1992-02-05

Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents in Beaver River and all Canadians to demand that the Conservative government immediately rescind the disgraceful scheme that gives members of Parliament and senators access to the most generous pension plan in the country.
From the outset the Reform Party has opposed this excessive plan that allows any member, no matter the age, to receive at least $23,390 a year after just six years in this Chamber. No Canadian citizen, no private sector worker, receives anywhere near the equivalent pension benefit. This must be stopped.
The Conservatives have failed to bring the deficit under control. The government must find the courage to reduce spending, starting with cuts to our own pensions. This is an outrage to ordinary Canadians whose tax bill has increased year after year under the Conservatives.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the government has a vested interest in maintaining these pensions because many of its members may be replaced, in fact by Reformers in the next election. Nonetheless this offensive pension scheme must be stopped and stopped now.


SRI LANKA
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-StoufF-ville):: Mr. Speaker, today I want to again address an urgent issue, the plight of the Tamil people.
For 13 years the Thmils have been suffering at the hands of the Sri Lankan government. The time has come for their torment to stop. Canada must help put an end to the human rights abuses of the Tamil people.
Economic blockades that have lasted for 19 months must also end. Medical supplies are not getting through to the people who desperately need them. This is an urgent issue and Canada must take a leadership role in ensuring the peace, safety and respect of human rights for the Tamil people.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, supply management is one of the main pillars of Canadian agriculture. Our 20-year old milk quota system has been the most important factor in maintaining the family farm.
For the first time farmers could look forward to enjoying a stable income from work that kept them busy seven days a week.
As a result, it became more attractive for young people to take over the family farm. The system is a sensible one, based on the spirit of co-operation and mutual benefit that is so important to farm communities across the country.
Tbday this spirit of co-operation is threatened by the appalling negligence and complacence of a government that failed to stand firm at the GATT talks, and thus abused the trust of our fanners.


EASTERN TOWNSHIPS
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you, as a history buff, would be interested to know that in a day or two we will be celebrating an important 200th anniversary in the history of my riding and my region.
It was on February 7, 1792 that Sir Alured Clarke, Lieutenant Governor of Lower Canada, launched his now famous proclamation on behalf of the King of England, addressed to all those wishing to settle on Crown lands in the Province of Lower Canada. This proclamation granted concessions and letters patent to thousands of Loyalist settlers from the United States.
This led to the founding of a number of townships named Brome, Sutton, Famham, Bolton, Potton, Stan-bridge, Magog, and so forth, names that still designate a number of municipalities in my riding, which together form what we call the Eastern Townships.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the descendants of those Loyalists, those pioneers who gave my part of Quebec the distinctiveness it still has today.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, the GATT negotiations are coming to a close. The very future of Quebec's dairy, egg and poultry industries is at stake.
GATT article XI protects our supply management system. It is now clear that the government has failed utterly in its efforts to have this clause clarified and reinforced.
Throughout the agricultural sector in Canada-not just in Quebec-uncertainty will replace price stability. In other words, the pillars of our agricultural policy are threatened.
After the free trade disaster and the GST, Quebec and Ontario farmers are about to become the next victims of this government's destructive policies.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs bet his shirt that he would stand solidly with our Canadian
farmers. Mr. Speaker, we don't want his shirt. We want him to really stand up for our agricultural sector.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, family violence is a subject that appalls all caring people. It has largely been addressed up to now by dealing with the consequences rather than with the causes and the cures.
In 1985, under the leadership of Senator Muriel McQueen Fergusson, a charitable trust foundation was established in Fredericton to fund research into the causes, incidences and forms of treatment of family violence, and to promote and sponsor effective public education programs to counter widespread ignorance of the problem.
Over the past two years, working with the University of New Brunswick, the Fergusson Foundation is well advanced toward the creation of a national research centre for the study of family violence. It will be located within the Faculty of Arts at UNB. The purpose of its activities will be to increase our knowledge of the social and psychological dynamics which contribute to family violence.
This initiative leads and complements the government's plan to establish such research centres on family violence right across Canada. Hopefully the leadership of the Fergusson Foundation will be recognized by the selection of UNB as one of those national centres.


BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, February is Black History Month. Every year, all Canadians are invited to look into the contribution of black Canadians to the development of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are still unaware of the history of this community in our country. Blacks have played a very significant role in the development of the

maritimes, and they have done so for over two centuries. Too often their contribution has been overlooked.

Black History Month gives Canadians the opportunity to discover their neighbours. It gives all of us a chance to share in each other's history. I urge all of us to take the opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of black Canadians through participating in Black History Month activities throughout the country.


TAXATION
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, a very unfortunate situation has been occurring all over Canada in the last week. Canadian citizens have been going to their local post offices to obtain a copy of this year's income tax form. Although the forms are there, people have been denied access to them. The justification for this inconvenience has been that because all the forms are not available in both official languages at all post offices it is against the law to give them out.
Even though the Delta citizens who have requested the forms only need them in English, they have to endure the inconvenience of waiting and making a return visit.
Likewise, Montrealers who have requested the forms in the French version must return again when the choice is available, possibly next week. The situation is ridiculous.
At a time when we are attempting to bring resolution to our nation's unity crisis, silly red tape such as this only compounds an already serious problem.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, the government in its lifetime has done its best to ruin the Canadian economy and attack the living standards of Canadian veterans and senior citizens.
It has clawed back the old age pension, increased board and lodging charges to veterans in long-term care and cut back on the Veterans Independence Program.
The government has recently asked all departments to come up with cost cutting ideas. The Minister of Finance and President of the Treasury Board have indicated that some social programs may be cut. Some Conservative MPs have openly called for the end of our universal health care system. The federal Conservatives sound like the Reform Party, which wants to cut all government departments by 15 per cent.
Even as the government develops a long-range plan for Veterans Affairs, the department is reducing staff and centralizing the war veterans allowance program in Charlottetown. Some operations of the DVA will soon be taken over by Health and Welfare Canada.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs must answer two questions: Is the government considering the amalgamation of veterans affairs operations with one or more other departments and is the government considering making the war veterans allowance, disability pension and other DVA benefits taxable? The veterans of Canada want to know.


OIL INDUSTRY
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, the Imperial Oil retrenchment announcement is certainly of concern to Sarnia-Lambton as this is the home of a major Imperial refinery.
There are, though, new petrochemical facilities that can be built by this company and others in Canada and in Sarnia-Lambton.
These facilities are very capital intensive and I submit that our government must work toward making capital write-off more attractive to attract the building of these major world scale facilities.
This change, along with the participation by the province of Ontario tax-wise, will put Sarnia-Lambton in a competitive position for these new North American builds that could bolster the economy of my constituency in a very major way.

February 5, 1992


DR. ROBERTA BONDAR
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, today during development week I would like to add my sincere congratulations to Dr. Roberta Bondar to those of my colleague from Algoma.
Last week she very eloquently reminded us that we are all one family on a single planet. There are no political borders drawn on the surface of the earth. Pollution touches all of us equally. We all share the same water, air, and sunshine.
I am sure this government will not forget to honour Dr. Bondar, whether by a commemorative stamp, an Order of Canada, or some other tribute.
As well I urge all Canadians to take the opportunity to congratulate this outstanding world scientist in person when she shares her experiences on a planned speaking tour of Canada.


HOME OWNERSHIP
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, 5 per cent down payments for first-time home buyers announced by the government on Monday will not only increase home ownership but should also generate and create thousands of jobs.
Traditionally new housing construction has led the way out of a recession and toward economic recovery. Because housing is labour intensive and has a high Canadian content, it also has large spin-off effects including increased demand for lumber, building materials, engineering, roads, sewers, furniture, appliances and transportation.
Each new housing start generates 2.04 person-years of employment. CMHC estimates that 5 per cent down payments will allow up to 200,000 Canadian households to buy a home.
Five per cent down payments will not get us entirely out of the recession all by itself but it will most certainly help.


SUPPLY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, the response from the Minister of Agriculture to one of his own caucus members last Monday when he asked for a strengthening of article XI in GATT seemed less than enthusiastic.
If our negotiators at GATT sign away the farmer's right to continue to operate under effective supply management, these farmers will consider their contract with this government to have been broken with severe consequences.
Canadian dairy farmers will be demanding the same level of subsidy that United States dairy farmers receive at a cost of $550 million to Canadians. The approximately $410 million owed by our dairy farmers to the Farm Credit Corporation will be in jeopardy.
Moving away from the supply management system to tariffication would be a very expensive decision. Destroying the livelihood of 36,000 dairy farmers and 2,300 poultry farmers in Canada is something which would have a severe negative impact on all Canadians.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, for several days the media have again been reporting on the ozone layer over the Arctic and northern Quebec.
The Liberals opposite hardly cared about that situation in the 1980s. It was only under the Conservative government that the first environmental treaty, the Montreal Protocol, was signed in 1987.
Canada is now four years ahead of the timetable it set for reducing ozone depleting substances and these have indeed been cut by 45 per cent since 1986.
Mr. Speaker, this performance proves that the Conservative government is maintaining its leading role in this struggle and I know that the Hon. Jean Charest, our Minister of the Environment and the member from Sherbrooke, is sensitive to the problem of northern Quebec.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
There is an economic crisis throughout the country, but the government is paralyzed. Petro-Canada and Esso are laying off thousands of people; Pascal has closed down; Sears reported losses for the first time in its history; 5,200 companies went bankrupt in Quebec in 1991. The GST is a disaster for the Canadian economy, but the Minister of Finance continues to talk about positive signs in the economy.
When will the government recognize that there is a deep economic crisis which requires emergency measures right away?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the House and to the hon. member before, we have a sluggish recovery under way primarily because of the world situation.
The United States economy how slowed dramatically. The economies of all the industrialized nations of the world have slowed dramatically. Canada is an exporting nation and relies on exports for 25 per cent of its economic activity. Three million jobs are directly related to exports. As the economy of the world recovers, so will the Canadian economy recover.
In the meantime, we will be taking every step possible to expedite that process. Essentially what we have done is put the fundamentals in place, that is bringing down interest rates, keeping them down and bringing down inflationary pressures to reduce the cost of doing business, which will make Canada more competitive and provide long-term growth and future prosperity.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance should talk to people who have lost their jobs in gas stations across this country. He should talk to people in pulp mills who are no longer working. He should talk to the farmers who are hanging by their
Oral Questions
fingernails awaiting the results of the GATT negotiations. He should walk through any shopping mall in this country and see stores boarded up.
Does the minister understand that if he wants to meet his fiscal target, he has to take immediate constructive action to put Canadians back to work? He has to admit that his government policy on the GST has been one of the nails in the coffin of the Canadian economy.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether we are getting another policy version on the GST from the Liberal Party or not.
If one were to check with the Manufacturers' Association, one would find that one of the promising features that is on the horizon is the benefits of the GST. Without the GST, the manufacturing sector's competitive position would be further deteriorated. The hon. member should recognize that. She should be encouraging her provincial colleagues to harmonize with the GST so we could have a harmonized GST right across the country in order that the benefits could accrue to all manufacturing sectors right across the country.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in my province alone, if this government does not do something, there will be no manufacturing left. Thirty per cent of the manufacturing capacity of Ontario has disappeared as a result of this government's policies.
Will the minister at the very least admit that his GST has contributed to the recession we are facing across this country, and will he modify his GST policy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be fair when she throws around those false allegations. If she were to look at the reality of things-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Ihlk to the GM workers.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, exactly. General Motors Corporation is laying off 75,000 people, not because of the GST. The IBM Corporation is laying off thousands of people, not because of the Canadian GST. This is a restructuring problem that has to take place. That is what is creating a more severe problem in terms of recovery. It is not only occurring in North America. It is

Oral Questions
occurring around the world. The hon. member should recognize that.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. A national public works program as proposed by the Liberals will not increase the deficit. It is not an artificial make work scheme. It is a cost shared program that will create
100,000	badly needed jobs.
If this government does not invest in the competitive infrastructure, we will be spending more money in the long term for repairs and upgrading.
I want the Minister of Finance to explain to Canadians how improving competitiveness, creating 100,000 jobs and increasing government revenues will increase the deficit.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is again consistent with Liberal past policies, expecting us to spend our way out of this recession. That is a valid position to take, but I disagree with the hon. member. So do a few other people.
For example, I was attracted to the statement by Mr. Jim McCambly, president of the Canadian Federation of Labour. In the latest edition of Maclean's, Mr. McCambly is quoted as saying that while the economy shows few signs of recovery, Ottawa and the provinces should resist the temptation to inject billions of dollars into massive new public works programs that would spur construction activity and create jobs for unemployed workers.
I quote: "It is not easy to say these things when a lot of my own members are unemployed. But we cannot look at quick fixes. We have to look at the long term for the sake of our kids". He went on to say: "There are no free lunches. We all have to pay our own way".


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, this government cannot deny that a public works program will create jobs. It cannot deny that the proposal has been supported by every provincial and municipal government across this country. It cannot deny that public sector investment will leverage private sector investment.
Therefore, I ask the Minister of Finance when he will stop playing politics with this issue and introduce this program.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not playing politics with this issue, the hon. member is. When he says that all provincial governments are in favour of a massive public works program, that is absolutely false.
As a matter of fact the NDP premiers, especially the two from western Canada, are of the same view, that you cannot spend your way out of this recession.
I ask the hon. member if he is really serious. He is talking about billions of dollars. I ask him if he is giving me advice to drive the deficit up further still or is he asking for more taxes. If he is asking for more taxes, who does he want me to tax?


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, more than 2,000 people lost their jobs in Canada. Esso and Consolidated Bathurst announced massive layoffs. Two thousand jobless people will need $25 million in unemployment insurance.
How will the government pay for it? By raising taxes or increasing the deficit?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more indicative of the problems that are faced in other jurisdictions, particularly in the United States, in terms of a recession than the plight of our forest products sector which is so heavily dependent on foreign markets.
In the case of Consolidated Bathurst, I understand that it is a management-union problem. I am informed that some discussions are going on. I like to be confident that a resolution can be found to that problem and the mill can keep operating.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Finance. There is little good news for Canadians today. We see that job prospects are again down by 50 per cent for Canadians. The lack of a full employment policy on behalf of this government is costing the Canadian taxpayer $30 billion
February 5, 1992

a year in welfare payments and unemployment insurance. The cost of unemployment grows every day.
As I said in my earlier question, 2,000 more unemployed means an additional increase of $25 million in unemployment insurance.
How does the government plan to address the deficit caused by its policies that are creating unemployment? Raising taxes, increasing the deficit, or will it get people back to work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that we have a deficit that costs some $43 billion annually to service. That is the harsh reality. That takes about 35 or 36 cents out of every revenue dollar that we take in from the Canadian taxpayer.
What the hon. member is suggesting is that we continue to add to that burden of debt. That is not the position of this government. The position of this government is to ratchet down the deficit and start paying down the debt so it will not be left as simply a responsibility to be shouldered on the backs of future generations.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary for the minister, Mr. Speaker. It is the current generation of young people and children, where poverty is increasing, who are paying the deficit now. What they need is help now.
I say to the minister that here is the deficit of Canada. Here is a list of the over 400,000 jobs that have been lost across Canada in the last year and a half. This is the deficit to Canada. This is the result of this government's policies.
Will the Minister of Finance be prepared to bring in a full employment budget in February and give some hope to Canadians that they need now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, just so I can be absolutely clear and follow the hon. leader's logic, is she suggesting that 36 cents of the revenue dollar that we collect is not enough to go to pay the interest on the debt? Does she want to increase it to 40 cents or 50 cents? Is that what she wants?
I will tell you what she will have. She will have the IMF knocking on our door.
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This country will not only lose its economic viability; it will lose its sovereignty. That is something that this government is fighting and we will continue to fight it.


HIBERNIA
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The prolonged high Canadian dollar and high interest rates, 33 new federal taxes since 1984, including the GST, have contributed in major ways to the recession that Canadians are suffering from coast to coast. The recession has hit particularly hard our natural resources sections, including oil and gas.
Will the minister give us his assurance today that the Hibernia project will proceed on schedule?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that when the government came into power, what the oil and gas sector wanted more than anything else was the removal of the national energy plan. That was universal throughout the system. This government has changed the national energy plan. That has been happening. In respect of the Hibernia project, the government, as I stated yesterday in the House and in other venues, as well as the report of the other three members of the consortium, is committed to the continuation of Hibernia. The consortium has the responsibility of restructuring and I look forward to an early meeting with them.
I want the project to go forward and I believe everyone else does as well. I appreciate that members opposite have the same purpose.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
I found some comfort in his words and I am sure a lot of people did, but there is, I can assure you from my experience last night, a lot of concern and scepticism about the future of this project for reasons that I am sure the minister would understand.

February 5, 1992
Oral Questions
It is my understanding that the company that pulled out, Gulf Canada, still has a financial commitment to the project and, as I understand it, will continue to have that commitment for another eight months to the tune of around $100 million in rough estimates.
Since this project is so critical to the economy of Newfoundland and, indeed, in times of recession to the economy of the country, I ask the minister to tell me what contingency plans the government has beyond the eight-month time frame to ensure the success and the continuation of this critical megaproject.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to take every opportunity to assure the hon. member, members opposite and particularly the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador that the government is committed for the project to continue.
The provision that the hon. member mentioned was a provision whereby at the time of negotiation of Hibernia, there was a company that wanted to have the ability to withdraw from the project at any time without any penalty. We insisted that there be a penalty. That issue is the 243 days that was triggered as of yesterday.
There are now two things in the contract. First, the consortium has to restructure and then come to us with its plan. Obviously we cannot wait very long because of the indecision. I say to the hon. member that I am willing to go to St. John's. I have mentioned that to the Government of Newfoundland and I say it to the House today. We can remove some of that indecision. I appreciate it is a difficult situation.
Second, as I have said to the hon. member, if some of his colleagues want to have a further briefing today, I stand ready to do that as well.


STONE CONSOLIDATED PULP AND PAPER MILL
Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I know the Prime Minister understands one industry communities from personal experience.
The announced closure of the Stone Consolidated Pulp and Paper Mill at Bathurst will result in the loss of as many as 1,500 jobs in an area that has been badly hit by
the recession and by lengthy strikes. For more than 70 years that pulp mill has offered stable jobs and has strengthened the economy of the region.
What is the Prime Minister prepared to suggest to the workers and the people of Bathurst today as to help they can expect from this government during this time of crisis?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I said in my earlier response that the closure was brought about by some difficulties between management and the union. It is not an area where we would have any reason to intervene. I am told that discussions are ongoing. The premier of New Brunswick is prepared to offer the companies some concessions that would bridge some of the difficulties.
I would hope that the hon. member would join with me in being hopeful that the problem can be resolved in an amicable fashion.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Employment and Immigration who also knows how important a major industry can be for a region's economic and social well-being. First of all, Bathurst, like Edmonston, has been a pulp and paper town for a long time. What kind of programs does the government intend to put in place to help plant workers, loggers, truckers and owners of logging equipment who are directly affected by the closing of Stone Consolidated Bathurst? People need a glimmer of hope. When can they expect some details on adjustment programs?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern for people in the Bathurst area who are faced with the decision made by the company. I had a meeting with Premier McKenna two weeks ago, and we discussed the situation in Bathurst again the other day. We agreed to make sure that the adjustment programs we have for helping workers in this kind of situation truly reflect the needs of the region. We agreed to continue to co-ordinate our efforts in this respect, but we still hope that the company and the union will be able to find a solution that will allow Consolidated Bathurst to continue its operations.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Prairie Canadians watched our government go to the GATT talks on agriculture subsidies understanding that regional development programs like the Crow rate system were exempt from definition as a subsidy. That assurance is still in the main body of the GATT proposal. However, I note that an annex, 7-E, has been added to the Dunkel proposal which may make the Crow subject to subsidy reduction commitments.
What, if anything, has the Government of Canada done to remove that sentence from the annex and leave our Crow rate subsidy as an exempt regional development program?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: I am
very pleased that the hon. member now is aware of what is in the Dunkel text. Some of his colleagues in the province of Saskatchewan have not made the effort to read what is in the Dunkel text.
Canada has suggested that regional development, when we argue for regional development, should be exempt in the GATT talks. We have continued that discussion since the Dunkel text came out. I think the hon. member understands that when it is written into a text, and the definition of export subsidies is defined in a text, the Canadian people, particularly the farmers in western Canada who would be impacted, should have that information.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Yes, I agree they should indeed. My text, like the ones I presume Saskatchewan got, did not have the annex. We have it now.
Some groups close to the government party in the west are urging the issuing of a bond or annuity to buy out the Crow policy which at 8 per cent would have a present value of more than $9 billion. Will the minister tell us if this is in fact the government's intention and, if so, where it will get the funds?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: As the
hon. member is aware, when agriculture ministers met in Kananaskis last July, a decision was made to have a series of talks called transportation talks throughout the Canadian Wheat Board and, indeed, throughout Canada
Oral Questions
to discuss how the money that the people of Canada, through the taxpayers of Canada, some $720 million, was being used in agriculture. Was it the best way to use it, as a status quo, in paying the railroads, or were some of the other options that had been debated an alternative that producers should talk about?
One member says no, and I understand why. I can understand that there are other things that people are not discussing. That includes pooling, MCRs, and further activity in enhancing our system of handling in the west. The talks are ongoing.
The member asks a question that is based on something that may not happen, that may not be a route that would be taken by the government or the producers particularly. I think it is inappropriate to attempt to answer it.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Dairy and poultry farmers face the destruction of their farms, their homes, their livelihood, unless the government is willing to fight to maintain and strengthen article XI in the GATT negotiations going on this month.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to meet with the heads of Japan and the other five countries that support Canada's position to maintain and strengthen article XI so as to issue a joint declaration calling on the GATT negotiators to maintain a strengthened article XI in the new GATT agreement.
Is the Prime Minister willing to meet with those people and prepare such a declaration?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have already met with Jacques Delors, the President of the European commission. I have had lengthy meetings with President Mitterrand and President Bush, and I had lengthy conversations just before Christmas with Ruud Lubbers, the Prime Minister of Holland who is also Chairman of the European commission. In the course of these very lengthy conversations we set forward again the importance of article XI to Canadian producers and, indeed, the importance of these producers to the social fibre of Canada, how they have evolved as part of our country and the importance

Oral Questions
of this to all Canadians, in Ontario, across the country, in Quebec and elsewhere.
We have made the case very vigorously and very strongly. I have made it personally time and time again. I look forward to meeting with the producers. I look forward to meeting with other European and world leaders precisely on this point, to hammer home again the vital importance of this to our producers and our producers to us as a country.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Since the Dunkel report has come out, Canadian dairy and poultry producers are extremely concerned that they are going to lose this vital industry that provides nearly
100.000	jobs.
I am asking the Prime Minister if between now and the end of this month he would be willing to meet with President Bush and President Delors again to seek their support so that this vital industry, employing nearly
100.000	people, can be maintained and that the Canadian dairy farms and poultry farms may be maintained as well. Is the Prime Minister willing to meet with them?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to meet with whomever and to go anywhere to advance the cause of these agricultural producers.
I spoke to President Bush on Saturday in regard to this and to other matters. I have constant meetings and ongoing conversations in following up initiatives taken up by the Minister of State for Agriculture.
I expect to be meeting soon with agricultural producers in this area, pursuant to which we will no doubt have other meetings to advance the cause of our dossier in the international GATT negotiations.
I have met with everybody from Art Dunkel to President Bush, to President Mitterrand and to the president of the European commission. We had a meeting with Jacques Delors that lasted in excess of three hours precisely on this point. We made the case, chapter and verse, about its importance not only to the nation but to each individual producer. We are going to make it again.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
As the minister is aware, the Conference of Women in Trades, Technology and Operations is winding up today in Ottawa. Its proposal to create a national data bank allowing women in non-traditional occupations to network with employers has been on the minister's desk for over a year now.
Will the minister agree to meet with representatives of this organization today to explain why his government is backing away from its commitment?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, on my way to the House today I received the representation of the national co-ordinator.
As the member knows, we are reviewing the request for funds from the women in trades and technology group. No decision has yet been taken on the request, but I should be able to render a decision soon.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
If the minister is truly committed to employment equity with regard to women, and if his government is truly committed to putting some of the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians back to work, can he explain why this worth-while proposal has been sitting on his desk for over a year?
If he is truly committed to employment equity, I ask him: Will he meet with representatives of the organization today and follow through on his commitment to fund this worth-while project?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it seems necessary to have the member acknowledge that there are 900,000 more women working today in Canada than there were in September 1984. That is quite an accomplishment.
The hon. member is discussing one particular case, a group seeking funds. I have indicated that we are reviewing the request for funds and I should be able to make a decision soon.
February 5, 1992


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the latest events at the GATT talks. Considering the serious concerns of farmers about the agricultural proposals, can the Prime Minister give us the assurance that Canada will continue to defend the same position at GATT, against GATT director Arthur Dun-kel?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, indeed our position has not changed and will not change. We are still asking that the multilateral trade negotiations clarify and strengthen article XI of the GATT.
On this issue, all hon. members are well aware of some comments made by certain individuals from Quebec who, for partisan, petty and dishonest reasons, try to misrepresent the position of the Canadian Parliament and government. Those people would like to play politics to the farmers' detriment.
The fact is that we met with Jacques Delors for hours to put forward the Quebec producers' case. I met with President Mitterrand and the Dutch Prime Minister, Mr. Lubbers, to emphasize, on behalf of all members of this House, the importance of this issue for our Canadian and Quebec producers and to say that the current Canadian policies do not constitute trade distorting subsidies that lead to unfair competition. I stressed that those policies made good sense nationally and internationally and added that our producers needed those policies to be vigorously defended. That is precisely what I have done, as Prime Minister of Canada, and it is also what all members of this House, except a few, have always done.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Prime Minister that he has not convinced Canada's dairy farmers. At meetings throughout the country dairy farmers have been warned that the government is about to abandon marketing boards.
Oral Questions
The gloves are off. From B.C., from Ontario and from Quebec, thousands of farmers are preparing to storm Parliament Hill unless they get an unconditional commitment from this government and this Prime Minister.
I want to ask the Prime Minister on behalf of Canada's farming community: Will he give his unconditional and unequivocal commitment to retain Canada's marketing boards and to stop any plans for tariffication?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure and the fight of putting questions of agriculture and trade distorting subsidies at the G-7 summit in Tokyo in 1986. We have fought the cause of the farmers of Canada, and indeed the consumers of Canada, now for some six or seven years.
In the process of doing that, we have over a period of seven years increased our Canadian assistance to farmers by 650 per cent.


Mr. Lapierre:: Where?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My friend asks: "Where?" Everywhere including Quebec, I want to tell my hon. friend. This government has been fair and extremely supportive of farmers.
With regard to the problems that have developed in respect of article XI, we have maintained a very vigorous defence of these proposals and we will continue to do so. We are one of 108 countries that are signatories of the GATT. Our share of international trade is somewhat slightly in excess of 3 per cent, leaving 97 per cent in the hands of other signatories by and large of the GATT. It is a difficult challenge.
We have been unswerving in our commitment to the interests of Canadian farmers in this regard. We shall continue with the support of all members of the House, or by and large all members of the House, to defend the interests of Canadian farmers. But we need your support on this because we know there are people here who like to trivialize-they sit in the backbench over there-for their own partisan-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, as we know, Quebec supplies 45 per cent of

Oral Questions
Canada's milk production. Therefore this issue is very important economically and also for national unity.

I want to ask the Prime Minister whether at this time he is going to take his gloves off, whether he is going to get tough with the American bullies at GATT, and whether he is going to tell them enough is enough. Is he going to say to them that Canada's marketing boards are here to stay? Will he do it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, and then I am going to declare war on them.


An hon. member:: You are trivializing the issue.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Trivializing the issue? We are trying to deal with an extremely sensitive and difficult issue. My hon. friend says I am going to go down to the United States and say: "You are going to do this". We are dealing in a multilateral context in Geneva, not in the United States. The United States supports some of our positions. Japan supports some of our positions. Europe supports some of our positions. We are trying to bring together a coalition that brings together support for article XI and the position of Canadian farmers.
I would tell my hon. friend that unless he has some recent experience, the idea of arriving at the GATT with the United States or the Europeans or the Japanese with gunboat diplomacy in international commercial relations does not work. If we had 97 per cent of the world trade and the other partners 3 per cent, perhaps it would.
We are approaching this with firmness in the honourable traditions of Canadian diplomacy and we are defending this with every amount of vigour that we possibly can. I know my hon. friend will stand in the House, acknowledge that, and say: "Yes, we will support the initiatives of the Government of Canada because they are right; they are right for the farmers and they are right for Canada".


RAIL LINE ABANDONMENT
Gabrielle Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
We already know that CN and CP Rail must dispose of certain abandoned rail lines. Several non-profit organizations wish to obtain them to make into bicycle paths for the enjoyment of thousands of cyclists.
Can the minister explain the federal government's position on the disposal of CN properties between Famham and Granby? Also, can the minister intercede with the authorities of Canadian National so that the current moratorium on the sale of these properties can be extended for a few months?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi for this question, which gives me the opportunity to tell her that I am in complete agreement with the representations made by some 60 towns, I believe, to use the CN lands as bicycle paths in her beautiful riding. I think that is a wonderful use for them.
She can count on our constant support and rest assured that we will take all the time necessary to convince the few municipalities that have not yet embarked on this project, to make sure that they all have time to do so, because it is important that this project be implemented as smoothly as possible.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Across Canada deadly chemicals are being released every day from old damaged and abandoned air conditioners and refrigeration units. Community leaders are on the front line of trying to stop the destruction of the ozone layer and they have asked for the government's help.
Will the minister then, knowing the seriousness of the situation, act immediately? Will he do as the environment committee recommended and bring in programs with the provinces and the municipalities so this can stop immediately?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, let me update the member. We are doing that. In fact we have been ever since we put together the Montreal protocol in 1987. It is under this government that the protocol came together. We set a time frame in the protocol. We then went faster than the time frame
February 5, 1992

that was set in the international convention for the year 2000. We were set to go for 1997.
I am here today to say to the member that we are ready to go further. We think that we can eliminate CFCs by 1995, a good part of them. We are going to push other countries within the international framework to go even further than that.
Furthermore, we are going to do it in co-operation with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and the provinces with which we have had a great deal of success in dealing with environmental issues.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, Canadians take this problem very seriously; it appears far more seriously and concrete than the minister. This is an emergency.
In 1990 the minister promised that if provincial regulation and voluntary actions did not produce results, Canada would regulate. I did not hear that word from the minister today.
Now that the minister knows this laissez-faire attitude is not working, will he bring in the regulations under the Environmental Protection Act now?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we be as precise as possible'about what we are talking about here. The member refers to the fact that there are chemicals going into the atmosphere, but the recent NASA report seems to say that the cause of this ozone depletion would be relative to the recent eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which is a natural cause.
To put things in perspective, it is important to point out that it is not only man-made chemicals that we are talking about here; it is a natural cause. We are talking about a potential 30 per cent to 40 per cent reduction in the ozone layer. Our scientists, who are world-class, by the way, seem to think that it may be in the area of 15 per cent.
All of that being said, we take this problem very seriously. We have always, always taken this problem very seriously. I will examine the issue with the provinces of whether it is not necessary to regulate and, if we come to the conclusion that is what we need, that is what we will do.
Oral Questions THE CONSTITUTION


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
The last constitutional conference on a renewed Canada will be held in Vancouver the weekend of February
14.1	want to ask the Prime Minister how he can justify the conclusion of public debate on the Constitution without having a conference on aboriginal affairs, in light of the overwhelming interest and support of Canadians across this country.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer on behalf of the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
I think the hon. member will acknowledge that almost all members in this House have taken very seriously the processes we have put forward. We have very actively sought to include as many people as possible in this process, including the aboriginal communities. In fact we put forward a proposal by which they could participate in some conferences, but I regret to report that only two of the aboriginal communities reported that they were favourable to that. In those circumstances we did not think it was appropriate to go forward.
That being the case, we are still ready to look at any mechanisms that will ensure aboriginal people, as all segments of Canadian society, have their say in this very important debate about the future of our country.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
In previous conferences there were no provisions for aboriginal people. They in fact hijacked the process to get input. There was unanimous consent by the organizations to have a conference on aboriginal affairs.
Having said that, I have in my possession letters from the national organization leaders who would like to have designated the fifth and final conference as an aboriginal conference on aboriginal constitutional agenda.
Will the government reconsider its position and have that conference designated as an aboriginal conference, or will it deny the will of the public again?

Privilege


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, I would want to make sure that I verify with him the exact nature of the communication.
My information in regard to the question raised is that the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, following meetings with the aboriginal leadership, offered to them that one of these conferences be devoted exclusively to questions of aboriginal concern. My information is that that was rejected.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: No, he rejected it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says that the minister rejected it. My information is that the minister did not reject it.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Your minister is lying to you.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a completely improper suggestion. I think we are going to have to go on.


Some hon. members:: Withdraw, withdraw.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Mining exploration in Quebec has been in a free fall for several months and the Quebec Prospectors' Association is attempting once again, before the budget is tabled, to convince Ottawa to restore tax incentives in Canada.
Can the minister tell us today if he intends to implement new measures to revitalize mining exploration in Canada and in Quebec?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the hon. member for the continuing effort he has engaged in, in support of the mining industry, a very important industry in Canada, worth some $25 billion and some 400,000 jobs. I share the concern he has expressed.
There have been meetings with the mining associations. My understanding is that there is an interdepartmental process ongoing which involves Finance, Energy, Mines and Resources, Employment and Immigration, and Industry, Science and Technology to consider the very worth-while suggestions that have been advanced by the associations.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to bring a matter to the attention of the House and also the hon. member for Western Arctic.
While the Prime Minister was answering a question that was put to him by the hon. member for Western Arctic, she very clearly said that his minister had lied to him, meaning the Right Hon. Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
I moved immediately to the next member because I was watching the clock, but that is a completely improper allegation. I know the hon. member did not have the floor, but that makes no difference; it was clearly heard. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my remarks.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege relates to the tabling in the House of a report by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on June 19, 1990. The committee at that time made certain recommendations to the House and to the government relating to an apology, compensation and recognition of the contribution of the Inuit people who had been transferred from northern Quebec to the community of Grise Fiord up in the High Arctic.
Under Standing Order 109, the committee then called for a response by the government within the prescribed 150 days. As the Speaker will recall, in response to the committee report on November 19, 1990, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs tabled what he called The Hickling report which contained the government's response to our committee's recommendation. It totally supported the government's position, no apology, no recognition, no compensation.
February 5, 1992

My problem is in the way the minister described the The Hickling report and its consultant in tabling the report. First, he called the consultant independent and in fact the consultant who did the study, Bud Neville, was a former employee of the Department of Indian and North Affairs between 1957 and 1971, slightly after the time that the relocations took place. The person who did the report was anything but independent.
In addition, he called the consultants themselves, the Hickling consultancy, independent whereas in fact that group had received, according to questions we had answered in the House, over $20 million in government funding.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. member has sought the floor on a question of privilege. The hon. member may very well have a complaint about what a minister said or did not say, or may have considerable argument about whether or not the person who did the report or others who may have been involved were independent or not independent. That is clearly a matter of debate.
As I say, I treat the matter as a serious matter. The person who did the report and others who may have been involved were independent or not independent. That is clearly a matter of debate. I think it is a serious matter. I wonder if the member could help me in pointing out exactly how this is a question of privilege because I do not see it at the moment.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, if I finish my remarks I think you will see that there is a prima facie case that the privileges of the House have been violated.
It was also explained to us at the time that the consultant had been selected after consultation with the Makivik Corporation. I am told that no consultation took place. In fact the minister or his department presented Makivik with the names of three proposed consultants, two of which Makivik rejected out of hand because they felt that they would be totally biased. They indicated they did not know who the third one was or what his record was. The very fact that they did not know was accepted by Indian affairs as consultation and, in fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Again I take nothing away from the merits or otherwise of the debate which the hon. member is well into now, but I think I would be straining the patience of the House if I allowed this to continue.
Speaker's Ruling
The hon. member may want to reconsider his position and bring the matter before the Chair again but at the moment I have to say that is not a question of privilege. It is very much a question of debate. It may be a question for the committee but the hon. member is not making out a question of privilege. I would ask him to reconsider his position.



Mr. Speaker:: I have a judgment to give on a question of privilege.
I would like to advise all hon. members that I am now ready to rule on a question of privilege raised on Monday, February 3, by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River concerning the failure of the Minister of Finance to table an Order in Council pursuant to section 59(5) of the Customs Tariff. The Chair has reviewed this serious issue and thanks the hon. member for his succinct explanation of the case.

As I said during the statement, I would also like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt for their interventions.

In his presentation, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River correctly pointed out that the Customs Tariff required that an Order in Council respecting the elimination of tariffs on certain plywood and related products under the free trade agreement be tabled in the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance on April 21, 1989 at the latest. This Order in Council was finally tabled on December 12, 1991, some 32 months later. The hon. member did note, however, that this document was registered and published in the Canada Gazette of January 18, 1989, thus being placed in the public domain. He also stated that he was confident that the minister's failure to comply with the law was not intentional. The basis of his complaint was that the non-observance of a legal obligation established for the collective benefit of members of the House amounts to a

February 5, 1992
Speaker's Ruling
contempt of the House. Summarizing his argument the hon. member asked:
In short, does the omission to table a document legally required to be tabled impede or obstruct the House and its members in the discharge of their functions, or does it have the tendency to do so?
This is the question directed to the Chair. [Translation]
The first point that the Chair wishes to highlight is that Speakers do not interpret or enforce matters of statutory law. There are many precedents to this effect.
On June 19, 1978, a question of privilege was raised respecting the late tabling of the Postmaster General's annual report. In rejecting claims that the failure to respect the law constituted a breach of privilege, Speaker Jerome warned the House that the authority of the Chair did not extend to the determination of questions of law.

On two occasions-March 27, 1981 and February 10, 1983-Speaker Sauve confirmed this principle in denying claims for the Chair to intervene in cases similar to the one raised by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River. In each of these situations, the government had failed to live up to its statutory responsibility to table documents within a specific period of time. In response, Madam Speaker ruled that the Chair had neither the responsibility to interpret the law nor the authority to compel the government to obey it.
These precedents served to highlight the restrictive nature of the Chair's authority with respect to legal questions. However, while the matter raised on Monday may stem from a statutory requirement, the main thrust of the issue is not of a legal nature, but rather a procedural one. As the hon. member for Scarborough- Rouge River so aptly stated, "This is a question of fact rather than a question of law". In the manner of his presentation, the situation is different from earlier cases.
Another key element raised by the hon. member relates to the failure of government officials to act on demands for the tabling of this Order in Council. As he explained in his submission:
It is far too common for public servants to treat tabling requirements as a matter of little or no consequence with the result that over the years, members of this House have repeatedly had to raise the issue of non-compliance with such requirements. The failure of the minister's officials to advise him of his obligations is all the more inexcusable in this case in that the non-tabling of the order was drawn to the attention of an assistant deputy minister in the minister's department in a letter from one of the counsel to the joint committee for the scrutiny of regulations dated May 8, 1989. Officials of the same department were reminded of this on subsequent occasions prior to December 12,1991.
That is all a quote from the hon. member but I think it very clearly puts his case.
Therefore, in light of the notices given to the department and its failure to comply with the letter of the law, the hon. member claims that a contempt of the House has occurred and that this case should be dealt with as an offence against the authority and dignity of the House.

The Chair wishes to address some other remarks of the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River. The member stated that the purpose of tabling documents in the House "is to require documents to be laid before it in circumstances where it determines that the formal transmission of a document is necessary for members of Parliament to properly discharge their responsibility of holding the executive accountable for its actions". Tabling either by the front door or the back door, whether at the discretion of a minister or because of a legal requirement, is an action of the House and as such it is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings, the official record of the decisions of the House.
It is through tabling that members are officially apprised of the existence of a document. Thus when we include in legislation provisions for tabling, it is not done lightly but is done for a serious purpose.

The tabling of documents, as specified in our rules, is one of the procedures on which hinges the ability of members to discharge their functions. In particular, with the reform of the rules in 1982, all reports, returns and papers to be laid before the House in accordance with the requirements of the statute are automatically referred to a standing committee pursuant to Standing Order 32(5). Thus, a failure to table any required document has the effect of impeding such committees

from carrying out their mandate "to examine and inquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House" as stipulated by Standing Order 108(1).
Our capacity as elected representatives is to be ever vigilant and to protect the interests of our electors. The statutory laws which are in force, those which have been adopted by Parliament as a whole, are meant to be respected and serve no purpose if they are ignored. To quote the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, "a right which cannot be enforced is no right at all". The fundamental question that remains to be answered is whether the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade has been interfered with because it had to wait 32 months before being formally seized of the Order in Council.
The Chair has reflected seriously upon this matter. I have examined very carefully the circumstances surrounding this particular case and the argument presented by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River. I note that the hon. member stated that the correspondence in question has been between counsel for the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations and officials from the Department of Finance. It appears that the matter relating to the punctual tabling of these types of Orders in Council lies more appropriately with the committee, at least at the present time. If the committee senses that a contempt has occurred it is within its power to report this fact to the House. Once the House is in receipt of such a report, it can take appropriate action.

Until the Committee has reported on this matter, it could be argued that the House should not be dealing with the particular circumstances of this case. It may be that the Committee is in the process of taking some action or that it is contemplating doing so in the future.
In the view of the Chair, this would be an appropriate way of dealing with this matter for the moment, since the committee has already initiated work in this area and may want to continue its review of this matter. As a result of its work, the Committee may want to report to the House recommending an action for the House to
Speaker's Ruling
take or it might want to report on what it sees as a contempt, at which time the matter may once again come before the House. Without the benefit of the committee's view on this whole matter, I am reluctant to rule that prima facie a contempt of the House exists at this time.

I wish to add however a cautionary comment. Since 1985 Standing Order 32(5) was amended to read as follows:
Reports, returns or other papers laid before the House in accordance with an act of Parliament shall thereupon be deemed to have been permanently referred to the appropriate standing committee.
I have to say-I think I probably speak for the House-those responsible to meet any deadlines for the tabling of documents in the House of Commons provided for in the Statutes of Canada should reflect carefully about the possible consequences of any delay. I thank hon. members for their assistance in this matter.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I begin my remarks by saying that I am not questioning the ruling of the Chair. What I am seeking is some sense of clarification so that I and members in the House will fully understand the consequences of this particular decision. I ask the guidance of the Speaker in directing me to either the proper authorities or reviewing the facts. I did not have a chance to read the documents since the Speaker is the only one who has them.
Am I to understand that when there is an obligation on the part of the member of this House to table a document and there is a breach of that obligation which affects the rights and privileges of all members of Parliament, not just members of Parliament from one particular party, that amounts to a non-compliance by the minister in question?
My question for the Speaker is if these elements have been answered in the affirmative-yes, there was an obligation; yes, there was a breach; yes, the privileges of the member have been breached because he was not able to get the document-that would seem to me to be

Routine Proceedings
non-compliance. I ask the Speaker's guidance here. I know it is not an interpretation of law, but would that not be the equivalent of a breach of the privileges of this House? I seek the guidance of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond seeks the guidance of the Chair. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond also makes a very cogent argument. Perhaps he would have been happy to make that argument a few days earlier.
Whether the hon. member did or not, if the hon. member considers carefully what the Chair said, I think it would be very unwise for anyone to take from the judgment that I have just given that the deliberate refusal to file documents that are to be filed under statute law to committee or to this House would necessarily be treated as not a contempt of the House. If one looks also very carefully at what the Chair has said, I think I have made it clear that I would be prepared to hear further from the committee in question. If there is any need for a further caveat to any assumption that any deliberate refusal to proceed with a mandate of law in filing documents to this House or to these committees, it would be very foolish to assume that the Chair in all circumstances would be mute.
I do not think I need any further comment from hon. members.


David Charles Dingwall: Would the Chair entertain a question?


Mr. Speaker:: I listened very carefully to the hon. member and there are, of course, skilful ways to extend an argument past a judgment. I tried to make it very clear. If hon. members will look carefully at what I said and if those who serve ministers in departments will look very carefully at what I said, I do not think there will be too much doubt in anybody's mind that consequences could indeed be very serious.
At the moment I suggested that the committee might look at it again. Depending on what the committee decides, I may hear the matter further.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
21ST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 21st report of the Standing Committee on House Management pursuant to Standing Order 104. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PUBLIC SERVICE NATIONAL WEEK ACT
Marlene Catterall: for leave to introduce Bill C-328, an act respecting a national week of the Public Service.


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


Marlene Catterall: Very briefly, this bill is presented because Canada has developed as a result of a very dynamic and flexible partnership between the public sector and the private sector a partnership that is even more crucial as we face the difficult economic times in this country and the challenges of the future.
The bill is presented in recognition of the value of the services provided by public service employees, acknowledges their contributions, and asks that the third week of the month of June every year be known as Public Service National Week.


Mr. Speaker:: Mrs. Catterall 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.
February 5, 1992


HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 21st report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the various parties and members of the House respecting a special debate process regarding the Constitution.
I believe you will find consent for the following motion:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, on February 6, 10, 11 and 13, 1992, upon the completion of the adjournment debate, or at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment if no adjournment debate is held, the House will continue to sit until 10 p.m. for the sole purpose of allowing members to make presentations on the results of discussions they have had with their constituents on the constitutional issue;
That, for the purposes of this special debate, the question before the House shall be "That this House do now adjourn";
That no member be permitted to speak more than once under the provisions of this order and for a period not to exceed 10 minutes; that members be permitted to table any document which supports their verbal presentation; and that all such presentations and documents be deemed referred to the Standing Joint Committee on the Government of Canada's proposals for a renewed Canada;
That, under the provisions of this order, the Speaker not entertain any dilatory motions or quorum calls; and
That under the provisions of this order, when no member rises to speak, but no later than 10 p.m., the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.
Routine Proceedings


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to read and to hear the motion that was put forward. We are of course totally in favour of having members of this House make their views known on the subject of the Constitution. I simply want to submit this to you, Mr. Speaker. Every evening there should be at least two spots for members of the Bloc Quebecois and the independent members to make their comments before this House since we were not allowed to sit on the special joint committee. You could also benefit from our experience. With that in mind, we would be very happy to give unanimous consent, provided of course we are guaranteed full participation in the debate, which we were denied in the special joint committee.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his indication of consent. It is difficult for me to assure him a guaranteed two spots per evening, but I do want to indicate to him very clearly that we will co-operate in every way to make sure that they have a full opportunity to participate and if in fact on one of the evenings there are four or five slots, they are welcome to take those as well.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I would gladly give our consent to the motion, but I have just a point of clarification to the parliamentary secretary of the government House leader.
In terms of the tabling of documents, they were deemed to have been referred to the Standing Joint Committee on the Government of Canada's Proposals for a Renewed Canada. I presuppose that after the tabling of those documents there will be the appropriate indexing of those documents so that if constituents or others wish to find out in fact where their documents have been, they will be cross-referenced appropriately under the joint standing committee. Is that correct?
Mr. Coopen Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising that point because it is a very important and valid one.

Routine Proceedings
First of all, I want to indicate that they would become documents of the committee the same as any other documents and therefore under their referencing process.
One of the things that I think is very important that we want to be very clear on, is that we are not asking that these documents be treated as Hansard documents and thus have to be put through the whole translation process, but that the members would be able to table their documents in the language of their choice and they would then become the documents of the committee and cross-referenced as such.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I want to lend my voice in terms of support of this motion and to say that it seems to me this is a very appropriate use of the House to permit an opportunity for members of Parliament, wherever they happen to live, who have taken time to hold various forms of assemblies or meetings in their constituencies, to be able to report on behalf of their constituents.
I join in this new approach to House time with considerable enthusiasm.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I share the thoughts and was most interested when the hon. parliamentary secretary stood. I was not quite sure what type of motion was coming. I was glad to hear the contents of the motion. I did not get all the dates, but I gather this starts tomorrow night and then goes for several other nights. I will read it tomorrow.
I certainly do want to compliment the parliamentary secretary as one of the hardest working members in this House.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: No, no. I say that. I do not always agree with what he does and I perhaps sit over here because of that, but I want to compliment him. I do share the views of the member for Kamloops that this is the proper procedure, to try to get more of a collegial, non-confrontational situation in this House with all the problems that we do have, especially on a subject like this. I share some of the concerns of my friends from the Bloc Quebecois, but certainly with the time of 6.30 to ten o'clock on the days enumerated, with 10 minutes each, that gives a good
focus and members who wish should certainly have the opportunity to participate.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I hope not to take much more time of the House. I have here a couple of travel motions that are necessary to change dates for committee travel that we had as a House previously approved, and also a reference to a committee.
I move:
That notwithstanding the order made on December 3, 1991, the Subcommittee on Arms Export of the Standing Committee of External Affairs and International Trade be authorized to travel to Winnipeg and Victoria from March 23 to 27, 1992 instead of February 10 to 14, 1992.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if I can, I will just proceed seriatim so that we save the time of the House.
I move:
That, notwithstanding the order made December 12, 1991, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C. from February 25 to 27,1992 instead of February 9 to 12, 1992.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, notwithstanding any order or practice of this House, the annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, which was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on February 3, 1992, be deemed referred as well to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development.


Mr. Speaker:: On the same point, does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House? Is it agreed?


An hon. member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary apparently does not have the unanimous consent of the House.


Mrs. Venne:: Mr. Speaker, I have to refuse unanimous consent. We have not been consulted in any way. We would appreciate next time around to be consulted so that we from the Bloc Quebecois know ahead of time what is going on and decide on our course of action. For the time being, the answer is no.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions this afternoon. One is from a number of residents of the North Thompson Valley in British Columbia who indicate their opposition to the intention to dam the North Thompson River and divert some of the water into the California area. They are asking the Government of Canada to state categorically that our river water is not for sale in this fashion to the Americans.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another matter, a number of constituents from the Kamloops region of British Columbia are concerned about the rumours of RCMP cutbacks. They are asking that we ensure the RCMP obtain proper funding so it will be able to fulfil its mandate and role as the only police force for communities across British Columbia and remain as a viable symbol of Canadian unity.
Routine Proceedings JUSTICE


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36. I have the signatures of several thousand people who feel that there are serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system. Many vulnerable persons have little protection under the current system. It is women, children and disabled persons who are at particular risk.
These petitioners request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society and they request that the government amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have two petitions to present to the House today.
The first petition is from a number of residents of my riding, in particular from Penticton through the Okanagan Valley, with respect to the rural communications matter. They urge the Minister of Communications to oppose Unitel's present bid to compete with Canada's telephone companies' long distance service and also urge the Minister of Communications to hold local hearings in our communities before deciding the fate of the telecommunications system in Canada.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: The next petition is from a number of residents throughout my riding of Okanagan-Similkameen- Merritt.
While the subject has been somewhat dealt with in recent developments involving the Solicitor General and the RCMP in various provinces, they are still concerned about the continuation of RCMP services within the province of British Columbia and urge the government to consider restoring proper funding to the RCMP so it can continue to fulfil its mandate and role as the only visible police force for communities across British Columbia and remain as a viable symbol of Canadian unity.


Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is an honour and a privilege to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of residents of the riding of Elk Island in Alberta calling upon Parliament to amend the Income Thx Act such that child related benefits and deductions for child care are fair

February 5, 1992
Routine Proceedings
and equitable to all family structures based on financial need and irrespective of child care choice.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a petition signed by constituents in the Ottawa area who are appalled at the fact that they are paying more for gasoline than those in any other part of Ontario.
They would like the federal government to examine ways to correct this injustice by amending the Competition Act.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions with which I shall deal briefly.
The first concerns the Income 'Fax Act and points out that receipted day care can be deducted for certain families, while there are no options available for families who choose other alternatives.
The petitioners also point out a contradiction between married couples and common law couples. They would hope that married couples would enjoy the same kind of benefits. They feel that this difference in treatment is unfair and point out that the legislation is piecemeal, contradictory and disorganized. The petitioners want some changes.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from more than 150 students from the University of Winnipeg.
The petitioners point out that education ought to be available to all Canadians who have the will and the ability to pursue post-secondary education opportunities, not just those who have the financial means.
The petitioners point out that the government talks about competitiveness and productivity, but they-


Mr. Speaker:: Under the rules hon. members will have to rise. I would ask the hon. member to put his petition as briefly as possible.


Ron J. Duhamel: The petitioners would like the current legislation rescinded so that financing to post-secondary education is not removed.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on education from students from Brandon making the same points.
As well, they deplore the 3 per cent administrative fee on student aid. They feel that the current government legislation is inappropriate and does not lead to additional competitiveness and increased productivity.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my fourth and second last petition has been delayed for a number of reasons.
The petitioners call upon the government to recognize the independence of Ukraine. Of course, we know that has now been achieved, as have full diplomatic relations. We wish the Ukrainian people well.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my final petition is on behalf of a number of constituents who are reacting to the murder of Nina de Villiers.
This petition now has over 200,000 signatures. The petitioners point out that violence of any type is unacceptable and call upon the government to change the various pieces of legislation such as the Bail Reform Act and the Parole Act, as well as the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to violent crimes.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition by residents of my riding of Scarborough-Agincourt against the proposed Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement.
My constituents have no faith in the government. In 1988-


Mr. Speaker:: The rule says that the member presenting a petition may briefly describe the petition. The rule makes it very clear that the member is not supposed to get into debate. The reason is that no other member can rise. I would ask the hon. member to let the House know what the petitioners are asking for.
February 5, 1992


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, the petitioners in my riding are asking that this proposed Canada- U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement be stopped so Canadians can get back to work.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 too have the honour, the privilege and the duty to present to this House a petition certified correct by the clerk of Petitions.
The petition contains signatures in addition to the some 200,000 signatures already presented to this House of Commons. The petitioners request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society and amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, my first petition supports the previous petitions that have been tabled.
The petition calls upon Parliament to recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society and to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


Barbara Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have two other petitions, both of which urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration to issue ministers' permits for spouses and dependent children of persons who have been determined to be convention refugees and allow them to be reunited in Canada through inland processing.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from Cardigan, Prince Edward Island, who work or have a great interest in the fishing industry. The petitioners wish to indicate the slip for the wharf at Graham's Pond, Prince Edward Island, is in a state of disrepair; whereas it is the responsibility of the government to maintain basic public facilities, wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the government to ensure
Routine Proceedings
all necessary repairs be made to the slip at the small craft harbours facility at Graham's Pond, Prince Edward Island.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, like my colleagues, to present two petitions from a number of constituents from my riding who are appalled at the circumstances which led to the death of Nina de Villiers. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass legislation which will ensure that such violent crimes never happen again.
It has been stated many times in this House that there is a need for more stringent legislation and we hope the House will address itself to that.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of the national capital region who ask the government to deal with the cost of fuel in the national capital region.
As you very well know, several studies showed that the price of gasoline was much higher in the national capital region than in other places in Canada.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would really like the government to deal with this matter and set it right.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition from residents of the greater Toronto area whereby they cite failures in the criminal justice system and the correctional system which have put ordinary Canadians at greater risk to their safety and their lives. They ask the government to enact reforms to the Criminal Code, the Parole Act and the Corrections Act.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many people who live in Ottawa, Amprior, Richmond, Nepean and other cities and towns in the Ottawa Valley. They complain that gasoline prices are considerably higher in the Ottawa region than in southern Ontario.

Routine Proceedings
The petitioners humbly ask Parliament to urge the government to correct this injustice done to motorists in the Ottawa area.
*
*


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 143, 198, 199, 202 and 205.


Ms. Callbeck: With respect to wharf repair and maintenance in Prince Edward Island, for each year since 1981, how much money was spent by the government, what is the estimated government expenditure for the current fiscal year?


Albert Glen Cooper: I am informed by the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans and Transport as follows:
In so far as Fisheries and Oceans:
(a)	Prince Edward Island total expenditures in dollars:
1981/82 - 2,765,500 1982/83 - 2,621,500 1983/84 - 5,447,500 1984/85 - 7,576,500 1985/86 - 4,080,300
1986/87 - 3,010,000 1987/88 - 3,044,700 1988/89 - 7,144,400 1989/90 - 4,332,200 1990/91 - 2,635,600
(b)	The estimated expenditure for 1991/92 is 3.2 million.
In so far as Transport Canada:
(a)	See attached Schedule A.
(b)	1991/92 Forecast expenditure
Charlottetown (O&M)	$184,000
Souris (O&M)	451,000
Souris (Capital)	10,000
Summerside (O&M)	151,000
Georgetown (O&M)	26,000
	$822,000
HARBOURS AND PORTS - MARITIMES REGION OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (O&M) AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
FISCAL YEAR	TYPE OF EXPENDITURE	CHARLOTTETOWN	SOURIS	SUMMERSIDE	GEORGETOWN	TOTAL P.E.I1990/91	Capital	97,595	787,034	99,291	-	983,920O&M	188,511	900,820	482,460	64,250	1,636,0411989/90	Capital	_	5,471,965	-	-	5,471,965O&M	170,995	335,051	114,366	76,094	696,5061988/89	Capital	_	4,121,571	54,817	77,410	4,253,798O&M	125,897	181,828	117,384	106,432	531,5411987/88	Capital	_	738,282	11,415	-	749,697O&M	87,616	116,600	466,525	213,352	884,0931986/87	Capital	59,878	241,097	1,839,263	1,204,745	3,344,983O&M	93,502	236,718	216,417	41,077	587,714
Routine Proceedings
FISCAL YEAR	TYPE OF EXPENDITURE	CHARLOTTE- TOWN	SOURIS	SUMMERSIDE	GEORGE- TOWN	TOTAL P.E.I1985/86	Capital	_	153,013	246,041	5,446,078	5,845,132O&M	316,563	608,180	281,351	21,865	1,227,9591984/85	Capital	51,358	299,595	39	205,417	556,409O&M	227,482	138,166	217,841	5,853	589,3421983/84	Capital	603,592	549,627	165,177	50,852	1,369,248O&M	-	-	-	-	-1982/83	(Not available) Capital	296,280	19,322	315,602O&M	-	-	-	-	-TOTAL	(Not available)	2,319,269	14,879,547	4,312,387	7,532,747	29,043,950
NOTE: (1) Figures for the fiscal 1981/82 fiscal year are not available.
(2) O&M Expenditures, Harbours and Ports Branch, include major repair and maintenance and exclude administration costs and minor repairs.


Mr. Peterson: Since the implementation of the Postal and Courier Remission Orders of 1986 to date (a) what is the total number of shipments received into Canada under these provisions free of all federal tax and duty (6) what is the total value of these shipments (c) what is the total loss of federal revenues from these tax and duty-free imports?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: (a)	Customs and Excise does not maintain detailed statistical data (i.e. volumes, values and remitted revenues) on the Postal and Courier Imports Remission Orders. However, it is estimated that, in 1991, 27 million parcels were released under the Postal Imports Remission Order (PIRO) and 2 million parcels under the Courier Imports Remission Order (CIRO).
(b)	Assuming an average value of $20 per parcel, and deducting 4.5 million gifts sent by mail, the total value of PIRO shipments in 1991 would be $450 million and the value of CIRO shipments would be $40 million.
(c)	Assuming an average combined duty and tax rate of 12%, the total revenue remitted in 1991 under PIRO would be $54 million and under CIRO it would be $4.8 million.
These orders were originally introduced in 1986 as a cost saving measure for the government in respect of the processing of very low valued postal and courier importations. At that time, it cost the department approximately $10 to process, classify and collect duties and taxes on such shipments. Therefore, it was determined that for the vast majority of transactions involved, the cost of collecting significantly exceeded the revenue lost. In keeping with government priorities of fiscal responsibility and administrative efficiency, $40 was chosen as the appropriate limit at that time.
The government has established an interdepartmental committee to investigate fully and make recommendations respecting the effect these orders are having on the Canadian mail order industry.


Mr. Peterson: Is the government aware that the United States government is not eliminating its existing customs user fees as specified in Article 403 of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement and, if so, what action is the government taking to ensure American compliance with Article 403 of the FTA?


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Under article 403 of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA), each party to the agreement is prohibited from introducing customs user fees with respect to goods originating in the territory of the other party. In addition, the U.S. undertook to eliminate existing customs user fees on goods originating

February 5, 1992
Routine Proceedings
in Canada. In that regard, the U.S. is phasing out its merchandise processing fee on schedule and will eliminate it entirely by January 1, 1994. The removal of this fee is an important achievement of the FTA, as it will save Canadian exporters an estimated $400 million in the 1990-94 period and an estimated $200 million a year thereafter.


Mr. Bellemare: With respect to the goods and services tax, (a) how much money has been collected by the government from January 1,1991 to December 31,1991, or to the date at which this question is answered, whichever comes first (b) what portion of the funds collected during that period was applied to the reduction of the national debt?


Otto John Jelinek: With respect to the goods and services tax:
(a)	For the period January 1-March 31/91 (1990-91 fiscal year), net GST revenues collected amounted to $2,573 billion.
For the period April 1-November 30/91 (1991-92 fiscal year), net GST collected amounted to $9,603 billion. (Government of Canada: Financial Results, November 1991, published by the Department of Finance: These are the most recent published revenue figures.)
(b)	The debt servicing reduction bill (C-21), currently referred to the House of Commons finance committee, provides for the establishment of the Debt Servicing and reduction account. All GST revenues net of the applicable rebates and credits, net proceeds from the sale of Crown corporations and gifts to the Crown identified for debt reduction will be credited to this account. Revenues in this account will be used only to pay interest on the public debt and ultimately public debt.


Mr. Bellemare: With respect to the manufacturer sales tax from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1990, (a) how much money was collected by the government (b) what was the total value of the costs related to the administration of that tax?


Otto John Jelinek: With respect to the manufacturers' sales tax:
(a)	From January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1990, the net federal sales tax collected totalled $17.3 billion.
(b)	From January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1990, the costs related to the administration of this tax totalled $66.9 million.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions of Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have given notice for an emergency debate. I wish to ask leave to move adjournment of the House for the purposes of discussing a matter of urgency, namely that immediate steps must be made by the government to preserve Canada's supply management farm marketing boards. They are now under serious threat at the GATT negotiations in Geneva. I further ask that the government deal with the entire crisis facing the agrifood industry and the family farm in Canada.
February 5, 1992

At stake here is a $10.2 billion industry for our farm commodities of dairy products, eggs, poultry and others, and also some 97,000 jobs. The very secure supply of domestically produced dairy and poultry products is at stake. The viability of our most successful and productive farm sectors is at stake.
More important, the viability of literally thousands of communities across Canada is at stake, and that is why I ask for this emergency debate.


David Charles Dingwall: rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday you were not in the chair. I made reference to the fact that with regard to Standing Order 52 and applications made pursuant to that order, I wanted to avail myself of the opportunity to put a few comments on the record with regard to the discretion that the Speaker has in terms of determining whether or not there ought to be a debate under this particular provision.
I would like to proceed at this time if I may. My points are fairly brief and succinct and I would like to put them to the Chair before the Chair makes a decision with regard to this application.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly do not want to cut off discussion on a matter of interpretation of any rule. My difficulty now is that I have an application in front of me and the rule is very clear. There is to be no argument and the matter is to be put forward succinctly, as the hon. member for Algoma has done.
I do not know that it would be appropriate or proper, since I have now heard the application and have not yet ruled, to hear discussion on how the rule might or might not be interpreted. I am certainly prepared to hear that on another occasion, but I wonder if the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond can satisfy me that I ought to hear a discussion now on the rule in front of me when the application under the rule is before me. That is my difficulty.
I will hear the hon. member further.
Routine Proceedings


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it certainly would be my preference to speak before the Chair makes a decision. However I perfectly understand the dilemma the Chair is in. If the Chair wishes to proceed with making a decision on this particular application, I would be only too happy to wait and then offer my particular views on the interpretation that I have with regard to Standing Order 52.


Mr. Speaker:: All right. I think we are also going to have a limited debate on the order and I would now like to ask the consent of the House to do so.


David Charles Dingwall: It is a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, it is a point of order in one sense but how long does it go on?
I am going to make the ruling now on this matter.
First of all, the hon. member for Algoma is not the only member who has brought the matter to the attention of the Chair this week. The matter has received a certain amount of attention in the Chamber and certainly today.
There is no question that the matter is a serious one. I am not inclined to say today that it meets the question of emergency which I have to look at.
I am going to say to the hon. member for Algoma that I will continue to pay very close attention to what was said. Not accepting the application today does not mean that the member is precluded from bringing it up at another time.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond rises on a point of order and I know that he wants to get into a discussion as to what this order means. Perhaps I could ask the hon. member how long he expects to be on this matter.


David Charles Dingwall: Well, Mr. Speaker, I expect, since it is now six minutes to four, that I would be no longer than five minutes, and possibly three minutes, with regard to a point of order which I believe is close to the heart of Standing Order 52, which is the discretion exercised by the Chair.

February 5, 1992
Government Orders
I thought the Speaker might want to entertain some thoughts that we in the Official Opposition have regarding a very important matter.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you are aware, this issue was raised yesterday or the day before by way of a forewarning by the House leader for the Liberal Party.
I indicated at that time I had some concerns because it sounded to me like he was entering into a debate about a particular Standing Order and possible changes or interpretations of it. I continue to have those concerns because if it is a matter of a change to the Standing Orders, then we have a number of vehicles that are available for that, such as the management committee.
I am quite concerned, Mr. Speaker, that we get into a debate that I am not sure is really a proper debate via a point of order. I think there are other vehicles by which we could discuss it, and we certainly would be happy on this side to discuss it with him. I, personally, would be quite prepared to discuss it with the hon. member and the Speaker and whoever else might be interested in this subject.


Mr. Speaker:: My sense of things at the moment is that it would be better at least if the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and the parliamentary secretary discuss the matter. They might want to indicate to me if they wish to pursue the specific question of the order itself at an appropriate time.
My disposition against getting into a discussion now is that it is going to be very difficult to have a discussion on this order without it being tied to the decision which I have just had to make. I think it would be better for the House if that did not take place at this moment.
I would ask the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond if he would like to consider his position and perhaps give me some indication tomorrow morning if he wants to pursue the matter.


David Charles Dingwall: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to proceed tomorrow at the first opportunity with regard to this particular provision. I believe it is a legitimate point of
order and what better place to raise a point of order than in the House with colleagues opposite. It would take four or five minutes and may in some circles be of some assistance to the Chair. It is not an attempt to perform or put forward a dilatory motion in any respect. It is a legitimate attempt to raise a point of order on a very important procedure in this House, namely emergency debates pursuant to Standing Order 52.
So, yes to the question as raised by the Chair. Tomorrow would be fine, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member immediately after Routine Proceedings tomorrow. I appreciate his co-operation. I am also cognizant of what the hon. parliamentary secretary has said.
With respect to the order, the difficulty that the Chair has with the order is that there is very little guidance to the Chair. There is the element of emergency. It has to be clearly understood that often, as a consequence, matters that are very serious may not necessarily get accepted. I will hear the hon. member tomorrow. I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary or others may have some comments which may assist us. However, and I know the hon. member will keep this in mind tomorrow, I am bound by the rules as they appear in front of me. If changes are to be made, then of course that is a matter for members to agree upon.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)) moved: 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 second time and referred to Legislative Committee F.
February 5, 1992

He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to lead off the debate on Bill C-48. This bill contains amendments to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act that will expand the range of options available to the government for dealing with troubled financial institutions. These amendments will give the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation the authority to arrange and carry out the sale of troubled federally regulated financial institutions to a healthy institution.
At the outset I would like to say that one of the things we discovered when we went back to our ridings and talked about what goes on in the House, whether it be Question Period or debates in the House of Commons, is that we as parliamentarians take for granted that those who are watching us on television know what we are talking about.
Therefore, if I might for just a brief second explain that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, which is a Crown corporation under the responsibility of the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization, provides insurance for depositors, for people who invest their money in financial institutions. It provides insurance coverage of up to $60,000 for each depositor.
Today we are talking about and I will be speaking on amendments to the act which allow the CDIC, the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation, some methods of further ensuring the safety of the deposits of Canadians in financial institutions. That is what we are going to be talking about today.
I am sure that hon. members will recall that we first proposed some restructuring of the financial institutions in a blue paper on financial sector reform.
My colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is here today. I believe that she as Minister of State for Finance, started that process. I am pleased that she is here today to see that the reform she started is carrying on.
That proposal followed a report from then Mr. Justice Bud Estey who examined the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank failures. As a result of that examination, Judge Estey concluded that existing
Government Orders
procedures and powers for dealing with failing institutions needed to be enhanced.
Major elements of the reforms set out in the blue paper have already been considered and endorsed by this House. It is now time to complete this process of reform and give speedy passage to this remaining piece of legislation.

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 the process of reform already begun and to give speedy passage to the other amendments contained in the bill.

As the federal deposit insurer, CDIC can be exposed to substantial potential losses when the financial difficulties of a member institution lead to the erosion of the institution's capital. This bill adds to CDIC's capacity to control exposure to loss by giving CDIC the necessary means and procedures to act in a timely manner to restructure a failing institution. The result will be a more cost effective deposit insurance system. Participants in this system, including depositors and CDIC member institutions, stand to benefit.
The quick resolution of difficulties which may arise at deposit taking institutions holds an additional benefit for depositors. The period of uncertainty and speculation which can be created by the prospect of a failing institution can be avoided if action is promptly taken. This bill makes it possible to deal more effectively with failing institutions and reduce disruptions in Canadians' financial dealings.
Before describing these new measures more fully, allow me to take a moment to note the ways in which the federal government can deal with a deposit taking institution in serious financial difficulty.
If this troubled financial institution lacks the financial resources needed to solve its difficulties, it generally faces one of two prospects. One is liquidation; the other is the sale or merger of its operation with a healthy institution.

Government Orders
In liquidation the institution is broken up and its assets are sold. The sale proceeds go toward paying the institution's liabilities.
On the other hand, if a buyer or merger partner is found, the institution's business can be preserved and liabilities will be paid as they come due.

Madam Speaker, a deposit taking institution's branches and the relationships formed between the institution and its customers are among its most important assets.

When a troubled deposit-taking institution is closed and subsequently liquidated, its relationships with customers, both depositors and borrowers, will be cut off and the value of the branch network reduced. If the institution's branches are well established, this may mean not only a disruption of many people's financial affairs but also may considerably reduce the net worth of the institution by destroying its value as a going concern.
Preserving maximum value in a troubled deposit taking institution is in the best interest of the institution's depositors and creditors and the deposit insurer. However, once a deposit taking institution's capital falls below a certain level, shareholders may find themselves in a position in which 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. This can lead to a situation in which the shareholders' ability to block a sale or merger can be used to extract payment from CDIC or public authorities.
Though the shares of the institution have little or no value at this point, CDIC may find that it has to pay shareholders more than the true value of the shares to get them to agree to a transaction which preserves the value of the failing institution.
Bill C-48 contains measures to deal with this situation and gives federal authorities more control over the cost of resolving serious financial difficulties which may arise. The measures in this bill accomplish this goal while still respecting the rights of shareholders.
The restructuring process vests all ownership rights in the troubled institution in CDIC and makes CDIC responsible for managing the institution's restructuring. As sole shareholder, CDIC can approve any restructuring proposal. This could include the sale of the shares of the institution to one or more buyers, an amalgamation of the institution with another, or the sale of its assets and liabilities. Shareholders and subordinated debt holders will be compensated for the value of their shares and debt claims.
CDIC's use of the new restructuring measures will be guided by the pursuit of the objectives set out for CDIC in its act. These objectives are to provide deposit insurance, to promote high standards of business and financial practices, to promote the stability and competitiveness of the financial system in Canada, and to pursue these objectives for the benefit of depositors and in a manner which minimizes CDIC's exposure to loss.
These objectives provide assurance that the competitiveness and stability of the financial system, as well as the cost to CDIC, will be prime factors in determining how to resolve financial difficulties which may arise at CDIC member institutions.
The new powers granted to CDIC in this bill are appropriate, given the risk that CDIC bears and given the need to take decisive action when serious financial difficulties arise.
Nevertheless, these powers require that they be balanced by measures which ensure that shareholders and holders of subordinated debt are treated fairly.
The restructuring provisions in this bill accomplish this in two ways.
First, there is a set of conditions precedent which must be considered before a financial institution restructuring
February 5, 1992

process can be ordered. These conditions and the series of approvals required will prevent premature or arbitrary use of the power to restructure troubled deposit taking institutions.
Second, shareholders and subordinated debt holders of an institution that is restructured will be compensated according to the value remaining in the shares or debt. This is assured by their right to request that an independent assessor be appointed to determine what fair compensation is.
These safeguards are very important features of this bill.
Now let me take a few moments to describe in greater detail how they will work.
Before the authority to restructure a troubled financial institution can be used, certain conditions must be considered and a detailed procedure involving the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Minister of Finance and the federal cabinet must be followed.
The first step is the superintendent's judgment of the financial condition of the troubled institution. Specifically the superintendent must determine that the institution has ceased or is about to cease to be viable and that there is no regulatory power that the superintendent can use to restore or preserve the viability of the institution. The superintendent must then report to CDIC on the condition of this institution.
I might say that these two organizations do co-operate greatly and meet together with myself, the minister responsible, on a monthly basis to review the situation with our financial institutions.
CDIC must in turn decide whether it is appropriate to recommend to the Minister of Finance that the troubled institution be restructured. In making this decision, CDIC must be satisfied that a restructuring is consistent with the objectives set out in its act.
If CDIC recommends a restructuring of the troubled institution, the minister must assess the financial condition of the institution question and be satisfied that it has ceased, or is about to cease to be viable. Only then may the minister recommend to the Governor in Council that a restructuring order be made.
Government Orders
The assessment of the institution by the superintendent and the minister will be guided by criteria which will be set out in the act for owners and operators of financial institutions.
Put simply, the criteria will describe an institution that is no longer capable of continuing on its own. Evidence of this condition may include the institution's excessive dependence on financial assistance to sustain its operation, the loss of the public's and depositors' confidence, substantial impairment of capital, and the institution's inability to pay its liabilities.
These criteria give clear guidance to all concerned that the restructuring authority provided in the bill should only be used when the condition of the institution warrants.
The conditions which must be considered before an institution can be restructured are coupled in the bill with measures to ensure that when an institution is restructured, shareholders and subordinated debt holders will be treated fairly.
Most important among these are the measures dealing with compensation. Where the shares and subordinated debt of a restructured institution have value, their holders will be offered compensation from CDIC. If 10 per cent or more of a class of shareholders or subordinated debt holders feel that CDIC's offer is too low, they will have the option of seeking the appointment of an independent assessor to determine what is fair compensation.
The assessor, who will be a judge, will have full powers to hear evidence and will be given broad terms of reference for determining the appropriate level of compensation. If, for example, the assessor finds that a higher level of compensation should be paid then CDIC will be required to pay.
We have tried to strike a balance in this bill between the objectives of economic and financial stability on one hand and respect for the normal property rights of shareholders and subordinate debt holders on the other. I am confident, after working on this bill for some time, that we have achieved such a balance.
I would like to turn now to some other features of this bill. The bill contains a small number of amendments which are not directly related to the financial institution restructuring process. The first of these is aimed at

February 5, 1992
Government Orders
improving the flow of information about deposit insurance to customers of financial institutions. Until the existing CDIC act, employees of CDIC member institutions could not provide even the most basic information about deposit insurance to customers. The amendment will improve this situation by allowing CDIC member institutions to provide their customers with more information regarding deposit insurance. This is an important step toward improving the public's understanding of deposit insurance coverage and, I might add, is welcomed by the industry.
The second amendment provides for an increase in CDIC's borrowing limit from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to $6 billion. The last increase was in 1987 when the limit was raised to $3 billion. Since then, insured deposits in our financial institutions in Canada have grown by 50 per cent. The proposed increase will accommodate this growth and cover anticipated increases in insured deposits over the next few years.
Other amendments are of a more technical nature but are nonetheless important for CDIC's operations. These amendments will give CDIC greater flexibility to make by-laws to promote a common standard of business practice and conditions of insurance coverage among the member institutions.
The amendments contained in this bill will permit the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to cany out its mandate more effectively. The process set out in this bill for the restructuring of federal deposit taking institutions will contribute to the health and stability of the financial system and help control the cost of the deposit insurance system.
Other changes in Bill C-48 will support the important goals of achieving common standards of business and financial practices and providing the public with greater access to information on deposit insurance. I look forward to the participation in the debate of colleagues from the opposition benches. They have been afforded and have taken up the offer to be briefed by departmental officials. I hope their questions and concerns have been answered to their satisfaction.
I look forward to the debate. I believe that once the bill is carefully examined, all parties will see its wisdom and ensure its passage in a reasonable period of time.
I understand that consultations have been taken with the opposition parties and therefore I move:
That pursuant to Standing Order 73(3), Bill C-48, an act to amend
the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act and to amend other
acts in consequence thereof, be referred to the Standing Committee
on Finance.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I have listened with interest to the hon. minister and his comments regarding the amendments to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, Bill C-48, that we have before us this afternoon.
First of all I want to say that we in the Liberal Party will be supporting this legislation at second reading. Its purpose is to give the federal government the power to try to save a failing bank or trust company by seizing the assets of the institution and either restructuring the company or arranging a merger with a healthy institution.
At present, one of the problems with the present legislation is that the regulator does not have the power to intervene early enough in some cases to protect the shareholders, consumers and the debt holders.
I said that we on this side of the House will support this legislation at second reading, but there are a number of issues that we will want to address when this legislation goes to committee.
One of those issues is how to prevent regulators from using their new powers arbitrarily. In other words, we want to make sure that they do not abuse this power by moving too quickly or prematurely to take over the assets of a trust company or a bank.
On the other hand, we do not want to see banks or trust companies go under. People lose money: creditors, depositors, and shareholders.
As well, many people would be laid off. In this industry the banks and trust companies employ over 400,000 Canadians across this country. The importance of keeping Canadians at work becomes even more important when we are in a recession as we are today where we have 1.5 million Canadians unemployed.
February 5, 1992

We want to be very cautious about giving these regulators the massive powers outlined under Bill C-48. We will spend a lot of time in committee studying it very closely.
I believe that the alternative to this would be worse, in other words if we did not pass this legislation. The situation that we presently have is that the regulators do not have the power to intervene early enough in some cases to protect our consumers, our depositors and our shareholders adequately.
I see no reason to hold up the second reading of this legislation. Before I begin discussing Bill C-48,1 would like to put this legislation in historical context.
In 1985, I am sure that we all recall the two western banks that failed: Canadian Commercial and the Northland. That prompted an inquiry by the government. In August 1986, the Hon. Mr. Justice Willard Estey submitted his report. In that report he argued that the public would be well served if regulators had the power to force a bank or a trust company that is facing bankruptcy or insolvency, to restructure or to merge with another financial institution.
Mr. Justice Estey proposed that the regulator would have the responsibility by statute to recommend which course of action-liquidation or a merger or restructuring-would be appropriate in the circumstances and to seek the authority of the Minister of Finance to proceed. That was in August of 1986.
In December 1986 the government produced a blue paper. It looked as though it was going to move very quickly on the recommendation of Mr. Justice Estey, but all we received was a blue paper.
In that paper they proposed the recommendation that if an institution, a bank or a trust company is faced with insolvency, the federal cabinet would have the power to give control of the institution to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
According to the blue paper, conditions would be set out. In other words, it would be very clear as to when they would have the power to do this. Also, it would be spelled out how the creditors and the shareholders would be compensated. That was back in 1986 and here we are six years later, after that blue paper, and the
Government Orders
government has finally tabled this recommendation and this legislation we have before us, Bill C-48.
The question is: Why did the government wait for six years? That is a question that is very difficult for me to understand because this is something that is extremely important to the financial industry.
I want to detail some of the main points of Bill C-48, paying particular attention to the restructuring process. That is the main thrust of the bill. Of the 20-page bill most of it is devoted to this restructuring.
Before I do that, I want to take a minute and talk about the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation which was established in 1967 to provide insurance for depositors who put their money into banks or trust companies. That insurance covers up to $60,000. Really, it is an insurance for deposits or for people who put their money into banks and trust companies in this country and, therefore, it helps to promote the stability of the Canadian financial system.
The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is financed by the premiums that are paid by the banks and trust companies that belong to this corporation. It does insure over 150 Canadian financial institutions.
The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, as well as insuring deposits, guarantees loans to unhealthy financial institutions and it prescribes the standards of sound business and financial practice for financial institutions.
Of course, working closely with this corporation is the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, because he has to inspect and regulate the federal financial institutions that are under this corporation.
This restructuring process, as I mentioned, really provides that a bank or a trust company that is facing bankruptcy or insolvency can be seized by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation which will then restructure or merge it with a healthy institution.
In order to ensure that these special powers are used appropriately, in other words that they are not used unjustly and the corporation does not act prematurely, the legislation sets out a lot of conditions. For example, the corporation must get a report from the Superintendent of Financial Institutions stating that the financial institution is no longer viable.
Then the corporation has to take that report to the Minister of Finance and convince him that the institu-

February 5, 1992
Government Orders
tion must be seized, that they can arrange a rescue package and that it has a potential buyer or merger partner.
Before the finance minister can agree or disagree he must hear from the directors of the financial institutions so that they have their opportunity to put their case before the minister.
If the minister still agrees with the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation then the corporation takes over the institution and the shareholders and the debt holders are offered compensation, if there is any value left in the institution.
Each individual shareholder and debt holder can decide whether he or she going to take that compensation. If over 10 per cent reject the offer, an independent assessor will be appointed who determines whether the offer was fair and, if not, what the amount of money should be.
That is a summary of the restructuring process. Certainly it is not perfect, but it does try to strike a balance on the one hand between the need for decisive action to save a failing financial institution. As I said, presently and in the past the regulator has not had the power to go in there in some cases as quickly as he probably should have. It tries to strike a balance between the need for decisive action to save a financial institution and on the other hand the need to respect the rights of that institution's shareholders and debt holders. That is not an easy balance to find. However I think this legislation has come up with a reasonable balance. It is one that we will be looking at very closely in the committee.
There are some other elements in the bill as well. For example, other measures include that the corporation's line of credit will be increased to $6 billion from $3 billion. That is money which the corporation lends at market prices to carry out such duties as financing a merger or compensating depositors or shareholders or debt holders. Since 1987 the level of deposits of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation has increased by more than 50 per cent. That makes it necessary to increase this line of credit.
Another important measure contained in this bill will mean that bank and trust company staff will be able to tell their customers which products are insured under Canada deposit insurance. As it presently stands, Madam Speaker, if you go into a bank or a trust company and you want to find out what particular products are insured under Canada deposit insurance, they cannot tell you. All they can do is give you a pamphlet. Sometimes those pamphlets are very confusing. Sometimes it is very difficult to know just exactly what is included, what you can have insured up to $60,000.
This is a very important step. It is going to make it much more convenient for customers because they will be able to ask personnel at the bank or the trust company and receive an answer as to yes, it is insured or no, it is not insured.
This legislation affects banks and trust companies. It is interesting to read their comments on how they feel about regulators getting this massive power which seems to give Draconian powers to the federal government through the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
For example, the trust companies association president, John Evans, said on February 3 in The Globe and Mail: "We are encouraging the government to proceed and get this through. Our sense is there is some urgency. This bill provides the powers the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation needs to come to a quick resolution of problem institutions".
The Canadian Bankers' Association is on record as saying that it agrees with the concept of this legislation. It would prefer a more comprehensive review of the role and operations of the corporation. It notes that in 1985 the Wyman report recommended sweeping changes to the corporation which would, among other things, result in higher insurance premiums for riskier financial institutions. In other words, the riskier a financial institution was, the higher the premium it would have to pay.
This legislation appears to be reasonable. We will have to examine it in detail in the committee. However, one of the things that is not reasonable is the fact that this government took six years to bring in this legislation, from the time of the blue paper in 1986 which first described the process we are now discussing in this Bill C-48. Now we have the legislation before us and the government wants to pass it by the end of the month.
February 5, 1992

What I am saying is that the government has taken six years to take the recommendations from the blue paper and incorporate them into legislation, but it wants it passed by the end of the month.
The question is: Why did the government not come forward sooner with this legislation? Why did it take six years on a matter of such obvious importance to the Canadian financial institutions? The customers of at least one financial institution might have been better off if the government had not taken its time in introducing Bill C-48.
The financial papers today are reporting almost daily how the sale of 48 branches of Central Guaranty Trust to National Bank is being held up by creditors and possibly by shareholders and how the regulator is against the sale.
While these negotiations continue behind closed doors, the customers of Central Guaranty live in uncertainty over what is going to happen to their institution.
On a broader level, why is the government not acting on the broad recommendations of the 1985 Wyman report? The federal government commissioned the report, yet seven years later it is still on the shelf gathering dust.
A third problem with the government's approach is that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation has no power to seize a provincial incorporated institution that might be on the verge of bankruptcy, even though it insures the deposits of the institution.
Of course the reason for this is that the government has made practically no progress in harmonizing its financial regulations with those of the provinces.
During the sweeping financial reforms that we dealt with last fall in this House and in the finance committee, we heard trust companies, banks and insurance companies pleading with the government to talk to the provinces to come to some agreement on harmonizing financial regulations.
At the moment, these companies often have to deal with 11 regulators and 11 sets of rules. This means incredible duplication and red tape and, of course, the cost of that. We can imagine the cost of dealing with 11 regulators and 11 sets of rules, but the cost really is passed along to the customers.
Government Orders
In a speech last week, the Canadian Bankers' Association president, Helen Sinclair, said the overlap of federal and provincial powers is costly and confusing. She said: "This is very important. When rules differ, confusion reigns".
Certainly we in the Liberal Party have been pressing the government time after time to speed up talks with the provinces on harmonization for financial institutions.
I just want to conclude my remarks on Bill C-48 by restating my party's initial support for the second reading of this legislation. It will help to protect the stability of the Canadian financial system and will not infringe unreasonably on the rights of shareholders and debt holders.
Some work still needs to be done. We will need to consult with the financial services industry to hear their detailed concerns and also their recommended improvements.
The government certainly needs to step up its harmonization talks with the provinces.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, as you discuss the thrust of the bill being debated before Parliament today with people, their eyes usually glaze over and they think that it is another banking bill that really does not concern them. They have a tendency to not want to listen.
You must consider the background of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, the reasons for its existence, and what has happened in the United States over deregulation, and now with the new banking regulations. We have seen some of the problems, particularly through the 1980s, in our trust companies and closely held banks. It is very clear that the banking legislation and this legislation before us affects every one of us.
What is the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation? I think the minister touched on it briefly, but it is interesting and I think it will be worth while in my remarks to touch on it a little bit more for those who are watching and read from the corporate profile of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
It states:
The objects of the Corporation are to provide insurance against the loss of part or all deposits, to be instrumental in the promotion of standards of sound business and financial practices for member institutions, and to promote and otherwise contribute to the stability and competitiveness of the financial system in Canada. These objects are to be pursued for the benefit of persons having deposits with

Government Orders
member institutions and in such a manner as will minimize the exposure of corporations to loss.
Tb fulfil its objects, CDIC may, among other things, acquire assets from a member institution; make or guarantee loans to a member; make or cause to be made inspections of member institutions; prescribe standards of sound business and financial practices for members; and act as a liquidator, receiver or inspector of a member institution or subsidiary thereof.
This particular object of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation I think is one that most of us in this House agree with. Certainly in my party, we agree with the object of the protection and the ability of such an institution to move in and insure the deposits, particularly those of our minor depositors, shareholders and debenture holders.
My friend from the Liberal Party has pointed out the problem of harmonization which I will touch on later.
There are, I believe, 35 provincially incorporated financial institutions that are also covered by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. Yet CDIC does not have the same power to move in as it does with federally instituted organizations. I identify this as a potential problem for the whole situation concerning Canadian deposit insurance.
If we look at the bill now before the House, I believe the principle of the bill will assist all depositors and will assist banks and financial institutions in overcoming a problem that they have run into over the last little while.
To demonstrate the problems they have run into over the last little while we only have to note the failure of the Canadian Commercial Bank the Northland Bank, the Mercantile Bank, the Continental Bank, and Principal Trust. They affected each and every one of us and made us realize that we have to go a step further than we have so far to try to protect our financial institutions.
The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation was instituted in approximately 1967 and is used by many banks. Over that period of time we can see some problems arising, as demonstrated by a recent article by Karen Howlett, financial reporter for The Globe and Mail, on February 3 of this year. She tells us that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation ran up a deficit of $642.6 million as of December 31, 1990 as a result of rescuing
several companies in the eighties, and that does not include Standard Thist Co. which collapsed last year costing the agency more than $1 billion, the single most expensive bailout in CDIC's 25-year history. CDIC provided another $445 million in loans and guarantees for last month's rescue of the First City Trust Company.
She goes on to say: "The troubled state of many companies is also fuelling debate in the industry over how CDIC finances its bailouts. The agency collects premiums from the industry, one-tenth of one per cent of the total insured deposits, for a total of $271 million in 1990". She says that most of the burden has fallen to taxpayers. CDIC borrowed about $1.2 billion from the government's consolidated revenue fund as of December 31, 1990.
Under this bill, as has been pointed out by the minister and my friend from the Liberal Party, the government is extending the CDIC's ability to borrow from the consolidated revenue fund, by extending its limit from $3 billion to $6 billion in order to support what has been an increasing burden within the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
I would suggest that, given what we went through just prior to the Christmas season with our four major banking bills and the breakdown of the four pillars of the banking institution within Canada, with this bill we are going to reap some of the unfortunate costs of those pillars falling.
As my friend from Nickel Belt has said in speaking on the banking acts, the Hulk Hogans, the wrestlers of the banking community, are now turning into the sumo wrestlers of the banking community. Where there were a number of Hulk Hogans there will now be one, two or three major sumo wrestlers who will slowly take over the banking community as a result of what we have seen occurring. The breakdown of those pillars gives those large banks, in particular the five major banks within Canada and some of the other major trust companies and insurance companies, the ability to take over those smaller banks, those smaller closely held financial institutions, and those smaller trust companies that cannot make it in a deregulated system.

To some extent the changes within this bill are a reflection of the problems that we have predicted within the banking legislation. They will lead potentially to the large ones taking advantage of the system we have set up to gobble up some of the smaller failing trust companies, some of the smaller failing closely held financial institutions, once again proving that the larger will become larger and the smaller financial institutions will cease to exist.
It seems to me in the interests of the larger financial institutions to sit and wait and use the merger terms to be set out within this legislation to their benefit, to wait until the share structure goes down to buy up the shares of the financial institutions with the blessing of CDIC and use an injection of funds from the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to assist in refinancing and restructuring within that merger.
That is one of the problems I see with this legislation.
The advantage of the legislation is also within that same section in which the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation has the ability to ensure that shareholders and dividend holders do not take advantage of the system. When certain conditions occur, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the Minister of Finance, and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation can take certain actions to ensure that they can take over the ownership of that company-in other words, the ownership of that financial institution that is in trouble and is no longer a viable institution-thereby ensuring that shareholders who perhaps have nothing to lose by letting the company go down further and hold out for a higher amount of money for their shares will be stuck with accepting a deal with the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and will be assured of only receiving the value of the shares. That is a positive.
That perhaps insures depositors' savings, as we have seen in the past with the takeover by the Bank of Hong Kong of the Bank of British Columbia in which a merger was worked out. Although I believe it cost $240 million to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, it in fact saved a failure of a bank that was having problems, a provincially incorporated bank that was having problems,
Government Orders
and would perhaps have failed with the result that depositors could not have got their money out.
As one who has lost money to uninsured deposits within certain financial institutions, I applaud what has been called a minor part of this particular bill which ensures that the financial institutions are able to notify their customers properly whether the deposit they have made in the institution is properly insured.
It is often in talking to people since I have been a member of Parliament and prior to that in my past occupation as a lawyer, where I have found out that many people, often seniors with small amounts of money, would deposit the money in financial institutions or in trust companies where they felt that they would get a better return on their money only to find out, often too late as in the case of some of the trust companies and financial institutions that have failed, that they were not insured by CDIC.
This is a positive step in ensuring that the CDIC member institutions will be able to provide their customers with more information with respect to deposit insurance. I applaud this move, as will people within Canada.
Let me move quickly, Madam Speaker, to what the Superintendent of Financial Institutions will be looking at in trying to see whether or not a financial institution is still viable. In looking to see whether a merger or sale of the company is viable, the CDIC and the Superintendent of Financial Institutions will look at whether that company has ceased or is about to cease to be viable, whether it is independent and relies to an excessive extent on loans to sustain its operation or has lost the confidence of the depositors and the public and whether it has regulatory capital or is about to become substantially deficient.
Under section 39.1 and throughout, it sets out the various steps that will be taken once that comes. There are 12 particular steps. I will not go through them all but I will highlight a couple of them. First of all, the troubled federally regulated institution reports major losses and OSFI, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, will explore with the company measures to strengthen the institution. When it is deemed that there is an appropriate situation for restructuring, CDIC may recommend to the minister that a restructuring order be made, vesting the shares and the subordinated debt of

Government Orders
that institution in the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
CDIC will inform the shareholders and the subordinated debt holders of the fact that this particular step has been ordered and they will offer compensation to indicate that there will be no compensation to be offered. The shareholders and subordinated debt holders can accept or reject CDIC's offer and those who accept the offer are entitled to the amount offered and are not party to any assessment procedure which may take place.
If fewer than 10 per cent reject CDIC's offer, all shareholders and subordinated debt holders will receive the compensation offer. If there are 10 per cent more of the class that reject the offer, then an independent assessor is appointed. I think that is a positive step.
This idea is to ensure that there are not the major losses that we have seen in the past in shoring up, even though it may cost CDIC some capital and some money to get it going. Certainly the losses will be substantially fewer than the potential losses in things such as the Principal Trust, Northlands Bank, et cetera.
I referred earlier to the matter of harmonization. It certainly is a question that has arisen time and again with the banking legislation and I suggest, as has my friend from the Liberals, that in this particular case once again we are running into the problem with the harmonization between provincially regulated institutions and federally regulated institutions.
In this particular case, even though there are 35 provincially regulated financial institutions that are insured under CDIC, the financial institution restructuring process that is one of the major thrusts of this amendment cannot be brought to bear on the provincially instituted institutions. This legislation fails totally to address that particular issue. The paper put out by the government at our briefing session simply says: "Will CDIC's power under the FIRP legislation extend to provincial deposit taking institutions? Can CDIC take over a provincial led institution? The answer is simply no. Only federally regulated deposit taking institutions will come under the new legislation".
Without that harmonization, once again we have the uncertainty of the depositors, the uncertainty of the shareholders and dividend holders. Most people do not know whether the institutions they are depositing their life savings in are federally or provincially regulated institutions. They see a big building. They go in, the people are nice and they deposit their money. They say: "Is my money safe here?" "Oh, yes, we are all covered". They go away thinking their money is totally insured and they do not have a problem. It is not until we have a failure and these people who have worked for years and years and saved toward their retirement find out that they are totally without insurance and are left without their life's savings.
I would suggest it is not a very nice feeling for many of these people who have lost funds through some of these failures in western Canada, to have worked their lifetime and seen that security dissolve when they thought they were insured. They thought that once they deposited their money with an institution there was some expectation that it would make money and assist them in then-retirement years.
Some agreement with the provinces must be looked at to ensure that it falls under FIRP and is regulated more closely by the CDIC legislation.
Another thing I would like to point out is that the relationship between CDIC, the insurance function and OSFI, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the regulatory function, is not clear. As my friend from Nickel Belt has often pointed out, we know that OSFI and CDIC have a close working relationship, but is that working relationship that of Siamese twins or is it of a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde nature? Under this legislation it appears that the Office of the Superintendent of Finance Institutions is losing ground to CDIC.
The other issue is the wish to know who controls CDIC. With the expansion of CDIC's board we have the chartered banks being allowed as part of the regulatory body. Perhaps with more of those senior officials being from the banks, that representation may skewer exactly where we should be going.
I suggest that the legislation in principle is good legislation which can be supported by this party. However, there are some changes that must be made during
February 5, 1992

committee work that will make it better for shareholders, dividend holders and depositors as well as the institutions that are covered by CDIC.
In conclusion, I simply say we can support the bill at second reading. Hopefully the government will pay attention to projected changes that we will make.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this particular bill. As has been indicated by my colleague from Malpeque, we will be supporting this legislation as it goes through second reading and look forward to studying it in committee. This legislation is long overdue, particularly when you look at the fact that Mr. Justice Estey submitted a report a number of years ago.
We have been waiting for that report for a long period of time in order to see something take place. I believe the date was in 1986.
The bulk of the recommendations that Mr. Justice Estey made are now encompassed in this legislation. One wonders why all of a sudden we are in this huriy-up mode when it has been roughly five years since those recommendations have been made.
The problems have existed for a number of years, and the government could have acted quickly if it wanted to. We might have averted some of the problems had the government taken the time to move quickly. Instead, we see it going the other way, waiting and crisis management.
Now we are facing another crisis management situation dealing with Central Trust. The shareholders are about to vote and we are rushing legislation off to committee and looking for ways to plug the holes in the dike, rather than having good, constructive legislation. For that reason we want to co-operate because I think there is a benefit from this legislation. It is just unfortunate that this benefit could not have been around earlier to help others.
As my colleague from Malpeque has said, the main purpose of this bill is to block the system where shareholders can do things to their advantage and to the disadvantage of depositors and other players in the system. That is one of the major intents of the legislation.
On its face, it is good legislation. The problem that we face under the existing situation is that as soon as the
Government Orders
Superintendent of Financial Institutions starts to investigate an institution, it is like announcing the death-knell of that institution. Depositors start to flee that financial institution for fear of losing their life savings or any investment in that institution.
Once the media carries the news that such and such a financial institution is shaky, that the superintendent is looking at it, that there are grave concerns as to its viability and all of those types of comments, then that institution is in trouble.
In every case, I believe, they have ultimately failed in some way and either have been bought out or, as in the case of Central Trust, some financial institution has come and cherry picked. They pick the best parts of it and leave the dregs for those minor shareholders and players who will ultimately suffer the greatest loss.
In that sense, this legislation is a positive step. It will allow the superintendent to come in and take the steps necessary to preserve the assets and perhaps even to preserve the company. Obviously that is a good and sound approach.
In that sense we are certainly not opposed to that measure. It becomes a measure that falls half way between the extreme of letting a company go down the drain, taking all the depositors and deposit insurance guarantees that have to be paid as a result of that along with them.
The other extreme is to have the superintendent force that situation by acknowledging they are involved in an examination of the company. This strikes a bit of a middle ground.
The problem is that it is done very quickly. In some sense, I am sure people will say that is a good idea and will preserve the institution. As we go through the scenario of things that could take place, it is almost like a Friday afternoon and Monday morning type situation. Everything is going to be done over the weekend.
The depositors and shareholders are not going to feel very pleased about that because it is so quick. A lot of it is going to be done quickly behind the scenes and not up front. One has to wonder whether the superintendent and the deposit insurance organization has been given too much power. What kind of controls will be on them?
Literally they can move on Friday and put together a deal over the weekend. People will find out about it on

Government Orders
Monday morning. That to me does connote some problems because of the speed in which that could take place. It is almost the speed in which this legislation has now been brought forward, because of the impending situation with National Bank cherry picking the good assets of Central Trust and leaving the dregs for others.
We on this side obviously want to co-operate with the government because we do see the benefits of this legislation. In the specific case of dealing with the institution that we hear about, this legislation could have some benefits to all of the players. Many small investors have put money in that organization, not just depositors. Grant it, they take the risk. Any time one buys stock on the stock market and is involved in that process one takes some risk. Many small investors with RRSPs and other investments are involved and run the risk of losing a portion of their RRSP or their investment because of decisions that might be taken.
This legislation will move in a positive sense by trying to control this situation. The bill allows CDIC to go around the major shareholders and allows a situation where the majority of smaller shareholders might benefit otherwise. It might be to the exclusion of different categories of shareholders so that the rich shareholders will benefit and the others will not.
There is a positive side to this legislation. That is why we are anxious to see it move on to committee. But we do have some concerns. When one looks at the legislation it does seem to be protecting shareholders and allowing a financial institution to stay viable. It really does not seem to be doing anything for depositors. As soon as there is a concern about a financial institution, the depositors move very quickly to take their resources out, which really precipitates the demise of that financial institution. If we could find ways to give the depositors a sense of confidence and a sense of trust, maybe these financial institutions would not be in the same circumstances and the same difficulty.
There is nothing in this legislation that deals with that. There is nothing in this legislation that gives confidence to the depositors. It essentially deals with the big financial institutions that are shoring up a financial institution in trouble. It deals with some of the major
shareholders. It does not deal with the little shareholders and it really does not deal with the depositors.
The area of harmonization has been referred to earlier and I think it bears repeating. We saw it when we considered legislation on financial institutions, banks, trust companies, insurance companies, credit unions, caisses populaires and the like. There is a dangerous situation in this country as it relates to financial institutions, that two levels of jurisdiction are regulating financial institutions. Helen Sinclair probably said it best when she said: "When rules differ, confusion reigns".
This is what we are actually seeing here with financial institutions. As we go through the constitutional debate, I am sure there will be more pressing problems and issues. If there were some way to develop some harmonization with our financial institutions then it would all be to the better.
This legislation will only deal with federal institutions. There are many provincial institutions that will not be touched by it. Therefore we still run the risk of seeing another Principal Group or another Northland Bank-type situation.
We have to go back and grapple with the issue of harmonization and deal with it.
We also have to take a look at the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and CDIC taking over this new role as this legislation comes to the fore. Do they have the resources and the people in place to deal with what is involved? They will move very quickly. They will try to put together new deals very rapidly, as I said over the weekend. Do they have the resources to know how to put that together and the background to see that it is actually going to take place?
I confess that all politicians, except for the Speaker, of course, tend to talk about things we know very little about. From the little I know they run a lean mean machine at the OSFI office.
I am not sure whether they, working with CDIC, are going to have those resources to put into place. That is what will come out of our committee discussions to ensure that is the case and that the department, as well as CDIC, will have the resources to deal with this situation.
February 5, 1992

The other thing which I think is an obligation arising out of the committee study of this particular matter is that we have to try to ensure as much as possible that things are not done behind people's backs, that the system appears to function so that everyone has a say and everyone knows as much as possible what is going on. Again, the committee is going to have to look at that aspect of it to make sure that they do not go to bed one night and wake up the next morning to find out that they are now a shareholder in another organization and it is an organization that they did not want to be associated with.
In conclusion, we on this side are supportive of this legislation because we think that it will provide some benefits to Canadians and to people who invest in financial institutions and people who are depositors in those institutions. But there is still much to be done. We have to restore the confidence of Canadians in our financial institutions. They have been sorely tested.
All we have to do, and I digress, is to consider that banks are making profits in the vicinity of $3 billion or $4 billion while the rest of the country is going to hell in a hand basket. We wonder about financial institutions and what is actually going on and why there is that kind of resource and that kind of profit taking going on in financial institutions and yet others are allowed to get
Government Orders
into the types of problems that we see. I think there is an obligation on the financial institutions themselves to be contributors to this process and to make sure that it works.
We on this side will be supporting the legislation to go to committee. We look forward to working with the different organizations that are involved in making this legislation better legislation.


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.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there is unanimous consent to call it eight o'clock.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.18 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 6,1992