discussion.
I thank the minister, the hon. member for Crowfoot and the committee for the excellent work they have done, and the others who have also made contributions. I thank the House and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for indulging and allowing me these few moments to put on record these remarks that will be very important to the merchant navy veterans and to those who fought that fight and who I am sure are celebrating today a great victory.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to join my colleagues in support of this bill, an act to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof.
June 10, 1992

We all know that this bill took a long time in coming down the pike. Merchant mariners have been calling long and hard for this type of action. Merchant navy veterans faced the great obstacles of weather and war to protect the supply line to the United Kingdom during World War I and World War II.
The new definition of merchant navy veteran outlined in the bill is far-reaching. The veteran is a person who had service on a Canadian ship while on a high seas voyage during World War I or World War II, or a Canadian national who had service on an allied ship while on a high seas voyage during either world war. It also includes any person who from 1950 to 1953 had service on a Canadian ship while on a voyage in dangerous waters.
As my colleague from Hillsborough and the Minister of Veterans Affairs have mentioned Bill C-84 has two main purposes, both of which are eminently supportable.
First, this bill will extend certain benefits to our wartime merchant mariners. Second, it will take away War Veterans Allowance benefits from persons who served as members of allied resistance forces.
The second point is important in the interest of fairness. It may be difficult to assess how many illegitimate claims were made to the government by people who would never be eligible. It is important to note that without legislation the resistance component of the program is forecast to take up over 50 per cent, or $60 million, of the total program expenditures within five years.
We all know that this is unacceptable when there are needy veterans out there who have served our country well and while at the same time our nation is faced with a huge debt.
About 5,800 War Veterans Allowance recipients are getting government money because they were members of a resistance force. About 1,700 of the total are receiving the benefit outside Canada. Personally, I do not agree with that.
By contrast, under 1,000 Canadians and allied veterans with formal military service receive War Veterans Allowance outside Canada. With Bill C-84 resistance members now need to demonstrate 10 years residency in Canada. A Canadian citizenship is not a requirement of the WVA Act.
Government Orders
It is good to see that this bill will make permanent the requirement that a resistance fighter receiving money from the Canadian people through their federal government must live in Canada. That only makes common sense, something that does not happen all that often in this House of Commons.
As we know, through the provisions of this bill, recipients now living outside Canada will have one year to return to Canada or lose their entitlement altogether.
When the WVA Act was first passed, it was never Parliament's intent that resistance service would qualify as military service. Through interpretation of the act by quasi-judicial bodies, this qualification arose. I wonder if those people who made these decisions were ever in battle for their lives as our courageous veterans were.
I say again that I heartily endorse the government's efforts to correct this loophole. The purpose of the resistance group changes in Bill C-84 is to restore the excellent War Veterans Allowance program to its original purpose, to provide income support to wartime Canadian and allied veterans of regular military forces.
I know that all the Royal Canadian Legions in my riding fully support this measure. I meet with the local legion presidents regularly. One thing that comes through crystal clear is that everything should be fair and be seen to be fair. God knows our veterans have confronted death and destruction and governments of every party have supported them. They want to be treated with the respect they deserve. We owe everything to our veterans.
The bill states that no new applications from resistance fighters will be accepted and the current recipients will lose their benefits if they move abroad. As well, those now living in another country are given one year to take up residency again in Canada or lose the War Veterans Allowance. All Canadians with common sense would back that-as I and the members of the Official Opposition do.
I want to point out to the House that the Royal Canadian Legion will hold its 34th Dominion Convention in Quebec City later this month. Resolution No. 16, that deals with War Veterans Allowance for allies has been prepared. The resolution says that in 1930 the War Veterans Act was enacted and included payment to allied veterans, the intention being to ensure protection to those Canadians who served in His Majesty's Forces such

June 10,1992
Government Orders
as the Royal Air Force, since Canada had no air force of its own during World War I.
Further, it says that Canada is the only nation in the world paying such compensation to allied veterans, and Canadians living in foreign lands do not receive anything comparable to the War Veterans Allowance from their host country.
The legion says: "There are known cases of fraud, which are now being investigated by the RCMP, of people who could be getting the benefits without the service".
The resolution says furthermore that Veterans Affairs Canada pays a large portion of the War Veterans Allowance budget to allies, and whereas there are outstanding funding requirements to meet the ever-increasing health care needs of Canadian veterans and their widows, therefore be it resolved that the Royal Canadian Legion requests the Minister of Veterans Affairs to amend the War Veterans Allowance legislation by tightening up the allied veterans provision and to ensure that the benefits are extreme towards Canadian and Commonwealth veterans and their dependents.
It also says that be it further resolved that any War Veterans Allowance payments made outside Canada should only be made to veterans of Canadian and Commonwealth wartime armed forces.
Bill C-84 answers that legion resolution. I am sure all those in attendance at the convention will be delighted.
This particular piece of legislation makes my job as a member of the opposition but more important as a member of Parliament, all that much easier when I can get up and support a government proposal. Too often we hear Canadians complaining that all we do is fight and argue while the country waits for action on the important matters. Here is an example of government legislation that is good, fair, fiscally responsible, and supported by members of the opposition.
I do add very quickly that this bill has been a long time in coming. Its full recognition of merchant mariners is long overdue, but the benefits provided will be of great help to the aging veterans.
I am pleased to have had an opportunity, how ever brief it was, to speak on the merits of this bill. As my friend from Hillsborough stated in his speech, we will be supporting this bill.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Chairman, I realize the House has agreed to expedite this legislation, something that I thoroughly welcome. Therefore, I will not speak at length on this bill which is something I would normally like to do because it is an issue very close to me.
I welcome and commend the final and full recognition of merchant marine veterans. It is something that has been long overdue. I am especially pleased to see their full eligibility for the Veterans Independence Program.
I cannot let the debate pass however without rising on behalf of the many merchant marine veterans in the South Shore area and indeed the many in Nova Scotia. I know this legislation will be welcomed by all people in my province.
This is an issue that has been close to my heart. It was one of the few campaign pledges I made when I ran for public office, to fight on behalf of this issue. This was the first issue I raised as a member of Parliament when I came here in 1988.1 have raised it several times since. As the Minister of Veterans Affairs knows, I have been at his door about this for a long time. This is a very, very happy day for me and I just want to mark that occasion by mentioning it.
I wish to commend members on all sides of this House for their support of this legislation. I wish to commend all members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and, in particular, the chairman who is unable to be here today.
I wish to commend Senator Jack Marshall who has fought for this cause for many, many years. I wish to commend the merchant marine veterans associations who have fought for this. In particular, I wish to commend this Minister of Veterans Affairs who, after 47 years, was the minister who took up this issue, took it to cabinet, got it approved and has it before us here today.
June 10, 1992

In closing my remarks, I am pleased to quote a couple of sentences from a letter from the president of the Royal Canadian Legion who writes to the minister: "I write to congratulate you for the obviously considerable amount of time and thought that went into the production of these amendments. You can count on the support of the Royal Canadian Legion in these proposals." He goes on to say: "There is no doubt that this legislation is a major step forward towards satisfying the remaining needs of those deserving merchant navy veterans who supplied the tools and the fuel for war and the defence of democracy".
It is a happy day for all merchant marine veterans and a day that should make all Canadians proud.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Chairman, I want to echo the comments of my hon. friend from South Shore. It is not very often that we get the chance in this House, particularly these two Nova Scotians, to agree on very much in this place, but the comments that he just made are ones that I want to echo. I also want to congratulate the minister and all the members of this House who have worked so hard to bring this bill to the floor and to committee today.
Being a member from Dartmouth, the old riding being Dartmouth-Halifax East, makes this bill even more important. My hon. colleague from P.E.I. indicated in the history lesson he was giving in his speech that it was way back at the beginning of the war that the first group of merchant vessels steamed out of Halifax harbour. There are a lot of people a little older than I am who remember all of those vessels steaming out of Halifax Harbour.
There are a lot of veterans still down there and a lot of new veterans created by this bill, those merchant mariners who served for Canada and served for the Commonwealth during World War II. It is indeed fitting that finally they have received the recognition due them.
We must remember that the individuals who served in the merchant marine were not just regular or normal veterans. Most of the veterans who we sent over were trained in the military. They knew how to operate offensive and defensive weaponry.
Government Orders
When dealing with merchant mariners, these are individuals who ran supply vessels. When these vessels left and went across the ocean even with an armed convoy to protect them, many times they were the slowest boats because they were supply vessels.
When the German U-boats went after them, those vessels would be the first to be sunk. You also have to remember that they really did not have any heavy armaments on them. As a result of this, the men who served in the merchant marine and the merchant marine generally suffered the highest casualties of any branch of service in the armed forces during the Second World War.
We know that as each year passes the number of veterans diminishes. They are getting older and each year there are more and more who die. I think it is extremely fitting at this point in time that this bill looks at the whole aspect of recognition of the service that they have given to this country, not only by the provision of additional benefits but also by conferring on them a new status and a new title, "merchant marine veterans".
The word veterans means a lot to those who are still left and who served in the merchant marine. It means an awful lot to the sons and daughters of those who are gone, those fathers who served in the merchant marine.
I want to join with everybody in this House in saying that every member of this place, no matter what political affiliation, is extremely pleased to see this bill: I want to commend the minister for his stick-to-itiveness to get to this point and to bring it forward.
I also want to give some recognition to my hon. colleague from Regina-Lumsden. I think one of the first times that I can remember hearing about this issue was well before I was a member of Parliament. I was watching a debate on the parliamentary channel. That member was up very clearly and articulately stating the case for full recognition of the contribution of the merchant mariners as veterans. I am sure that it is an extremely proud day for him that this House is seized with this issue today and hopefully at the end of the day that for which he has fought so long will see its way into legislation.

June 10,1992
Government Orders


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to congratulate the minister and thank him for tabling this bill in the House. I also want to thank members of the opposition for doing everything they can to adopt this bill as quickly as possible.
When I became a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, I was astonished when I found out about this blatant injustice which had been dragging on for more than 45 years, in fact quite a bit more if we include World War I. For decades, the government had refused to recognize the war records of merchant seamen who had agreed of their own free will to serve on board ships engaged in supplying the troops on the European front. They had been ignored. It was felt they were not real veterans.
Today, I am pleased to join hon. members in adopting a bill that will make amends for the tremendous injustice suffered by these men who sacrificed their lives. It must be said, that of all those who served in the two great wars, merchant seamen paid the highest price in human lives. No other unit, the air force, the marines or the army, suffered as many losses as the merchant seamen.
I am pleased to see that this legislation will be adopted today, and once again I wish to congratulate the minister.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions which perhaps the minister could clarify.
First of all, in the standing committee report there was reference to the issue of merchant navy prisoners of war. The minister will know, of course, that under the basic disability pension for prisoners of war, there are steps which express the percentage of basic disability pension. For example, if someone was interned for 90 to 545 days they would receive 10 per cent of the basic disability as compensation, 15 per cent for 546 to 910 days and then those interned for more than 910 days receive 25 per cent of the basic disability pension.
In World War II, of the 2,198 military prisoners of war, fewer than 40 were incarcerated for more than three years or 1,100 days. Yet of 198 merchant navy prisoners of war, 122 were interned for periods of four to five years. The committee suggested that it would be reasonable to have the time measured compensation extrapolated beyond 30 months so that those who were interned for longer periods would be entitled to additional benefits.
I was wondering if the minister could indicate whether this comment in the committee report was considered by the government. It certainly is not part of this bill. Why not? Will the government consider that particular idea as another element of justice to the merchant navy veterans, those who were unfortunate enough to be interned for these excessive periods of time during World War II?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Chairman, I should just mention that I do know where that particular suggestion comes from. There is an association, not a very large one, the Merchant Navy POWs. They have been trying to put their views forward to the minister and the government over a period of time.
During the discussion of the report of the standing committee, and indeed this whole issue, we met with the president of that particular group. He agreed at the time that the priority was to get this legislation through and get benefits for all merchant mariners, including the status veteran, and that he would put off the other issue until we get this thing through. Obviously we will have to do that.
I should point out that merchant navy prisoners of war are treated exactly the same way as are the uniformed prisoners of war. The same legislation covers them. It will have to be one that will be dealt with later. That was with the concurrence of the president of the POW Association.


George Albert Proud: I ask a question of the people at the table. Under 8(c), page 5, I just wondered if it could be explained to me again what happens in this 8(c) where it says:
(c) after taking into consideration such corroboration as may be
available, the Minister or the Commission, as the case may be, is
satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the information in the
declaration or statement is true.
I want to know what that does to the benefit of the doubt.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Chairman, in considering applications to the Canadian Pension Commission, in the absence of other hard evidence, the commission would have to take into consideration a statutory declaration as to the service or maybe an event that happened during the service of a veteran.
June 10, 1992

The hon. member asked what the benefit of the doubt would be. It would not affect that at all. In the case of a statutory declaration the commission would still give the benefit of the doubt to the veteran.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Status of males and females
John F. Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I was out getting a little assistance here. I gather there is some concern that this bill is going to take us a long time. I just want to assure the House that I see no reason why it should take us very much longer. There are very few further points we wish to raise and we are going to try to accommodate all sides of the House in getting this disposed of. Everybody can just relax and let us get this bill considered fairly.
I would like to move an amendment to clause 3 of the bill. The amendment I would like to move is in respect of clause 3 which purports to amend sections 5 and 6 of the act. My amendment would deal with one of the provisions considered for section 6 and in particular the definition of high seas voyage.
The definition of high seas voyage has three parts to it: (a), (b) and (c). My amendment would be to (c) and would come on page 3 of the act, line 2.1 would seek to add the words to subsection (c) "or was in danger of attack by the enemy" after the word "enemy". I have those words in French as well.
Let me explain my amendment this way. First of all, the benefits that are being extended to merchant mariners by this bill are affected by clause 9 which provides that:
The Pension Act applies to and in respect of merchant navy
veterans
(a) as though their service while on a high seas voyage had been military service rendered during World War I or World War II within the meaning of section 21(1) of that Act;
The term "high seas voyage" determines whether a person becomes entitled to the benefits under the act, and high seas voyage is defined in the new clause 6. It includes a voyage during the course of which the ship was attacked by the enemy.
I propose that it should add the words that I gave "or was in danger of attack by the enemy".
Government Orders
The way the bill is developed, a merchant mariner will become entitled to the benefits on any voyage outside territorial waters of Canada and on some territorial voyages, including those in which the ship was actually attacked. But it does not cover those who were in dangerous waters while they were in territorial waters.
Therefore it is important in my view that the coverage of the bill be extended, not only to those who were actually attacked while in territorial waters of Canada or its allies, for example within the three-mile limit of Britain. These are the merchant marines who would be on a voyage totally within the three-mile limit of Britain, or the three-mile limit of Canada, and where those waters would be defined as "dangerous waters".
As the bill has provided, you only get the benefits if your vessel was attacked. Therefore there is a distinction made between those who served in the navy and those who served in the merchant marine. Those who served in the merchant marine have to get outside the territorial limits to be assured of benefits and only receive the benefits within territorial waters if their ship is attacked.
Therefore I would ask the committee to agree to this amendment as an element of fairness to our merchant mariners.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I would like to thank the hon. member for Victoria for allowing the Table and myself to have a look at the amendment.
I have looked at it and I am willing to rule now. Unfortunately I have to rule this amendment out of order because it goes beyond the limitations as set by the royal recommendation attached to this bill.
Indeed this amendment will allow more sailors to be eligible under the bill but this is contrary to citation 246(3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition which states in part:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a change, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and the purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.

June 10, 1992
Government Orders
Therefore I must rule against the amendment.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Chairman, we of course accept your ruling. I just say that this is something we will put on the agenda for future consideration and seek in future to see if we cannot persuade government to extend the bill in this fashion.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On Clause 4-Evidence


John F. Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I have more the nature of a question than an amendment. If I am a little slow sometimes getting up it is in part because the numbers are a little confusing. The clause in the bill seeks to amend sections in the act. Section 9 of the act as it will be amended provides that the Pension Act applies to and in respect of merchant navy veterans as though their service were on a high seas voyage and being military service rendered during the war, et cetera.
Later in the bill, on page 7, part 1.1, the bill makes certain provisions for civilian merchant seamen and salt water fishermen. It expressly provides that for those persons, the civilians, if they suffer or contract an injury or disease or aggravation thereof while proceeding to their ship or returning from their ship or on leave from their ship, they will receive benefits under the act.
I would like it made absolutely clear that for merchant mariners the effect of the amendment in clause 4 of this bill will be to ensure that the exact same protection-and I understand this to be the insurance liability principle that is referred to by those who are very familiar with all this-is fully extended to merchant mariners.
I would ask the minister to make it clear that the benefits referred to in the latter clause for civilians are all in every respect available to merchant mariners, in particular that they are covered while they are proceeding to or from their ship, or while they are on leave in the case of injuries or disease.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Chairman, the insurance principle is a very important principle with regard to applications for pensions under the Pension Act because it covers the veteran, in this case the merchant navy veteran, for 24 hours while he is on duty. In this case the merchant navy is going to get the same treatment as a uniformed veteran would get. If they were proceeding on the way to performance of their duty on board a ship, they would be
covered under the insurance principle in the Pension Act.
It is attributable. As long as it is attributable to the service, they would be covered.


John F. Brewin: Just to be very clear. He said proceeding to. How about proceeding from and while on leave, the precise provisions in clause 15(2)?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure. It means if they are on the way to their service on board the merchant ship or from it they are covered, the same as they would be under the military. In the case of leave, if it were authorized leave on a high seas voyage under the definitions under clause 3 of the bill, they are covered.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Does the hon. member for Victoria have another amendment on clause 4?


John F. Brewin: No, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 9 -Pension and Allowances
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the attention of the minister my concern over this section of the act.
I am not questioning the point he is making here where no new applications will be accepted. I accept readily that portion of the bill whereby more of the recipients of the allowance have to reside here in the country.
The particular problem I am facing, and I face it on a daily basis, is that I am hearing from many people in my community who were part of the resistance movement who have said that their application has been in the system upwards of two, three, and four years. As there was a re-examination in the last two years of all of the applications because of some fraudulent applicants, many of the legitimate applications were affected.
What we have is a situation now where the Government of Greece has verified the legitimacy of many of these applications that have been in the system. Now that they are back here in Canada because of the March 2 date, these people who would otherwise have been approved now find themselves caught in a situation where their applications are not being accepted.
June 10, 1992

It marks the first time that we as a country have really withdrawn a benefit from someone who has not only been in the queue, but has been in the system and is going through the process not only of verification, but in many instances this verification process has been going on for a second time.
Now that that has happened I think this part of the act is not fair. I would appeal through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister to address this because it is causing a lot of hardship for a lot of people in my community, especially those members of the Greek resistance fighters.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Chairman, what we tried to do in clauses 9 to 11 of this particular bill was to return the War Veterans Allowance program to exactly what previous Parliaments in history-this is since 1930-intended to do. It was for our own uniformed people. No country on earth gives pensions to a foreign nation for resistance service.
I want to state that we did not make that decision as a government. It was made by a quasi judicial board and eventually by a court as an interpretation of the laws which exist. We are correcting that. We are returning the program to what it was intended for, that is for veterans who were in uniform in time of war.
With regard to the point about the people in the queue, there is no question there were a lot of people in the queue. In fact, there were 1,600 people in the queue, most of them from one particular country. Obviously, as the government dealt with that particular issue, it had to deal with additional applications from those who were also in uniform during the war who were applying for War Veterans Allowance.
The government made the decision at that time that it was not going to process any more War Veterans Allowance applications after March 2, 1992. The decision was made by the government. It did affect the people who were in the queue but it did not affect those who were in receipt of War Veterans Allowance, because they had been grandfathered. That particular group received their benefits as a result of an interpretation of our legislation. We are going to honour that and grandfather those. The
Government Orders
government has made a decision that it is going to return this legislation effective March 2, 1992 to what it was intended for, War Veterans Allowance for the uniformed people.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I think that the misunderstanding comes when the minister uses this expression "in the queue". These are not people who were lining up to put in an application. I am talking about people who had their application accepted by the department. They were in the system and were in the process of being verified. Had there not been this period where because of some fraudulent applications all of them ended up being reviewed, many of them would have been approved and, therefore, they would have been part of this benefit.
The point that I am trying to make is that I am not talking about new applications. The minister has made a deadline of March 2. He has said "no new applications". On those applications which the department accepted, especially those that have been in the department for two and three years and which have been verified, not only by the Government of Greece but also by other forms of verification here, I appeal to the minister to differentiate between those that were in the queue and those that were inside the process.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: I can assure the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood that I was not mistaken and that I know which ones he is talking about. He kept saying "accepted by the department". He means where they had made the application to the department, the department had received them but not necessarily accepted and processed them.
Obviously there is an issue here, the whole process of verifying the applications. That is verifying the service in time of war in another country. It is called a validation process. This takes a long time. Obviously we have to work through a foreign government to verify that. For those people who were verified we processed them, and the ones that were not verified we set the date as of March 2, 1992 and we were going to cut off those people who were not at that time in receipt of War Veterans Allowance.

June 10, 1992
Government Orders Clause agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 21-Regulations respecting merchant navy veterans


John F. Brewin: My friend was very helpful and did not say adopte. Clause 21 provides:
Regulations made under the Department of Veterans Affairs Act for the first time after this section comes into force for the purpose of providing merchant navy veterans and their dependents and survivors with benefits similar to those provided to veterans and their dependents and survivors shall, if they so provide, be retroactive and be deemed to have come into force on a day prior to the day on which they were made, which prior day may not be before the day on which this Act is assented to.
I do not know if anybody can make any sense out of that. The minister says that he can make some sense out of it, but what I would like is the minister's assurances, because he has given these privately, to make sure it is on the record of the House.
The benefits payable under the Department of Veterans Affairs Act to military veterans will be made available in exactly the same way to merchant navy veterans and that will be by way of regulation. The minister has those regulations in the works. They will be promulgated along with the act, God and the Senate willing, on or before July 1 of this year.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Clause 21 of the bill talks about retroactivity. We were working on the assumption that the bill would be through all stages, through the Senate in all stages, would be given Royal Assent and proclaimed, we hoped, by July 1, 1992. Assuming that could not have happened, we had to put a provision in under clause 21 that would be retroactive to that date should it be after July 1.
In the case of the regulations, I can assure the member that I ordered the deputy minister some months ago to start working on the assumption that the bill would be as we submitted it. Hopefully it will pass this House today.
The regulations are in written form and are prepared to be submitted. If I am not mistaken, they will go before Treasury Board and then a special committee of cabinet within a two-week period. That means we will be able to
put this particular program into effect on July 1,1992 as I stated when I made the announcement on the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 22-Coming into force
John F. Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I have a fear that my amendment to clause 22 is out of order. In any event I am going to try it on. It is retroactive so perhaps that is the best way to deal with it.
I would propose a new clause 22 that will provide that the disability pensions payable under this act be made retroactive to the date at which the applicant became disabled. As well there are other similar retroactive benefits which I would like to see the bill provide.
It seems to me that merchant navy veterans and their survivors and spouses have waited long for this. This is not going to be a big bill to the government. It is one which I think we owe them. Therefore I would like to see if it would be in order to move such an amendment.
I have a copy of it here, but perhaps on my description of it you might be able to indicate your view.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I thank the hon. member for Victoria for bringing this to my attention earlier.
This amendment would infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown as it enlarges the limitations as set by the royal recommendation attached to the bill.
I refer hon. members to citation 246(3) of Beau-chesne's fourth edition which I quoted earlier. I regret that I cannot accept that amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member for Mississauga South that I just cannot let this bill go through without putting forward the point of view of the people in my community-
June 10, 1992

There are a lot of winners in this bill. I salute that part of the bill where the winners are looked after. I salute the minister and the department. I have absolutely no debate about that particular aspect of the bill.
I have close to 7,000 people from the Greek community in my riding. I have more people of the Greek community living in my riding than in any other place in the world outside Athens. In the last two months not a day has gone by that I have not been asked to appeal to the minister by people who have served not only their country but our country as well. They have families here. They have made fabulous contributions to this country. They have asked me to appeal to the Minister of Veterans Affairs to see if there is not some way that fairness could be addressed in this particular bill.
I took this bill up in committee. The minister cannot seem to understand that the people who have been in the system and have been part of the process for three years feel that they are quite different from someone who just comes in and fills out an application post March 2. They feel that there is a big difference.
I know it is not just happening in my riding. I have heard from my colleagues from Saint-Denis, Saint-Laurent and Scarborough West. What bothers me about this bill is that an amendment is being made that asks resistance fighters who live outside the country to return to the country within a year.
No one complains about that. We accept that amendment. Naturally we are not going to cancel the benefits that have already been approved. The expectation has been created that applications will be approved as long as they are not fraudulent. That expectation is contained in documentation that has been sent out to individual people saying subject to further investigation by the Greek government and subject to further verification.
If I were a legitimate Greek resistance fighter and my application had been in the department for three years, and I knew it was legitimate, I would know it was just a matter of time. What is essentially being said to me with this amendment is that I am going to be left hanging.
Government Orders
Does the minister know what is bad about this? It is that I have now been lumped in with those applications that are fraudulent, not to mention the fact that I have neighbours around me many of whom were part of the same movement. This is not just in my riding. It is the same in the riding of my colleague from Saint-Denis who is an honorary Greek citizen.
The minister cannot understand the unfairness of knowing that your neighbours are sitting there recognized and receiving the allowance and now all of a sudden because of this March 2 arbitrary date you are not.
In my riding some people believed on trust that it would ultimately be processed. Some of them went out and borrowed a little money from their banker to put extensions on their houses. Maybe they have bought new cars hoping this would eventually come through. Now they are saying: "My goodness, I am stuck. I am not getting the allowance and I have actually borrowed against it".
We are all terribly sensitive to the deficit and the debt, but this is not a question of deficit and debt. This is a question of fairness. If persons are legitimate and have been in the system for the last three years they should be accepted. The government chose to review them. I do not question the action of reviewing applications. More than once some fraudulent activity has been detected, but once those reviews have been completed people who were part of the system should be accepted. They should not be compared to someone who after March 2 knocks on the door and says: "Give me an application and put me into the system". They are two entirely different groups of people.
I ask the minister to understand that people come into my office every day and say: "Where is the fairness in this?" He has to understand that it is pretty difficult for me to give them an acceptable answer.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, in winding up this debate I just want to thank all those who have been involved: the three parties, all members of the committee who worked very hard, and the chairman, the hon. member for Crowfoot who is now in his riding. I wish him all the best and all of the people who took part,

June 10, 1992
Government Orders
especially those groups and veterans associations that appeared before us.
This is a great day for merchant mariners and for veterans in general.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to join in those remarks. This is a very big day for Canada. It is a very big day for the merchant navy of this country which has served us so gallantly.
It has been a long struggle for those who have kept the fight going over these many years when it must have seemed very tough to do it. I am sure they will be very pleased. It is an important day for all of us and for Parliament.
Again we congratulate all those involved. In particular I would like to join with others in congratulating the minister for, as he said, having this go through on his watch.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to drag the debate out, but I do want to comment on the remarks of the member for Broadview-Greenwood. I want to state very clearly that I understand that issue. I understand it all too clearly. I have been at it for a long time.
Since 1930 when this act was introduced no Parliament has considered amendments and since 1930 no Parliament ever intended resistance fighters to get war veterans allowance.
That was done by a quasi-judicial board, and there was later an interpretation of the act by the Federal Court of Appeal.
In the meantime those that were processed were honoured. We were even generous enough to grandfather them, and that is fair.
However, I want to say that there are an awful lot of people who do not think it is particularly fair. I can understand that as well. This government made a deliberate decision to do this. It was done after a lot of consultation with veterans groups. It was mentioned here today that there are resolutions on the floor of the convention two weeks from now in Quebec City suggesting that we return War Veterans Allowance to what Parliament always intended it to be. This government certainly intends to do so.
I would like to read a quote from the Royal Canadian Legion, which is by far the largest veterans organization in Canada, representing 600,000 veterans. It said in a
letter to me: "The executive officers of the Legion also want you to know you have our unqualified support for the amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act relating to allied resistance groups. We are of the firm belief that benefits for veterans must first and foremost be available to Canadians and to allied veterans living in Canada".
Having said that I do wish to extend my thanks to the opposition members and to my own colleagues who were so supportive on this issue over the months that we dealt with it.
I particularly want to thank my critics today. I thank the hon. member for Hillsborough, who has Veterans Affairs Canada, the largest employer in P.E.I., in his own riding. He has been veiy interested in veterans issues.
I thank the hon. member for Victoria, who filled in very adequately for our ailing critic from Regina-Lums-den. They all have been very supportive of veterans issues.
My thanks to one and all.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-48, an act to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are four motions in amendment at report stage to Bill C-48, an act to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof.
June 10, 1992

Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga South will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga South will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga South will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the hon. member for Malpeque will be debated and voted upon separately.
I shall now propose Motion No. 1.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent following report stage to proceed immediately to third reading.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-48 be amended in Clause 11 by striking out lines 18
to 21 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"whether
(a)	an agreement for a transaction referred to in subsection 39.19(1) is reasonably likely to be expeditiously entered into after the making of the order, and
(b)	any such transaction would be consistent with the objects of the Corporation,
the Corporation may request the Minis-"
He said: Mr. Speaker, I move that clause 11 be amended on page 5 in accordance with the motion that I set down as Motion No. 1.
Having gone over the bill in the Standing Committee on Finance in the House of Commons, we took the bill to the Senate's committee and the Senate analyzed the committee hearings before the House committee. The Senate made a number of suggestions and those suggestions make a lot of sense.
Government Orders
What we came up with was Motion No. 1, which just for greater clarity provides for a better restructuring of a troubled institution. The amendment makes it explicit that CDIC's objects are there to serve as an important criteria in any decision made in a FIRP under the provisions of this particular bill.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we on this side of the House have no problem with this motion. It simply adds a little more clarity to the splendid job we had done in the committee on Bill C-48.
I am prepared to give a nod to the Senate. In this case it has simply done a little fine tuning to what we have done in terms of the FIRPing of a financial institution.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party have no problems with Motion No. 1 and will be agreeing to it.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


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


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-48 be amended in Clause 11
(a)	by striking out line 21 at page 6 and substituting the following:
"assignee or successor in interest of the person who was the";
(b)	by striking out line 27 at page 14 and substituting the following:
"member institution, or the assignees or successors in interest of those persons, and";
(c)	by striking out line 42 at page 14 and substituting the following:
"institution, or the assignee or successor in interest of that person";
{d) by striking out line 20 at page 15 and substituting the following:
"(b) that each person who held, or is the assignee or successor in interest of a person who held, shares or";
(e) by striking out line 29 at page 15 and substituting the following:
"persons, or the assignees or successors in interest of the persons, who together held at least 10 per";

June 10, 1992
Government Orders
if) by striking out line 2 at page 16 and substituting the following:
"that debt in the Corporation or, where, after the making of the order, the rights of those persons in respect of those shares or that subordinated debt have been assigned to or have devolved on other persons, those other persons.";
(g) by striking out line 9 on page 16 and substituting the following:
"that debt in the Corporation or, where, after the making of the order, the rights of those persons in respect of those shares or that subordinated debt have been assigned to or have devolved on other persons, those other persons."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is pursuant to the Senate discussions on this bill. It makes it easier for holders of shares and subordinated debt of a vested company to sell the rights to compensation attached to those shares to others.
What happens is we FIRP the company and then there is some time before the shares are either bought out by the CDIC or whether they are given back to the company that is FIRPed.
In the meantime these particular assets might be sold and this amendment provides for a sale of these assets in that intervening period. The amendments do this by permitting the CDIC to hand over shares and debt to either of their original holders or to the persons who subsequently acquired the rights to them because under the bill if the CDIC FIRPs a company, then sells some of the assets, pays itself out, solves its problems, it can give back the remainder of the company to the shareholders and the subordinated debt holders. This means the buyers of those subordinated debts or the buyers of those shares can get them in the same fashion as the original holders had them when the company was FIRPed in the first place. It is a very simple amendment.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I agree with that amendment, it is important and certainly it is needed. We will be voting for it.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, this amendment simply gives greater certainty to what happens to the assets or the shares when a company is FIRPed. We have no problem with it and we will support the amendment.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 agreed to.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-48 be amended in Clause 11 by adding immediately
after line 33 at page 12 the following:
"(1.1) For greater certainty, the liabilities of a federal member institution do not, for the purposes of paragraph (l)(c), include its subordinated debt."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is again a technical amendment arising from the Senate hearings.
It certainly is a technical amendment. It clarifies the meaning of the term "liabilities". It defines liabilities so that liabilities do not include subordinated debt because you can take all of the assets of a company with exception of the subordinated debt and the shares. You may have to pay off the liabilities of a company but you do not have to pay off the subordinated debt so it segregates liabilities and subordinated debt. It is really a technical amendment but it is an important amendment in terms of the FIRPing process.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. It is a technical amendment. It clarifies liabilities for the purpose of restructuring. I agree with it.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of House have no problem in supporting this amendment. It is strictly a technical one. As my hon. friend has said, it is an important one. We certainly have no difficulty with it.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3 agreed to.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-48 be amended in Clause 11 by adding immediately
after line 30 at page 20 the following:
"39.36 An order under section 39.13 shall not be made after the fifth anniversary of the coming into force of the section."
She said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is really a five-year sunset clause. It prevents any FIRPing orders five years after the legislation we are discussing today becomes law.
June 10, 1992

The intent is to force a review of the financial institution restructuring process after five years. This legislation gives major powers to the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation which effectively allows it to take over a troubled financial institution.
We feel that a five-year test period for this kind of a major new power is quite reasonable. A five-year sunset clause is actually in the Bank Act, the insurance, the co-operative and the trust legislation that we passed previously.
Also there was a very low degree of consensus among the industry players; the banks, the trust companies, and the corporate lawyers. They raised many issues. With the five-year review, these issues and concerns could be brought up again and addressed.
I would urge the House to support this five-year sunset clause.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I do not see the need for this amendment.
It suggests that there could be some difficulties arising and there is a need to review the legislation. We had Justice Estey come before our committee. He had the experience with the Northlands Bank. He had recommended to Parliament that when we have to step in and take over a financial institution, restructure it or sell it off or wind it down by always going to Parliament and passing a bill, which is what we had to do back in 1985, what we needed was a more permanent and long-term solution to the problem. That is how we got this bill.
Surely, if there are problems arising with the bill we ought not to wait five years before we review it. If after one year or two there is a problem, I would hope that the government, whatever it is, does not sit on its hands and allow a situation to arise where one does not come back and review the thing to correct it. Therefore I do not really see the need for a sunset clause.
A sunset clause indicates that somehow or other, five years from now, you may not even need this legislation. I cannot see that as I look in the crystal ball and see what is happening in the financial institutions of this country at the moment. I see the melting down that is taking place, the problems that have arisen as a result of the recession, the real estate loans that are going down the
Government Orders
tubes and the financial institutions that are being taken down with them. I see the need to have this legislation, but I do not see the need for an amendment. If we have a problem, surely we are not going to wait five years before we review it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Malpeque raised an amendment similar to this at committee suggesting a three-year sunset clause. We opposed it then and we are opposing this one now because this is only a portion of the CDIC bill.
The CDIC bill itself may need to be reviewed. Indeed, Monday night the finance committee's subcommittee on financial institutions reviewed the CDIC and there are some problems that may be there and there may be some problems with OSFI and so on. There may be some problems with the CDIC in total.
I do not think that this particular part, this very small section dealing with FIRPing, ought to be reviewed by itself. We may have to have some reviews, but surely this particular section will probably never be used. It is a hammer that is there but I am not so sure it is the kind of hammer that a government will ever use. I am not so sure that it is a hammer that OSFI will ever recommend. I am not so sure that it is a hammer that a minister will ever authorize.
I believe that this hammer that is in the CDIC in this particular bill we are passing now-a minor amendment to the CDIC bill in total-ought to remain without any special-this amendment is special-sunset for this particular special provision. I think the amendment is specious in that sense and that it ought to be debated.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Deblois):: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 4 negatived.

June 10, 1992
Government Orders


A. Kim Campbell: that Bill C-48, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


A. Kim Campbell: that Bill C-48 be read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We will begin debate with the hon. member for South Shore.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lead off today's third reading debate on Bill C-48. This bill which amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act has benefited from a thorough discussion by the House finance committee. A number of very helpful amendments have been made to the bill and I will have more to say about these in a moment.
It will be recalled that this bill expands the range of options available to the government for dealing with troubled financial institutions. Specifically, it gives the CDIC the authority to arrange and carry out the sale of a troubled federally regulated financial institution to a healthy institution.
These new measures which we call the Financial Institutions Restructuring Process or FIRP, were first proposed by the government in the blue paper on financial sector reform. Other major elements of the reforms set out in the blue paper have already been considered and endorsed by this House. It is time now to complete this process of reform and give passage to this remaining piece of legislation.
I will review very briefly why the restructuring powers set out in this bill are needed. As the federal deposit insurers, CDIC can be exposed to substantial potential losses when a member institution gets into financial difficulty and the institution's capital declines.
This legislation helps control CDIC's exposure to loss by giving CDIC the means to act with the approval of the minister in a timely manner to put a troubled institution back on a solid footing. In this way, the new powers will make it possible to run a more cost-effective deposit insurance system.
A fundamental goal of providing these new powers is to enable federal authorities to arrange a restructuring transaction which preserves the value of a troubled institution as much as possible. This is in the best interests of the institution's depositors and creditors and the deposit insurer.
Generally speaking shareholders want to see the value of their institution maintained. But once a deposit-taking institution's capital falls below a certain level, shareholders may find themselves in a position where they have little left to lose by the institution's further decline.
At this stage, declines in the value of the assets of the institution will be borne more and more by the creditors of the institution, its uninsured depositors and the deposit insurer.
Bill C-48 contains measures to deal with this situation and give federal authorities more control over the cost of resolving a financial institution's difficulties.
The restructuring process vests all ownership of the troubled institution in CDIC and gives CDIC the power to approve a restructuring proposal, including the sale of the shares of the institution or the sale of its assets and liabilities.
It is important to understand how CDIC will carry out this role. CDIC will be guided by the objectives set out in its act. In particular, the CDIC Act directs the corporation to promote the stability and competitiveness of the financial system in Canada and to pursue its objectives in a way which minimizes CDIC's exposure to loss.
What this will mean in practice is that when CDIC is faced with a situation of a member institution in serious difficulty, it will consider its range of options, including the new restructuring process, and make a decision based on how best to achieve its corporate objectives.
June 10, 1992

The House finance committee studied the bill very carefully and served an important role by suggesting ways in which the bill could be improved. Witnesses who appeared before the committee also made valuable contributions with their expert knowledge of the financial system.
I would like to take a few moments to describe some of the more important amendments that the committee made.
One category of change was in respect of the bill's stay of proceedings. A number of technical changes were made to this section in consultation with representatives of the chartered banks, trust and loan companies, representatives of the Canadian Depository for Securities Limited and the Canadian Payments Association.
The changes reflect the complexity of financial market systems and products, and with the benefit of the considerable technical knowledge and practical experience of these groups, the bill has been improved.
Changes to the stay of proceedings also reflected a balancing of the interests of ordinary creditors of financial institutions and the interests of financial institutions that act on behalf of other institutions in the clearance and settlement system.
Another group of changes which originated with members of the House finance committee is intended to give federal authorities greater flexibility to arrange a restructuring transaction. These changes centre on the sale of a troubled institution's assets and the transfer of its liabilities, rather than the sale of its shares. Having greater flexibility to structure a deal will mean that CDIC will be able to obtain the highest possible value for the troubled institution and minimize CDIC's exposure to loss.
Finally, the bill was amended to authorize the federal government to enter into agreements with provincial governments regarding provincial institutions whose deposits are insured by CDIC. We will be working with individual provinces that have an interest in the FIRP process to make the appropriate arrangements.
The latter amendment to the bill reflected a concern of the House finance committee that CDIC as the
Government Orders
deposit insurer of most provincial institutions should have additional flexibility to work out problems with these institutions as well. I think the outcome in this case is positive for the financial system.
The amendments have improved the bill, but they do not either individually or collectively change the fundamental policy embodied in the bill.
The broad concept of FIRP was supported by witnesses who appeared before the committee. There was also broad support for giving federal authorities the power to control their exposure to loss when an insured financial institution risks failing.
During the second reading debate on this bill the need for balance in legislation such as this was noted. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the committee's contribution to the balance which has been achieved in Bill C-48.
Before I finish my remarks I would like to note briefly the other provisions contained in Bill C-48 which are not directly related to the financial institutions restructuring process.
The first of these is aimed at improving the flow of information about deposit insurance to customers of financial institutions. The new rules are an important step toward improving the public's understanding of deposit insurance coverage and the changes are welcomed by the industry.
Another section provides for an increase in CDIC's borrowing limit from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to $6 billion reflecting the growth in deposits in recent years.
Other provisions of the act give CDIC greater flexibility to make by-laws to promote a common standard of business practice and conditions of insurance coverage among member institutions.
All of these modifications to the CDIC Act were endorsed by the House finance committee.
I would like to express my appreciation for the contribution of all who participated in the debate in this House on Bill C-48 and those who took part in the study of the bill in committee. I hope hon. members will join me now in supporting this bill by giving it third reading.

June 10, 1992
Government Orders


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-48, an amendment to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.
Most Canadians do not think much about fire insurance until the neighbour's house bums down. Then they make sure they have adequate coverage. Probably the same could be said for life insurance. Most Canadians do not worry too much about it until a friend or a family member dies. Then they wonder if their dependants are provided for.
It is no surprise then with the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation that Canadians really do not think very much about it. This corporation insures deposits in banks and trust companies for Canadians so that in case of a financial fire that results in the financial death of a bank or trust company, Canadians are protected.
Canadians certainly want CDIC to have all the tools that it needs to properly do its job. That job of course is stabilizing the Canadian financial system and protecting Canadians. The legislation we are debating today certainly helps in that regard.
This legislation gives the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation the power to go into a financial institution that is just inches away from bankruptcy and to merge it with a healthy institution or to otherwise restructure it and get it on a firm footing.
We on this side of the House certainly agree that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation needs this tool. In fact Justice Willard Estey recommended this in his report in 1986 when he reported on the failure of two western banks. The Canadian regulator of banks, trusts, loan and insurance companies, known as the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, also said that Canada very much needs this tool.
He also indicates that he has been very frustrated with the authority he has now. The situation now is that the superintendent either has to shut down a financial institution facing bankruptcy or stand by and watch it fail.
In other words, there is no in between where the regulators could help save a financial institution from going under. I guess it is something like a doctor saying that he had only two choices: to sit back and watch the patient suffer a slow death or put the patient out of his misery once and for all, even though an operation might have saved that person.
This is the situation that the superintendent finds himself in now. Certainly, as I said, he agrees that his office should have this tool or this power which we are giving through Bill C-48. Now regulators will have the option of going in and trying to get this institution on to a firm basis.
The Canadian financial service industry is one of the healthiest in the world. Very seldom do we read in newspapers stories of financial institutions in great difficulties, but recently we have had First City Trust, an Ontario trust company, in the news as well as Central Guaranty.
I suppose we could say that part of this is due to the recession because a recession brings high unemployment and high bankruptcy rates. In my province of Prince Edward Island the unemployment rate is over 19 per cent, the highest ever recorded in that province since Statistics Canada started keeping records.
As well as recessions taking their toll on the unem-plojment rate, they certainly take their toll on financial institutions. Customers of financial institutions are the people who buy cars and homes or borrow to run businesses. When people lose their jobs in a recession it means that many of them cannot make their payments on their cars, their houses or whatever they have borrowed for. They may lose these assets and lose their hope along with them.
Last month the unemployment rate in Canada was 11.2 per cent, the highest since November 1984. The lost jobs and the lost wages I have been talking about will lead to loan payments not being made. If that happens and if enough large borrowers cannot make their payments then financial institutions could be in trouble.
Certainly we saw Standard Trust go that way last summer. This summer Central Guaranty and First City are struggling to avoid Standard's fate. This legislation will help to avoid that by giving the regulator the power to go in and to operate or to help keep the financial institution from going under.
In so doing, we are protecting the 400,000 Canadians who are employed in the banks and in the trust, loan and insurance companies. We must preserve these jobs because we have approximately 1.5 million Canadians out of work. Every job in this country is important and must be protected. As I said, I appreciate the need for this legislation and I agree with what the legislation is going to do, but I certainly have serious concerns about
June 10, 1992

the whole process this government followed to reach the stage where we are today.
First, this legislation is not just needed today. It was also needed five years ago when Mr. Justice Estey recommended it in his report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it being 7 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6) the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur) moved: that Bill C-342, an act to amend the Income Thx Act (teachers), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Private Member's Bill C-342.
As my colleagues in the House know very well, the Conservative government has said many times that for it, education is the cornerstone of Canadian society. The Prime Minister even said that it is important to improve the quality of education in Canada if we want to be competitive internationally.
I believe that the bill I introduced gives the government an excellent opportunity to ease the tax burden on those who have the admittedly huge responsibility of educating our children. The purpose of Bill C-342 is to amend the Income Tax Act so that teachers across Canada can deduct some employment expenses in calculating their income.
For example, they could deduct expenses incurred to take part in professional development days and travel expenses to attend conferences. Let me now give the reasons why teachers should be allowed to deduct some employment expenses.
Private Members' Business
First, teaching at the primary, secondary and post-secondary levels is an occupation that requires higher than average expenses to obtain material, services and facilities related to their teaching duties and to upgrading their academic qualifications and professional skills. While curriculum related material is normally supplied by the employer, teachers must often buy books, periodicals and other written material particular to the teaching profession.
Second, many teachers must pay considerable costs for professional development through on the job training courses, to buy computers and software to be used at home for educational purposes and also to buy classroom material.
Mr. Speaker, you will agree that these expenses help teachers to improve their methods and provide superior instruction. I think it is quite unfair for the Income Thx Act and regulations to allow self-employed professionals and business people deductions for operating expenses and improving their office or business and to refuse these same tax breaks to members of the teaching profession.
Since teachers have considerable employment expenses and play an important role in society, the government must give them the treatment they deserve.

I am presenting this bill this evening as a result of conversations I have had with members of the New Brunswick Teachers' Association, the Canadian Teachers' Federation and teachers themselves who are concerned with expenses. I have a background in education so I can speak from my experience as well.
Elementary, secondary and post-secondary teaching is an occupation which requires larger than average expenditures by teachers on materials, services and facilities related to their jobs and to their professional improvement.
While curricular materials are normally provided by the employer, other equipment and materials related to the professional practice of teaching must be supplied by teachers. Many teachers incur considerable expense for in service professional improvement. They purchase computers and software for educational use in the home and for use in the classroom. As a result of these outlays for these kinds of goods and services, teachers are able to

June 10, 1992
Private Members' Business
improve their teaching methods and extend to their students a better quality of service.
It is unfair that self-employed professionals and business people are permitted under the Income Thx Act and regulations to deduct expenses of operating and improving their businesses while teachers are denied similar tax benefits.
The cancellation in 1988 of the standard deduction for employment-related expenses-20 per cent of employment income to a maximum of $500-has served to reinforce this sense of injustice.
There are membership fees for professional organizations in addition to annual professional and union membership dues required to maintain professional and/or employment status which are deductible at present. These are all expenses that should be allowed under this bill and should be allowed in the Income Tax Act. There are expenses for attending teaching conventions when attendance is mandatory and when a convention is held outside the city or town of residence. Other expenses that could be incurred and should be covered are registration fees for professional conferences, expenses for attending up to two conferences or conventions per year for professional growth and expenses for attending professional in service programs. As I mentioned before, the cost of purchasing teaching materials is certainly a major expense.
To be fair and honest, sometimes the perception of teachers is not always positive. Many people in the public sometimes think negatively towards our teachers. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and others who are listening, that quite often these perceptions are unfair, unfounded and are based on a lack of knowledge.
Mind you, there are some bad teachers out there but I say to Canadians in general that the majority of teachers and educators are honest, sincere and dedicated to education. I say also that if there is a bad apple out there, then you get rid of it. If there are bad teachers in the system, then you have them removed. I am sure teachers' associations and federations stand by that as well. I do not think we should punish the majority just because of a few bad apples.
I would like to speak about a few specific examples of the involvement of teachers and the expenses they have.
I know of a teacher here in Ottawa who teaches kindergarten to children with special needs. At the present time she goes around and collects a lot of materials that can be used in the classroom and pays for it with her own money. She has now been teaching for a number of years. She has even gone so far as to collect so much material that there is no room at her house any more and she has rented a garage to store some of those materials. That is a cost that the public does not realize.
Take a drive around on Saturdays and Sundays to garage sales and see who is at those garage sales. You will be amazed to see a number of teachers. It is not because they are looking for a bargain for themselves. Often, they are looking for a bargain for their students. They are looking for second-hand materials that can be used in a classroom.
One might ask what is wrong with the school system or what is wrong with the school boards? Do they not have money for materials? Yes, they do, but it is not enough. Quite often the material that is supplied is generic material. It is not stimulating to the student. The textbooks and support material are quite often out of date. This is a way of allowing teachers to get new material into the classroom, but it is costing money to these individual teachers.
I would also like to mention that we hear the common statement that teachers have two months off in the summer. Yes, they do. They are in a very stressful job.
Many of the teachers also use those two months-not the full two months because they do take holidays as well-to attend summer courses. Again, that is an expense that translates into a very positive expense because it is going to be beneficial to our citizens of tomorrow who are our youth. As we know, education has been a major topic of late and a major concern of many especially when we talk about competition and the ability of our labour force to be well trained.
I have taught from grade 1 to grade 12. In my 12 years of teaching I had to attend various workshops. I lived in northern New Brunswick and most of these courses were away from our community. Quite often we had to travel by car for most of these courses. Quite often we car
June 10, 1992

pooled, obviously. We had to travel and it was an expense. We had to pay for our meals. We had to pay our hotel rooms, but again it was an expense that we met very gladly in the sense that we knew it was going to be beneficial not only to us, but to our students in the classroom.
I should also mention that when I speak about northern New Brunswick, the same can be said about any province in Canada. Quite often these courses are held away from the smaller communities and that is where the cost really lies.
Some of the school boards do pay for these expenses, I admit. If they are paid for, so much the better. Then, obviously, the teacher would not have to claim them under this bill.
I would also say, as I mentioned before, that school boards do have a lot of supplies, but they are under a lot of pressure these days to cut here and there. We see that in many provinces. The thing that I found with teaching, especially in the years I taught, is that we did not have enough resource material for the students or the teachers.
I married a woman from this area-originally from my home town, but her family was here-and quite often we would come here during the summer. At that time it gave me the opportunity to buy books in this area. It also gave me the opportunity to use the university resource centre here to make photocopies.
That is an expense that I did not mind and I am sure a lot of teachers do not mind. It comes to a point, however, where one can compare it to other professions and say that if they are allowed to deduct certain expenses then teachers should be allowed those deductions as well.
I am sure we will hear some opposition to this. I am sure if you look at the bill that it is a nice bill. You may say it goes too far, but what I have done is to put forth a bill as close as possible to what would be desirable. As anyone knows, whenever one negotiates something, one always puts forth one's best. One asks for the most hoping to receive just a little less.
I agree there may be some criticism of expenses for an office in the household, but we are also dealing with
Private Members' Business
university professors here as well. That might be a little far-fetched but I am open to amendments.
I think it important that we look at the bill as a just bill because other professionals have similar types of deductions for income tax.
Another comment might be how about the poor tradesmen who have to buy tools to work. I say to those who make that argument that there is no reason why teachers cannot have their deductions just because someone else does not. T\vo wrongs do not make a right. We have to start somewhere. If we feel that there is also an justice in that area, there is nothing wrong with making the appropriate changes.
The problem is that the whole Income Ihx Act is very unfair and must be amended somewhat. We must work within the system that is in place. We must work with the Income Ihx Act, so that is exactly what we are doing. That is why this type of bill has been put forth.
I should also mention that teachers are quite often considered to be in the middle income range quite often. Therefore, they have a heavy tax burden. I should mention that the two deductions of the greatest value to teachers have been eliminated recently, the $500 employment expense deduction and the $1,000 interest and dividend income deduction.
That $1000 interest deduction also has affected many other Canadians, and I speak on their behalf as well tonight. The government should possibly re-examine that decision in the light of senior citizens who sometimes had a little bit of savings money and used that little extra interest they gained to do a little extra shopping or for a few extras that they had looked forward to. I would say that the government should also reintroduce that deduction.
I have received indications of support from a number of MPs from all parties. I have received indications of support from citizens out there. I have received indications of support from teachers' associations. I thank them. In fact I have received a number of letters. The bill was only tabled about a month or so ago and I have already been receiving documentation in support of the bill. I have received copies of letters that have gone to ministers supporting the bill.

June 10,1992
Private Members' Business

I have a letter of support from the president of the Association of French speaking Teachers of New Brunswick, local 32. The letter is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and it supports the bill. I have another letter from a school in Neguac, signed by many teachers. I also have a letter from the president of the Association of French speaking Teachers of New Brunswick, Anita Hebert, local 7.

I have a number of letters from kindergarten teachers. I have a letter from the New Brunswick Teachers' Association. Mr. David McCready, the secretary of a district, has written in support. I have a letter from the Grand Manan Elementary School supporting the bill.

I have another letter from Paquerette Michaud, president of local 1 at Alexandre G. Savoie Comprehensive School.

I have another letter from Tyne Valley in Prince Edward Island and some others from Prince Edward Island. I must single out the Regina Public School Teachers' Association. Its members have written to me in support and I have tabled their signatures.
I would like to thank those people who have acknowledged the introduction of this bill. I look forward to my colleagues this evening, if not totally supporting the bill, at least looking at the possibility of sending it to committee and making adjustments in committee.
I am very open to seeing amendments made to the bill, if hon. members feel that amendments are needed. Thank you.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-332.1 must admit I agree with some of the comments made by the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur. However, there are other areas where I think he has taken the wrong approach.
If we consider the education system in this country, we must admit it is one of the best in the world. It is also a fact that our education system is our assurance of progress. In the long run, it makes for the best possible economic growth.
I think all members of this House will agree that for any country education is a priority. As I said before, we are privileged in that respect here in Canada.
However, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur raises a number of problems from the point of view of fiscal justice and fairness. If we go back to the time before our 1988 tax reform, every employee across the country was entitled to a lump sum deduction of $500. As long as we had employment income on our return, we could deduct $500. It was a deduction. As a result, Mr. Speaker, depending on the individual's employment income, the $500 meant an after-tax saving of $100, $150 or $250. If my income was taxable at 50 per cent, I would pay taxes on that amount less $500, which would mean a saving of $250. However, if my income was taxable at 25 per cent, the $500 deduction would mean a saving of only $125.
The 1988 tax reform made the tax system fairer and more equitable. We eliminated anything that could be qualified as a deduction and replaced it with a tax credit. In determining the amount allowed for the basic personal tax credit, we took into consideration the old $500 deduction. As a result, anyone with an employment income in Canada has a basic tax credit which does not depend on the individual's tax rate but on the fact that he has an employment income.
For instance, if the basic tax credit is $1,000, whatever my employment income happens to be I will pay $1,000 less in taxes. Whether I earn $50,000 or $100,000 or $20,000, I get the same tax credit. My point is, Mr. Speaker, that a tax credit is subtracted from the tax payable.
This means that all Canadians are equal for tax purposes. Whatever the rate at which they are taxed, they have the same tax credit, and that is important.
The hon. member opposite says it is not true. I would advise her to take a course in taxation, and maybe she will understand what is happening in Canada's tax system. It would do her a world of good to take a course on the subject.
June 10, 1992

In any case if she wants the floor, she can have it as soon as I finish. Meanwhile, she could at least let me proceed.
As I was saying, the system has made the Income Tax Act more equitable. The hon. member's proposal suggests adding eight specific deductions to the Income Tax Act, targeted exclusively to the teaching profession. However, this would put unfair practices right back into the Income Tax Act.
This evening, I speak both from my experience as a tax expert and as a professor at the University of Quebec in Trois-Rivieres and in Sherbrooke. When I was teaching, I could only deduct expenses as provided under the Act. That was normal for anyone who had an employment income. Given the privileges my colleague demands in the Income Tax Act, Canadian teachers could specifically deduct eight items he identified as teaching related expenses. I would be quite glad for the teachers, but what will we do about the workers who regularly buy tools for their work and are on salary, or have employment income? What will we do about mechanics who work in a garage, have an employment income and must buy all kinds of tools every year to do their job?
Mr. Speaker, you will understand that I could name any occupation where people are paid a salary and have to buy goods for their work in order to earn employment income. Mr. Speaker, you will see that that is where the unfairness lies. In Canada, we cannot think of giving more to one kind of occupation than to another.
My colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur gives me the example of lawyers. I am glad he does, because I will tell him that lawyers have employment income or a salary and are entitled to no deduction except the one now provided for in the Income Thx Act, which is the same as for teachers. Notaries who are on salary are entitled to no other deduction than what teachers have. We could go through all the professions when we compare employment income with business income.
Private Members' Business
A lawyer who opens an office or starts a business is entitled to claim business related expenses. What the hon. member forgets to point out is that a lawyer who has his own office may not have any income at the end of the year either. He may run a loss. He has no assured income. He has no salary. He has fees if he works and earns them, but if he has no clients. He has no income. Even if he could take all the expenses in the world-


Mr. Plourde:: If the clients don't pay.


Pierre H. Vincent: My colleague from Kamouraska-Ri-viere-du-Loup, ever the good manager, points out that if the clients do not pay, it comes to the same thing.
We should not confuse what-


Ms. Clancy:: In what country do you live? That is not true.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, could you tell my colleague that she will have her turn to speak. Would you please tell her?


Mary Catherine Clancy: That is not true for lawyers. We are three lawyers here. In what country do you live?


Pierre H. Vincent: My colleague will find out that we are four lawyers, because I am one too. If she would be so kind as to let me finish my speech it would be appreciated.
We must not confuse what the Income Tax Act considers employment income, a fixed, assured, guaranteed salary, and business income, whether it is a lawyer's office, an architect's office or any profession where the rules for deductions are different. The Income Tkx Act is clear. Any expense to earn business income is deductible. The law is there to help people earn a living, but the teacher or lawyer on salary does not have work related expenses. They are assured of a salary that comes every week.
Employment income and business income are treated quite differently in the tax system.
In conclusion I would like my colleagues in the House to think of the injustice that would be done if this bill were passed. Again I agree with what the hon. member said about the work done by teachers in Canada. I have no problem with that, but we have a big problem with tax

June 10, 1992
Private Members' Business
fairness, if we allow one category of people with employment income to deduct some items they buy for their work, when no one else can do the same.
We would do a grave injustice to all Canadians.
I see that my time is up. I will close by asking hon. members to think carefully about this subject.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to support this bill put forward by my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur.
It is time a bill of this nature was brought forward, and since we could not get it from the government side, then it is only right it should be brought forward by a caring and thinking member of the teaching profession such as my colleague.
I was astounded at the remarks of the parliamentary secretary because I do not know what country he is living in. He made comments about deductions made for some professionals and not for others that are just not true in many cases.
What we have to understand most clearly about this particular situation is who we are talking about here. We are talking about the profession that spends its time, professional life, working time, in dealing with young Canadians, teaching them, moulding their minds and setting an example for them.
Although sometimes it may be hard to believe, every one in this Chamber went to school for some period or another, and we all had teachers. We all know the tremendous influence, the tremendous amount of effort over and above what is required in the job description that teachers put into their jobs.
I have to admit to a bit of special pleading here. I taught for one year and I was also a substitute teacher in the springs of my university years. Most particularly, my mother was a teacher and a principal for 41 years in the school system in Nova Scotia.
I know at very close hand the kind of commitment and sacrifice members of the teaching profession put into their daily lives. There are very few teachers who work solely from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. or whatever the school hours may be. There are endless hours of preparation, endless hours of correcting, endless hours of dealing with students, counselling them, assisting them, being in loco parentis, being surrogate parents to their students, frequently dealing with social problems and difficulties that the home is not prepared to deal with. Our school system, much suffering from cutbacks, is unable to deal in an extra-professional sense and the teachers deal with this as well.
Teachers get a bad rap in the country because, yes, there is no question it is a secure job, and it is a well paid job; but not necessarily the be all and end all of pay. Not when you put it up against the hours that are spent after school is closed in volunteer projects with the students, the hours that are spent during summer vacations in volunteer projects with the students, on weekends, Christmas time, March break, and on and on.
My colleague's bill, which gives teachers, a bit of break, particularly in this overtaxed atmosphere we have in this country today, is not a great deal to ask.
I look in particular at the section of the bill that relates to professional expenses. I find it utterly unbelievable that professional expenses are not deductible for teachers. My colleague on the other side talked about the fact lawyers only get to deduct those expenses which relate to their business. That is not true. Lawyers get to deduct their professional fees no matter what they are doing. They get to deduct their memberships in their bar societies; that is a deductible fee. TTiere are other deductible fees as well.


An hon. member:: Or union dues.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Or union dues. You are absolutely right. Union dues for teachers should be deductible as well. Absolutely. A wonderful thing, why can you not move it a little further and do professional fees as well? Why can you not do it for mandatory travel expenses on in service days that no one else is paying for but the teacher? No one else is taking care of their hotel bills and no one else is taking care of their travel expenses. Everyone else in a profession gets that kind of relief.
The teachers in this country deserve a better break and this bill is the kind of a break that can give it to them.
My colleague, having been a teacher himself, understands this. There are colleagues on the other side of the House who you would think would understand this as well. This is not something that is going to add immeasurably to the deficit of this country if you pass this bill. This is not something-
June 10, 1992


Murray Dorin: $500 million a year.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Five hundred million a year. Show me where you find your figures. I would like to know where you find your figures. I would suggest that he is using an etch-a-sketch rather than a calculator.
This is a fairness issue. If one group of professionals are permitted to behave in this way and to deduct certain things, another group of professionals should be allowed the same thing.
Therefore, it is with the greatest amount of fervour that I say to all members that the private member's bill brought forward by the member for Restigouche-Cha-leur deserves the support of this House, deserves the non-partisan support of both sides of this House. Let us see a little fairness for teachers who do so much and do not get, contrary to a lot of people's opinion, a great deal in return.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to enter into this debate.
I want to say at the outset that earlier this afternoon, as chairman of the finance committee, I tabled a report where we had examined a proposal put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James. In his particular case he was suggesting that mechanics be allowed to deduct their tools. During the course of that study we also heard from real estate agents who were suggesting that they should be able to deduct the cost of home computers and car telephones and certain other particular things that they are not able to deduct.
This bill by this particular member is along those same lines. It gives me concern for a number of reasons. First of all, almost everyone suggests that the tax system is too complex, its complexity creates unfairness and in many cases-


Mary Catherine Clancy: CAs get to deduct everything.


Murray Dorin: Not when they are employees they do not.
If we begin down the track of defining a particular tax regime for every type of occupation whether it is mechanics, teachers, real estate agents, what we are doing is not creating fairness, but creating unfairness. Moreover we are creating enormous complexity because virtually everyone will be treated differently within the tax system. One of the primary objectives of the tax system is
Private Members' Business
that people in similar circumstances will be treated the same.
Members of this House will know, and you will know for certain, Mr. Speaker, that for a male member to speak in the House he must wear a tie. It could be argued that because you must wear a tie to do your job as a member of Parliament, ties for members of Parliament should be deductible. We might have to ask what limit we should put on the price and the amount of deduction; over what period of time should we depreciate them.
I know that that is a bit of a facetious example, but it illustrates the difficulty in trying to determine for particular occupations the types of deductions that might be applicable to them and how one would ever draw a line.
I suspect we would even have to spend a great deal of time trying to define what is a teacher. At first blush one could suggest that teachers are persons employed by school boards or post-secondary education institutions.
There are many other types of institutions that employ teachers in various ways. There are many types of educational institutions, so we would again be in a situation of having to determine who would be eligible for these deductions.
I can tell the member after eight years of experience on the finance committee of this House and several years experience in business before coming to the House involved in the tax system, once you start trying to create those definitions and those delineations you have a great many problems.
I should say it is true that employees, teachers, mechanics and others, have expenses involved in their employment. It is also true that up until 1987 there was a general deduction available for people up to a limit of $500 available to all employees to compensate them basically for those types of expenses without having to try and enumerate which particular occupations, teachers, real estate agents or others would be eligible for them.
That deduction was eliminated in the 1988 tax reform along with a number of other deductions. The employment expense deduction and the $1,000 dividend deduction were eliminated also. They were eliminated to do two things; first, simplify the tax system and second, lower the rate. That is the reason they were done.

June 10,1992
Private Members' Business
They were accepted at that time and received good support among the Canadian people. I should mention in passing that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood has put forward a tax proposal that he calls the single tax. His proposal would go even further in eliminating even more deductions and would attempt to achieve a single tax rate.
Many people speak quite favourably of that, but I am not certain that it could be achieved. In a survey I did in my own constituency from which I have just been counting the replies, that was one of the questions that I asked and a majority of the respondents suggested that we should have what would be called a flat tax.
In other words, we should be eliminating deductions rather than trying to create new ones. In so far as I am concerned, that is the direction we should be trying to go-
There are other difficulties involved in trying to determine deductions for individual groups of employees or occupations.
In our report tabled today, which I think hon. members would find of interest if they are interested in this particular subject because it is applicable to teachers as it is to mechanics and to people in the real estate business, we have listed the various problems and tried to come to some resolution concerning them.
We came to the conclusion that at the end of the day, the only real resolution would be a deduction that could be offered to all qualifying employees. In other words, they would not be segregated by occupation. The deduction would have to be available to employees in general to meet certain expenses that are involved in their employment.
If we are simply going back to giving everybody a deduction of $500, we could simply lower the tax rate and everybody would be just as well off. I am not so sure that that gains what is being suggested here.
However, it was our recommendation, after analysis and consideration and hearing from witnesses in this area, that the Department of Finance make an attempt again to try to come to some definition of what exceptional expenses could be allowed to be deducted by employees in the course of their employment.
It was suggested a little while ago that lawyers, chartered accountants and other professionals are allowed to deduct the kinds of things that are being sought here. To some degree, that is true but that is only when people are self-employed. There is a distinction.
Employees, receive fixed salaries monthly, weekly, annually; they have income. They also have many other types of benefits that go along with that. They are eligible for unemployment insurance, for example. They make the contributions and if they become unemployed, as former employees they can receive unemployment insurance benefits.
People who are self-employed have no such benefits. They are not available to them and they have no guaranteed salaries. In fact, what they have to do is determine whether or not they can find sufficient income to cover the expenses they have.
In some cases, the expenses that they incur may be more than the revenue they take in and they may actually have a loss on the year or even lose money on the year.
That is not the case for employees. They do not lose money during the course of the year. They may lose their job and thereby their income but they are not obligated to lay out money in advance for expenses that are required in order to earn that income. A lawyer or a doctor may have to do that to rent an office and buy equipment. They might have to spend many thousands of dollars in the hope of earning income, but with no guarantee that they would have the income that is provided when one has a fixed job.
I could speak further on this. It is a subject that we spent a great deal of time on in 1987 in the finance committee when we did the 1987 tax reform. It was generally concluded at that time that we wanted to eliminate as many deductions as possible and reduce the over-all tax rate. That was done in 1987. I believe it was the correct move. I believe it would be a step backward to create again individual deductions aimed at particular groups or particular individuals, which this bill and the earlier bill of the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James suggested.
June 10, 1992

We want to be very careful. I would suggest that he consult with his colleague in the Liberal Party, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, who is going in the opposite direction. In my opinion he is going in a more preferable direction because it would be a system that would be applied to all taxpayers on a basis that would be equally available to them all without determining the particular occupation they are involved in.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak very long today as I understand the limited time that members have to debate this bill.
There were two things that I wanted to mention. First, I would like to respond to my friend from Edmonton Northwest who spoke about the self-employed versus the employed workers in terms of tools. It reminded me of the position of people who work as carpenters in rural and northern parts of this country. Carpenters for all intents and purposes are self-employed but the only work they can get on a steady basis is working as subcontractors on projects contracted out to general contractors. The general contractors will hire individual carpenters as employees but require them to own their own tools.
For all intents and purposes these carpenters are self-employed but for income tax purposes they are very much an employee. As a result the requirement for the job and the expense is treated much differently than if they were self-employed and paying the taxes, as the hon. member for Edmonton Northwest suggested.
I intend to have a very careful look at the report that the member discussed in his remarks. We will certainly provide him with some input from northern Saskatchewan and the perspective of the individual workers in northwest Saskatchewan. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to do that.
Second, regarding the matter at hand, Bill C-342, I want to commend the member who raised this issue today for his communication skills. Obviously teachers throughout Canada are very much aware of the bill today.
Prior to the bill being introduced this evening I received a couple of letters by fax from teachers within
Private Members' Business
my constituency who indicated their awareness of the matter before us and wanted to communicate their support.
I would like to take this opportunity to put on record the communications I received today. One is from Elaine Yaychuk, who represents teachers in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan. She indicates the support of the teachers of Meadow Lake for this bill. The second is from an individual teacher named Robert Krismer from North Battleford, Saskatchewan. He is a teacher in the separate school system in North Battleford who communicates his support.
I will read a couple of paragraphs from Mr. Krismer's letter to indicate to the member who put forward this bill and the government the support for this bill that exists among some members of my constituency.
My constituent writes:
Dear Mr. Tkylor, I am writing to you with regard to the bill being introduced to the House on June 10 of this year by the Member for Restigouche-Chaleur, New Brunswick, Mr. Guy Arseneault.
As a teacher, I feel quite strongly that our profession has long been disregarded in this area. Certainly, consideration for deduction of expenses incurred in our area of work would not be a precedent setting move as many other professional, white collar and blue collar workers have been granted this type of concession, in some cases, for quite some time already.
Further, it is not unrealistic to think that many teachers do incur expenses that enable them to be more effective in the classroom, either with the purchase of materials that are used directly in their classrooms or as equipment that help them to plan and prepare for their classes.
He outlines some of his personal expenses like the computer systems he has purchased. He teaches computer literacy classes for grade nine and uses his equipment for storing some of his students' notes. He goes on to say:
In addition to the purchase of this hardware, I have purchased software so I am able to do this work.
As I said earlier, I think it quite reasonable to conclude that, just as many other professions and occupations purchase materials which assist them in their line of work and are able to claim these as expense deductions, teachers should also be considered for such deductions.
I was happy to learn that Mr. Arseneault had advanced such a piece of legislation and I am asking that you support this bill for me and the several teachers I represent as their councillor here in the Battlefords. I thank you.

June 10, 1992
Private Members' Business
Realizing that time is short and members wish to speak I simply want to communicate this information to the House.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to split what time we have left with my hon. colleague from Moncton.
I would begin by saying that I too have received many pieces of correspondence dealing with this particular issue. As a matter of fact the pile is quite thick. It is not an issue that is strange to me.
What is the issue? The issue is somewhat confused. In some of the letters there is a request that professional fees be covered under the Income Tkx Act. Of course that has already been done.
I believe the nub of this issue to be, and I have full and total sympathy for this position, a situation in which teachers are required to go beyond that which is normally defined by the boards of education as a requirement of their jobs.
Teachers are extremely professional in every sense of the term. I know because my wife happens to be a teacher. Not only that, but through her I have met many other teachers.
The mere mention of good teachers versus bad teachers caused me some concern because I think that all teachers are essentially good teachers. They not only convey that which they have learned to tomorrow's leaders but in so doing convey a bit of their hearts, souls and consciences.
What got me involved in this particular subject was a presentation made to me on behalf of a particular teacher who while teaching in a mixed culture school saw that it was an advantage for cross-cultural purposes to teach the children how to make bannock. The school board budget did not permit her to buy flour, sugar and whatever else was needed to make bannock so she brought these materials from her kitchen at home. I wondered whether or not this was going a little bit above and beyond the call of duty. Recognizing that a teacher was doing this, I had to admit teachers would do this normally. Their expectation is that the Government of Canada through the Income Tax Act would some day soon, hopefully sooner than later, recognize this contribution that they make to our upcoming communities. I have no difficulties with that expectation. I do not think
it is greedy at all. It is something that I am hopeful we will see happen very soon.
We talk about moneys being made available for these kinds of programs. Someone said that it was a matter of priorities. Someone asked is it fair that where we are today is where we should be? Should we not have progressed further? Today, as a matter of fact, you will recall that merchant marines performing in World War II have now been classed as full veterans with all veterans' benefits, the sort of thing that I am sure all of us felt should have happened a long time ago, not possessing though the necessary financial mechanics to make it happen. It happened today. I would venture to say that what the teachers are asking for, which will as well affect all those who require tools of the trade or expenditures over and above that which a normal salaried person is required to provide to their job, will some day be recognized. Again, I hope that it happens sooner than later.
I would just take one or two minutes more and say for those not knowing the background of government funding that does occur, through two systems of funding known as EPF and CAP the federal government grants this money to the provinces, which in turn take traditionally used EPF money for education and for hospitalization. The strings are no longer attached to EPF that way. EPF is used by the provinces as they see fit. In negotiating with teachers, with school boards, I would have to ask: Is it fair to expect now that this money has come from the federal government to the provincial governments that they should look at the broader picture of education? Education goes beyond books and pencils, reading, writing and arithmetic. It goes into society, as I have explained earlier.
Is it fair that maybe the school board should pay greater heed to some of these extra costs? Certainly I think we all agree in this Chamber that it is not fair for the teachers themselves to be expected to take their professionalism into the classroom, dig down deep into their pockets and supplement an educational system that will help all of us.
The matter before us is not whether or not the status quo is fair. I think we all agree that it is not fair. Who said that taxation was ever fair? We can only hope to strive to continue to make it fairer. I would hope that the thrust of what we have before us today becomes law in the not too distant future.
June 10, 1992


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for sharing part of the time with me so that I can have an opportunity to speak on this particular bill.
I should say that when you listen to what the government says, in most cases in the response you get you wonder about its commitment to education and its search for excellence in education. If you look at some of the things that teachers are talking about that they would like to have, some relief as far as the tax system is concerned, there are things like educational improvement expenses, such as registration fees and cost of books and travel and living expenses. Or, they want the cost of purchasing teaching materials for audio-visual and those types of things that are not supplied by school boards, and the cost of purchasing equipment such as computers and computer software and the cost of books that are necessary for them to do their jobs.
When you look at those expenses and then you hear some of the members opposite with their excuses, you wonder where their commitment is. If their commitment is to education, obviously their commitment has to be to the teachers, because they are the vehicles utilized in part for this search for excellence in education. We need to show a strong commitment to education and show that commitment to the teachers who are the integral part of delivering that service.
On top of that, a tax system has to be fair and must be seen to be fair. As I listen to the objections, I come to the conclusion that the teachers are talking about fairness as the excuse of continuing to be unfair, rather than trying to correct the unfairness in the system. That could be achieved, quite frankly, by taking a look at this type of exemption. If some day somebody should see the wisdom of doing a flat tax, then all would be treated equal and there would be fairness in the system. We would not have to be requesting these types of items.
I know that my time is short, but I think that it is time to become proactive.
Let us do something positive. Let us send a clear message to teachers in this country that we are with them and we are supportive of them.
I have heard some objections and some concerns as to what may happen. There are some nuances and there are some changes, and those types of things. Maybe the best
Government Orders
place for this would be at a committee to really go through and take a look at those.
If I could get unanimous consent of all my colleagues, I would move a motion that this be referred to a committee, perhaps even the finance committee, to review this bill. I would ask for unanimous consent for a motion that this be moved to the finance committee for study.


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


Some hon. members:: No.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McDermid that Bill C-48, an act to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I will continue my remarks on Bill C-48.
As I said earlier, I support the legislation but I certainly have some very serious concerns about the process the government followed to reach the stage where this legislation is today.
First of all, this legislation was needed as much five years ago as it is today. It is five years since Justice Estey recommended this type of legislation in the report. It has taken five years for this government to bring in the legislation. The result of the government dragging its feet may have been the failure for at least one trust company, Standard Trust. Standard was closed with a regulator last summer even though it might have been saved by forcing a merger with a healthy financial institution.

June 10, 1992
Government Orders
That option was not open for Standard Trust because this legislation had not been passed. Of course, Standard was forced to close its doors. Now we are seeing the same threat of failure facing Central Guaranty and perhaps First City.
After five years, the government decided to table the legislation. After tabling the legislation, the government decided to consult with the banks, the trust companies and all those affected by the legislation. It decided after it had tabled it that it should get their views on it.
Needless to say, the best time for consultation is before legislation is tabled, not after it is tabled. After the legislation was tabled, the Canadian Bankers' Association indicated to me that it had very serious and substantial concerns about this legislation.
A lot of these concerns could have been avoided if the government had consulted with the industry before tabling the legislation. After the government tabled it, it is very interesting to note that the finance officials told us in a briefing that there were only minor technical concerns about this bill. The concerns were only minor and technical and therefore we should pass it right away.
Certainly there was no lack of opposition to this bill. When we started to study this bill in the finance committee, we heard witness after witness criticizing the bill, saying it was poorly drafted, it was poorly thought out and it was in need of a lot of revision.
Many of these concerns and problems certainly could have been eliminated if the government had consulted the industry, as it should have, before it tabled the legislation.
I am sure many Canadians read some of the headlines in the newspapers concerning Bill C-48. For example, on February 3 The Globe and Mail headlined "Ottawa Moving Quickly to Give CDIC Sweeping Powers". On February 15 The Toronto Star headlined "Bankers see Gaping Holes in Proposed Law".
As I said, the government was really trying to ram this bill through. Commenting on that was The Globe and Mail on April 27 in an article entitled "How Not to Rush a Reform Bill Through Parliament".
Those headlines certainly highlight a very flawed process. It was flawed because the government did not adequately consult the groups involved: the banks, the
insurance companies, the other financial institutions. The lack of consultation led to misunderstanding and even mistrust.
What happened was that we in the finance committee spent a great deal of time in our meetings discussing details that should have been resolved long before the legislation was ever tabled. All the while we were never told why the government was so insistent on passing this legislation right away. The government wanted it passed the minute it was tabled, even though it had delayed the legislation for five years.
Some people said that it was to save Central Guaranty Trust. If that had been the case, a private member's bill could have been introduced to take care of that situation. There was no excuse for the government trying to rush this legislation through, especially when it gave no explanation even when we asked. There was no excuse either for the government not consulting with the finance industry, the banks, the trust and loan companies. Certainly there was no excuse for waiting over five years to table this legislation in the House.
Even though I said we had many concerns about the process the government followed, nevertheless the finance committee, the finance department and the industry worked together to co-operate on this bill.
It is important legislation. We feel it is very important that the Superintendent of Financial Institutions has the power that Bill C-48 will give him.
We made a lot of amendments in the bill, amendments which we feel will strengthen and give CDIC a better chance to help a troubled financial institution.
I want to take a minute to talk about the CDIC. The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation was established in 1967 to provide deposit insurance to people who had deposits in financial institutions that belonged to this corporation. It was to promote stability in the Canadian financial system which is so important. Certainly we realize that when we read the newspaper articles and magazine articles about what is happening south of the border. CDIC is financed by premiums paid by banks and trust companies who are CDIC members. As I mentioned, they will guarantee up to $60,000 for the depositors, for financial institutions that belong to the corporation.
June 10, 1992

As well as that, CDIC will also guarantee or co-sign loans to unhealthy financial institutions that need backstop money to keep operating. They set standards for sound business and financial practices for financial institutions.
Bill C-48, as I mentioned earlier, really gives the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation the power to take over a troubled institution and to work out some kind of a restructuring deal. That could involve selling the financial institution whole or simply selling off parts of the institution to get it on a more secure footing. That is giving a lot of power to the regulators. Therefore, we felt it was very important that the situation and the conditions under which the regulators can go in and take over that financial institution be spelled out in legislation. This is so that they cannot just walk in and do it. There are very specific situations spelled out in the legislation.
The committee made important amendments to the bill. First, we gave CDIC more flexibility for the kind of restructuring deals it can do. At the same time, we also restricted it somewhat by giving it the power to seize an institution only when it believes it has a buyer. Therefore, if CDIC cannot find a buyer but seizes the institution, then the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation would end up running that financial institution. However, that is not its job. That is why we wanted to amend the bill so that CDIC cannot seize it unless it feels there is a good chance to sell it or get it on a better financial footing.
It is certainly not an easy job to find a buyer for a troubled financial institution. It was indicated in the press that First City Trust had contacted 45 prospective buyers and only 20 were interested enough to look at its books. Only 1 out of the 45 prospective buyers came forth with an offer. That was North American Life.
The amendment that we made in committee was to force the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to look for potential purchases of a failing financial institution before moving in on that institution.
We then opened up the bill in committee to the provinces so that if a provincial finance minister has a
Government Orders
financial institution that is in financial trouble then he or she can ask the CDIC to take it over and merge it with a healthy institution or simply take it over and sell off part of the assets and liabilities to put it on a firmer basis.
We want the federal government to work closely with the provinces. We also want Ottawa and the provincial governments to eliminate a lot of this red tape in regulations that really adds to the cost of doing business. Of course, that cost is passed on to the consumer of financial institutions in the way of higher service charges and higher interest rates and so on.
The situation in Canada today is that there could be a federal trust company doing business across the country which would have to report to 11 different jurisdictions. That means Ottawa and each province. Just imagine the amount of red tape and the cost involved in that.
I want to conclude my remarks on Bill C-48 by again indicating that I certainly support third reading of this legislation. However, I want to repeat my displeasure with the whole process that was followed by the government.
There's the fact that the government took five years to bring in this legislation. It was five years after Mr. Justice Estey made his report. I want to register my displeasure with the lack of consultation and discussion that took place with the financial institutions involved before this bill was tabled. There's also the lack of progress made by this government in cutting the provincial-federal red tape for financial institutions.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to start my remarks where the previous speaker left off. That is with Mr. Justice Estey.
In 1985 we had some western banks that went down the tubes. We had no provision. There was no provision in legislation that allowed for any kind of restructuring of financial institutions in Canada.
I suppose it was not really brought home to us about the fragility of the financial institution structure in this country because after all it did not often happen that a bank went down. Banks did not very often go bankrupt in Canada. The last time, before the one in 1985, was probably 60 years ago.

June 10, 1992
Government Orders
Mr. Justice Estey brought down his report and he recommended that you have to have some permanent mechanism whereby you can restructure a financial institution that gets into trouble.
We solved the problems of those three banks: the Northland Bank, the Bank of British Columbia and the CCB. We solved that by passing a bill in this House, Bill C-27, in which we pumped in a whole pile of money and we paid off the depositors. Then we paid the Bank of Hong Kong to take over the Bank of British Columbia.
We did that and then Parliament went to sleep. The Department of Finance snoozed. As I used to say: "If you snooze you lose". They snoozed like the fellow in the story. What was his name? He went bowling in the forest and fell asleep. It was Rip Van Winkle.
They went to sleep. They did nothing about acting on the recommendations of Mr. Justice Estey until the recent experience of the collapse of the trust sector of financial institutions in this country. That, of course, has been exacerbated by the recession and by the fact that trust companies put a lot more of their money into commercial real estate than banks do. We all know what has happened to commercial real estate in this country.
Accompanying that were the changes we made with deregulating the financial institutional structures of this country. I want to remind the House that at that time, when we passed those bills, Bill C-4, Bill C-19, Bill C-28 and Bill C-34, we on this side of the House predicted that we were letting the animals out of the cages.
We said the first animals to be eaten would be the trust companies. We said that the trust companies were equivalent to cobras, the insurance companies were equivalent to mongooses and the banks were equivalent to lions.
We predicted at that time that the mongoose would kill the cobras and in the end the lions would get them all. It is not accidental that the Royal Bank's logo is a lion grasping the world to its chest. That is not just accidental, it is a sign of the times.
The whole thesis of this Tory government approach, this neo-Conservative approach, is that we have to build global competitors in Canada. Therefore if we are going global we need some sumo wrestlers not those old
regular Hulk Hogans, to wrestle for us. We have to go big, and the bigger the better.
I want to put on the record what we are witnessing today. Thke a look at what is happening. Take a good hard look. In the last 20 years 24 financial institutions have gone down the tubes, and most of them are trust companies. Last year four of them went down the tubes. It is not accidental. Lo and behold, Bill C-48 was tabled in this House and we had second reading. Then the phones starting ringing as the Minister of State for Finance wanted to know how soon we could get to C-48. How soon can we get it passed?
The government said we needed this bill. Of course I know why it needed the bill. It needed the bill because it had some cobras who were pretty big cobras. My colleague mentioned Central Guaranty. Of course there is Central Guaranty Trust and there is one still out there sitting in the wings, Royal Ihist.
I predict that by the time the next three years have gone by there will only be two trust companies left in this country large enough to exist, Canada Trust and National Trust.
The government introduced this bill and then started putting the pressure on the members of the committee. I got phone calls almost every day from the minister's office asking: "How soon can we expedite this bill?" When we got the bill to committee I asked very straightforward questions of the officials in light of the fact that financial institutions bills do not go to the committee unless there has been consultation among the major players. Has that taken place with this particular bill? When the dust cleared no consultations had taken place at all. This bill was rushed through Parliament and it was brought into committee.
Justice Estey said this bill should not go forward until we have made some major changes to the bill. All the major witnesses who appeared before the committee gave evidence that there had to be changes to the bill.
If one were to compare this to a bankruptcy bill it is a bankruptcy restructuring for financial institutions, as compared to the bill we are going to deal with later this evening that deals with those corporations and individuals other than financial institutions. This is the bankruptcy bill for financial institutions.
June 10, 1992

I suppose that the new role of the CDIC-and we must understand the structure. I want people who are watching to understand the structure and how it works, and maybe the minister can listen for his enlightenment.
First, there is a regulator, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, better known as OSFI. He is the policeman on the block. Then there is CDIC, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. Its chairman is Mr. Ron McKinlay. He is the undertaker, he performs the undertaking functions in the financial institutional structure. When the patient is dead they bring in Mr. McKinlay. He makes sure that the body is properly prepared and he also hands out the estate.
This is the kind of structure that we have. Then there are the functions of the Minister of Finance.
We examined the bill. What does the bill do? The main function of the bill is that it now provides for what is called a Financial Institutions Restructuring Process, better known as FIRP. I could sing that song:
OF McKinlay had a bill, ee-i-ee-i-oh;
With a FIRP, FIRP here and a FIRP, FIRP there,
Ol' McKinlay had a bill.
He can FIRP off any time he wants. If he sees an institution that is in trouble he can FIRP it. He can say: "FIRP you", and it is FIRPed. He can see another one that is weak and say: "You're FIRPed", and it is FIRPed.
What does it mean when you FIRP an institution? What are the details of FIRPing? What is the foreplay involved in a FIRP?
There are 12 easy steps. It is like the Kama Sutra for financial institutions. There are 12 steps that must be gone through. I will not bore the House with the 12 steps, but it is a process by which the institution is taken over by CDIC.
As a socialist I do not object to this idea. This is one way that we could have social ownership of the financial institutional structure, without having to nationalize any of them. I have no basic philosophical opposition to FIRPing it.
The CDIC recommends a FIRP to the minister and the minister carries on with the FIRP. Then a deal is cut. They make it sound like it would be over a weekend, they would do the FIRP on a Friday and on Monday they
Government Orders
would be able to carry on business as usual with a new owner.
We have no problem with the FIRP. In fact, the FIRP gives the assurance to Canadian taxpayers that it is the least costly to them, because if that financial institution had gone down the tubes it could cost the taxpayers of Canada a lot more than the FIRPing process and the pay-out under the CDIC. Mr. McKinlay said that if Shoppers Trust had gone down the tubes it would have cost the taxpayers in excess of $3 billion.
This leads us to one of the other provisions in the bill. This is why in the bill Mr. McKinlay and CDIC want to increase the amount of money that it can borrow from the Government of Canada from $3 billion to $6 billion. Obviously, it is going to be getting ready for a whole lot of FIRPing going on.
They want to make sure they have a lot of bucks, because if they have to get into all these others that are sitting on the sideline wavering, you are talking about bigger bucks yet to come.
The bill also includes an increase from $3 billion to $6 billion of potential borrowings by CDIC from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That raised a question with us in the committee.
Think of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation as a club. You want to join the club or you want your financial institution to join the club. You pay the premiums or dues into the club. Then you are a member of the club.
Now the club has some rules. One of the rules is that if you are having problems, if you are seeming to have to borrow more and more money to pay your commitments, if the thing is going down and Mr. McKinlay has to FIRP you, he can FIRP anybody in the club but he cannot FIRP a member of the club who is under provincial jurisdiction.
I want to say that if you are going to FIRP one, you have to be able to FIRP them all. One FIRP is as good as another FIRP. Let us get it straight. I have never seen a FIRP that is different. The minister said: "You cannot FIRP it". Why can you not FIRP it? You cannot FIRP it because it is under provincial jurisdiction.

June 10,1992
Government Orders
Then we had the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs getting into the FIRPing act. He writes to us and says: "Dear Don and Company". He was referring to the chairman of the committee, the member for Mississauga South. He says: "Dear Don and Company, you cannot FIRP them". I did not think this thing had constitutional ramifications. I thought a FIRP was a FIRP. Now it has all of these very serious constitutional ramifications.
That was one of the shortcomings of the bill. If you want to join the club and you pay your dues to join the club, then you follow the rules of the club.
The other club members have to be able to protect themselves by being able to FIRP you. What happens is that provincial institutions can suck and blow at the same time. They can go with whatever federal rules they like, and if they do not like them they can claim protection under the provincial rules. We said: "You cannot do that".
We ended up doing a little mishmash thing here. We went half way and said: "With the permission of the provincial minister, we can FIRP them". That is the situation with the FIRPs.
Concerning the other question that arose, you have to understand what I said before. The bulk of these financial institutions that have gone down or have had problems have been trust companies. The banks came along. The lions came along and said: "Roar, roar. Just a minute now. The ones going down in this club are all those trust companies and yet they pay the same premiums as we do". They say: "This is not fair". Imagine the banks saying: "This is not fair". They did. Honest to goodness. They said that this was not fair, that those having the greater risk should pay the higher premiums. Justice Estey did comment on that and said: "There should be some sort of co-insurance".
Are you giving me the fingers, Mr. Speaker? I see it and I will try not to abuse this. I see you are giving me two fingers. Well, that is good. If you have to go, Mr. Speaker, do not feel that I am holding you up.
Justice Estey did comment on the fact that the banks had a point here. I have to say the banks had a point.
Another question the committee had to deal with was the whole question of what happens, for example, when an institution is FIRPed on a Thursday. If that institution
is a trust company it will usually have a clearer, that is a bank.
Will the bank continue to clear the cheques for the FIRP institution? If the banks stop clearing the cheques will the FIRP institution go down the tubes? The banks need some assurance from CDIC or from the Bank of Canada that in fact the commitments will be honoured. We finally got that commitment from the minister.
In conclusion, there is one other thing that remains to be dealt with. Hopefully we will do that at a later date when we look again at this whole structure. We have to bring OSFI and CDIC together. This is a recommendation from Justice Estey and we have to deal with it.
I support the bill at third reading. My party supports this FIRPing and all the other restructurings that are included. We are not a party opposed to FIRPing. I will end on the words of Justice Estey: "We need this legislation because there may be something out there lurking in the woods".


An hon. member:: Tigers.


John R. Rodriguez: Tigers or lions.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to follow the member for Nickel Belt as he goes through a very torturous explanation of things through analogy.
Mr. Rodriguez Torturous? It was entertaining.


George Saunders Rideout: Yes, torturous. I was worried that he was going to be FIRPed. One of the suggestions I might make is that the member for Nickel Belt be FIRPed every once in a while.
This bill has really taken a very interesting course. It was brought forward. It was an important piece of legislation that had to be dealt with immediately. We all jumped to the ready to deal with it. The government said we must get it through quickly with no delay: quick, quick, quick. It had to be done.
Then we heard things like: "We have consulted with everyone. Everyone thinks this bill is wonderful. It is really going to be a great piece of legislation. All get on board and don't worry. Everything will be fine". As soon as we got it into committee, lo and behold, the brakes went on and went on hard. They remained on hard until we could get some amendments to the legislation to make it work.
June 10, 1992

The Canadian Bankers' Association and retired Supreme Court Justice Willard Estey both came to the committee and urged us to make changes. Both groups said the bill was properly aimed and it was doing the right thing.
As my colleague from Nickel Belt has said, this idea of a FIRP, Financial Institution Restructuring Process, is an important function and a power that they should have. But the bill was basically flawed and changes needed to be done. That is the purpose of committees and we performed that.
Lo and behold, we had the bill pretty well all done and then it languished on the shelf. Whatever the urgent reason for this bill, it suddenly disappeared and it languished for the longest period of time.
It is now back before the House. We on this side, as my colleague from Malpeque has indicated, are very supportive of the bill. It is a good piece of legislation, but we have to look at the reasons why. I think it was captured. I was in the finance committee on Monday. We dealt with CDIC and some of its problems. It was carried in The Globe and Mail on June 10 and summarized the situation. The headline read: "Sickies double CDIC's costs. Ill financial firms up significantly". The article reads:
The "sick list" of troubled Canadian financial institutions has grown so large that the cost of running Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. more than doubled last year and its staff is more than twice as large as it was five years ago.
That is the problem we are facing. Our financial institutions are under attack. We have seen what has happened, the number of failures that have occurred. Part of the problem rests with their inability to FIRP. That sounds like such a terrible thing. In fact when the member for Nickel Belt was talking I wanted to remind him that there might be children listening to the analogies that he was utilizing. However, there is a need to FIRP and all of us should FIRP once in a while.
In this particular case the legislation is going to handle that major problem. The testimony of Mr. Justice Estey and Mr. MacKenzie who heads up OSFI would be most illustrative of the problem. I would like to quote first from Mr. Justice Estey: "The idea of a FIRP is an essential element now missing in our banking system. Where I would like to see more action can be expressed this way: We should not govern this country by knee-jerk special acts. We should try to pass bankruptcy acts and
Government Orders
not special acts for each bankruptcy. We should not have a crisis every time a bank or trust company folds".
Again I quote Mr. MacKenzie at the financial committee: "The present situation is extremely frustrating for someone in my position, because a regulator at this stage cannot force a going concern solution if the owners or if other parties, for example bankers who have loaned money to a parent company, do not want to accept it. Therefore we are trying to fill in this gap with this legislation to allow the regulators to say to people: Look, if you do not face up to the reality of the situation and how bad it is and deal with x-y company or z bank or whatever to get an appropriate takeover of the whole thing, then you are going to have to do this process and we will force you".
I think that is the issue. Regulators now have a weapon called a FIRP to jump in and try to rescue the situation.
We are going to see some benefits from that. I agree with the comments made before that it is probably the threat of a FIRP rather than the FIRP itself which is going to cause the greatest good. I do not think we are going to see all kinds of FIRPing going on across the land.
There will only be the threat of a FIRP that will really force the change, make positive things happen and force companies to face up to it because no financial institution would want to have the regulators involved in their day-to-day operations if they can dispose of those assets and make the changes without that happening. We on this side see there is a benefit with respect to the threat of a FIRP.
My colleague from Nickel Belt also alluded to an interesting factor. It was fascinating to get a letter from the minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs asking us not to allow the FIRPing of provincial financial institutions.
I can see the constitutional issue, but it still does not make very much sense to me that a financial institution that is provincial in charter can stand and tell all Canadians that it has Canadian deposit insurance protection and they can put all their money into that institution and be protected. At the same time the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation does not have the power necessary to come in and take over that organization and protect the taxpayers of Canada and all the other people who are paying premiums to the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation. That to me is crazy.

June 10, 1992
Government Orders
I still think the compromise is not a good compromise, that we must go on bended knee to the premier of each province and say: "Can we FIRP your financial institution?"
That is going to take time and time is the essential element in this whole process. If we are to salvage an insolvent company or a company that is bordering on insolvency then we have to move quickly to arrange buyers and to make those kinds of deals in order to make it work. If part of the process is to go on bended knee to a provincial premier to ask if we can do it, and that premier is dealing with all the political ramifications associated with it happening, I think the process is going to fail and more people are going to lose money with these failed provincial institutions. I do not see the merit or concern and I do not accept that.
The guy who plays is the guy who should pay. What we know for sure is that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is the one that is going to have to pay. If provincial organizations want the benefit of that insurance then they should sign on for the consequences of a FIRP should they get into financial difficulties.
I am very worried about the present status when you read the headlines I referred to earlier:
'Sickies' double CDIC's costs.
If you read on in that particular article in The Globe and Mail, the organization is asking for a doubling of the amount of money they can ask the federal government to give them out of general revenue in order to keep financial institutions afloat.
We are facing a major problem. I am very concerned about a problem we are facing right now and I hope this legislation can facilitate that problem when it deals with the company called Central Trust. We know it is for sale. There has been a problem with that particular organization. As a maritimer or Atlantic Canadian. I feel sad about that institution being in difficulty and knowing some of the people involved in that corporation.
It was the one financial institution that had a base in Atlantic Canada. The best branches were in Atlantic Canada and it was the only institution that provided that
mechanism for Atlantic Canadians to get financial support, to judge the loans partly on the individuals because they knew them from their neighbourhood. This was rather than having, as we say in Atlantic Canada, the large institutions in upper Canada tell us who is going to get a loan and who is not.
In that sense it saddens me to see what is going on, but I am even sadder by the idea that all the best branches are going to be picked. They will go to some of the other financial institutions such as North American Life and perhaps the National Bank.
At the same time the poorer branches and the problems are going to be left with Central Thist. Then the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation could perhaps be called upon to have to bail out that segment that is left. That is going to increase the costs.
I believe that Mr. MacKenzie and OSFI are going to be in a position to deal with that particular situation and use the FIRPing provisions that are here in order to bring forward the best deal. It may still be with the National Bank or North American Life or it may be with another institution, but those are the types of powers this bill will give to our financial institution regulators.
In that sense, we are pleased to support the bill. We want to see it in place as quickly as possible so that the financial institution organizations will have the necessary protections.
In conclusion I want to comment on one other minor thing. It was a recommendation from Mr. Justice Estey about OSFI. When I say OSFI, I mean the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. We deal with all these fancy little initials and nobody can figure out what they mean. That is why FIRPing has such an exciting connotation. It is really not all that great.
Look at both the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Canada Deposit Insurance Company and the functions they perform. Mr. Justice Estey said that maybe Canadians and the Canadian government would get a bigger bang for their buck if these were put together because they perform roughly the same functions and there is some duplication.
June 10, 1992

We do see CDIC growing by leaps and bounds when you hear their staff has doubled in the last five years and their budget has gone up dramatically in the last couple of years. You can see perhaps that there may be some benefit in taking a look at bringing those two organizations together and perhaps effecting some savings. That is something that will be left for another day. Hopefully that day will come soon so we can go back and take a look at that concept.
We are supportive of this legislation. I thank all the colleagues on the finance committee who studied this legislation because they did pick off some of the errors and some of the mistakes that were brought forward by a hastily prepared bill. I think we have a better piece of legislation. Thanks to the committee and thanks to the witnesses who came forward.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, as someone who at one time, and this was quite some time ago, worked for three banks, including the Bank of Montreal, perhaps I may offer my comments on this bill.
I believe I am now considered a fairly good critic, at least I hope so, of the banking industry.

Any legislation that will serve to strengthen the confidence that all Canadians have in our financial institutions is obviously something that we in the Official Opposition would like to support.
The fact of the matter is that this government has done more to sabotage that confidence than to build it. Bill C-48 is an exception, as just indicated by the member for Moncton. It adequately addresses many of the problems that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation has been faced with when confronting financial institutions on the verge of failure. As my colleagues from Malpeque and Moncton have just indicated, our party will support this bill.
I would like to use my brief time this evening to speak of the absurd fiasco that has haunted the path to CDIC reform. In 1985, two banks in my own province of Alberta met a tragic and inglorious fate. The Northland Bank and the Canadian Commercial Bank suddenly collapsed under the weight of too many high risk liabilities and several bad investments. I might say the
Government Orders
collapse of real estate in my province was a major factor in both those banks' problems.
CDIC was on the hook for $417 million in insured deposits for those two banks alone. These were the only two financial institutions to fail, other than trust companies, since the Great Depression. That was in 1985, seven years ago. The Berlin wall has come down, the Soviet Union has dissolved, yet the government has just now woken up to the fact that the CDIC needed to have broader powers over financial institutions in trouble in order to avoid the problems, the misery and the suffering of people associated with the collapse of the CCB and the Northland Bank.
The minister responsible at the time, who is now the Secretary of State for External Affairs, was very concerned, as she ought to have been then. Unfortunately, she was not able to transform her concern into meaningful action. Perhaps her colleagues would not let her.
The renowned Justice Willard Estey, now a business person, was asked to investigate the failures. He stands today as one of the main authors of the bill before the House tonight. The problem is that it is now 1992 and the matter should have been taken care of years ago.
In December 1985, the Senate banking committee reported that the CDIC should be granted broader powers to assist financial institutions in difficulty.
In an article in The Globe and Mail published December 26, 1985, reporter Bruce Little wrote that the Senate committee: "said that the CDIC should not take over the role of primary regulator of banks and federally incorporated trust and loan companies, but should move in when institutions run into trouble". That is exactly, thankfully, what this bill attempts to do.
To use a somewhat macabre analogy, the CDIC will now be able to act as doctor in nursing a financial institution back to health, rather than as an undertaker.
Since this bill was introduced in the House last December it has been the subject of some tumultuous hearings of the House finance committee. A bill that could have been passed expeditiously, I believe with the co-operation of our party-I cannot speak for the other opposition members-was subjected to barbs from various industry groups who had not been given the opportunity to give their input on the bill in the drafting process. That was, I believe, a major error and one that demeans

June 10, 1992
Government Orders
our legislative process. It was delayed, I might add, on the advice of such great consumer advocates as the Canadian Bankers' Association. This is the same Canadian Bankers' Association that wants now to reduce the maximum level of insurable deposits from $60,000 to $20,000. We know whose interests they are looking after. The people of Canada, especially small depositors who are most at risk, deserve better than that from a strong Canadian industry and the organization which speaks for it, the CBA.
I have been critical in the past of how the CDIC has dealt with certain failures only because those failures could have been prevented had this reform taken place at the right time long ago.
I would ask my colleagues to hearken back to the summer of October 22, 1985. That is when the former auditor of the Northland Bank appeared before the Senate banking committee investigating the failure of two banks.
In his testimony, Crawford Smith noted the following: "I personally think that had the public not lost confidence and begun withdrawing deposits, the bank would have survived".
This arises from the belief that the CDIC could only intervene in the operation of a financial institution if it had already failed. By virtue of its traditional role as an undertaker of financial institutions, once the CDIC appointed a curator to run the Northland Bank, it was by all accounts clinically dead.
At what cost did this occur? The CDIC was forced to compensate insured depositors to the tune of $161 million and it threw about 200 Albertans, many of them residents of Edmonton, out of work.
What other results has the outdated mandate of the CDIC wrought on our financial institutions across Canada? In 1983 the collapse of the Alberta based Fidelity Trust Company cost taxpayers $359 million to repay depositors. The 1987 rehabilitation of the North-West Trust cost the CDIC $275 million. More recently, the Standard Trust Company, the Standard Loan Company, the Bank of Credit and Commerce Canada and the Saskatchewan Trust Company will all need assistance from public sources to satisfy depositors and investors.
Central Guaranty and First City Thist are currently in dire straits. Hopefully the passage of this legislation will allow those two firms to pull out of the fire that they now find themselves in.
This bill will transform the CDIC into a body that will build confidence in financial institutions rather than take away the respirator. As most Canadians know, if there is anything that is desperately needed in Canada's economic environment, it is confidence, the more confidence the better.
Why are we on this side concerned about the sluggishness of this initiative? It is kind of like molasses flowing up a very steep hill in Alberta, in January.
If anybody has had the chance to look at the financial condition of the CDIC lately, the answer is clear. In calendar year 1990 the corporation borrowed $1.28 billion from the federal government in order to compensate depositors. Last year, in 1991, $1.9 billion was needed. CDIC debts stood at around $600 million at the end of 1991. Obviously any new action that would help the corporation aid institutions without decapitating them, without killing them, would have a positive effect on the deficit, a deficit which members know has been virtually more than doubled since this group opposite took office in 1984.
I would conclude by reminding the House that we certainly welcome this legislation on this side. But dilly-dallying around with important measures like this for years and years and years has to stop. The failures I mentioned earlier could have been prevented had the lessons of the failure of Northland and the CCB been acted upon right away with due diligence, with responsibility and with concern for the people of Canada.
Just a couple of days ago I spoke on Bill C-78 dealing with amendments to several pieces of legislation to enhance the rights of Canada's 3.3 million disabled fellow citizens. It is another bill that has been delayed, studied, toyed with and eventually watered down by a terribly discredited government. Indeed, the polls will show it is the most unpopular government in Canadian history, at least since they started taking polls, and they call the Liberal opposition obstructionist.
June 10, 1992

Finally, I hope the government has learned a lesson from this bill. Consumer confidence in our financial institutions of all sorts is not something that any government worthy of the name should trifle with. I do not know why the government would want to treat this matter lightly either. I think we will all stand a little taller when this bill becomes the law of the land.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)) moved: that Bill C-22, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend the Income Tax Act in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-22, which proposes to reform the Bankruptcy Act. I know members opposite will agree that this bill has been a long time in coming and that our economy desperately needs this legislation.
Canada must have bankruptcy legislation that reflects the realities of 1990, not 1949. Our country needs legislation that is easy to implement, effective and less costly for taxpayers and that requires less expense and effort on the part of those who must use it as a last resort.
Government Orders
Canada wants bankruptcy legislation that is fair to creditors. Above all, we must have legislation that gives companies in financial difficulty more breathing space in which to reorganize their affairs.
Bill C-22 contains a number of key objectives.
First, the bill aims to strike a better balance between the rights of various classes of creditors and the rights of creditors and debtors. It will also update the legislation to make it more effective, less costly and easier to implement on a day to day basis.
The new legislation will also make it possible for individuals and businesses to restructure and, if possible, avoid bankruptcy.
The thrust of this reform is to provide a mechanism that will safeguard businesses that have the misfortune to be in financial difficulty but are still viable. It is not, as I have said from time to time, to give artificial respiration to businesses that are clinically dead but to ensure that businesses that are viable get the help they need to keep going. Thanks to this mechanism, we will save thousands of jobs.
The bill stresses restructuring, not liquidation. These changes are something we have needed for a long time. As I said earlier, the Bankruptcy Act was passed in 1949. Members on both sides of the House are aware that today's market requires legislation that provides a greater degree of equity, effectiveness and certainty.
The new series of bankruptcy provisions we have developed considers the needs of debtors, creditors, consumers and suppliers. We succeeded in getting this bill where it is today because we consulted a great many people, because we also listened to the people we consulted, and also because we provided the flexibility and initiative that were required in this process.
I realize that members on both sides of the House are disappointed that the government rejected the proposals for wage claim protection.

I would remind those members that in the absence of consensus on how to provide wage protection, we must move forward where there is consensus. Canadian work-

June 10, 1992
Government Orders
ers will indeed significantly benefit from this legislation which helps companies avoid bankruptcy altogether.
This piece of legislation is very much designed to protect Canadian jobs. It gives companies time to restructure in order to survive. Had previous Parliaments been able to pass this legislation, there is no telling how many companies might have survived this recession. There is no telling how many jobs might have been saved.
We cannot fail where Parliaments before have failed. This seventh attempt to reform Canada's bankruptcy laws must succeed. The hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell put the matter very well last May 22 when the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations tabled its report.
I would like to thank him for his intervention on that occasion when he said: "Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake if we do not get the new bankruptcy law. I do not want to see any more workers lose their jobs in the depths of this recession. We need to help workers immediately. I do not want to see this delayed any further, notwithstanding my great desire to have the wage earner protection plan which I certainly hope the government will introduce at the earliest opportunity".
The government shares my hon. friend's concern for a wage earner protection program. This issue will be given the highest priority when the act comes up for parliamentary review in three years.
The government also strongly agrees with my hon. colleague that now is the time to act. We do not want to see this reform delayed any further, not when thousands of jobs may be at stake.

Bill C-22 vastly improves the effectiveness and fairness of the federal Bankruptcy Act. By making provisions relating to restructuring more flexible and accessible, Bill C-22 helps safeguard jobs while providing businesses and individuals with greater leeway to turn the situation around without having to resort prematurely to bankruptcy. By providing businesses and individuals in financial difficulty with more breathing space to negotiate with their creditors, Bill C-22 helps avoid unnecessary bankruptcies and, as a result, helps to safeguard jobs. By expanding the rights of unpaid suppliers, Bill C-22 helps to counter the familiar domino effect.
By eliminating Crown priority in some cases, Bill C-22, I am sure you will agree, makes bankruptcy rules more equitable. As hon. members are aware, the new provisions are the result of intensive consultations conducted by the government and the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations.
Both the government and the standing committee consulted with industry, the unions, consumers, financial institutions, legal experts and the provinces. Mr. Speaker, this reform was not planned in a vacuum by people who never had to manage a payroll or a budget. Those with concerns about the new proposals had ample opportunity to express their views and make a very positive contribution to this final version of the bill before us this evening.

This legislation is the product of an experiment in sending a bill for pre-study by the standing committee. The government has accepted the vast majority of the committee's recommendations, from large policy issues such as the rights of farmers and fishermen as unpaid suppliers to questions of courtesy and logic such as making draft regulations available to the standing committee.
These amendments are a tribute to the manner in which all parties can work together to improve a piece of legislation that is vital to our countiy's economic health.

In line with recommendations made at the pre-study stage, we adopted the committee's suggestion to stop the clock, if I may use that analogy, for unpaid suppliers, pending implementation of reorganization measures. We adopted the eminently reasonable recommendation requiring the bankrupt consumer to engage in financial consultations as a condition for his release.
In the past, many consumers have been involved in multiple bankruptcies. Because the same consumer would occasionally be faced with another personal bankruptcy a couple of years later, it was necessary to be able to offer these people, and the system as well, the assurance that we could also help consumers find ways to reorganize so as to avoid another bankruptcy.
June 10, 1992

In other words, we made good use of the excellent report drafted by the standing committee. We carefully considered the views expressed by various intervenors who appeared during the pre-study.
Bill C-22 reflects many years of intensive consultations with business, unions, consumers and legal experts-with all the people who deal with insolvency. Where a consensus seemed possible, a consensus was achieved; where compromise was necessary, a compromise was reached; where leadership was required, leadership was given.
The result was a set of proposals that provides a reasonable and balanced response to a host of complex problems that must be dealt with as soon as possible, in order to safeguard businesses and jobs. Let us try to succeed where other governments have failed six times over.
After waiting more than forty years, Canadians can no longer afford outdated bankruptcy legislation. Bill C-22 is a basic component of the framework put in place by this government to promote a competitive and productive economy that will provide prosperity for all Canadians.
In a few days or a few hours, it will be a year since this bill was tabled for first reading, a bill that we amended with the help of my colleagues who participated in the process, like 'the hon. member for Dartmouth, who is in the House this evening, and the hon. member for Nickel Belt, both of whom worked very hard in committee with government members. Unfortunately we could not satisfy all the requests or suggestions made to us. The art of governing is being able to go ahead with what we have a consensus on and to implement mechanisms to help businesses first thing tomorrow morning and save jobs for thousands of workers.
I almost feel like saying when we finally pass this bill, that I look forward to next time because in a few years, we will review it in a more permanent way. With the legislation we have passed since 1984, we try as much as possible to have a mechanism in the law to review it regularly so as to avoid the absolutely unacceptable situation of legislation remaining on the books for 40 or 50 years without significant amendment.
I think that the Canadian parliamentary system now allows us to do it and this ongoing review will no doubt
Government Orders
give Canadians legislation, including the Bankruptcy Act, that is more dynamic and can be amended from time to time over the years.
I thank all hon. members who will pass this bill tonight.
I think it is a great day.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is high time that I finally have the chance to address this bill at third reading.
It has been one year since the minister made his announcement and tabled the bill in the House. I made a mistake the other night, or I think I did, in discussing this at report stage. It has been one year almost to the day. It was on June 13 of last year after much deliberation, after years of discussion and debate, that this minister finally made the announcement that the government would be proceeding with yet another attempt to reform Canada's Bankruptcy Act.
The minister said it well, that the act we currently have and that is still the law of this country was passed by Parliament in 1949 and it has not been substantially amended since then.
It took us one year to get to this point. June 13 will be the one-year anniversary of the tabling in this House of Bill C-22. What started off with a great deal of promise a number of times hit the shoals. It landed on the rocks. We started off and figured it would be a noble adventure.
The minister was very kind in the beginning. We sat down and talked. Because of the economic situation that the country found itself in, primarily due unfortunately to this minister's government's policies, we were looking at record bankruptcies around the country. We were seeing economic decline in this nation unlike anything we had seen since the dirty thirties.
The opposition, myself included, felt that we had a fundamental responsibility. If the government was not going to listen and change its ways and abandon the economic policies that has forced so many Canadian citizens into bankruptcy, then we felt it was incumbent upon us in the opposition to co-operate wherever we could with the government. We felt we should at least try to improve the legislative infrastructure in the marketplace to catch those being forced out of the economic

June 10, 1992
Government Orders
mainstream and on to the economic trash heap of bankruptcy.
The minister will recall back on June 13 when he made the announcement. I was not here. My youngest son, Stephen, was being bom that very day. So I have two reasons to remember that date. I have to thank the minister and I will do it publicly now. He sent the nicest bouquet of blue flowers. I did not think you could get blue flowers but his florist found them somewhere. He sent a bouquet of blue flowers to my wife, congratulating her on the birth of our son, Stephen.
What we did at that point in time in recognition of the difficulty Canadians were finding themselves in is the opposition parties agreed to a novel approach. We agreed to pre-study the bill.
The difficulty we have here is that when a bill comes through the House, once it gets approved in principle at second reading, everybody digs in their heels. The job of government members on committee is not necessarily to improve the legislation, it is to get the legislation through with the integrity of the government intact. If there are any major flaws, they have to find ways that the government can change them a little later.
I believe the creativity that is absolutely necessary in this House and through the legislative process to bring back to this place any integrity lost is to allow private members to participate in the formulation and betterment of legislation.
We agreed to that on this side of the House, and sure enough we did it all through the month of September. We came back early and pre-studied the bill. It was fabulous. None of the members of the committee felt bound by any party ideology or philosophy. What we said we would do is we had a fundamental responsibility to the Canadian public as parliamentarians to go through the legislation and to squeeze out of that process of pre-study the best possible amendments to the Bankruptcy Act that we could possibly arrive at.
I have spoken two or three times on this and hundreds of times in committee. I asked dozens of questions of the minister, so I am not going to go through all the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. My comments on them
are well recorded in the Hansard both of committee and of this place.
There were a number of major parts of this bill. The bill sought to rebalance the bankruptcy legislation, the infrastructure legislation in the marketplace. It sought to go and change the regulatory environment of 1949 and to take into account the interests of the very stakeholders in a bankruptcy situation.
One of the first things obviously that the minister and the government saw that was out of whack was the fact that individuals who put their labour into a company or a business and do not get paid should be near the top. That is because those individuals had invested their labour and it is usually one of the last inputs into a company before it becomes insolvent and is forced into receivership or bankruptcy.
The minister and the government decided that rather than rebalance the bill and recognize right in the body of the Bankruptcy Act that wage earners had a right to be protected and they had a right to be up front in the process, it said: "We cannot do that because of the big financial institutions".
Sometimes I accuse the minister of being too good a friend of the big institutions, and perhaps that is unfair. But the big financial institutions in this country carry a heck of a lot of clout, not just over parliamentarians but over businesses as well. These institutions can make a decision based on one slight modification in the formula of the credit worthiness of an organization that may mean that it cannot access the lines of credit needed in order to carry on its business.
In the five or six previous attempts, I believe, to reform this bill we could never get it right because the big interest there, the financial institutions, which were usually secured creditors, if too much of their security was taken away in the legislation it would scare the life out of the business community. The financial institutions would then tell the businesses that they were not going to be able to lend them money any more and that they were not going to be able to have their revolving lines of credit. The business community would fall back and say: "My goodness, if the banks turn their backs on us we will not be able to do business". It is no different for political parties.
June 10,1992

The banks have clout in this country because they are large financial institutions. They wield a lot of power. Rather than face up to the bullies on the block, the big financial institutions, the government said: "No, we recognize that there should be a rebalancing of this bill. We recognize fundamentally that the workers have to be up front here, but we are not going to do it in the body of the act because the big banks are going to squeal too loudly. Therefore what we are going to do is set up a fund called the wage earner protection fund".
In and of itself it is not a bad idea. In recognition of the fact that workers had an interest in the assets of a bankrupt company and that the wages should be paid, a fund would be set up. This fund was going to pay them up to 90 per cent of the wages and vacation pay they were owed, up to a maximum of $2,000. The government wanted to ensure that there was a system in place that provided for certainty and immediacy of payment for those workers. In many cases they were only getting $4.50 an hour and every dollar they got went to feed, clothe and shelter their children. They were the two criteria that were used.
We said we would rather see it in the bill. We would rather see some super priority given to the wage earners in the body of the bill. Recognize for goodness' sakes that that is where it should be done. The rest of the interests will just have to move on down a little bit because it is not a lot of money.
The government said it could not do that, so it set up a fund. The original name of this bill before it was amended at committee was an Act to Enact the Wage Payment Claim Act and to amend the Bankruptcy Act and related statutes. I guess I could have swallowed that. I recognized where the pressures were. I was pleased that the government recognized there was a fundamental responsibility to those workers in cases of bankruptcy to get the few dollars back that they were owed.
But the government had a problem. The government's problem was that it was going to fund this by a tax. It was going to implement a new tax. This is the government that has implemented 34 new taxes since it came to power. This is the very government that has come in and shifted the tax burden away from corporations and on to the middle class. This is the very government that at 11
Government Orders
per cent in the polls for goodness' sakes came in with the most unpopular tax in the western world, the GST. But this time Canadians were taxed out.
What this government was going to do was tax everybody. It was even going to tax public corporations. It was going to go to the school boards and tax school boards. Public corporations do not go bankrupt. It was going to tax hospitals. Hospitals do not go bankrupt. It was going to tax municipalities. Municipalities do not go bankrupt. It was going to tax small and medium sized businesses, businesses that do go bankrupt all too frequently because of this government's policies.
The business community came in and it said it agreed with most of this bill. When it came time to deal with the wage earner protection fund, it thought it was a great idea.
But do you know what? We do not trust this gang opposite. We do not trust governments any more when they say it is only a small little tax because we think you guys lacks integrity and we do not think you are always up front with us.
We think if you get a small little tax, to start off it is going to be 10 cents a week, and before you know it, it is going to be one of those big taxes.
They had heard throughout the GST debate about all the wonderful attributes of the GST. Do you remember it all? It was going to be revenue neutral. It was going to be transparent. You were going to be able to see it when you paid it. It was going to be single tiered. It was going to be fair. Most important, it was going to be revenue neutral.
There is nobody in the country that has an ounce of sense left in his head who would believe this government when it says it is only a small tax and it is not going to grow.
At that point the government said to every one of these businesses that came in, every organization: "We promise you that this tax will not change without coming back to Parliament". Some officials are watching this debate from various parts of the building, I hope. I can see a few here. It told them over and over again: "You do not have to worry. Trust us because this tax cannot be changed unless it goes back to Parliament".

June 10,1992
Government Orders
The committee, Tories included-I know it is hard to believe it-listened to all the debate and listened to the witnesses. After all the debate and all the witnesses, after everything was said and done, we came in with the report back in September. You know what we reported? We reported that more properly the interest of the wage earner should be in the act itself. We did not believe one word that came out of the mouths of the big financial institutions, crying in their cups at the committee that they would lose money. This was at the same time that we were in the worst recession since perhaps the 1930s. It was at the same time that the big banks were making record profits. The minister knows that. They made $3.4 billion in profits in 1991. In the middle of one of the worst recessions we have ever seen, they had the highest profits they had ever seen.
The Liberals, New Democrats, and Conservative members of Parliament sitting on that pre-study committee made a recommendation. The recommendation said: "In the event that the bankruptcy, liquidation, or receivership of an employer, claims by employees for unpaid wages, for salespersons' expenses up to a maximum of $3,000, should be given priority over the claims of all other creditors, including the Crown". This priority, however, should be subject to the right of unpaid suppliers of the employer.
Do you know what that means, Mr. Speaker? It means an idea called super priority, which means that they take the first crack at the assets. It was recommended by Conservatives and not just left wing Conservatives. We have some members over there who even my hon. colleagues would consider right wing Conservatives.
They say: "Yes, it may cause some trouble in the financial communities, but by God this is the way it has to be done". We made all kinds of other recommendations about how this bill should be changed. The government came back at second reading, accepted a lot of the other recommendations of the committee and ignored the recommendation about the wage earner protection fund.
There was a particular problem caused at this point in time: There were at least eight members of the government benches who said: "I will not support this legislation because it implements a new tax. I no longer will support my government if it introduces new taxes".
"By God, you have made me swallow the GST and I have the scars to prove it", they told the government, "but I am not going to swallow another tax. I have finally listened to my business community and I am going to do what my constituents think is right, not what my government says is right. I am not going to support a tax".
We get to committee. We had a fine time. We were still friendly then. We were still working in a vein of co-operation, and all of a sudden what happened? There was complete discord. We had the parliamentary secretary come in, and because there was a problem with the Conservative caucus the government announced to its caucus, not to me: "You don't have to worry about it. We know this tax thing is going to give you a problem because the municipalities, the universities and the schools and the hospitals, the MUSH sector, are all on your case and they are sending you petitions. What we are going to do is we are going to fund the program out of the CRF, the consolidated revenue fund".
The government was going to pay it. We did not have to worry about the tax. We thought it was rather kind of the government to do that. Its members came into the committee and had a double-headed amendment. The first part of the amendment said that it would be funded by CRF. All the Tories were saying: "Great, no tax". I was saying: "Great, no tax. The government has listened". We recognized that the government which caused this recession should pay a small premium to try to rectify some of the damage of the recession. We thought they recognized that but obviously they did not.
Upon prying into the amendment, my hon. colleague over here realizes, we found out that there was another part of the amendment. After telling all these businesses, hospitals and universities across Canada that the tax could never be raised unless it came back to Parliament, we found out that this amendment which was ostensibly going to give a year and a half without a tax also gave the Governor in Council, which is cabinet, the ability to raise the tax unilaterally without ever coming back to Parliament.
June 10, 1992

In short, they had misled every single witness who had come into our committee, every single witness. They had misled members on the committee.
Second, upon further questioning we found out that there was no holiday for anybody. There was no freebie here. They were going to lend the money to the fund. That is all they were going to do: lend the money to the fund. At some point in the future they were going to get future employers to pay back the money for the first two years of the fund.
It was the height of hypocrisy, a sleight of hand, and dare I say, a deceit to come forward at that point in time. They destroyed the discord of the committee. We argued the point that what the government was doing was wrong. It flew in the face of the rules and regulations and precedents of this place.
Lo and behold, another miracle happened at that committee. The New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party argued that the government's amendment was out of order. I will never forget that day either. We were right, and the chairman of the committee came back and said: "I checked with the clerk and the opposition is right. You can't do this". Then the Tories did not know what to do. Do members remember that? The Tories did not know what to do. They were going to kick the chairman off the committee because he had not done what they wanted him to do.
So much for harmony, so much for co-operation, and so much for doing it the right way.
What happened then is that the government did not know what to do with the bill. That was in early December. It did not call the committee back and the bill basically got stuck in neutral. The government then ran around the Parliament Buildings trying to figure out what in the name of goodness to do next. At the same time, every day the bill was not put back into the House and every day that the government did not know what to do with the bill hundreds of Canadians were going bankrupt.
We went to the minister on a number of occasions and said: "We realize that the Minister of Finance will not give you the money to fund this fund". We put at least four different proposals as to how they could fund this particular program privately to the minister and his officials, and each and every time it was met with no response.
Government Orders
Finally, a bill was brought back to the House of Commons, stripped of the entire wage earner protection program.
My hon. colleague from Nickel Belt had spent a considerable amount of time with me and the minister and members of the Conservative caucus trying to be innovative. We said the bill indicated in its title that the government recognized there was a right that wage-earners had in this and therefore how could it possibly split that part of the bill? It is done and history will judge these people opposite for doing that.
We fully support most of the aspects of the bill dealing with reorganization. We support the ability of suppliers under this act to be able to revindicate or take back their goods. I must give the minister some credit because that must have been a tough one to get by some of the lobbyists from the banks because it affects their secured position. The minister stood tough and we all win on that one.
There are some other provisions of the bill, just introduced recently in amendments, for farmers and fishermen which recognize that they are a little different. The minister and the government agreed with members of the committee from all sides and included special protection for farmers and fishermen. The Cattlemen's Association did not get everything it wanted but I guess half a loaf is better than none on this particular count.
Things have changed. This bill goes a long way in taking an outdated Bankruptcy Act, because that is all it is now it is not a wage earner protection act anymore, and rebalancing it to a great extent. It takes away the right of the big financial institutions to walk in and almost unilaterally pull the rug out from under businesses that might be experiencing some cash flow problems. Businesses are not always solvent, sometimes they are insolvent but that does not mean they are not good businesses. It may be because of fluctuation in the market, it may be because of problems with cash flow, it could be for a whole number of reasons. However, all too often the banks could quickly appoint a receiver, pull the rug out out from under the business, and the business would go belly up.
They cannot do that any more, they are going to have to give notice, I think it is 10 days, before they appoint a receiver. The individual or the corporation now, rather than saying that they cannot do anything unless they find the money to pay everybody off, are going to be able to file for protection and are going to be able, just as in the United States, to put a proposal together to reorganize

June 10, 1992
Government Orders
without a gun at their heads. This means they can have an orderly repayment of their debts so that they can save jobs. When a business goes bankrupt we lose jobs and we lose productive people from the economy and the community.
This bill goes a long way toward fixing that. We support those provisions and they were equally contributed to by all parties in this House. Even after that rocky period in November, December and January we have shown that this place can still work and we have pulled it together, and the minister has been able to bring this back to the House.
However, we cannot sit here and talk about bankruptcy without really understanding what has happened in the last 12 months. I started off my speech by saying that in the last 12 months a lot has happened in my life. I have a new child who is going to be a year old on June 13. This bill has been in and out, up and down, and all over the place. All kinds of things have happened here. However one of the things that-


Pierre Blais: Do you still want blue flowers?


Ronald MacDonald: You can send more flowers, though make them red this time.
One of the other unfortunate things that has happened is that the recession, which this government denied was a reality for so long, continued at a breakneck pace. Between June 13 of last year and June 13 of this year about 70,000 individual Canadians and Canadian businesses have been forced into bankruptcy. There have been billions of dollars in liabilities left over by those companies.
In 1991 in Nova Scotia alone there was one bankruptcy for every 305 Nova Scotians. Think about that. It means in every neighbourhood in Nova Scotia, people have either lost their jobs because of a bankruptcy, perhaps have had to file for personal bankruptcy, or somehow are affected by this outbreak, this plague of bankruptcies that is spreading through the economy.
It has to be understood when we talk about the statistics on bankruptcy they are not just sterile numbers. These are real people. They are just like me or the minister. They have families, children, parents, they contribute to their community. They have some pride, integrity, and they work hard.
People find themselves up against that big grindstone of debt because they have lost their jobs, cannot pay their mortgages, their kids cannot get into sports, and maybe they cannot even feed their families without going to a food bank. They lose their integrity, that sense of community, of being able to contribute to their family and their community.
Each and every one of these cases where somebody is forced into a bankruptcy is a personal tragedy. It is not something that just goes away the day they get their discharge. Unfortunately there is a stigma attached which is with them for the rest of their lives. They have problems with their spouses, their children, their parents, their neighbours, because the emotional anxiety they go through may never be erased.
Many times they never again contribute to the same extent they had contributed when they were productive members before the stigma of bankruptcy.
There was a new record established every month for the last 16 or 17 months. We broke records in this country; not of productivity, not of employment growth, but of a growth in bankruptcies. There was a tragedy unfolding.
Since this government's made-in-Canada recession began there has been over 130,000 Canadians, individuals, businesses, which have gone belly up. It is fine for the government to spend all their time talking about their prosperity budget, $50 million here, $25 million there. These people have been the real casualties of this government's economic policies.
There is a lot of stuff we do not like in this bill. I do not like the fact the wage earner protection fund has been done away with. There are a few provisions I would like to see changed but I have some sense of what I am supposed to be doing as a member of Parliament. I think most members of this House have.
When we look at the economic calamity taking place in every comer of this nation, when we look at an unemployment rate in the province of Newfoundland in excess of 20 per cent, when we look at over 1.5 million Canadians unemployed, when we look at over one million Canadian children living in poverty and 2.5 million Canadians on welfare, anything we can do on this side of the House to offer even a modicum of relief we will support.
June 10, 1992

The members opposite are saying, why not? We are going to support this bill but my time will be spent today not just saying what is good about the bill but also telling Canadians what could have been done and how it could have been better.
There are an awful lot of definitions of bankruptcy. Webster's ninth edition says: "Bankruptcy: One who is destitute, exhausted of valuable qualities, impoverished". The Penguin Canadian Dictionary says: "One totally lacking in specific qualities". The Gage Canadian Dictionary says: "Bankruptcy: A person who is completely lacking in something".
If we get into the etymology of the word "bankrupt" we cannot help but contrast it with the activities of this government over the last number of years. This government has proven over and over that no matter what definition of bankrupt is given, this government meets the criteria. Economically they are bankrupt. They got into power on the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs in 1984 and what we have seen is rising unemployment.
In 1988 they said to the Canadian public: "We are going to come in with a free trade deal and that deal is going to open up markets in the United States. We have to get away from countervail. We have to get access to their markets and the world is going to be rosy again because we are going to create all these jobs".
We see how many jobs have been created. By some estimates, there were over 1 million jobs lost in the Canadian economy because of free trade. The manufacturing sector in southwestern Ontario has been decimated because of this government's economic policies.
It talked about spreading prosperity around. In actual fact, if you measure regional disparities by unemployment rates and by family income, you will find out quite quickly that there is no prosperity in places like Newfoundland and there is no prosperity in places like Saskatchewan, where this government is presiding over the very death of the family farm. In Saskatchewan there are more acres of farmland that are now owned by banks that have foreclosed than are owned by individual farmers. Every day, every week, every month of every
Government Orders
year this government is in power the family farm goes further on to the endangered species list in places like Saskatchewan.
This government is bankrupt of policies. This government has gone into the management of the fisheries on the east coast of Canada. Because it does not really care about the east coast of Canada, because it does not have the electoral seats there, it has decided that in a great effort to try to cleanse itself of its bad image at home, it is going to do it by being friendly to the foreigners. It has effectively mismanaged and handed over that once great resource called the northern cod stock to foreign fleets.
In Newfoundland, which has always suffered more disparity than any other region of the country because of this government's bankrupt economic policies, we have a situation quickly developing where within the next weeks we may have the Minister of Fisheries announcing that there is no more fish because he has given it all away or he has mismanaged the stock into near extinction. There will be 35,000 jobs in the province of Newfoundland that will go with it, 35,000 jobs. It is a province of 570,000 people. In terms of Montreal or Toronto, it would be like Montreal losing perhaps 120,000 to 150,000 jobs.
Newfoundland is destitute because of this government's bankrupt policies on the fisheries. This government lacks the integrity to understand that when it is at 11 or 12 per cent in the polls, it does not have the support of the Canadian public to pursue policies with the Americans, with foreigners, or with the North American free trade deal where we are now in phase one.
It is like Freddie Kruger and Nightmare on Elm Street. There was a number in the series. Well the Nightmare on Elm Street No. 1 for the Canadian public was 1984 when it elected these guys the first time.
Chapter 2 in the trilogy was when it told us it was going to have a free trade deal with the United States. Chapter 3 was the GST and NAFTA, two issues it has on its economic agenda that will ensure that the demise of the Canadian economy will continue and that the destruction of this nation will continue unabated as long as this bunch opposite is at the helm.

June 10,1992
Government Orders
This government is bankrupt of any idea of what to do with this once great nation. It has taken a nation of incredible promise, a nation that is extremely diverse but was extremely tolerant and turned it into a nation where nobody feels secure that they have any future here any more.
It has turned it into a country where anglophones are battling francophones, whites discriminating against blacks. It has turned it into a country where it has pitted region against region against region. We have race riots in Toronto and in my hometown, Dartmouth and Halifax. We have economic conditions leading young black youth to stop trusting that the system will get any better and who are taking things into their own hands.
We have had outbreaks of racism in western Canada against the Sikh community. We have had Canadians from coast to coast to coast who have lost that sense of Canadianism and have started to question whether or not there is even any hope for this country. That is only after a few years of this government's bankrupt direction.
In conclusion, I wish that we could apply this bill to the Conservative government. I talked about reorganization and meetings of creditors. I wish we could apply this bill to this government, because I think if we could the Canadian public would serve notice. They would give it its 10 day notice just like banks do when they appoint a receiver. They would appoint a receiver against this government and that receiver would be the Chief Electoral Officer of this country.
There would be a vote in this country by the shareholders, the stakeholders, Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They would come up with a reorganization plan. In that reorganization plan, the first plank would be that they would get rid of the board of directors which is the cabinet, and they would send the CEO south, and that is the Prime Minister of Canada.
Maybe if we had the opportunity to do with this government what businesses can now do when they find themselves in times of turmoil, we would have some future.
Canadians will never forgive this government for what it has done to this great nation over the last number of years. Perhaps the final and the most telling testament to
the greatness of this nation is that yes, this nation will survive even eight years of Tory mismanagement.
Finally, I want to give a quote because I think this quote suits this government perfectly. It is a statement about how I and every Canadian feels after this government has driven this economy straight into the cellar. It is a quote from, of all people, Trotsky: "You are pitiful, isolated individuals. You are the bankrupts. Your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on, into the dustbin of history".
I can assure you that the next time Canadians have an opportunity to judge this government, they will remember that quote and this government will be destined to the ash pile of history.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I looked on with great interest as we have gone through a perilous journey with Bill C-22, the Bankruptcy Act and the insolvency act as presented by this government.
One gentleman asks if I would support this bill. Unlike my Liberal colleague, I would not support this bill. Fundamentally it is flawed, and I would not support it for the same reason I would not support the referendum. I thought that it was fundamentally flawed. Something is flawed when it does not do what it is supposed to do. 5 it does not give wage protection to workers then it is not worth being supported.
Just to respond specifically to the question on the other side, a bad bill is a bad bill is a bad bill.
Let me give a bit of history on this Bankruptcy Act and the insolvency act. It is very important. This goes back to 1949. The last time we dealt with bankruptcy in a substantial manner was 1949. As far back as 1970 there was a study committee. The report coming from the study committee said that the 1949 act essentially reflected the 1949 situation. It meant that the moneys that workers could get were expressed in 1949 dollars. We are looking at very little money.
What we are looking at here with this proposed law is a bill which is unbalanced. To give the minister his credit, as originally presented to us I believe that was a balanced bill. It did what it said it was going to do. There were the workers' protection funds and there were a number of articles dealing with reorganization to make bankruptcy more responsible and easier to go into and easier to avoid in many instances.
June 10, 1992

Something has happened, however. It changed along the way. We do not know why. We have our thoughts on it, but we know that no longer do we have the workers' protection fund. That is extremely important. The main reason we felt this bill was important for Canada and for workers was that for the first time it brought the amount of money they could get into real 1990 dollars. No longer were we dealing with 1949 dollars. We were dealing with more money than they were getting in the past.
As we look at the travelling this bill has done over the past year or so we see that the bill has been changed substantially to the effect that all it does is reorganize and leave the workers out in the cold. We are talking about workers who are affected by bankruptcy. We are talking about workers who all of a sudden find that the vacation pay they have coming and the back pay they are due will no longer be given.
I think it is important for us to come to terms with a certain number of definitions. There are three definitions we want to be sure we are aware of. First, we are looking at super priority. Now what does that mean? Super priority is what was originally intended in this bill. It is no longer there. What super priority means is that if you are a worker you go to the front of the line. You do not wait at the back of the line until the money dissipates and then when you come up you find that the banks, the government, the secured creditors and those other people got their money before you. Yes, you do have a right: You can claim as much money as you want, but it is not there.
That is what super priority means. You, as the worker, the person who is least able to assume the burden of the debt of this company, you get paid first with what is left when that company declares bankruptcy.
That super priority disappeared. It is no longer there. That was an essential or quintessential part of this bill. That is why we in the NDP said that we had better support this bill with the government because it is doing the right thing. Well, they did the right thing but not for very long.
That super priority for workers was tossed aside and the first priority was still given to banks and to secured creditors.
Government Orders
How do we define secured creditors and unsecured creditors? These are two definitions. Secured creditors are those who are at the front of the line. They are there and they get paid. They are the first ones who get paid. Generally, after they have been paid, we find out that close to 70 per cent of the time there is no money left for the others.
Unsecured creditors are those who are left after secured creditors have been paid out. Among those unsecured creditors are the employees.
What we have here is a bill called Bill C-22 which originally was going to give super priority to workers. It does not do that. It continues along the line of making sure that the banks get their money.
There is something else here in this bill which is one of the most surprising things. It is that even the government has decided to allow a certain amount of its own rights to taxes and so forth to go by the wayside so there would be more money in the fund for banks and others. It has decided to forego some of its own rights so that the taxpayer, who is counting on the government to recapture its own taxes and other moneys owing, will not be paid.
Not only do you have the workers being shafted, but you have the public in general being shafted as well.
When the government dropped the idea of super priority it proposed a tax which was going to be levied on the employers. This tax, as proposed by the Conservative federal government, was to be about 10 cents per worker. This would make it approximately $61 million in order to create a fund which would be used to pay workers.
We on the NDP side said: "No, we think people are taxed enough", and the government was quite surprised. It did not expect the opposition that came from the NDP and from its own members. We felt that taxing people for this fund was not the way to go and that it should come from general revenues.
When we made this representation the government was freaked out because the NDP said, as did the backbenchers of the Conservative government, that

June 10,1992
Government Orders
people have been taxed enough, between the GST and all these other taxes. We said that we were not prepared to see another tax even though the government said it would only be 10 cents a week, less than a cup of coffee.
We did not believe the government. It had misled us with the GST. It said that it would be a transparent tax, but it has not been a transparent tax. It said that it would be revenue neutral and that it would not hurt, but it has hurt an awful lot. It has not been transparent, it has not been revenue neutral and we felt that this cup of coffee might sooner or later become much more than a cup of coffee. It might be a full steak dinner.
We as a party rebelled against the tax. The hon. member for Nickel Belt and myself said that this was unacceptable, and we still maintain that. When it came to the question of levying a tax we said no.
However, we did suggest that the government take this money from the general revenue fund. The government has already taxed us and the money is available. We are talking about $61 million to do an honest deal with workers. The $61 million is there. Right now the government is talking about paying $4.3 billion for helicopters that are not needed. When we talk about money being available in government we find that when the government really wants to fund some sort of a pet project, whether it be a prosperity agenda for $18 million or advertising campaigns to convince us to vote one way or another, it can find the money when the time comes.
The government did not accept the idea of taking this money out of general revenues. It said: "If we do not get this tax, which represents $61 million from business, we are going to completely drop this protection for wages of workers". The government had already dropped the super priority idea.
When it came to the fund the government said: "If we cannot tax people anymore"-and there have been 34 tax increases since this government came to power-"if we cannot have another tax you are not going to get anything".
My colleague said that Freddie Kruger came on the scene and we found that this became a nightmare on Wellington Street. It was worse than that. If we are going to look at movies I remember Love Story, in which it was said that being in love means not having to say you are
sorry. Being Tory with this bankruptcy bill means not having to say that you are sorry or that you are wrong.
The Tories simply shifted from second to third gear and said: "No, we won't have a tax. We won't have super priority. We won't have a wage protection fund. What we'll simply do is rewrite history, change those 28 original parts of the bill that we had already agreed upon and come back with something else entirely different".
That is when we really started getting worried. At that point this bill, which seemed to be balanced and initially seemed to be fair, took on a life of its own. It became a grotesque caricature of itself and ended up not giving super priority to the worker, not to most workers. It ended up not doing what it said it would originally do, which was to provide a fund for most workers who would be needing it.
It finally ended up essentially caving in to the corporations. At the same time, the government relinquished its rights to the close to $25 million that the government could expect in receipts or in money owing to it from the bankruptcies on an annual basis.
This is difficult to take for the average consumer or the average worker who wants to believe in a government and finds out that it does not want to do the right thing. Whether you are a Conservative, a Liberal, an NDPer or what have you, you know that at the grassroots level people are hurting.
We have had thousands and thousands of people involved in bankruptcy situations who have been looking to this government to help them out. We are not talking about a benign problem where people just say: "I will take my lumps and that is it".
We are talking about a malignancy which is eating away at the fabric of trust we have in this government. What particularly irks me is that while we are talking about protecting the banks, protecting the secured creditors and making sure the bankruptcy process becomes much more logical, rational and easier in certain cases, we have left a primary person outside the protection of this law.
That is what is wrong and that is what is so indicative of this government's heartlessness. This government does not have a heart. This government cares about the bottom line, as long as the bottom line benefits or works in favour of corporations.
June 10, 1992

Our party, the NDP, originally came to support the bill because we thought it was balanced. We thought that the bill would do something for workers. Essentially the government has let us down. The government has let workers down.
It is not just myself and the NDP who are saying this. Even members on the government side have expressed their discontent with what has happened here. They have wanted to see workers better protected, and they are not. That is very obvious when we take a look at the bill.
The major weakness with this bill is when it comes time for a worker to get some protection, to get some money owing. I am not talking about charity. I am not talking about UIC. I am not talking about welfare. I am talking about money that is owed to a worker for his or her time and effort put in on the job. That worker is not in this bill.
As much as we try to get the minister to say that he has forgotten the key element he was supposed to protect, all we get back from the government side is ideology. All we get back is that this is good for the country. It is not good for the country. If the people of our country, our citizens, lose confidence in our government being able to provide for them, it is not good for the country.
At this time we are having a constitutional crisis. People are looking to the federal government to show them where it is standing up for them and protecting them with a social contract. We give up certain liberties, our taxes, and a certain amount of freedom in order get a certain amount of protection. When the other side of the contract does not come down to our level we are actually creating a disrespect, a kind of annihilation, anarchy, where people do not believe that the federal government really cares about them.
At this time when we are dealing with the Constitution and trying to keep our country together, this kind of law is working against that end.
We are going to vote against this law. We think it is bad and wrong. We will not hold our noses, close our eyes, and say the government could have done better. It did not do better. There are some small things which are wrong with this law.
The protection of workers' wages is not a small addendum. It is the principal part of any protection and it is not in there. If we do not have a law that is fair,
Government Orders
equitable and applies to people who are most in need then we do not have a law that is acceptable to a political party or to members of Parliament.
As a member of Parliament who followed this bill through the committee stage, I believed in this government as far as this bill was concerned. I believed in you. I felt you were going to do a good thing. I felt you were going to do the right thing. I thought you really cared about the average Canadian worker. I was duped along with the other workers in this country. Unfortunately the only people who are going to benefit from this bill are those who need it the least, corporations and banks; not us, not the workers.
By betraying the people who believed in you, you are going to pay and that payment will come on election day.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed. [English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 12 minutes past 10 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Ibesday, June 9, 1992, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 11,1992