1993-02-08

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-227, an act to amend the Criminal Code (desecration of the flag) as reported (with amendment) from the legislative committee.

Mr. Speaker:: There are three motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-227, an act to amend the Criminal Code (desecration of the flag), standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough East.

Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows:
A vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motion No. 2. Motion No. 3 will be voted upon separately. [English]


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-227 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 5 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor: "one who, in a public place, wilfully burns, defaces, defiles,". Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-227 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 6 and 7 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"mutilates, tramples upon for the purpose of desecrating the national flag of Canada, is guilty".
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-227 be amended in Clause 1 by adding immediately after line 9 at page 1 the following:
"(2) For greater certainty, the national flag of Canada does not include a representation of that flag."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some very brief comments on these amendments. First of all I would like to thank the many individuals and organizations that put so much time and thought into improving this bill.
I recognize that the first draft contained many loopholes in its definitions but I believe that the definitions have been made clear and the loopholes have been filled as a result of the amendments which have been read by the Speaker.
One of the most important and enduring symbols of our national identity is the Canadian flag. However, one of the difficulties in addressing this is in adequately defining what we mean by the flag as the representative symbol.
Without these amendments children could possibly lick the maple leaf off a lollipop. Individuals could stamp out a cigarette in an ashtray which had a reproduction of the Canadian flag. This is precisely the reason why these amendments have been submitted today.
It is my opinion that the majority of Canadians have a great deal of respect for the Canadian flag and wish to preserve it as their national symbol. When people speak of the Canadian flag, they conjure up an image of a red flag of the proportions two by length and one by width containing in its centre a white square the width of the flag bearing a single red maple leaf which is flying proudly on top of a flagpole. This piece of cloth, this flag, our national symbol, is what we wish to protect.
May I say that I am not alone in feeling this way. That epitome and pillar of excellence, that monument of

February 8, 1993
Private Members' Business
righteousness, the profound and anointed purveyors of public opinion The Toronto Star naturally ran an editorial opposing this bill.
The Toronto Star thought it would reinforce that by having a telephone poll. On January 28 it ran a telephone poll over a couple of days and well over 400 people responded. Sixty-nine per cent said that the flag should be protected; 31 per cent said no.
This endorses and underlines the results I had from my own riding in which well over 80 per cent of respondents favoured some type of protection for the flag.
I thank hon. members once again for their input in these important amendments. I think everyone will agree that the bill is much better now as a result of them and I look forward to the debate.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the hon. member and I congratulate him on his sentiment toward our flag.
Our flag is a symbol of our country, a symbol in which we take a great deal of pride. As such we look to the Canadian flag with a great deal of deference, a great deal of pride, and a great deal of respect. Therein we see our country and what our country stands for.
It is the flag of our country and not our country. The flag of our country, although it represents the honour which we feel toward our country, is a symbol. It is a symbol as the beaver is a symbol, as the CBC is a symbol. The fact is that our country must develop a respect for itself and see in the flag a respect for itself.
I would like to be able to support the private member's bill of the hon. member. I feel, however, to do so would add concern and problems to the law we have. At the present time the Criminal Code already contains laws that we are not following, to which we are not giving proper approval.


Robert Nelson David Hicks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was of the opinion that we were in the House today to address three specific amendments which have been offered. The hon. member opposite is speaking with regard to the bill itself, a bill which passed this House by unanimous consent at second reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Scarborough East points to the relevancy of the debate. I would prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. He was indeed speaking to the point, and I think it may be a little premature to raise a point of order.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker. I think it is premature to claim, as the hon. member did, that my speech is not relevant to the debate. I therefore wish to go on speaking on the same subject.

I was talking about the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code contains laws which we must uphold. We have to be able to apply our Criminal Code to particular incidents and say that these laws have been broken.
If we put into the Criminal Code a law pertaining to the desecration of the Canadian flag, we will be causing problems. We are going to bring our flag more into more disrepute than if we left this situation alone.
In that regard, I want to follow up what the hon. member said. I want to deal with the first motion which
says:
That Bill C-227 be amended in clause 1 by striking out line 5 at
page 1 and substituting the following therefor.
"one who, in a public place wilfully bums, defaces, defiles,"
This situation happened in the United States. It was against the law in the United States to desecrate the American flag. In the case of Texas v. Johnson, in 19891 believe it was, the Supreme Court of the United States stated that this law could not apply.
This situation arose when a young man protesting outside a nuclear installation burned the American flag in public. The Supreme Court in a decision of five to four, of which three were opposed in one way and one was dissenting for another reason, said that this law could not be upheld because it conflicted with the first amendment of the United States, which protects a person's right to self-expression and to free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court said that setting the flag on fire was a message. People might not like the message but in conjunction with the first amendment that person had the right to give the message. It was not necessary that the message be spoken words or written words only, there were various ways to convey the message.
February 8, 1993

What we would be doing, even with this amendment which is on all four with the case before the Supreme Court of the United States, is bringing into the Canadian law something which the Americans after decades of having that law in place had termed unconstitutional. We would be putting in a new law which the U.S. Supreme Court had just said was unconstitutional.
My feeling, and I do not want to attribute motives and feelings to the Supreme Court of Canada, is that it would likewise find this law unconstitutional.
I do not say for a moment that we should be making laws in Canada with one eye on what the Supreme Court may or may not do. What the Supreme Court does in interpreting our laws is its role. Our role is to make the laws we think are justified and right. If it is blatantly realistic that this law would be overturned it seems a folly to proceed.
The second amendment says:
That Bill C-227 be amended in clause 2 by striking out lines 6 and 7 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
mutilates, tramples upon for the purpose of desecrating the national flag of Canada, is guilty.
Once again, this is similar to the recent situation in Texas v. Johnson in the United States.
The third amendment says:
That Bill C-227 be amended in clause 1 by adding immediately after line 9 at page 1 the following:
For greater certainty, the national flag of Canada does not include a representation of that flag.
What are we going to call a representation of that flag?
I have no objections to the amendments themselves in that they are inoffensive. The bill is completely inoffensive. I would like to think the bill would help. No one in this country thinks more of their country and its flag than I do. However, I do not want the flag looked upon as a source of embarrassment, of concern, of caution as to how Canadians should express their feelings toward the flag in a very strong and positive way. I do not want that to happen. Canadians respect their flag and the example has been that they do.
While these amendments do not cause any problem, I do not think they change a bill which would be a mistake to implement in this House. Canadians know how they feel toward their flag. If we start attributing motives to
Private Members' Business
Canadians we are not going to help their feelings toward the flag.
By telling Canadians we trust them and to love their country and to honour its flag is the greatest safeguard we can attribute to the Canadian public.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my friend from Cape Breton has said many of the things I would say.
The hon. member from Scarborough East was right when he said this bill had passed unanimously in the House at second reading. I want to tell him that had I been in the House I would not have given it unanimous consent. I do not know what the members of the House were thinking about. They should have tackled the principle of this bill and turned it down. I will tell you why and I want to speak to the amendments while doing so.
We have so many things to do in this Parliament and this country. Surely, low in our priorities is to enact another law which is an amendment to the Criminal Code to deal with the desecration of the flag.
We have 11 per cent unemployment in this country. Does the hon. member bring forward a bill that has anything to do with unemployment?
We have plants closing in this country. We had the plant in Nova Scotia, the fly-by-night, leave the other day and the workers rebelled. What if the Canadian flag had been waved and they had said they were so angry at the government for not doing anything? What if some worker had tom up the flag expressing anger at the government in a moment of demonstration?
What would this government have done? It would have gone down there and not prosecuted that employer which threw the people out of work, nor tried to put the people back to work, nor tried to tackle the trade deals which are causing all these problems. It would have gone down there and put the poor person in jail for tearing the flag.
Where is the priority? We have a crisis in this country. In my riding in Coquitlam, a suburb of Vancouver, British Columbia, there is the Crane factory, a division of the Canadian company Crane Company Inc. It is B.C. pottery and makes toilets. The factory is closing, putting people out of work. Why? Because of the trade deals it is being flooded-pardon the expression-by American, Mexican and Chinese toilets.

February 8, 1993
Private Members' Business
There are so many factory closures and unemployment and we get a private member's bill on a flag as a priority from this Parliament. This country has a crisis in education. Do we get a bill about retraining workers, especially young people? No, we get a bill on the flag and the Criminal Code. Do we get proposals to help put young people back to work? No. Tins country has a crisis in its health care system. Do we get a far-sighted measure, a private member's bill that would deal with that issue? No, we get a bill about a flag.
It is said that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. I am not saying the member for Scarborough East is a scoundrel. In fact, he is a very gentle and good man in all the dealings I have with him including a television debate on this very issue. I know he is trying to do the right thing.
I say to the hon. member, to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the country that Canadians are looking to us for leadership. Is this really the kind of leadership we want to give? This is easy to do.
That is why we had quick unanimous consent because it is unthinking and not really getting to the root of the problems in this country. Indeed, it has some negative implications and the bill itself is unclear.
This is not going to help our police. This is going to hurt our police and make more work for them. I look at the amendments in the bill. We have to look at what is a public place. If it happens in a mall, is that a public place? It may be defined in certain instances that it is a public place and in other instances that it is a private place. For example, for labour demonstrations a mall has been defined as a private place.
The second amendment is for the purpose of desecration. What if the flag is torn? What will happen? The poor police will have to go to a demonstration where some kid rips or burns the flag in the height of the demonstration.


Mr. Bjornson:: You think young children should do that?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It will be a young person who some day may be prime minister when he grows up and matures and becomes more acceptable. He is angry. He is young. He is at a demonstration and this goes on. These
demonstrations happen and they go away. It is called free speech. That is what we call it in Canada and in democracies. That is what it is about.
The police will now have to go and charge this guy.


Mr. Crawford:: And so they should.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They will go to court. It will cost the taxpayers money. This is for the purpose of desecration. The Crown will have to prove that he intended to desecrate the flag. It will go on and on and on. Some will be convicted, most will be acquitted. They may be overruled by the Supreme Court. As my hon. friend from the Liberal Party pointed out the Supreme Court of the United States overruled it. The Supreme Court of Canada may overrule it.
We are going to be in all this mess. For what? To show that we are patriotic?
I believe those of us who oppose this bill are patriotic as the hon. member from the Liberal Party said. The hon. member who is making comments will get his chance. He can get up after me and speak on this bill. He can just listen for a moment. To be patriotic, the flag does not have to be worn on one's sleeve. I am an immigrant and deeply believe in this country. I have travelled all around the world with a Canadian flag and I believe in it.
We have a more mature level of nationalism than the United States for example. We have always seen it as a more chauvinistic country where there are these kinds of laws. In Canada, we are more mature. We do not have to wear our nationalism. It is there. It is deep. We do not need laws to show we are chauvinistic and we have to protect our flag.
The reason Canadians like the flag and the reason it is respected is because Canada has respectful policies around the world, for example, our peacekeeping role to which all have agreed in this House and has been implemented by all parties. We have had some differences in our foreign policy, but by and large we have had a progressive foreign policy in this country. We have a social safety net and we try as best as possible not to have homeless people in the streets or sick people not getting medicare.
February 8, 1993

That is the essence of Canada. That is why we are proud of our flag. We do not need to add another law. We have enough laws surely.
If the hon. member wants to change the justice system, because this is what his bill does, how about a bill on the Young Offenders Act to deal with the young offenders people are complaining about? Or what about the the Parole Act?


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, once again I am enthralled by the eloquence of this hon. member, but I have listened carefully to his over-all philosophy of justice in general. I am wondering when he is going to address the amendments which are on the Order Paper this morning.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is always a sensitive issue for the Chair to assess the relevancy of the debate. Of course, with a bill like this one, members are bound to deal with the principle of the bill already approved by this House at the same time as the amendments. Again, I am willing to show tolerance.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If the hon. member recalls, I have said that his first amendment is going to give rise to litigation in its uncertainty. The second amendment is going to give rise to more litigation and possibly more acquittals than convictions.
Finally, I have been saying that if you want to amend the Criminal Code, there are so many other areas. Dangerous offenders. My constituents want to know why convicted paedophiles are getting out of jail and are out committing the same offence. We get a bill on the flag. The crossbow incident. Why do we not have a bill making crossbows illegal in this country like guns? According to the police, at the British Columbia Institute of Technology in Burnaby last week a young woman was killed by a crossbow, like there was in Ottawa. Why not have a bill dealing with violence against women?
Instead this bill shows a complete lack of imagination. It is going for the easy hit: I love the flag. That can be sent out to constituents. Someone has to get up as I am trying to today to tell the House that this is nonsense.
I think my friend from the Liberal Party covered most of the other matters. I will conclude by saying that the
Private Members' Business
problem with the bill is there is some question about the amendments, whether they are workable in law.
There are so many other things to do where we could amend the Criminal Code. This bill will hurt police, not help them. It will make difficult work for police in demonstrations and like incidents. It is going to make martyrs out of people, rather than ignore them and show how stupid they are in the way they treat the flag. Just ignore them and they will go away. Real patriotism goes a lot deeper than a quick-hit bill to amend the Criminal Code.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, this is Private Members' Hour. We have a private member's bill before us. I certainly am not going to criticize the motivation of the sponsor of this bill. I think his motivation is most sincere. He believes with real justification that he has a lot of public support for the bill. He certainly has demonstrated that he has support in this House.
I am on my feet during Private Members' Hour as a private member. I want to share with my hon. friend from Scarborough East some of the concerns I have about his bill, even with the amendments which I concede have considerably improved it.
As we travel abroad we recognize the touchstone the maple-leaf flag is for us when we see it, whether it is on the shoulder patch of a United Nations peacekeeper or whether it is on the backpack of a young hitch-hiker elsewhere in the world.
We have demonstrated a good deal of contradiction, confusion and irresolution when it comes to matters pertaining to the flag. We need only go back to the debate leading up to the February 1965 adoption of our current flag to realize that. I think a lot of that concern is still there.
Part of the reason for that is that Canada by many standards is a work in progress. I can recall when my late mother was involved with the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire or, as her friends said, "in and out of the damnedest enterprises". She was one of those who fought long and hard to retain the red ensign as the flag of Canada. However, the moment the maple-leaf flag was adopted as our flag in 1965 she and her sisters in the IODE William MacKay Chapter began selling maple-leaf flags as a fund-raising project. It is interesting how quickly we adopt our new symbols.

February 8, 1993
Private Members' Business
On the question about Canada being a work in progress, and I assure my friend I will get to the point of the amendments very shortly, we give each other a lot of room and a lot of space in this country. We realize that we come to this country with tremendously different points of view and that we are in the process of forging a common Canadian point of view. Therefore, we avoid some of the excesses other young countries have fallen prey to, such excesses as jingoism and chauvinism as have been referred to by my friend from Port Moody-Coquitlam and xenophobia. We are falling into having a bit of that fear of strangers now, but by and large we have avoided it.
I was reminded of some of these issues when it was my duty to take the broadcasting bill through Parliament. In that context we were dealing with an amendment to the previous Broadcasting Act which had mandated the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to be an instrument of national unity. I argued, and I still believe it was the right position to take, that the CBC, the state broadcaster, ought not to be an instrument of national unity, that is an extension of the state. I need only remind you, Mr. Speaker, and remind my colleagues of the difficulties we might have got into during the rather acrimonious referendum campaign we went through last fall if indeed our state broadcaster had been mandated to be an instrument of national unity. We backed away from some of these statist exercises.
I was amused by my friend from Port Moody-Coquitlam whose party tends to be a party of national symbols. He laments the loss of our national symbols. He was speaking against the consecration of a national symbol. It is unusual for that group to be on the side of the police.
To deal with the amendment, the first amendment bringing us into the realm of a public place and limiting the scope of the bill to desecration in a public place is a constructive amendment. I believe the second amendment is constructive also in introducing a sense of mens rea, an intent to desecrate, the purpose of desecration, as part of the bill. Finally, the question of the representation of the flag being exempted from the scope of the bill is a constructive move.
The point remains that this bill would criminalize an act of protest. That troubles me because I think we must each day defend our liberties and our freedoms, or we run the risk of losing them. I do not believe for a
moment that it is an appropriate expression of public opinion to desecrate the flag wilfully or intentionally. However, by the same token I think it would be a mistake to criminalize such an act. If that seems to be a contradiction, perhaps I can refer my friend from Scarborough East and the House to an editorial that appeared in The Montreal Gazette in June of last year.
It reads: "Flag burning may be sappier and more obnoxious than flag waving, but both are legitimate expressions of political opinion. The desecration of the Quebec flag in Brockville was offensive and so was its exploitation as an example of anti-French feeling in English Canada. The Canadian flag has been defiled again and again by Quebec nationalists in recent years and that was offensive too. But a law making flag abuse a crime would not make the malcontents any happier about their country. It could make things worse-intensifying hostile feelings".
I concur with that editorial. I also concur with a point made in an editorial of The Globe and Mail on June 24 of last year. It states:
Canadians hold another national symbol, Parliament, in lower esteem than they ever have. Yet no one is proposing that, since public criticism of Parliament might undermine respect for a national institution, we ought to restrict such criticism. There is also that little problem of Charter of Rights guarantees of freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. It's time for the flag-burning bill to hit the showers.
That is pretty strong stuff but I think it underlines the fact that no one is proposing that criticism of Parliament be restricted. Therefore, this other national institution, our national flag, while we revere and respect it, ought to be available as an item of expression of reverence and otherwise.
Finally, I would appeal to my hon. friend from Scarborough East and suggest that where this issue ought to be tried is not in the courts but in the court of public opinion. With regard to public opinion polls, I think I heard my friend say 69 per cent of Canadians favour such legislation. I wonder if Canadians would still favour such a restriction of expression if it were put within the context of a restraint on public expression of opinion. That is the issue that I think we need to ponder and it is on that issue alone I differ with my hon. friend. While we agree on most other things, I feel that I cannot support his bill even with its proposed amendments at this time.
February 8, 1993


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak this morning to Bill C-227, standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough East, and to the amendments tabled after consideration of the bill in committee. In fact, we both participated in the process, during which the bill was examined in detail.
When a bill is tabled in the House by the government, the opposition or the Senate I always ask myself three questions. First, what are its merits? Second, is the bill votable? And third, can its provisions be enforced? I must say that even with the proposed amendments, the merits of the bill remain. However, it becomes increasingly less votable and harder to enforce, but that is another problem. I will comment on each of these three aspects.
The bill has its merits. I am 51 years old, and I was brought up to respect my country and its leaders, regardless of their politics. When I was a youngster, regardless of the party my parents supported, if someone was the leader of a political party, I respected that person as such. I respected the person who represented me in the House of Commons or the National Assembly, because that is the way I was brought up. Today, society has changed. Society is more permissive because that is what people wanted. I was a teacher and a school principal, and I never saw a school where they taught respect for the flag, not for our national flag nor for the flag of Quebec.
The first country I visited as a tourist in 1972 was Dahomey, now Benin, in Africa. Every morning, when the students entered the school, there was a salute to the flag. We do not do that here.
When I was a youngster we did. But today it should come as no surprise that the younger generation no longer shows the same respect for institutions and the flag that I did. To me, the bill has its merits. But what about the generation that is now growing up, which has been given this tremendous freedom of expression and has so many ways to express and publicize its concerns? What do they do? They destroy or, I should say, they attack a symbol. There are times I prefer to see them
Private Members' Business
attack a symbol than me personally. I would just as soon not become a symbol!
I saw this during the referendum campaign, when I picked up posters that had been stuck on my living room windows at the back of the house. People are starting to attack the messengers as well. If you do not like the message, kill the messenger. It does not work that way any more.
I think freedom of expression and the merits of the bill presented by the hon. member for Scarborough run up against the other side's right to freedom of expression. An attractive prospect, however, is that the bill would prevent the CBC from constantly broadcasting images of actions I find reprehensible.
Remember when some people in Ontario trod on the Quebec flag? I think Radio-Canada showed that 22 or 23 times. I said Radio-Canada, but it could have been Tele-Metropole or any other station. Incidentally, I never heard a flag being burned on the radio. I never heard that on radio. Since when have people been burning flags? Since television came along, and especially when it started repeating the same images over and over again. You do something once, and they can show it 40 times in one week. That is the problem.
Violence has always existed, but it is worse now with TV. I am not saying we should abolish television, but it is worse now because we see it not once but repeatedly. As I said before, people never burned flags on radio, but they do on television.
So freedom and the merits of this bill clash with freedom of expression. When I see Canadians burning a flag, I do not approve. I would like to compare this with what was going through my mind when we were considering the abortion bill. I cannot forget that bill, and I would just like to ask one thing: Can we as human beings be for or against abortion? We have no choice. We are against abortion. As a human being, I am against abortion. But that does not mean we should throw people in jail for that.
The bill may have its merits, but is it votable and can it be enforced? As far as I am concerned, it does have its merits, but is it votable? There is one amendment that reads as follows: "For greater certainty, the national flag of Canada does not include a representation of that flag". I remember in committee people said: "Listen, if a

February 8, 1993
Private Members' Business
flag is painted on a brick wall, on a building, and the wall is destroyed, does this mean we are automatically destroying the flag?" The hon. member suggested an amendment to cover such eventualities. But even if we destroy every single flag in Canada, all those pieces of material, whether they are three-by-six or any other size, would we destroy the symbol? The symbol will always remain, regardless. People may not like the expression of that symbol, but the symbol will always remain.
We have to ask ourselves: What is a flag? We all have a picture of this country in our minds, and my picture is probably different, but no better or worse than that of the hon. member from British Columbia here on my right or of a member from Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, as long as it respects certain values and traditions.
Now, is the law enforceable? If the bill is passed as written, how will it be applied? A law was passed forbidding smoking in the House of Commons and members' offices. Smoking still goes on. People smoke less, but I have the feeling that people still smoke. I used to smoke and quit two years ago. I cannot report smokers even though the law encourages me to do so. If someone smokes, I need only report him and he is automatically guilty. I cannot find it in my heart and conscience to report a smoker, but still we have a law. We passed a law making it illegal to sell cigarettes to people under 18 years old. That is laudable, but is it enforceable? I live in my riding of Beauharnois-Salaberry, 10 kilometres from the Kahnawake reserve and at the other end of my riding is the St. Regis reserve. Where do you think the cigarette smuggling is going on? I am not accusing only the Indians, because whites do it as much, if not more. Whites buy the cigarettes. Where does that trafficking go on? In my riding.
Even though we cannot enforce it, we decided that it is a crime for those under 18 to buy cigarettes. That is easy. We hit out at those we are not afraid to attack. I can give a kindergarten child a good spanking, but I could not do the same to a college student because they seem quite a bit stronger than I am. We attack people and that clears our conscience. I do not necessarily want to criticize the government. It is very good to make it illegal to sell cigarettes to young people under 18, but is it enforceable? That is a different story. That is my point. We
could have the most laudable motive, but passing this bill will take compromise. We will have to strike some bargain. However, we are a group of old people here in the House of Commons. The new generation is not strongly represented, except for my colleague from Terrebonne, who seems to be a little younger. I would be interested to know what a symbol or a flag means to young people in college. Such a law should not be voted on only by a group of old people. And to pass, it should be acceptable.
Thirdly, is it enforceable? That is our big problem. I live along Lake St. Louis, and we cannot help hearing the hellish racket made by cigar boats at night. They want us to pass a law making that criminal or the RCMP to chase the operators of those boats. You can imagine the noise. So let us pass a law, but how will it be enforced? Will it take 300 boats or 3,000? Even if we act for the right reason, the law must still be enforceable. In a case like this, I find that enforcing the law would cause many more problems than passing it was meant to solve.


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, first allow me to congratulate my colleague from Beau-hamois-Salaberiy for his excellent speech, with which I fully agree.
I rise today to discuss Bill C-227. This is a measure to incorporate in the Criminal Code a new provision whereby anyone who wilfully bums, defaces, defiles, mutilates, tramples upon or otherwise desecrates the national flag of Canada would be guilty of an offence. I fully understand the very noble motives of my distinguished colleague from Scarborough East, who tabled Bill C-227 in this House. However, I cannot take his approach in denouncing what can only be considered an attack on our dignity as Canadians.
When people trample on this symbol of national pride for personal motives, or on any other flag for that matter, whether it is the Quebec flag or the flag of any other province or country, I believe they do something very wrong.
I condemn the acts of those who choose to desecrate our flag as a way to criticize the government. It seems to me there are many ways to express one's opposition other than trampling or burning a flag. Indeed, there are many other democratic ways to oppose what the government does, given what our flag represents for the vast majority of Canadians. When such an act is committed, it is shocking and offensive.
February 8, 1993

I fully understand the feelings of the member for Scarborough as I believe, do all members in this House. However, it must be recognized that Bill C-227 contains several flaws. For one thing, the bill does not define what the national flag of Canada is. Is this because we want to include the provincial flags? If so, would it be appropriate for Parliament to legislate on those flags?
In the event that we reply in the affirmative to that question, why should we limit the scope of the provision to those flags only? What about flags from other nations that are burned? Should we not protect other people's feelings? Are we satisfied to deal only with the Canadian national flag in this legislation? And there is more.
Indeed, it is proposed to make it a criminal offence to bum, deface, defile, mutilate, trample upon or otherwise wilfully desecrate the national flag of Canada. An exception is also provided for a person who "disposes" of the national flag of Canada with lawful excuse. It is clear that the author tried to make it an offence when the flag is burned, defaced, et cetera, for illegitimate reasons. Unfortunately, those reasons are not specified anywhere and I doubt that a court of law could easily provide a definition of those motives if we, as legislators, are not in a position to be more specific.
I appreciate the feelings of my hon. colleague who tabled Bill C-227. However, I am concerned about the impact of including in the Criminal Code a provision which is imprecise and open to all kinds of interpretations as to what it really means. As my colleague from Beauharnois-Salaberry so rightly pointed out, we must really examine this issue to see if such a measure is enforceable, because by attempting to implement such legislation to control something reprehensible, is it not possible that we will create other injustices?
I also wonder if this use of the Criminal Code is justified and legally applicable, given the freedom of expression recognized in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I repeat that attacking a symbol of our Canadian identity to make a point is most reprehensible and arouses feelings of contempt in many of us.
Private Members' Business
Nevertheless, I think it is always appropriate to preserve the greatest possible freedom of expression in our country by passing legislative provisions which are suitable and fit the crime when this fundamental freedom is threatened in any way in a democratic society. It seems to me that the wording of Bill C-227 leaves big gaps in that the illegitimate goal pursued by a person who defaces, defiles or otherwise desecrates the flag is not defined.
I believe that Bill C-227 would create a vague and uncertain situation which would necessarily have the effect of restraining a form of freedom of expression.
I am aware that it is very difficult to limit freedom of expression as little as possible and still protect this symbol that is our Canadian flag. Our southern neighbours have tried something similar and the results have been less than satisfactory.
In my opinion, you do not solve a problem such as the desecration of the flag by creating another problem, namely unnecessarily restricting freedom of expression. While recognizing that, in itself, my colleague's intentions in presenting Bill C-227 were eminently laudable and very honourable, I would like other means of promoting respect for our national symbols.
Only through pride in being who we are shall respect for those symbols identifying and uniting us be achieved.
I will stop here, seeing that my speaking time has expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 98(1), the item is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence in the Order Paper.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)) moved: that Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act and another act in consequence thereof be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss an innocuous sounding piece of legislation called the Small Businesses Loans Act which in fact is the very opposite of innocuous. With this particular bill we are talking about a sector in the economy that has created almost all of the new jobs in this country in the last 10 years.
We are also talking about a sector which has been unusually restricted in its access to credit by the financial institutions across Canada. I have spoken in the House many times about my concern that the major banks and other financial institutions are not opening up credit to the small and medium-sized enterprises during the recession. Even now as there is a recovery I am disappointed with the level of bank participation in opening up credit and loans generally to small and medium-sized enterprises.
We can have the lowest interest rates or among the lowest interest rates in the industrialized world but if a small business person cannot get a loan, the company is not going to be able to succeed or expand.
Members could expect me to be particularly interested in small business as the minister of small business. I say to everyone in this House no subject is more important for the economic recovery of this country than the financing of small business, both credit and equity.
I have done some research on this problem in the last year outside of Canada as well as in Canada and I have to admit that access to credit appears to be a small problem for small and medium-sized enterprises everywhere in the industrialized world, not just in Canada.
There are some peculiar problems in Canada which we can deal with as government through the very delicate but potent use of the Small Businesses Loans Act and that is what we are talking about today. We are ready to go with this bill.
I have to tell hon. members most sincerely that I am looking forward to their input at committee stage. We should especially remember the Minister of Finance said that he would like this act to help in the financing of some forms of working capital. Therefore thoughts from hon. members opposite as well as from the government side on how to do that would be most welcome. We are working on it but we would benefit from the expertise of everyone in this House, especially when we get to committee stage.
It is generally accepted that external financing is one of the greatest needs of small business at any time, particularly after a small business exhausts its initial pool of capital which it usually gets from the owner, his or her resources, maybe a spouse, maybe some friends, maybe members of the extended family. Often it is that capital, quite frankly that gets a small business going in this country.
Even once an enterprise gets going it has needs for new plant and equipment. It has a need for new technology and so on. When someone goes to their bank or credit union for that additional line of credit, the conversation can many times be very difficult. To help small business obtain much-needed capital is what the Small Businesses Loans Act, which I will refer to as the SBLA, is all about.
The SBLA program makes debt financing more readily available for the establishment, expansion, modernization and the improvement of a business. In practical terms, the program provides loans. We should understand this. The program has never just given funds for working capital outright. It does provide loans for business people to acquire such things as fixed assets: land, buildings, machinery or equipment, computer software to do improvements to the leasehold.
That is the program. That is what it does. It helps obtain credit through a government guarantee which now stands at 85 per cent of the losses which could be incurred if a small business lost money or failed. It is that
February 8, 1993

federal government guarantee which helps so much in obtaining credit.
It is very important too that we remember the name of this act. It is called Small Businesses Loans Act. This program is not for big business. I know my hon. friends opposite will be happy to hear that. It is an act for small business and it is directed to the small end of the business spectrum. I have to add again, small business is the big end of the job creation part of our economy.
We have now a situation in Canada where 99 per cent of all business enterprise is small business.

As you no doubt know, Mr. Speaker, small business is one of the main engines of growth in the country. For example, nearly 99 per cent of Canadian companies are small businesses; that is, they have fewer than 100 employees. Thirty-six per cent of employment in private enterprise is in the small business sector. Since 1984, small business has created about 80 per cent of all new jobs in Canada, after allowing for job losses.

We read this morning in The Globe and Mail that in the last three quarters, 347,000 jobs have been created by small business whereas the large corporate sector has lost jobs. It is the creation of jobs through small business which this bill addresses.
Small business is also a tremendous force for innovation. A lot of people overlook that. This is particularly vital in an increasingly competitive world. For example, more than one-half of Canadian companies carrying out research and development are small enterprises with less than 50 employees.
These facts and figures state very simply and very powerfully the key role which entrepreneurs play in the economy. They innovate and create jobs.
Our country is more entrepreneurial than it was 20 years ago. People are trying to find ways to downsize big enterprises, spin off divisions to make them more entrepreneurial. Close to one-third of all new businesses created in Canada are done so by new Canadians, first generation Canadians.
I saw statistics the other day which stated that in the last five years almost half of the new small businesses created in Canada are owned and operated by females. This is a new force for innovation and job creation in our economy. We must support it.
Government Orders
In fact, if you take a look at this bill, the SBLA legislation, its scope is really quite amazing. Let me just share the scope with you. We talk about Hibernia costing about a billion dollars or two billion dollars. Let us put this innocuous sounding bill in that context.
Since its inception, the Small Businesses Loans Act has made 290,000 loans worth over $8.5 billion. Very few things come into this House which add up to more than $8.5 billion. That is what the bill has done since its inception. That is why everybody in this House wants to follow it very carefully.
The current portfolio of loans amounts to $1.1 billion. In the last five years 71,000 loans for $2.7 billion have been made under the program with the average loan size. The average loan size is interesting. It is between $35,000 and $40,000. That is the average. Forty per cent of all these loans go to help start up small businesses. Another 20 per cent go to businesses that are less than three years old. All this activity is carried on at a modest cost, averaging $29 million annually over the last five years.
Imagine a program where there is so little money from government levering so much economic activity. It is amazing that $29 million annually is levering all that activity and all those jobs. Twenty-four thousand jobs were created by the program's clients last year alone.
People think this sounds great but ask exactly how this program works. It provides banks and smaller financial institutions such as the caisses populaires and the credit unions with an 85 per cent guarantee against loan losses for eligible loans. I might add that the credit unions are using this program increasingly. I think over 20 per cent of the use of this program is by credit unions since there is a special interest in it in the province of Quebec.
Private sector lenders are the sole delivery agents of the programs. We do not have a bureaucracy that says yes or no to a loan. The banks do it. The credit unions do it on a regular basis. We set the rules and the lenders make the credit decisions within those rules. We do not have an array of officials.
We have a government staff of 19 that does all the work. Imagine a program levering that many jobs and that much economic activity with only 19 government public servants to administer the whole program. We want to try to keep it slender like that. To pile up a lot of dos and don'ts in this program would simply increase the number of bureaucrats.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
It is a good program. It is a slender program, highly levered program.
The loan guarantee enables lenders to make loans which they would not otherwise undertake without the guarantee. I know there is controversy about whether the guarantee to the banks is really needed. Would they have made the loan anyway. There has been a lot of research done by Hatch and Wynat and others which in fact shows that this program is profoundly incremental. It does make sure that new loans are undertaken that would not have been undertaken without the guarantee.
A good example is a viable company that has a very limited track record, possibly inadequate or inappropriate collateral in particularly risky types of businesses or perhaps those outside the major metropolitan areas. These generally are the clients for the program. Those are clients that have trouble getting loans without this guarantee.

While the program was unquestionably a success, its activities have dwindled since 1989. This is due, in part, to the economic situation, but also to a certain loss of interest on the part of the lenders. It should be pointed out that no changes have been made to the program since 1985.

The bill before the House together with related changes to regulations will make the program more accessible to small businesses and will ease access to financing for all small businesses.
The program changes that are being suggested in the bill and that will follow in the regulations respond to the Prosperity Initiatives Steering Group. Its recent report Inventing Our Future called for easing access to capital for all sectors of Canadian business. It is precisely that request that this bill answers.
The bill does two big things. It makes credit more accessible and raises the limit. The result of the bill will be a more competitive Canadian small business sector.
As part of the program review that led up to this bill, extensive consultations were held with both borrowers and lenders and their national associations. That consultation continues. Their valuable input helped to shape the changes being recommended which follow.
I want to thank the CFIB, the CBA, the credit unions, all sorts of small business groups, associations and individuals for their help on this and members of all parties who have taken tremendous interest in this.
Here are the changes that have been recommended. First, to broaden the program's reach, the size of eligible business will be increased from annual revenues of $2 million to $5 million. It used to be that if you had sales of more than $2 million you could not qualify. The new limit is $5 million. In addition, the maximum loan size will be increased from $100,000 to $250,000.
Just about everybody we talked to argued for these two increases and they are being made in the bill. That is what got the headlines. That is what got the attention, probably deservedly so, but there is more to this bill than that.
Second, the pricing structure will be changed. It will be moved to one approximating normal commercial rates. At present we have a price subsidy which is not available to somebody getting a loan and who does not qualify under the SBLA. We do not want to do that. We do not want to have a subsidy for people who qualify under the SBLA. What we want to do is make a level playing field. We are eliminating this subsidy which is not available to non-SBLA borrowers.
Third, on the question of accessibility, this is going to be improved by encouraging lenders to promote and use the program. Without the lenders' full support, the success of the program will be compromised. There are a number of things that have to be done, first of all, the fee. The financial institutions told us, credit unions above all, with a 1 per cent fee it is almost not worth their while to do this loan, so they are going to increase the fee from prime plus one to prime and a half per cent. Also, to add flexibility for borrowers, fixed interest rates will now be permitted. That is very good news, especially for those who want to plan their debt scheduling.
It will help the financial institutions to put this bill in the window because they feel they are going to recover their costs. I talked to the CBA about this. I believe that fee is fine. They are going to market this program. They are going to train their staff, their account managers, to really put this program in the window.
February 8, 1993

I agree with criticisms I have heard over the past two years about the SBLA, that it is not widely known and that in fact a lot of bank managers have it in the bottom drawer of their desk and do not tell anybody about it. We want to put this in the sunlight. We want to put it in the window. This new fee schedule has prompted the financial institutions to give us their assurance that they are going to publicize it and train for it. They had better do it or they will be hearing from us. I am confident that they will.
To make the program more cost recoverable, the one time up front government fee will be increased from 1 per cent to 2 per cent with the fee, unlike in the past, being amortizable over the term of the loan. By the way, if you amortize 2 per cent, on a $100,000 loan you actually get a loan for $102,000. The $2,000 is amortized over the life of the loan which is let us say five or ten years. That ends up being less than 1 per cent. The CFIB have asked for a 1 per cent annual fee. This is even less than they are asking for. It will help us because it helps us pay for and expand the program.
Finally, irritants in program operation will be removed with the program being made much more user friendly. I used to hear stories about the forms being so complicated that a bank manager would tremble when he started to fill them in. He did not know whether he had filled them in properly. If he made a mistake, the guarantee would be null and void. That is all cleared up. As I understand it, we are going to try to work to a situation where we are going to use the banks' forms that everybody is familiar with. We will have an understanding about making the thing simple.
The changes we have suggested here have been accepted enthusiastically by the financial institutions which makes me think that the problem of it not being user friendly has been cleared up. That is going to greatly help this to be better publicized.
These improvements to the program will be part of a package of initiatives which this government has put together for small businesses in recent months. I will not take the time of the House to reiterate this, but many of
Government Orders
the measures in the fiscal and economic statement of December 2 were devoted to assisting this vital sector of the economy.
That statement was focused on small business. We know what the measures were. There was an investment tax credit on machinery and equipment. There was an unemployment insurance premium freeze, which was very good news but did not get much recognition. If the company hires new employees there is a freeze on the employer's portion. There is the extension of the small business financing program and, of course, the simplification of the R and D tax rules. That is very important. That was also in the statement.
Dozens of other things have happened in the last two or three years which I will not take the House's time to reiterate. It is part of this package to help small business.
In closing, let me emphasize my opening remarks. For over 30 years this program has been helping small business meet its financing needs. The program has helped numerous businesses get a start and enabled them to develop further.
This bill will make the program an even more valuable tool in promoting the competitiveness of small businesses in Canada. I hope that the House will give speedy passage to Bill C-99 and thereby show its support for small businesses in extending their access to credit.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to address the last remark that the minister responsible for small businesses made, that he hoped for speedy passage of this bill.
I want to assure the minister that we on this side of the House have been pleading for the last three years for the government to address the issue of access to credit for small business in this country. We are definitely going to debate this bill today. Anyone in our party who wishes to debate today will have that opportunity. Make no mistake about it. We want this bill passed and put into the marketplace as quickly as those opposite do, if not quicker. We have wanted it addressed for the last three years.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
I have to say to the minister that this is a good piece of legislation. Hopefully we can get it to committee this week. I am happy that we on this side of the House have been asked for some input so that we can address the issue of working capital. There are a lot of good features about this bill.
The minister touched on another very important point in his speech. I want to spend some time on that point today. It has to do with the responsibility of the financial institutions in this country.
With all the good intentions of this House of Commons, this is just a bill. The problem we have had with this act in the past has been the fact that the financial institutions of this country by and large have really not been good partners in the act. The minister alluded to that and I am happy that he did. As Her Majesty's loyal constructive opposition, we are going to make this bill a serious issue with the financial institutions in this country, not just the chartered banks but the credit unions as well. It has been expanded to include the credit unions, the trust companies and others that may be eligible to participate.
We have to do this because we have a situation in this country today where people are intimidated by their bankers. Imagine, the customers are intimidated. Normally if you run a business you look out for your customers. You bend over backward to try and give them good service. You go out of your way to try and keep them on side. With the financial institutions in our nation, it is the reverse. I do not want to say that every bank manager and every bank person in this country is the same. I do not want to tar everybody with the same brush.
The facts are that there are a lot of people in the financial sector of this country who approach their job in an intimidating, condescending fashion which puts the fear of God into a lot of their customers. It ends up hurting the spirit and the productive entrepreneurial juices of this whole country.
I do not want to generalize on that statement today. I want to give a few small examples. As the advocate for small business for my party, I feel that it is my responsibility to try today to sensitize some of the banks to the fact that there are things going on in their institutions that I just cannot believe.
I want to start off by giving an example of a widow who was left a business. By the way, I should say that I have received permission from the people who gave me these examples to use them today.
Most people who have problems with their banks are scared silly. Say one asks: "Would you like me to try and address this story? Would you like me to go and see if I can give you a hand?" They will say: "Oh, no, no, I am afraid of the repercussions. I am afraid that they might cancel my credit card. They might not renew the mortgage on my house. I am afraid that somehow they will get me".
There is this feeling out there that the banks of this country are basically like a cartel. Suppose that I say something nasty about the Toronto-Dominion Bank. Even though I may not bank there, the next thing you know I am going to hear from some other bank that is going to put the squeeze on me.
I think Canadians should understand that, thanks to a Liberal amendment in the Bank Act which went through the House about six months ago, if you as a consumer are not being treated fairly by your banker, it is incumbent upon you to report it to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and it is incumbent upon the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to check that complaint. That complaint, if it is legitimate, will be posted in the annual report.
In this first example I want to give, Mrs. Hughes actually had to take over her husband's company, Bolton Electric Contracting Inc. of Bolton, Ontario, when Mr. Hughes died. Mrs. Hughes owed the Toronto-Dominion Bank approximately $74,000. This was comprised of a loan of approximately $67,900 as well as an operating line of credit in the amount of approximately $6,000. These were the best figures available to us and this is quoting from the lawyer who addressed the president of the Toronto-Dominion Bank. They have not heard anything from them as yet, but it would appear that the amount of the loans outstanding at the time of Mr. Hughes' death was this total.
The point here is that this man had paid for a life insurance policy of up to $125,000. When this man died, the money was not made available to that limit of $125,000, although all the fees were paid up. She actually owed about $67,000 at the time of his death.
February 8, 1993

The bottom line is that the bank and the insurance company together left an amount outstanding of $50,000 under the insurance policy. Now, of course, not only has the bank's loan been subsequently repaid, but they have not made up the differential in the life insurance policy. Now the woman is in jeopardy of losing her home.
I think that is the kind of thing that really gives the banking community of this country a bad reputation. They are big and powerful and have this traditional approach, but I think we have got to change that.
I want to give another example. This one has had a little bit of a profile. It was the Penta-Stolp Corporation. This is a corporation with the head office in Markham, Ontario.
Over a period of five years from March 1986 the Penta-Stolp Corporation put approximately $500 million through the Toronto-Dominion Bank. In February 1991, the Penta-Stolp Corporation was having some financial difficulty and it had $28 million on deposit. However, it also owed the Toronto-Dominion Bank $28 million. It naturally had some securities and some assets, but the Toronto-Dominion Bank unilaterally seized all its deposits to offset the loan. The problem was that $13 million of the $28 million was trust fund money. That trust fund money was linked to the company's ability to continue to build homes and complete its contracts and it forced the company into bankruptcy.
When that company went into bankruptcy, there were carpenters, bricklayers, dry wall installers and all the trade that we in Toronto call the panel truck trade in the house-building industry. Millions of dollars went into default with all of these people. Many of them, of course, had to go on unemployment insurance and welfare all because of the Toronto-Dominion Bank manager unilaterally taking trust funds.
In this particular case, the president of the company, Mr. Chris Mullins, a successful entrepreneur, was shamed publicly. They wrote articles about him in the newspaper. The embarrassment he and his family went through was quite humiliating. He took it to court. Do you know what happened two years later, Mr. Speaker? The judgment came on July 16. It found that the
Government Orders
Toronto-Dominion Bank had breached its contracts with Penta-Stolp and on and on it goes. They are entitled to damages arising from that breach.
There was a situation where the Toronto-Dominion Bank seized a trust fund to which it had no access and put the company under. Then it lost the case. I understand it may try to appeal instead of just realizing that there are some situations that are black and white. The bank could admit it made a mistake and try and fix it and move on. There is one thing about banks and that is that they have staying power. However, most entrepreneurs certainly do not have the resources to take on a major institution.
I want to give another example and this one has to do with the Bank of Montreal. God forbid that when this speech is over I ever need to go and get bank credit from any of these guys because it will be game over for me.
I want to give another bad example. I want to talk about a corporation that is in the political jurisdiction of the minister responsible for small businesses. This is a favourite stoiy of mine and I am going to stay on this story until the government gets its act together on it.
It is Amertek. There were 400 military fire trucks exported and shipped around the world for guarding the White House, Camp David, the Persian Gulf and Egypt. Because of the extras that were owing to this particular company, because of add-ons from the U.S. military, this company was owed about $17 million. It is still owed $17 million. The Department of Supply and Services and the Canadian Commercial Corporation have not done their work on this particular case. I have told everyone on this side of the House. I have told the minister of DSS and the bureaucrats are giving it the MAD treatment: maximum administrative delay. I want to refer to the bank.
The Bank of Montreal saw that it was having this difficulty and switched it into this special unit at the Bank of Montreal called the SAMU group. You have heard of a sumo wrestler. The Bank of Montreal has its SAMU group: special account management unit. These are the real hot-shot work-out bankers who take companies in and tiy to keep them alive. They try to help them through difficult periods.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
I have heard from more than one company-I had permission to cite Amertek-where the pain and the approach and style of the SAMU group at the Bank of Montreal really needs to be reviewed by the bank hierarchy. Fortunately, two years ago the company owed the bank about $4.5 million, and they are now down to about $400,000. However, when I had to argue with the bank about five months ago when the company only owed the bank $1.1 million the bank was threatening to put it under. Here was a company that was employing 180 people with export potential. That leads me to a point that I want to make about Mr. Barrett's remarks at his annual meeting just two weeks ago.
I refer specifically to an editorial in The Toronto Star dated January 20. Mr. Barrett is the chairman of the board of the Bank of Montreal. He offered a strategy for reaching the growth target rates of 4 per cent a year for the rest of the decade. He also talked about the fact that we could not have higher taxes.
I would support that. I think my views of a single tax system are broadly known although I do not know what he thinks of it. I have tried to get to see him twice but he is not very accessible.
I say this respectfully. If Mr. Barrett were sitting in this House as a member of Parliament, in the spirit of constructive debate, I would have to challenge him on his statement in the editorial. The editorial reads: "Barrett proposes a five-year freeze in total government program spending after inflation". He linked it of course to a freeze in social spending.
I want to make the point today that the banking institutions of this country can influence social spending better than anyone. When banks freeze lines of credit, reduce lines of credit and cut lines of credit, then in effect they are saying: "We are not taking on any more responsibility here. We are going to shift that responsibility over to the Government of Canada and we will put it on a social spending account".
If Mr. Barrett is sincere, and I believe him to be sincere in his concern about freezing social spending, then he has to realize that he and his fellow bank presidents are directly involved in the reason why we have so much social spending in this country and the reason why we have so much unemployment and so much welfare. One cannot separate the responsibility of
the banks from our social spending account as people responsible in governance.
This is where I think Mr. Barrett, with all due respect, has to now start to be creative. I challenge him. This Bank of Montreal has an imaginary flair about it. However, I think when the president of a bank comes out in his annual report and says: "Governments must freeze social spending", I believe he should have said: "I as one banker am going to do my part to relieve some of that social spending".
I want to say to Mr. Barrett and his fellow 58 bank presidents across Canada that I have an idea I would like them to consider. I am not going to just stand here and criticize you, Mr. Barrett, I am going to try to give you an idea.
I would like to call this the 90-day small business campaign. I would like to see something from the leaders of this country, the bank presidents, who are as interested-they say-in cutting social spending as we are. Contrary to the spin doctors and journalists who say that the Liberals are not focused on fiscal responsibility, we are. However, in governance, we also have a responsibility to those who are disadvantaged. To not show any heart or concern for the disadvantaged while we are in government means that we should get out of government if we do not have that capacity.
Let us have the 90-day small business campaign, Mr. Barrett.
You could call the 58 bank presidents together and this is the way it would work. We have 900,000 operating businesses in this country. Over the next 90 days, any business person who takes someone off welfare or UI, someone with a UI certificate or a welfare certificate, should be giving the wage portion of the person's loan at prime. It should put about 500,000 people back to work in the next 90 days.
No money will be lost on it but no money will be made on it either. That is a disbursement in loans from all the banks of Canada of approximately $10 to $12 billion.
The minister said earlier in his speech that the track record of small business creating jobs is the best in the country. He said it was the tops, I believe. I support the minister on that. If we put small businesses to work, if banks gave them some incentive to employ these people
February 8, 1993

right away, those with a UI or a welfare certificate, then all of a sudden social spending would come down.
We would move from the liability side of the ledger to the asset side. We would have 500,000 people paying taxes. We would have 500,000 being productive. We would have 500,000 more people with the dignity of a job.
The favourite thrust these days of Mr. Crane of The Toronto Star, especially when he is talking about Liberals, is in a quote from an editorial. I have to be very careful with these journalists at The Toronto Star. I will quote exactly. He was referring to my leader the other day.
It was an article on Saturday: "Canada's powerful creditors curious about Liberal policies". He was doing a big thing on my leader. He said: "He promised a tax based incentive program to encourage on the job training, but again without numbers". He refers to without numbers later on. He refers to "get the numbers right" three times in this article.
If we go by the industry banking standards, which is that 1 per cent of small business loans go into default, on a $12 billion disbursement it would be $120 million. That is a lot of money. I realize that. I quote from Erik Heinrich's article in The Financial Post. The bank profits that we had last year, and this was bank profits during a year of all the developers such as Campeau, Reichmann, et cetera, Scotiabank last year made $633 million. The Toronto-Dominion Bank made $408 million; the Bank of Montreal, $604 million; the National Bank had a record profit as well.
The point is that $120 million of those profits are spread over the 58 chartered banks. It is worth the risk to put 500,000 people back to work. This is where I believe the banks have a responsibility to help us bring these social spending numbers down. Let us get people back into the work force.
There was a Women in Business conference in my riding two weeks ago. Helen Sinclair, president of the Canadian Bankers' Association, very graciously came and spoke to the 300 or 400 women who attended this conference. She told the women in the room that women in business have a better track record than men in terms of credit rating, credit worthiness. This is an area where the banks could in their marketing, their posters and advertising give some added input to.
Government Orders
When Helen Sinclair spoke at the Women in Business conference, she told the women in that room that when they go to a bank to try and secure a loan and they do not feel comfortable with the bank manager, if the chemistry is not there, walk across the street and try another one.
Very few Canadians realize this but there are close to
7,000	bank branches to choose from. We have a great banking structure, a great banking system, and I respect it but it does not mean it is above reproach.
That takes me to my second point. I want to pass it on to all the bank presidents, all the bank managers across this country. It has to do with an approach that they use with their customers. I would say after this issue of understanding their social responsibility to help get this economy going again, they have to review their value system.
In my opinion, every bank manager should ask: "Am I caring in the way I approach my customers? Am I approachable? Am I compassionate in the way I approach my customers who are in difficulty? Am I action oriented when someone needs help quickly to get that business going? Am I trusted?"
I told a good friend of mine this morning I was going to speak on this bill and I asked him if he had a wish concerning his bank manager what would that wish be. He said he has been in business for over 30 years and he would just love his bank manager to phone him one day and say: "Dick what can I do to help you make your business grow? What can I do?"
Right now most businesses are paranoid. They hear that their bank manager is on the phone, they hear their bank manager is coming to see them and shivers run up and down their spines. They do not want to answer the call and if they are asked to come into the office that puts stress on people beyond imagination.
Mr. Barrett and his friends now seem to be entering much more into the public policy debate. We welcome that entrance into the public policy debate by the financial institutions of this country. I say to Mr. Barrett and the others-and I am not singling him out but he does seem to be more pro-active in public policy than most bank presidents-there is a social responsibility here. They have a responsibility to deal with their troops and make sure they are living up to the specific goals, style and aspirations that Mr. Barrett obviously has for himself.

Government Orders
I only have a few minutes left but I want to talk a little bit about this bill. Bill C-99 is good legislation. It is not perfect legislation but nothing is perfect in this place. Nothing. I will just go over again what we have to do. I want to repeat some of the things that the minister said.
If the sales of a business are $5 million and under, there is a $250,000 line of credit to help the business grow. The bank manager is covered by the Government of Canada for 85 per cent of the value of the loan. The minister has given an undertaking in the House today that he would welcome input in the committee on how we can have a formula or some kind of an approach to working capital. That is terrific.
The first problem we have is that bank managers complain about paper burden. It is too much of a drag to fill out the forms. The minister said the new paperwork is going to be easier. Respectfully, we will hold him accountable to that.
Second is the idea of communication. I see one of the government's prime communicators, one of the expert marketers is sitting in his seat. I plead with the Minister of State for Finance, and I say this constructively, we have to take some taxpayers' money and lever it with the banks' money into their advertising budgets. The minister has to explain, not just to the banks because they are supposed to know internally, but also to the customers, to the 900,000 small businesses that are out there and that are eligible for this loan.
If we did that, it would go a long way to putting some hope and some confidence back into this economy which is in desperate need of it today. I have covered most of what I wanted to say today. I want to reassure the government that my colleagues and I are committed to the small business sector in this country. We are also committed to making sure that the banks, the credit unions, the trust companies, those which are in good sound financial shape, will actively participate in this legislation because, as we all know, this is where the greatest hope of new job creation lies in this country.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this debate on Bill C-99, the legislation to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act and to tell you, the minister and the government that my colleagues in the New Democratic Party are going to ensure quick passage of this legislation in this Chamber.
It is important to get this legislation into committee where it can be studied in greater detail. More important, and it is certainly something that I will be doing in my riding, is to inform the business community about the progress of this legislation and the opportunity it presents for the business community to provide some input to the government about their experiences with the banking system and in particular what advice and comments they might offer on the activity and operations of the Small Businesses Loans Program.
I am pleased to speak today, primarily on behalf of my colleague from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, who is on his way back to Ottawa from his riding. He has spent considerable time researching the legislation and letting the government know of our interest in ensuring early passage of the bill.
I suspect that my riding is no different from many others in that one of the vital parts of the economy these days is the creation of employment. It has been proven statistically that the ideas and entrepreneurships in the small business community have created some 80 per cent of the jobs in Canada. This program, the Small Businesses Loans Program, has been a valuable tool for those businesses.
Some notes from the government have said that the interest and the awareness of the program for whatever reason has slipped a bit. I think some of the changes that we can make today on the legislation will be more encouraging. I was encouraged to hear the minister talk about some work that could be done to let more of the business community know about this particular program. He is probably right. It is probably at the bottom of some bank manager's drawer and does not get the awareness at the top of the pile.
I might make one suggestion to the minister to encourage him as some of the ministers do with bills and legislation where there is clearly a lot of support. It is a public service on our part to let our constituents know about this. His staff could prepare some material that we might use in our columns or in our householders to promote this particular program because it will of course be of benefit to the businesses in our community.
February 8, 1993

Some changes that the legislation brings in to assist businesses include increasing the size of business from $2 million to $5 million in annual revenue. A million dollars sounds like a lot of money but I think in terms of the economic activity of a lot of businesses over the course of the year-if the gross revenue of even the smallest business was tallied-it could reach a million dollars quite easily. Obviously the raising of this sum will assist and broaden the number of businesses that are eligible. Also, the increase in the loan size from $100,000 to $250,000 is obviously a plus and will assist as well.
One comment has been made consistently on the legislation and I think it is appropriate. The committee could hear some valuable evidence from the banks and others who have had experience with this. This program, with the loan assurances of the government, will not work unless of course the banking community makes an effort to let their business customers and clients know about the program. The credit union movement is now involved.
I think it is fair to say that a lot of businesses in the past have felt that it would be easier to get some money from a bank if one were a bankrupt Third World dictator than an entrepreneur trying to get a little business going in this country. Over the past number of years, we have seen that a lot of loans to countries that have not been able to repay have had to be written off. Perhaps there will be progress in that particular field.
We have all had businesses contact our offices when they needed assistance when for whatever reason the banks will not lend them funds. Then they get bumped to the next lender, the FBDB, and if the FBDB will not help them, they get bumped again.
There is an innovative program that offers a real opportunity and a real chance to act as a vehicle to inform entrepreneurs and businesses about this program. It is the Community Futures Program. I have been successful in getting the Community Futures Program to cover virtually all of my riding, including most recently the western end, the Houston, Bums Lake, Vanderhoof and Fort St. James area for example. We have just had that designated.
Government Orders
Obviously getting the information out to the organizations, such as the Community Futures Groups, is important. In many cases, MPs' offices act like traffic cops in directing people to the right agency that can assist them the most.
I repeat my suggestion to the minister that promotional material should be available to our offices so that we can use it in our householders and other mailings so that the business community is well aware of the program.
With regard to the banks, perhaps we should again recruit Anne Murray to try to promote this program. At one time the singer was in some of the ads for the Bank of Commerce. It is important that we all make an effort to get information about this particular program out to the business community.
There are a couple of other areas, not related to this particular legislation, that I want to put on the record as being of concern to businesses in my riding. First is the goods and services tax and the ongoing debate over that particular tax. I do not think we could have a debate about assistance to small businesses-particularly the small business community-without talking about some of the damage that has been done to those businesses by the goods and services tax. Second, Canada Post is not the subject of this bill, but many of the businesses in our constituencies rely to a great degree on the service provided by Canada Post.
I am currently conducting a survey of businesses in the downtown Prince George area because there are of course the usual rumours from Canada Post that it will be closing the main post office in Prince George, a community of 70,000 people, that serves the downtown business community.
I think those are clearly issues that when discussing programs related to small businesses have to be put on the agenda as well.
I will get back to the legislation. I have already mentioned the size of businesses. I have talked a bit about the funds that will be provided to businesses that will go from $100,000 to $250,000.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
I have a brief comment on the interest rate. The bill only offers a lower interest rate than what would generally be available. It does not increase the availability of financing. The important point has been made by everybody that obviously the commercial lenders are going to have to be primed on this program and the kinds of opportunities it can provide.
I would, with these veiy short comments on the legislation, encourage the government to ensure that we have the material when of course the legislation is finally passed. I would say that we could use the referral of this bill to committee as a real opportunity to hear from all sectors, including the banks. Let them come and defend themselves and obviously promote some of the work that they have done. I think that will be an important opportunity for legislators and the business community to hear, on the record, the efforts the banks are making. Perhaps there will be some advice about using this legislation to help businesses in our ridings.
In conclusion, from the New Democratic Party and in particular from our member for Okanagan-Similka-meen-Merritt who has done the bulk of the work on this issue, we are encouraging all members to support and get the early passage of this bill.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-99. The bill proposes to not only change the name, but refers to the Small Businesses Loans Act. Anything that affects the viability of small businesses in our country must be of concern to every member of Parliament in this House.
I will repeat what others have said. It is small businesses that are the backbone of employment in our country and the backbone of our economy. Certainly we hear the dramatic news day after day in this House throughout the recession and the problems that the recession has caused for big business in our country, but we do not hear of the day-to-day terrible examples of how the recession and the economic difficulties have plagued the numerous small businesses in our country.
Certainly my riding of Northumberland is no exception when it comes to small businesses having experienced many difficulties. We have seen many businesses that were forced to close and go bankrupt. Many individuals had to go bankrupt through this very difficult time.
Anything that can help small businesses across this country is of great importance to me.
Through the economically difficult times, I have listened to many people who run small and medium-sized businesses in my riding. They complain to the government about the many increased taxes and the great difficulty they have with regulations which involve filling out forms and so on. These have added enormously to the work-load and is something that small businesses in particular have a great deal of difficulty coping with.
Besides listening to all of those complaints, the second largest villain has been the banks and the relationship of small and medium-sized businesses to banks. Many small businesses have found for example that their lines of credit with their banks have suddenly been cut in half or curtailed completely with no warning. This has caused many businesses to fail and has caused severe employment problems in my riding.
I am hopeful that through this amendment to the Small Businesses Loans Act we can work out a new relationship between small businesses and banks that will be to the advantage of both the banks and small businesses.
I would acknowledge that although most businesses and many unemployed individuals have gone through great hardship during the economic recession, it has had the effect of causing a lot of small and medium-sized businesses to become much more efficient. They have had to look at the totality of their operation and try to determine how they could be running a smarter small business. I think that many of them have made very good and important adjustments and today are running more efficiently and more economically.
I also know that gradually the banks are beginning to ease up on their loan policies.
Some of the changes in this bill are welcome. Here is an example: Previously, a business was eligible if it only earned $2 million in revenue. Now, a small business is defined as one that can earn up to $5 million in revenue. I welcome that. I welcome other changes such as the one that says when a small business applies for a loan it can make a purchase that can be approved if the purchase is made no more than 90 days before the loan is approved. Through this revision of the bill, we state very clearly that the maximum amount of an eligible loan rises from $100,000 to $250,000. There are other advantages.

However, I have also spoken to people who have had some experience both from the bank's perspective and small business perspectives. They would like to see some things that I have not seen as part of this bill and that do not appear to be there right now.
Small businesses would like to have the House, before it passes this legislation, look at the possibility of the repayment of loans under this scheme such that the payments would be blended payments. In other words, right from the beginning, the small business would be able to pay more in principal and not just be pouring out payments on interest for the first few years of repayment. If there was a stronger blending of principal and interest, this would make the whole loan more attractive to small business. When small businesses have gone to the banks previously for loans under this act they have found that it was really no more advantageous to them to get a loan through the Small Businesses Loans Act than it would be to get a loan directly from a bank or other private institution.
Among other things, if a small business is taking a loan from the government or a private institution, the amount of security that it has to put up is the same.
Through the Small Businesses Loans Act, the government is making a pool of capital funds available to small businesses that is not there presumably just through private institutions which are the ones that administer this program. To make it even more attractive and better, there is the possibility of making payments more blended.
From the point of view of banks, they would like the rules for the administration of the Small Businesses Loans Act be clarified. Banks have said that in the past they have been burned by having agreed to certain loans to small businesses. When those small businesses got into difficulty the banks found the government's repayment to the small businesses was exempted because the banks had not fulfilled some small picayune rule they did not know anything about. The banks are very concerned about having that clarified and simplified.
In the past the banks have found the receipting requirements far too complicated. When a small business applies to a bank for a loan under the Small
Government Orders
Businesses Loans Act and is eligible for the government loan, the bank usually finds it may as well provide it with one of its own loans because the administration is much less complicated than the government requirements of the Small Businesses Loans Act.
Although I welcome this bill in general, I believe it should go to committee so some of these issues can be discussed. I hope a full slate of witnesses will come forward to clarify their own perspectives. They may be representatives of the small business sector or private institutions acting on behalf of the government in administering this Small Businesses Loans Act.
Thank you for this opportunity. I hope we will see a speedy approval of this act through the House, hopefully with some amendments. I believe in the end there is the potential in this act to bring support to the small business community, not just across Canada but in my riding of Northumberland with which I am most concerned.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add my thoughts on the bill before us today.
My colleagues from Broadview-Greenwood in Toronto and from Northumberland have already expressed some quite specific opinions on the problem of taxation and the government's economic and financial policies.
I would not only like to emphasize what my colleagues have said but also to spend some time on the importance of a national strategy for dealing with economic problems.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of my colleagues, I would first of all like to say that all the suggestions that my friend from Broadview- Greenwood made in this House concerning small business have so much merit that they deserve great interest and careful consideration. Why, Mr. Speaker?
It is very important for us to note that the jobs and new job opportunities in this country come only from small and medium-sized businesses. My friend and colleague from Broadview-Greenwood has already noted in this House that in the past 10 years, 76 per cent of all jobs created, or 2.13 million jobs, were in small and mediumsized companies.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
We are not only talking here about a suggestion concerning taxation and the bill that should help entrepreneurs who take risks for this country, but this whole concept should be seen in the context of a national economic strategy.

This legislation has some very laudable points. My colleagues have already reflected that this is not simply a time for adversarial repartee. We must take note of some of the items that are important for the growth of this nation. We on this side of the House have been advocating initiatives for small business that should encourage its growth, maintenance, viability and the jobs it creates. The legislation before us goes some way in that regard. We are obviously disappointed it does not go all the way, however we want to give credit where some of that credit is due.
We now define a small business as one with sales of $5 million as opposed to $2 million. That is a reflection not only of inflation over the last several years leading up to this legislation but also the nature of the business community itself.
Ontario has suffered an enormous loss of businesses over the last four years. Perhaps we ought to take a more aggressive and positive view toward creating tax and legislative incentives for investors in financial sectors to direct more money away from paper and real estate speculation toward business enterprise opportunities that actually create jobs.
I do not want to dump on the government for its economic policies because I think everybody is already convinced we have been led down the garden path. I see the member opposite is shaking his head. Over the course of the last four years we have seen plant closure after plant closure and the loss of some 350,000 to
400,000	jobs. I think that is the spread in perspective. I do not want to say 450,000 jobs for political purposes, but let us take a look at the spectrum and number of jobs lost in this country.
In Ontario in 1991 and 1992, 30,564 jobs were lost as a result of approximately 230 plant closings. What does that do for us? If the average wage per job lost was somewhere in the vicinity of $32,000, we are looking at around $1 billion in lost wages. More specifically, for
those who are concerned about government deficits, it is well in excess of $350 million lost to federal and provincial treasuries. Keep in mind as well those job losses are accompanied by drains on the unemployment insurance fund and welfare assistance programs. We are looking at an additional $1 billion just for those workers who have lost their jobs. In essence we are looking at over $1.5 billion in costs to the treasury of this countiy because of those job losses.
Why do we have so many plant closures? Why do so many businesses go under? The main problem-I think my colleagues from both sides of the House would acknowledge-is cash flow. While this legislation addresses itself to trying to make more money available to small businesses, perhaps first and foremost we should be doing something to maintain the viability of the businesses that are still in business.
My colleague opposite was asking how many jobs were created. We know how many were lost, but how many were created? I think the more germane question might be what are the net gains or net losses compared to those of previous years? For example, from 1985 we had a net increase of 41,693 businesses. That rate of increase collapsed to about 25,000 in terms of growth by 1989. What are we doing in terms of economic policy, general strategy and financial policy to cause such a drop in the rate of growth?
There is legislation like this that helps address the needs of businesses to have access to capital. We have acknowledged already that the minister is on the right track. We accept that some of the changes he is introducing with this legislation are good and we will support them.
The minister has said he would look at encouraging private lenders to allocate some of the funds available for working capital. That is an absolute necessity under today's cash shortage and cash flow problems. Our businesses need to have access to funds that will allow them to stay in business. We, as Canadians and parliamentarians have a stake on behalf of our constituents to see that the jobs represented by the livelihood of those businesses are maintained.
February 8, 1993

We are going to pay for those jobs either by encouraging private lenders to adjust their lending practices now so businesses maintain their viability, or later through our unemployment insurance and welfare programs or cuts to both.
My colleagues have already suggested that some of the villains in this scenario are the banks. I do not think the appropriate term is villain. I think the banks are looking after their own affairs in lending practices without due regard to the consequences of some of their actions.
This last year we have seen the collapse of several financial empires. Without naming them, certain banks had lent hundreds of millions of dollars and on a couple of occasions over $1 billion without collateral. Over the course of this last year the banks have been writing off these debts.
In the Reichmann holdings in particular, writing off those debts simply meant transferring a lot of the cost to the average taxpayer. The small borrower who goes to a bank today is going through the kinds of hoops that banks would not have put people with a great credit risk-until a few years ago-through at all.
We have to go beyond encouraging banks to adopt a more favourable lending practice for small businesses.
We have to be able to tell them that number one is to make a certain portion of all the moneys they put out available to small businesses. They have to make the costs acceptable. Surely a point over prime, a point and a half is not insufficient return on the investment that those lenders will have. There is no reason why more money cannot go out to those who are most productive.
I will repeat the figures that I gave earlier about the number of jobs that were created by small businesses over the past 10 years. Between 1980 and 1990, 76 per cent of all jobs were created by small businesses. When one thinks of what those jobs represent in terms of wages earned and income to the federal and provincial treasuries and equally important, the amount of money that does not have to be paid out through social assistance programs to maintain the people who would otherwise not have been working, it is an investment.
It is well worth the consideration both of this House and other legislatures throughout the country. It certainly speaks very forcibly to the co-operation between both government and industry, in this case the financial industry, to hammer out a plan of putting money at the availability of those who would use it most productively.
Government Orders
It is not a question of throwing money away and saying that this is a situation where we are throwing good money after bad.


Dennis Joseph Mills: It is not grants.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: That is right. It is not grants; it is a direction. It is an indication, an exhortation to try to lend money where money will work. We seem to be skirting around the issue.
More often than not we take great pains to ensure that the banks and other private lenders have an opportunity to invest in businesses that appear to be working very well when times are good. They are mega-industries. They are megasize on megaprojects.
For small and medium-sized businesses that are the mainstay of our economy and our job creation, we do virtually nothing. Too many small businesses are unaware of how to access the moneys that legislation such as this will encourage lenders to provide.
This is the time for the minister and his department to put out an action plan that will make small businesses move to where they can have access to all the programs resident, not only under his department but under other departments as well to ensure that the banks themselves solicit that kind of business.
If their business is to lend money, then let them lend the money where it is most needed, number one, from a national policy point of view and number two, from a marketplace point of view, where they will get the greatest return with the least amount of risk.
It is time that we, through our legislative processes, do things that other provinces have already looked at very seriously. For example, Quebec through its stock savings plan is trying to make a much more effective investment in small businesses. It provides tax shelter schemes to encourage stock purchases in small Quebec companies. These are companies that will provide jobs in that province for the citizens of that province and in effect, for Canadians who want to call Quebec their home.
Why can we not do that on a national scale? We have the resources, financial and legislative, to take an inventory of what is available to ourselves as a Parliament, to our lenders as people in the business and to our entrepreneurs to ensure that there is a marriage of need and resources and later working toward an end product which is the satisfaction of the needs of our consumer constituent citizens.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
We have said before that we would like to perhaps create an environment. I should not say perhaps, that is too soft a word. We must create an environment where small and medium-sized businesses not only have access to capital, but can maintain a cash flow, especially in a time of need such as we are experiencing today, so that they do not experience the kind of problems that my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood illustrated in some examples earlier.
We might consider decreasing the capital gains tax to improve prospects for new Canadian enterprises and to raise equity in public markets. We might even consider the indexation of capital gains exemption for investments extending beyond five years to encourage long-term investments.
What we would have to do as well is increase the capital cost allowance for investment and tax credits for capital investments. Through all cases let us keep in mind that what is most important is cash flow for small and medium-sized businesses. Today we are looking at how we can encourage lenders, either positively or with a carrot and stick approach through legislation, to make funds available for business needs today.
The other villain is ourselves. Some of our tax policies, the bureaucracy and red tape that we impose on small businesses have to be cleared up. There is no need to impose greater input costs on small businesses. There is no need to impose greater costs from an accounting, record keeping and tax point of view at a time when what small and medium-sized businesses need is to get people off their backs, governments off their backs and have the freedom to do what they do best.
That is to take risks that produce results, create jobs and provide for much more competitiveness and productivity, producing goods that can be competitive not only here at home but for the export market as well.
Mr. Speaker, I know that my time is up. The point is if we have people who, despite the psychology that permeates a depressed environment in the economy today,
are willing to take risks, let us not put obstacles in their path. Let us use whatever power we have at our disposal to give them access to money. Let us create a responsible environment so that money is put to good use.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to compliment the Minister for Small Businesses and Tourism for introducing this legislation today. It is vital to the small business community, small business persons and sole proprietorships throughout this country.
Also, I compliment his department for providing us throughout the introduction of this legislation, Bill C-99 that is before the House today, with very important succinct research data. That has assisted us greatly in arriving at certain decisions that we on this side of the House will be making in the next short while with respect to the legislation.
I say at the outset, as my colleagues have said prior to my speaking today, it is without question that we will be supporting this legislation. We look forward to bringing this legislation to the committee and proposing certain changes to make it more operative and more simple for the small business community to understand what will be before them in the process of extending the availability of capital. In essence the bill is extending the availability of capital to the small entrepreneur in Canada from the present limit of $100,000 to $250,000.
As I said, we will support and propose changes at the committee stage and we will do everything within our power to hasten its passage. It is legislation that is absolutely needed by the small business community of Canada today.
Hopefully at the outset what we will do in committee, and it will be a recommendation, is make the legislation before us today and previous legislation as it affects small business communities in this country and the small business person and the sole proprietorship-I think it is very important to include the sole proprietorship-in the most simple terms so that it is understandable to all of us. I have over 20 years experience as a small business person in Thunder Bay.
February 8, 1993

We have here proposed changes to the original legislation, which is the Small Businesses Loans Act. The Small Businesses Loans Act is a short statute in so far as the Statutes of Canada are concerned. It is eight pages. The amendments that are being proposed will not lengthen the eight pages of the act. One of the vital issues, as with most legislation in Canada, is that the regulations become very cumbersome.
I do not know whether I have all of the regulations as they pertain to the Small Businesses Loans Act in Canada, but I had the Library draw the regulations. Although the act is only eight pages long, we have 40 some pages of regulations to govern the eight page statute. I am hoping that we will, for the first time I think in a federal statute which will go out to perhaps 900,000 to one million small business entrepreneurs in Canada, be able to combine the Small Businesses Loans Act and other pertinent pieces of legislation that affect the small business community within our country, consolidate all of those acts and the regulations thereto and put them in one volume.
When a small business entrepreneur is looking for references and needs the guidance that the statute law provides, and those areas that are available to him for either capital improvements or loan improvements, renovation improvements as the act is proposing, he or she should be able to go to a consolidated piece of legislation, much the same as we have in the province of Ontario. The regulations follow the act and it is a very simple document to refer to at all times. The simplicity of it is greatly appreciated by those who use the facilities of the act. That is one of the proposals we will be making.
We make that proposal for another reason. There will have to be some consultation and information sent to every small business entrepreneur in Canada. This would be the most vital piece of information that this House could supply to the small business concerns throughout this country in a very timely and efficient fashion. That will be another one of our recommendations.
As I said at the outset, we support this legislation. I think it is important that we tell to the people of Canada why we choose to support this legislation so vigorously.
It goes without saying that with all the discussion that we had in the past, especially after the referendum, that
Government Orders
we have all turned our minds back to what we call the regeneration of this economy. Along with this, the most important and vital area is the creation of jobs. This can only be solved today by making an atmosphere in the small business community that is responsive and is conducive for them to go out and hire the people who are looking for jobs in this country. The last figure I heard for unemployment was 11.5 per cent. The small business community can hire the unemployed in this country and even go so far as taking people who are presently on welfare and cannot find a job and have exhausted the benefits available to them.
Job creation, without question, is the top priority of every member of this House. There was a time in our economy when we used to look to the giant corporations in our country to assist in this very vital area of job creation. At one time we used to look to General Motors, Stelco and Dofasco. We used to look to Canadian Pacific Forest Products. We used to look to our Crown corporations like CN Rail. We used to look to other forest product companies to create the jobs in this country. We used to look to the forestry industry because it was the largest single employer in this country. It employs over 800,000 people. In the forestry industry, there are more small and medium-sized companies than there are large companies.
This economy of ours and the governments that are large employers have come to rely on these large corporations for the creation of jobs. However, they can no longer be relied on to create the necessary jobs in our country.
If we agree with that premise, then the only alternative available to us for regenerating the economy of this country and creating the necessary jobs is through the small business enterprise in our country and the sole proprietorship.
This is simply the issue. Should all the members of this House, regardless of political stripe, concentrate their entire efforts to create an atmosphere that is conducive and supportive to the small business entrepreneur or the sole proprietorship? If that is our goal, then we must do it with the express purpose of job creation in our economy. Therefore when we talk today about the adoption of this legislation and the creation of working capital for our small business people, it is with the express purpose of creating jobs within our country.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
I will relate some facts that are as current as I can get to point out what I just said. I think they are fairly up to date. The small entrepreneur in this country and the sole proprietor is going to be responsible for the job creations. Unemployment at the end of 1992 was 11.6 per cent. This means approximately 610,000 workers were looking for a job and still receiving benefits within our country. Today, there are over one million people on welfare whose benefits have run out.
Let me just refer for a short time to the province of Ontario. I know that a lot of members in the House will not agree with concentrating on Ontario, but it has always seemed to be the engine that has run the economy of Canada. There are 235,000 Ontario small businesses employing one to five persons. In Ontario, there are 63,000 businesses employing 5 to 19 persons,
18.000	businesses employing from 20 to 49 persons and
12.000	businesses employing between 54 and 499 persons. There are only 1,500 Ontario businesses employing over 500 persons.
With those facts in mind, it is important for us to realize that we must create the atmosphere that is so important for that very small entrepreneur-employing from one to twenty people-to help him go out into the marketplace and take these people off the unemployment rolls and perhaps help those on welfare.
I should mention that our deliberations at the committee level will just be the start of the process. We fully intend to suggest to the government throughout this process, once the small business legislation is put in place, that it should be doing other things with respect to legislation in our country. It should be looking at the Federal Business Development Bank. It should be looking at incorporating changes in the Bank Act, particularly sections 178 and 427 that follow the security interest of those products that are produced in this country and allows the small business facilities that will be available to our country to follow that security for protection.
Looking at the credit that is being extended by the Government of Canada to every creator of jobs in this country, we are giving assurance to the rest of the Canadian people that their money is not being put into
jeopardy and it does not add one single penny to the cost of administering this country today.
If we cannot extend the credit to the people of this country who are going to create the jobs, then we might as well hold our ship because there is not going to be any job creation in this country at all.
There are some fundamental issues that I think have to be addressed. We need to address the availability of access to working capital to continue to expand the small business enterprises in Canada. My colleagues have addressed one of the questions so I will not go into great detail on it, but they are asking about the role of the present lending institutions. These are the chartered banks that we have in place that are supposed to be looking after the needs of small business. What is the role of the present lending institutions with respect to capital availability?
We know full well from what we have seen in the last two or three years that the availability of working capital has been restrained to the small business enterprise because of the practices and procedures of the major lending institutions in this country. For some reason, although we on all sides of the House are prepared to admit that, we have not been able to do anything as a government to make these lending institutions make cash more available to the small business entrepreneur in this country.
What we have to do, and we are doing it today, is to make the necessary changes to the Small Businesses Loans Act. When we make these changes we ask ourselves: "Why do the lending institutions of our country not respond to the needs of the small business community?"
The second problem we are going to face is how we can communicate. I addressed this a short time ago, but it is a major and fundamental question that we will ask in committee: "How do we communicate this benefit to the small business communities throughout this country and to the sole proprietorships so that the effects of this legislation will get to the people who need it?" That is the person who is going to create a job in this country for one of the people presently on the unemployment rolls.
February 8, 1993

How do we do this and how do we expand the present program? This is not only making capital available as the act expresses, but expanding the scope of this legislation in order to make working capital, which is the grease that makes the small business turn. How do we expand the working capital availability within the small business community in order that they can hire those people? We will be talking in the future about how we want to have site training and on-the-job skills development and retraining so that it gets directly to the person affected who comes off the UI or the welfare roll.
As I said earlier, how do we simplify the legislation to make it workable for the small business communities in our country? Those are the major issues we will be addressing at the committee level.
Before my time is up, let me address some of the changes that are proposed to Bill C-99 the legislation that is before us. First, as I read the changes, there are two thresholds that a person in the small business community has to pass in order to qualify under this act. The first threshold is: Does he qualify as a small-business entrepreneur?
The exclusions are professionals and farming. Farming is understandable. I will come back to professionals in a minute. My colleague here is quite familiar with the Farm Improvement Loans Act that meets the needs of the farming community. Financial insurance is an exclusion under the act. Real estate entrepreneurs are exclusions under the act as are religious and charitable services.
Let me first deal with three areas that I think should be reviewed at the committee stage. The first area is the professional atmosphere. If we really, truly believe that we are trying to create jobs in this country through this legislation, then I think it behoves us to include those people in professions, particularly doctors, lawyers and dentists. I do not think they should be excluded, because they are employers and can employ more people than they are presently employing. Dentists, doctors in private practice and lawyers run small business concerns that can employ more people.
The law firm that I was a partner in employed some 70 people. That is considered to be a very high employer. Why would they not be included? The law firms I worked with had the same problems as any business concern. They had problems with working capital. Why do we
Government Orders
exclude the financial insurance industry and real estate business enterprises? I know for a fact that real estate businesses employ a great many people. They have a broad range of skills that can develop a very highly qualified, productive person in our economy. They have talents, perhaps, in the sales field that are so fundamentally required in this country.
I know my time is short and it is getting close to the hour. However, I just want to emphasize that we will be making these recommendations to help the small business community in our country. We will not prevent the passage of this legislation. We on this side of the House have always supported good legislation that this government has brought forward. Again I compliment the minister for bringing this forward at a time when it is so necessary for the small business enterprise system in our country.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill.

I want to thank my colleague for his insightful remarks. He obviously knows a great deal about the small and medium-sized business sector. We support this particular legislation because we see it as a step forward. We also believe that the government might have gone further and that there are a number of other areas it might have addressed.
I want to emphasize that most of the new jobs have been created recently as a result of the contributions of small and medium-size enterprises. It is often forgotten by Canadians just what they contribute to the quality of life of our nation. They have created more jobs than any other sector. In fact there are figures of 86 per cent of job creation. It obviously depends upon the definitions. They are an important contributor to jobs for Canadians.
There is another sector that is often overlooked. They are an important contributor as well to research and development. If one looks at the type of research and development that has been undertaken by small and medium sized businesses, if one studies carefully the various projects they have under way and looks at the amount of investment they put into research and development and the returns on that investment, they compare extremely favourably and some people would argue much better than larger enterprises.

In fact the figures I have suggest that on a percentage basis their investments are much more important in this sector.

As I just said, I understand how much small and medium-sized businesses have contributed to the quality of life here in Canada, not only because they have created many jobs, which are very important, especially in a recession, but also because of what they do for research and development.

I would have hoped the government would have taken this opportunity not to look only at this particular point, that is the facilitation of greater credit for those enterprises that qualify for it. It might also have looked at removing the paperwork for certain programs such as the goods and services tax.
If one talks to business people one realizes very quickly an overhead that annoys them tremendously is the demand put on them by the government, not only this government but the provincial and territorial governments in some cases, with respect to paper work.
With regard to the goods and services tax it is particularly onerous. When I conducted a survey recently of small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency- there are close to 1,500-one of the the two single most important items was the amount of paper work being generated by government. It is impossible. It is crushing their efforts and really limiting what they can do. It is a very costly operation. They have asked that this be looked at. The other area the government might examine rather carefully is the whole idea of having a one-stop shop so that people can determine what is truly available.
In an uncritical way I simply want to point out that the literature from various governments is a lot more impressive than the actual programs that exist. What really exists in actual assistance for small and medium sized businesses?
I want to share three particular incidents in my riding. An aboriginal inventor has come up with all kinds of new inventions that are extremely promising, but when he went to government as an aboriginal he received some assistance but insufficient assistance to ensure that his
inventions are realized. It is really quite inadequate. He can only swim half way and then there is no further assistance.
In another particular instance two young men wanted to start a particular and unique tree farm where at Christmastime they would sell live trees. They would in fact be responding to environmental concerns; these trees could be replanted on the property of those who purchased them. What has happened is that they have gone to the federal government and to the provincial government, and all they have received are glossy brochures.
In another instance a company called Astro Float Materials in Winnipeg produces absolutely world-class float materials. Because of the number of criteria involved with respect to loans they are unable to get the financial assistance they require. It may be that they will in fact go elsewhere, to another country, because of our insensitive policies.
In a fourth instance a young woman came to me with regard to an idea she had for child care programs that might be useful to the citizens not only in my constituency but of others as well. She was not given any concrete assistance. There were plenty of brochures, however. My time has come to an end.


Mr. Speaker:: It being two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has actively campaigned against the new drug patent legislation because, in its opinion, the proposed costs to health care were too high.
Now the Liberal Party has announced it would cancel the GST which exempts the Canadian health care system and all Canadians from paying the GST on prescription drugs. It wants to replace the GST with the new SHL, a sneaky hidden Liberal tax which the consumers would not know they were paying.
February 8, 1993

This tax would have no exemptions so when seniors, low wage earners and, in fact, all Canadians buy drugs they will have to pay this new hidden tax. Canadians have a right to know why the Liberal Party wants to increase the price of drugs and health care in Canada. Canadians have a right to know how much the SHL tax will cost. All Liberals should be ashamed.


An hon. member:: Shame, shame.


An hon. member:: You are wrong.


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government would rather save money than lives. The government saves money by having two hour call-outs for the search and rescue helicopters at CFB Comox. The government saves money by closing the most important weather station on the coast of B.C. at Cape St. James.
This government saves money by trying to close B.C. lighthouses; by failing to upgrade lighthouses; by closing lifeboat stations at Bull Harbour; trying to remove the foghorns from Estevan Point; proposing to remove hovercraft from Parksville; proposing to close flight service stations rather than provide overtime; proposing to privatize flight service stations; proposing to remove fire-fighters from Port Hardy airport; failing to provide sufficient fire-fighters at Vancouver airport; closing or proposing to close air navigation in remote communications sites on the coast of B.C.; looking at privatizing Coast Guard helicopters and closing the Coast Guard radio station at Alert Bay.
This government has demoralized a fine Public Service and almost destroyed the safety infrastructure of the coast of B.C. Saving money is important but saving lives is absolutely imperative. It should resign.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORM
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in October and December 1990, the Canadian Economic Observer published two studies on resignations and dismissals in Canada.
In 1986, the number of permanent or very significant terminations of employment was 3.4 million, divided equally among resignations, lay-offs and other causes.
It is mainly low-paid workers who change jobs. Two thirds of all terminations in 1986 were in jobs paying less than $9.25 an hour.
Worker turnover is much higher in small firms than in large ones.
I will ask employment and immigration a question: Before Bill C-105 was tabled, did the department prepare a study for 1991 and 1992 concerning resignations and other reasons for termination of employment in Quebec?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers are facing extreme financial hardship this winter due to the lack of this government's policies to deal with low farm prices on last fall's terrible production and cropping conditions.
Two weeks ago over 13,000 farmers rallied in Saskatoon to protest the lack of government action in this time of crisis. They are especially fed up with the endless battles between the Saskatchewan NDP government and the federal Tory government, blaming each other for the lack of action in this financial crisis.
Last week over 1,000 farmers rallied in Lucknow, Ontario, to protest the lack of action by the government to assist them in the face of the worst cropping conditions in Ontario's history. The interest-free cash advance program for unharvested grain has been a bust. Elevators are bursting at the seams, full of low grade com. The government refuses to give credit to countries that can buy it.
I call on the government at this crucial time to stop blaming the provincial governments and take action to assist these producers and take it now.

February 8, 1993


S. O. 31 TRADE
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to jump into the trade debate. I quote:
Mexico-Saskatchewan's best bet for increasing trade and
investment with Latin America.
Those words did not come from a Tory politician. No, in fact, they came from the Saskatchewan NDP government in a quote in today's Regina Leader Post. In an article entitled "Mexican opportunity fires up officials", Mr. Frank Hart, Saskatchewan's deputy minister of economic development, speaks of the Mexican entrepreneurial drive, its can-do attitude, its optimism and its commitment to improve difficult conditions. Saskatchewan's deputy minister puts Mexico at the top of the list that Saskatchewan companies should be doing business with.
Mr. Hart talks about the outstanding possibilities for Saskatchewan agriculture, agribusiness, telecommunications, oil and gas, and water treatment technology.
It is this enlightened attitude that seeks to find ways to make our economy and our system work that deserve applause. There is no doubt that NAFTA makes sense. We must continue to expand our horizons or risk being choked in our isolation.


MARKETING BOARDS
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, it is about one year since all parties in the House declared their support for Canadian marketing boards.
Since that time the government has softened its position to where its support is highly suspect in all areas of agriculture that operate under marketing boards.
It is time that the government firmed up its position and stated clearly and emphatically that it not only supports but will promote Canada's marketing boards at GATT. It should not entertain any thoughts of substituting tariffs for marketing boards in Canada.


CANADIAN FIGURE SKATING CHAMPIONSHIPS
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all the fine athletes who competed in the Canadian Figure Skating Championships this weekend.
It was an exciting competition. We can have confidence and pride in all those chosen to represent Canada. This is especially so in the men's competition where Elvis Stojko and Kurt Browning both excelled and showed that they are ready to take on the best in the world.
Placing second had to be disappointing to Mr. Stojko but placing second to a three time world champion, Mr. Kurt Browning, is nothing to be ashamed of. There is not much that needs to be said about Kurt Browning. He has won the respect and admiration of all Canadians.
We are pleased that he has overcome his back injury and is ready once again to represent Canada. Nowhere is that pleasure more evident than in my riding where I know I can speak for everyone, especially those in Caroline, when I say: "Good luck in the world's, Kurt. We are with you all the way and we could not be more proud of you".


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the rate of unemployment in my area of the country is on the rise.
In December the unemployment rate for Cape Breton Island was 23.4 per cent. The statistics for January indicate that the unemployment rate is now 26.4 per cent. To make matters worse, this government wants to penalize our unemployed by reducing their income even further. The new UI benefit rate will reduce insurable earnings from 60 per cent to 57 per cent in April 1993.
The Prime Minister is of the opinion that the recession is over. It is not over for those who reside in Cape Breton. The situation is getting worse and nothing is being done to change this.
February 8, 1993

The national unemployment rate in January was 11 per cent. For the province of Nova Scotia it was 13.6 per cent while in Cape Breton the unemployment rate is double this amount with no end in sight.
People from all regions of this country are hurting and the government is throwing salt in their wounds. The Unemployment Insurance Program was designed as a safety net, a means to help those temporarily out of work. The Conservative government is destroying that safety net.
I urge the Government of Canada to show compassion in this their time of greatest need.


EDUCATION
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians spend millions of dollars on elementary and secondary education. Yet, Canada lags behind other countries in scholastic achievement. We have difficulty measuring our scholastic achievement and in getting a national profile of student performance.
The Council of Ministers of Education has watered down its plan to test selected 13-year and 16-year old students across the country. Canada has no high school leaving exams. Canada has no standardized voluntary testing.
I urge our government to institute a voluntary national test for students leaving high school. This voluntary test would not interfere with provincial jurisdiction over education. It would be entirely voluntary in nature and would give us a national profile of student performance.
National testing is an idea whose time has come.


CROSSBOWS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, last week at the British Columbia Institute of Technology in Burnaby, B.C., a 22-year old student, Silvia Leung, was killed. Police say the murder weapon was a crossbow.
As both The Vancouver Sun and The Province newspapers have pointed out, anyone-minors, convicted criminals, the mentally unstable-can walk into a store and buy a crossbow without a permit. These people by law would not be allowed to own a gun. Crossbows are silent,
tough to trace and for a criminal not allowed by the courts to own a gun, the perfect legal substitute.
In 1991, after the crossbow murder of another woman a few blocks from Parliament Hill, I called on the Minister of Justice to make the crossbow a prohibited weapon restricted to bona fide hunters and target shooters. In the light of tragic events at BCIT, I now call on this new Minister of Justice to act before another person is murdered by a crossbow. The president of the Swiss Crossbow Association of Vancouver agrees that crossbows should be regulated like guns. So do I.


GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, governments have a choice: cut back on services and programs or spend and raise taxes.
Every government in Canada is faced with this dilemma. If services and programs are cut the people receiving them, aided by the opposition and the media, will be angry with the government. On the other hand, continued spending beyond our means will increase the deficit and raise taxes.
The Conservative government's fiscal policy is restraint and expenditure reduction while the position of the Liberals and the NDP is clearly one of spend, spend, spend.
On behalf of the constituents of the St. Albert federal riding, I strongly urge the government to stay the course, slash expenditures and pay no attention to the opposition MPs' call for spend, spend. Come the election, Canadians will make their choice.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORM
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, braving the -25C temperature, tens of thousands of Quebecers marched in the street yesterday to protest against Bill C-105. These people have clearly told the Conservative government that this bill will not solve the problem of cheating. It is a smoke-screen. They were told that those who quit their job for just cause will be protected. But who believes that, knowing that this law will become a tool for manipulation by some dishonest employers?

February 8, 1993
Even the mayor of Montreal condemned the government, saying that its unemployment insurance policies might cost Montrealers as much as $490 million. That is enough. People cannot stand it any more.


NIAGARA RIVER
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, on January 15 there was a public meeting in Niagara Falls, New York, to hear reports by representatives of the environment departments of the United States, Canada, Ontario and New York State on their efforts to clean up toxic waste in the Niagara River.
We heard about the many difficulties encountered in measuring the various polluting chemicals and it seemed to me that there was a great deal of uncertainty as to whether the goal of 50 per cent reduction set in the Niagara River clean-up agreement would be attained by the target date.
We know that the largest source of these chemicals is the chemical waste sites located on the American side of the river. There are efforts under way to contain these chemicals leaching into the river and promises of a dramatic decline in a few years.
The government has to ensure that these actions are successful. This pollution affects all of us who live close to the Niagara River or live near Lake Ontario and take our drinking water from this source. This is a health issue for all of us.
It is essential that we heed the international joint commission which has called for the entire elimination of these chemicals. It is a goal that we simply must reach.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, Canadians got the usual from the Liberal Party last week when it tried to explain what its position on the GST was or was not.
From what we can figure out the Liberals have now adopted the Reform Party position of expanding the GST to include more items, even the possibility of taxing food.
My constituents do not agree with this. In a recent survey of my riding, when asked if they would support an extension of the GST to food, 95 per cent of the respondents said no and 78 per cent said that we can eliminate the GST and bring in fair taxes.
New Democrats were the only party that presented an alternative to the GST when it was introduced and we are the only party committed to eliminating the tax, presenting alternatives and bringing in a fair tax system.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut\

Mr. Speaker, this government has two faces when it deals with aboriginal peoples, an international face and a domestic face.
On December 2 the Minister of Finance announced that certain aboriginal programs would be cut by 10 per cent or $80 million. On December 10 the current Secretary of State rose in the United Nations General Assembly to introduce a resolution establishing 1993 as the International Year of the World's Indigenous Peoples. The General Assembly was not told of the government's planned cutbacks nor was it told of previous years' cutbacks.
All of the Secretary of State's aboriginal programs, core funding, broadcasting, language and culture programs are under the knife but final decisions have not yet been made. The Secretary of State must defend these programs. The government must cancel the cuts. The government can still give some meaning to 1993.


INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, obviously, members of the NDP are very worried about the upcoming election. Instead of trying to blame everyone else, they should look at their friends and fellow brothers and sisters at Queen's Park. They should ask them why between the NDP government at Queen's Park and the Conservative government at the national level the unemployment figures in Toronto and Ontario have been allowed to continue in misery.
February 8, 1993

In metropolitan Toronto, which traditionally has been a key economic piston of the Canadian engine, the unemployment rate has been higher than the national average. There are over $9 billion worth of local contracts being held up by the national government and the provincial Government of Ontario. Repeatedly, our leader, our caucus and our party have asked for an infrastructure program to stimulate and create jobs and confidence.
The Americans are doing it. The Japanese are doing it. The Europeans are doing it. Canadians expect that Canada should be doing it.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, about 50,000 people marched in -25C degree weather to protest the Draconian and rather bizarre changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act proposed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Does the Prime Minister intend to take the matter in hand and look for a more acceptable solution before we have a serious problem in this country, especially in Quebec?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, like many others who exaggerate the impact of Bill C-105, the Leader of the Opposition also tends to exaggerate the number of people who took part in the demonstration, but that does not matter. What does matter is that the changes proposed by the government are supported by Canadians, because Canadians agree we need an economy that creates jobs.
To create jobs, we need an economic climate with low interest rates and a low rate of inflation. To achieve this, we must control the deficit. To control the deficit, especially one that must be paid for by workers and employers, we had to take steps to control the increasing deficit in the unemployment insurance account. To do
Oral Questions
that, we decided to deny benefits paid for by workers and employers to people who, without just cause, decide to join the ranks of the unemployed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will put a question to the minister, since the Prime Minister does not want to take the matter in hand.
Why is the minister going across Canada telling Canadians that people who leave their jobs voluntarily to draw unemployment insurance benefits do not pay a penalty, although there is a penalty of 7 to 12 weeks for people who quit voluntarily? Why is the Minister of Employment and Immigration trying to mislead people? The truth is that the penalties for those who quit voluntarily are already very severe.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims I said the opposite. It is true that currently there is a penalty of 7 to 12 weeks, which costs workers-those who are really working-taxpayers and employers $1 billion annually, because of 225,000 people who quit their jobs each year without just cause. We are saying that we want to save taxpayers money instead of spending it on benefits for a person who, without just cause, decides to become unemployed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are all in agreement that those who are cheaters should be cut. The problem is that the minister wants to put everyone, including women who quit their jobs because of sexual harassment and people who quit their jobs for other valid reasons, into the same category as cheaters.
Why does the minister not try to find a better reason than the one he is trying to sell to the Canadian people today?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member to read Bill C-105. If he reads it he will find that a person in Canada subjected to sexual or any other kind of harassment on the job has a valid reason to quit and will receive protection.

Oral Questions


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of employment.
In the weekend papers, Quebecers found a full-page ad, taken out by the minister of employment and paid for by taxpayers concerning the proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
How can the minister reconcile changes that are supposed to reduce the deficit with spending millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to sell those Draconian changes? If, as he just said in response to a question from my leader, Bill C-105 is supported by Canadians, why is he buying advertising space to sell it to the public?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, if the people opposed to these changes would explain what Bill C-105 really does, if they would stop using the bill to scare people and tell them the truth, we would not have to deal with the kind of allegations that were made by the FTQ of Quebec, for instance, which said that people who quit jobs because of union activities will not be protected, although that protection is right there in the act.
If they want to keep up this misinformation campaign, I am afraid we will have to tell Canadians the truth, because that is what they want.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, last night on the CBC, the minister said he wanted to get at the people who choose to be unemployed.
To shed some light on this question, is the minister prepared to table in the House information on the number of people who would leave their jobs with the prospect of not receiving any income at all-remember that-for three months? Are there really people who would willingly go without an income for three months? Is he prepared to table the data and tell us as well how many of these people would not qualify under the 40 grounds he listed in his ad on the weekend?
Is he prepared to give the House and Canadians that information?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, out of four million claimants under the Unemployment Insurance Program last year the vast majority obtained their benefits within a reasonable timeframe, about 30 days.
When there is a dispute about the reason for termination of employment, certain procedures are to be followed. The alternative is that if we are going to pay benefits to people just because they apply for them, the system will no longer be manageable.
I have already made it clear to the House that I was prepared to see how we could address these problems as expeditiously as possible when there is a conflict between what the employer says and what the employee says. My department does this every day.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, more than 45,000 Quebecers said no to Bill C-105 in Montreal. There is unanimity outside the House, and I may remind you that yesterday, more than
45,000	people were asking for the outright withdrawal of Bill C-105.
My question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration is this: Will he listen to the people who are his responsibility and withdraw Bill C-105?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member and others on his side of the House, many members from all parts of the country, especially from Quebec, told me about the concerns of their constituents regarding these changes. We are now looking at ways to make sure that the provisions of Bill C-105 will be implemented fairly, equitably and reasonably.
I have received some good suggestions from my caucus. I am still waiting to hear from the New Democrats. I imagine it will take some time, because their good ideas tend to be few and far between.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, the best advice I could give the minister would be to withdraw the bill.
February 8, 1993



The minister tells us he is introducing the changes to Bill C-105 to catch abusers of UIC. How is he going to penalize all those employers who are abusing the system?
Le Mouvement Action-Chomage tells us that 80 per cent of those people it assists win their appeals. That means employers have misrepresented the reasons people quit or were fired. How is picking on the victims going to halt the abuse by these employers?


Bernard Valcourt: In answer to the hon. member's first question about withdrawing this bill, maybe the NDP member could tell Canadians how he expects to make up for the $1 billion these people cost workers and employers. Maybe he would raise taxes, or maybe he would increase the deficit, the cherished way of the socialists. That is not our option. We have to live within our means.
As for employers, under the act if an employer gives false information on a record of employment, he is subjected to a fine of $200 to $5,000 and to an administrative penalty that can equal five times the amount of money the unemployed insured person can obtain. So it is quite a stiff penalty and employers are being prosecuted if they breach the act.


MCDONNELL DOUGLAS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance also concerns unemployment, in fact, the 3,700 workers at risk or already laid off at McDonnell Douglas Aircraft in Toronto.
When I last raised this question the government set up a committee to work with the company and the union. I want to now ask the government why this committee has not met since October. Why did the government cut back export development funding for this company in January? Is the government simply giving up on these 3,700 jobs or does it have some solution to offer to keep this high-tech company moving ahead in the province of Ontario?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows the tremendous array of
Oral Questions
export development programs the federal government has. Of course there are the recent announcements about the technology adaption programs, the extra $400 million we are going to be putting into technology adaption and the $240 million announced in the December 2 statement.
All those programs are there. I would be glad to look into the particular case the hon. member raises.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.
On July 14, 1992 Boeing of Canada Limited wrote to the Prime Minister pointing out that no public bidding process had been initiated in the provision of equipment to meet Canada's search and rescue needs.
Boeing wrote that it had recently retrofitted 339 Labrador helicopters for the U.S. marines and navy. It reported to the Prime Minister that such a retrofit could be done on Canada's Labrador helicopters at a cost of $10 million each and a savings of $1 billion to the Canadian treasury.
In light of the information contained in this letter from Boeing Canada, why were no public tenders called? Why did the government not seek to save substantial sums of money in meeting Canada's search and rescue requirements?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, Boeing was invited to participate in the provision of new ship-borne aircraft and new search and rescue aircraft and in June 1990 submitted a bid which called for refurbishing the Labrador helicopters up to search and rescue requirements.
In today's dollars it represents about $500 million to $600 million to do it. We have to add to that the costs of spare parts and training equipment and the fact that we would then have two types of helicopters which would mean an additional $275 million for the cost of this program. That particular option would cost about $1.1 billion, leaving us with helicopters that were aged and therefore would not last as long, compared to $800 million for the search and rescue function of the EH-101 helicopters.

February 8, 1993
Oral Questions
Boeing's original bid which satisfied requirements was in fact more expensive. Its latest bid would have refurbished the Labrador helicopters but they would not be able, for example, to go out and rescue people off the Ocean Ranger which was a search and rescue requirement.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, we heard that bid or that quote of $600 million last night from a spokesperson on behalf of the government. I called Boeing Canada at two o'clock and I spoke to the vice-president, George Capern, whose name is on this letter to the Prime Minister. I asked Mr. Capern whether his quote of $10 million a unit cited on July 14, 1992 stood. Mr. Capern has confirmed that bid stands and that this upgrade can be done at a cost savings of $1 billion.
I want to ask the government House leader to stop making excuses and to start making common sense by getting on the phone to Boeing to see whether or not this government can realize savings in the vicinity of $1 billion for the taxpayers of Canada. Is it not time to listen to common sense and stop listening to Tory lobbyists for these sweetheart deals?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the search and rescue helicopter procurement is $800 million, not $1 billion. Second, if these Labrador helicopters are to be updated and modernized to the extent that they can perform the same function, it would cost $1 billion. They can in fact be updated for $10 million but they simply would not be able to go out in foul weather.
As for the question of lobbyists, the president of the firm that was the head lobbyist for the EH-101 is a former Liberal executive assistant.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISEMENTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Minister of Employment and Immigration just said moments ago that he had to cut expenditures to the unemployed because the government did not have enough money.
If that is so, why is it that it has lots of money to give Tory advertisers $21 million worth of untendered advertising contracts, look-alike contracts at that?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the news article upon which the member based that question is totally and absolutely false. There were six companies which engaged in the competition-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: If the opposition does not want to hear the answer it should not ask the question.
The six companies were Academie in Montreal; Burg-hardt, Wolowich, Crunkhom in Toronto; Camp Associates, Toronto; La Boite a Idees, Montreal; Palmer Jarvis, Vancouver; and Publitel. They made submissions to a committee of five civil servants: the deputy secretary to the cabinet; the director of advertising, Public Opinion Research, Supply and Services; the director of communications of the PCO; the director of operations, Communications Secretariat, PCO; and the executive director of communications, Federal-Provincial Relations Office.
They were following the policy exactly from 1985. That newspaper story is an example of poor journalism, not the government not following its policies.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the minister never told us that they were in fact formal bids. He knows they were not. There were invitations sent to a half dozen people; that is what happened.
Again concerning the $21 million worth of contracts, why is it that a member of the national campaign of the Conservative Party is the one engaged in giving those contracts through the Tory agency that works for the government to Tory firms that are the recipients in the end? Is there not something wrong with that?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not going to be dissuaded by facts.
What happened was that these six firms made proposals to a committee of civil servants, and the committee of civil servants assessed the representations and decided which agencies should perform this service. This policy has been in place since 1985. It has been a successful policy.
February 8, 1993

The hon. member knows full well that there is no basis whatsoever for his accusation of this being allocated in advance. We have a process that is fair, that is equitable, and that provided for six companies to compete, and a committee of civil servants made the recommendation.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I will try the Prime Minister too.
For $3 billion of taxpayers' money Hibernia should be expected to provide considerable procurement benefits for the Canadian shipbuilding industry. Not only were Canadian shipbuilders not allowed to bid on the first supermodule contract worth $200 million, the government even kicked in cancellation of a 25 per cent tariff to help Hyundai win the contract.
My question for the Prime Minister is: What action will the government take to see that Canadian shipbuilders get a chance to bid on the two remaining supermodules? Or, will the government do as it did before and actually help ship jobs elsewhere?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this question late last week when I indicated to the House that an extensive survey of Canadian companies was made, including the sending of formal questionnaires to the Canadian industry, to ascertain whether parts of these supermodules or indeed the whole supermodule could in fact be constructed in Canada. The response to this survey and the questionnaires was negative.
Having said that, I also pointed out last week and I repeat today that if there is new evidence on the part of any Canadian companies I would be delighted to arrange meetings with officials to review the situation once again.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am sure from our conversation today that the minister will get telephone calls as soon as he gets back to his office.
There is 100 per cent overcapacity in the Canadian shipyards in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada. Many have
Oral Questions
closed or are about to close. Yet Hibernia will require three supply ships, two barges and a number of shuttle tankers to be built.
Is the government prepared to take action to ensure that these are built in Canada as the Norwegians and the British did to their advantage for the North Sea project, or will it lose this opportunity to strengthen Canadian shipbuilding for the future and to assure jobs for Canadians on a permanent basis for the future as a result of this Hibernia project?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and the House know that it is the government's priority to encourage as much Canadian content in the Hibernia project as is possible. That commitment stands, and I look forward to receiving as many telephone calls as the hon. member can arrange.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are uncertain whether the Prime Minister obtained from President Clinton a commitment that the United States now intends to proceed with ratification and implementation of the North American free trade agreement or whether it will, as President Clinton said during the election campaign, await the negotiation of supplemental accords on the environment and on labour standards.
In light of this continuing ambiguity, would not Canadian interests, at a minimum, be better served by awaiting negotiation of the two supplementary accords?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why my hon. friend persists in suggesting that he has difficulty understanding the President's position. The President's position is the one that he stated quite clearly and the one that has been debated on the floor of the House.
Friday afternoon in a joint press conference, in response to a question, I said that the President has indicated-


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is a long way to go for a photo-op.

February 8, 1993
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend from Newfoundland says that is a long way to go for a photo-op. What about dear Jean going down to get his picture taken with George?


Mr. Barrett:: Look what happened to George.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I hate to do this but I have to give him a 10 for that, and that is bad news for President Clinton. I will be around but I am not sure about the other guy.
The question was in regard to trade. I said that the President has indicated many times that he is going to sign the NAFTA as it is. He proposes to bring in supplemental agreements with Mexico, particularly in regard to some of the points that he has mentioned that do not impact on the NAFTA as concluded. President Clinton: "That's right".
Then he goes on to say, by the way, for the interest of the member for LaSalle-Emard: "And I might add that Prime Minister Mulroney's administration in Canada has had a very strong record on the environment".


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is right in so far as-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Roy MacLaren: -he stated the situation. He will know that President Clinton during the election campaign said he would not proceed with implementation-and I underline the word implementation-of the NAFTA, an unchanged NAFTA, but he would not proceed with implementation of the NAFTA until such time as the supplementary accords on the environment and on labour standards were negotiated.
Let me ask the Prime Minister this question. We all know that the recent events with regard to pork and steel have been the result of an absence of any agreement on subsidies. Would the Prime Minister on behalf of Canada express the Canadian interest by seeking a supplementary agreement on subsidies to parallel President Clinton's emphasis on supplementary agreements on the environment and on labour standards?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend mentions President Clinton's position during the election campaign. I just referred him to President Clinton's position Friday afternoon which is very clear: that the NAFTA is a stand-alone agreement which he supports as it is. Implementation takes place-


Brian Vincent Tobin: No, Brian, no.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The member for Newfoundland is now an expert on President Clinton's thinking.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Starting to get under your skin.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, you do not get under my skin, Brian. I just saw the rat pack take down one Liberal leader and you are in the process of-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: With regard to the question of my hon. friend, the question that he raises is being developed and resolved at the GATT.
I indicated to the President that in our judgment one of the best things he could do to assert beneficial leadership for the United States and for all trading partners was to conclude an agreement at the GATT at the earliest possible moment, because among other things this would deal with the matter that my hon. friend has quite properly raised. Failure to resolve the GATT and a loss of the Uruguay round could have damaging effects on all countries, the United States along with Canada.


BELL CANADA
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, Bell Canada said that it wanted to increase basic monthly phone bills for millions of subscribers not once but twice this year, and in some cases charging an incredible 60 per cent more.
Given that Bell's move could cause similar applications by phone companies from Newfoundland to B.C. and given that this government has already put Canadians in tough economic times, what assurances will the government give Canadians today that they will continue to have access to telephone service that is both universal and affordable?


Hon. Pierre H. Vincent (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know that Bell Canada's application will be submitted to the CRTC, and having spoken on the weekend to representatives of the Association des con-sommateurs du Quebec, I know they will make their representations with the best interests of the consumer in mind.
February 8, 1993


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, last February the Minister of Communications stated government policy as follows: "Canadian consumers need the assurance that high quality basic services will continue to be provided at affordable rates". I underline the word affordable.

Do the minister and his government still stand by their statements, or have they decided that a telephone is a luxury, not a necessity?


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I just said. The CRTC is the agency that will examine Bell's application and take the appropriate steps.


TAXATION
René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has announced that it will cancel the GST and replace it with the SLH tax, the new sneaky, hidden tax that everyone will pay.
The GST presently exempts seniors, low income Canadians, the health care system, in fact all Canadians from paying the GST on prescription drugs.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance this. If the Liberals get a chance to apply their tax to prescription drugs, how much will it cost the Canadian health care system and all Canadians?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is tens if not hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. What we have here is a flimsy proposal-


An hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -that the Ottawa Sun referred to as the Grit sneaky tax. What they really want to do is hide the tax so that they can raise it at will. It would not exempt food, it would not exempt medical supplies, it
Oral Questions
would not exempt ambulance service, it would not exempt-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince George- Bulkley Valley.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The B.C. government has announced a public inquiry into the controversial Kemano project in northern British Columbia.
Will the federal government participate in a joint review of this project with the province? Will he allow his officials to appear at the inquiry and will he release the over 83,000 pages of evidence his department has on this project? Will the minister prove that this government has a so-called strong record on the environment?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, the government does not have to prove it has a strong record on the environment. That is obvious.
With respect to the particular question, the hon. gentleman must realize that in 1987 an agreement was entered into by the province of British Columbia, the Government of Canada and the Aluminum Company of Canada in connection with this matter. This was as a result of litigation that had been taken by the province of British Columbia and by Alcan against the Government of Canada with respect to the question of whether or not the Government of Canada had the right to exercise jurisdiction over water in this particular situation.
That was settled by an agreement. That agreement is in full force and effect. The province of British Columbia is now reviewing it for some reason or other, despite the fact that it acknowledges that the agreement is to stay in effect. The province has been advised by a commissioner it appointed that it is to the economic benefit of British Columbia to allow the project to go forward and that if it did not it might be sued for $.5 billion by Alcan as a party to the agreement which has spent that much money since the agreement was entered into.

February 8, 1993
Oral Questions
To answer his question, I will be discussing this matter with Premier Harcourt hopefully in the next day or two to tell him just what is the position of the Government of Canada. However, the background should indicate the room within which we had to act.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, we thank the minister for his little history lesson. The people of northern B.C. are all too familiar with what this bad deal signed by this government has done to the Nechako River in northern British Columbia.
I thank the minister for telling the House that he is meeting with the premier. Should the public inquiry clearly show a need to change the settlement agreement of 1987, is the government prepared to reopen that settlement agreement to assist the environmental assessment that should have been done in the first place?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there was an environmental assessment done on this project in the first place. There was an independent review committee appointed, headed by the then president of the University of British Columbia.
With reference to the agreement, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was satisfied with respect to matters that affected fisheries and fisheries habitat. The courts of Canada have now dealt with the issue. The matter is settled in so far as any petitioners to the courts are concerned. Unless the other parties to the agreement all agree that there should be some change to the agreement, it is not an issue which the Government of Canada has to decide nor should it decide.


DAVIS INLET
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare or whoever is representing him today.
The department has agreed to fly 60 Innu to Alberta for treatment. Peter Penashue of the Innu Nation said: "We are accepting the lesser evil because there is no treatment centre to deal with our people in our language".
Last Thursday the minister told me in the House that he would listen to the Innu people and accept their proposals. He has not accepted their proposals.
Why has he not accepted their proposals? Will he commit the funds for a treatment centre for the Innu near Davis Inlet in Labrador?


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the 14 youngsters who were involved in that very tragic situation 10 to 12 days ago, there was an agreement reached on the weekend for their immediate treatment.
The families of the 14 youngsters, the Innu, the province of Newfoundland and the Minister of National Health and Welfare have agreed that they would travel to a healing centre north of Edmonton. The families and the translators will be taken along.
The long-term solution for a health care facility at Davis Inlet is under review. We are dealing with the Innu people. My colleague, the minister of Indian affairs will be looking at all the issues, whether these are mobile or permanent. Everything is on the table and will be reviewed.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister of Indian affairs or whoever is representing him today.
There is now an urgent need for a new community for Davis Inlet. The question of jurisdiction must be settled and the Government of Canada must accept it. However, there is a need now for providing the funds for construction this summer.
Will the minister or his representative take the responsibility and the lead to make sure that plans are put in place for a new community this summer?


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I think all parliamentarians will agree this is a very important matter. Last Friday, there was an important meeting with officials from my department, National Health and Welfare, people from the community and representatives of the provincial government. Certain requests were made by the community, and we are now examining all this to make sure that as far as the needs and demands of the community are concerned, our response is appropriate and valid, not only in the short term but in the long term as well for this community.
February 8, 1993


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for veterans affairs.
Last week the acting deputy minister informed employees that there were no plans to cut up to 400 jobs. However, I understand that in a letter to all departments, Ian Clark of the Privy Council Office called for further cuts of up to 10 per cent in all departments.
Would the minister please explain how these two contradictory messages can be reconciled. What is really going to happen to veterans' programs and what is going to happen to the employees?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, because of the aging of our veterans, our programs at veterans affairs are all experiencing growth. In any program there is always an opportunity to reduce overlap and duplication. We are attempting to ensure the programs meet the original objectives.
Canada has one of the most generous veterans affairs programs in the world. We continue to maintain our commitment to keep it that way. The hon. member can be sure that veterans will not suffer as a result of any changes in administration.


George Albert Proud: Then will the minister unequivocally say there will be no further program cuts and no further cuts of employees?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I can understand where the hon. member is coming from. The role of the Department of Veterans Affairs is to take the tax money we allocate and make sure it is used to the benefit of veterans as much as possible.
Oral Questions
If from time to time it means being a little more productive in terms of delivery per person and so on, I am sure he would find that a useful direction in which to proceed. That is what the minister is trying to do.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of unemployment insurance. Earlier in Question Period he tried to make it sound as if the thousands and thousands of people that were parading through Montreal yesterday in -25C below were doing so because the opposition parties had misled them.
Does he not realize that when so many people show up in those types of temperatures, they are expressing a real concern? Their concern is that this government is changing the playing field. It is tilting so badly it is being completely unfair to any worker in this country. Is that not so?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, what it shows is yes, some people are concerned. I guess that as elected representatives of the people we have a duty to address these concerns and this is what we are doing.
If the hon. member is trying to tell Canadians that the NDP stands for the proposition that we should pay benefits to a person who voluntarily, without any reason whatsoever, chooses to become unemployed, I think he is wrong. Canadians would not support him.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. In today's unemployment scene and recession Canadians are not quitting jobs to go skiing. Canadians are quitting jobs because they have to quit jobs.
The minister should understand that by changing the playing field, by making harassment such an issue, he is making it very difficult for people who should be receiving unemployment insurance. Why is he doing that? Why is he making sure that many Canadians will not receive unemployment insurance when they are entitled to it?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member can

February 8, 1993
Privilege
point to a person in Canada who does not receive unemployment insurance after having quit a job for a valid reason I would like him to give me the example.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In a letter to the government, the Quebec Bar Association mentions that workers who are denied UI benefits will unhesitatingly appeal the decision to the umpire and to the appeal division Federal Court.
My question is this: Can the minister tell us today how many cases are pending before referees and the Federal Court of Appeal in Quebec? Will the number of cases brought before referees in Quebec increase because of Bill C-105?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, most of the time, in about 93 per cent of the cases, the unemployment insurance officer makes the final decision on applications for benefits. Last year, Employment and Immigration Canada received in excess of 3.5 million UI claims. Of these,
35,000	or less than 1 per cent gave rise to appeals. In addition, 80 per cent of the appeals nation-wide in 1992 were decided within 30 days. In Quebec it was 91 per cent. To respond more specifically to my friend's question, there are presently 1,853 appeals before the umpire and 2,300 before the board of referees.


DECORUM IN THE HOUSE
Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, my question deals with Motion No. 5 currently on the Order Paper. This motion refers to decorum and respect for each other. Therefore, my question is for the government House leader.
This motion has been debated for seven and a half hours and seems to be mired in purgatory. Can Canadians be assured this motion will be dealt with?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I hope in view of the new policy announcement by the Liberal Party that it believes there should be proper decorum in the House that it will agree to bring this
motion to a vote. It has been debated for three days. I have not been able to get an agreement from the opposition to bring the debate to a conclusion.


LABOUR FORCE
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, commonly called the minister of unemployment and arrogance in Quebec.
Yesterday in Montreal, 50,000 people shouted out their disapproval to him. The minister still responds that if we want to reject his hateful unemployment insurance bill, we should suggest something to save $600 million. Last week, he refused to sign a labour force agreement with Quebec that could have saved $250 million.
Would the minister be prepared to get the hundreds of millions he needs from those who hide their money in tax havens, as the Auditor General of Canada recommends? If he is afraid to get this money from tax cheaters, is it because these tax evaders are the same people who fund the Conservative Party?


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of Ms. Bonnie Mitchelson, Minister Responsible for Culture, Heritage, Citizenship and Status of Women in the province of Manitoba.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 48(2), I wish to raise a question of privilege.
On April 8, 1992 and May, 6, 1992, I tabled a number of petitions in this House. These are petitions Nos. 343-1454, 343-1659 and 343-1660. They contained over
3,000	signatures by the Canadian Hispanic Congress on the subject of the fate of refugee claimants in Canada.
February 8, 1993

On February 2,1993, placed in my House of Commons desk were the responses to the aforementioned petitions. These responses were received 298 days and 270 days respectively after tabling the petitions.
Standing Order 36(8) reads:
The Ministry shall, within forty-five days, respond to every petition referred to it.
I emphasize the word "shall". In the practical guide "Petitioning the House of Commons" which all members are given as a guide to collecting and tabling petitions section 2(6) reads:
Whenever a petition is presented, a copy is sent to the Privy Council Office which then forwards it to the appropriate government department or agency so that a response can be prepared.
The response must be tabled in the House of Commons within 45 days after the petition has been presented.
This guide is prepared by the Private Members' Business Office. Again, I draw your attention to Standing Order 36(8) which says that the ministry shall give a response within 45 days.
The government does not have to agree with the petitioners, but I think the government must show respect, interest and concern for the over 3,000 Canadians who signed these petitions on an immigration matter. The minister responsible is really showing contempt for the House of Commons orders by not responding.
We cannot operate that way, Mr. Speaker. The rules were put here to provide law and order, to provide for things being processed in an orderly fashion so that Canadians get a response in a decent time.
Mr. Speaker, if you find, and I hope you will, that I do have a prima facie case I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the immediate facts before me to comment on the substance of the grievance of the hon. member. He is quite correct that Standing Order 36(8) reads as he quoted it.
I want to point out that responses to petitions have been coming forward at a phenomenal rate, some days in the hundreds. It may have something to do with the over-burden of responses. However, I will undertake to
Privilege
investigate the question and see whether it can be expedited.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park has raised a matter which has been raised before in this House. There is a rule as the hon. member referred to it and read it to the House.
With this kind of application which is an application to the Chair to find that the privileges of the hon. member have been breached because there has not been a response to a petition within the number of days set out in the rules the difficulty is that there is no sanction in the rules. The Chair has had to say in the past that it is extremely difficult to come up with a lawful response.
I have said in the past and I hope I am not going to have to say it in the future but I echo again what the hon. parliamentary secretary said. The rule is there and for whatever reason it has not been complied with. It was not put in there in the first place I am sure with the intention of not being complied with but as the hon. member who has brought the application knows, this is not the first time the Chair has had to deal with it.
The best way to deal with it at the moment is to accept the undertaking of the parliamentary secretary that he will make an inquiry-I hope it will be an immediate inquiry-and that he could raise the matter again perhaps some time tomorrow.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary while he is looking into this would consider discussing this in the House management standing committee because certain ministers cannot flout the rules of the House this way. They owe it to Canadians.
No wonder Canadians hold parliamentarians and the whole government process in such low esteem when after 200 days I have no response for the over 3,000 Canadians who signed the petitions. My role as a member of Parliament is being thwarted. I am not very effective when I cannot get a response within 45 days.
I am treating this very seriously and I am not sure whether the petitioners once they hear that I have raised this question of privilege will not follow it up.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure hon. members that the Chair is not treating it other than as a serious matter. I am calling to the attention of hon. members that there is a rule. There is no sanction. It may very well be that it

February 8, 1993
Routine Proceedings
ought to be considered by hon. members and ought to be remedied.
In the meantime with this particular case and keeping in mind the matter raised by the hon. member and the fact that clearly there is here a breach of the rules and the sensitivities of the hon. members and the sensibilities of the hon. member's petitioners, I think the appropriate thing at least for today is to ask the parliamentary secretary to address the House tomorrow and see if there is some explanation at least. That may not fully satisfy the hon. member or hon. members, but at least for today that is where I would like to leave it.


Mr. Speaker:: On Monday, February 1, 1993 the House leader of the Official Opposition rose on a question of privilege regarding a question asked during Question Period on Friday, December 11,1992. As this was the last Question Period before the House rose for its Christmas recess the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has raised this matter at the first opportunity. I would like to thank him and the Solicitor General for their interventions on this matter.
In his presentation on Monday last, the House leader of the Official Opposition noted that on December 11, 1992 he had put a question to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport asking the government to provide the complete financial statements for Hockey Canada since its incorporation. The then Minister of Justice, responding on behalf of her colleague the Solicitor General, stated:
-this matter is currently being investigated by the RCMP. The Government of Canada will offer no further information until the RCMP has concluded its investigation.
Subsequently, on December 17, 1992, Mr. Ian Macdonald, chairman of the board of Hockey Canada, issued a press release stating that the financial records of Hockey Canada were not under investigation by the RCMP. It was from this discrepancy of fact that the question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.

The situation was cleared up when the Solicitor General, in response to the question of privilege, indicated that it was National Hockey League Players' Association that was being investigated by the RCMP, and not Hockey Canada, which is fully co-operating with the RCMP in this investigation. In the Solicitor General's absence, the hon. Minister of Justice had taken the matter under advisement, to deal with the situation, which was not fully understood at the time. As the Solicitor General has now been able to clear up the situation, it is obvious that there was no attack on the House and that this is not a case of contempt of Parliament.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond for raising this matter and also the Solicitor General for clarifying the situation.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government responses to 43 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Rev. Douglas E.W. Lennox, pastor of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Huntingdon and Athelstan, I am pleased to present three petitions that come mainly from the municipalities of Dundee in my riding, Huntingdon, Athelstan and Saint-Anicet, and concern violence against children and women.
These petitions contain a number of signatures and I would like to thank the clergyman for his hard work on this cause and tell him more specifically that the newspapers and media are often criticized for spreading this violence. I must tell you that it is thanks to them that we know more about it.
February 8, 1993


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour to table a petition from some of our country's seniors. They say that far too many seniors now live in poverty and are always in financial difficulty for lack of sufficient income.
The petitioners ask Parliament to kindly ask the government to re-evaluate Old Age Security so that it reflects the real needs of Canada's seniors.


Shirley Maheu: have another petition, Mr. Speaker. The petitioners are telling us that Canadian universal medicare is the principle of our Canadian heritage and our identity. Recent cutbacks to health care have undermined the principle of universality in Canada.
The petitioners request that Parliament take all necessary measures to enshrine in the Constitution the obligation to provide universal, publicly funded hospital and medical care to all citizens.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of teachers in public and secondary schools as well as post-secondary institutions. They note that they bear the burden of extra-curricular expenses to improve their own professional skills, as well as providing academic services and materials to the students for whom they are responsible.
The petitioners note that business people and self-employed professionals are able to deduct the costs of their in-service training and business expenses but teachers are not. They call upon parliamentarians to request that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue take action to amend the Income Thx Act to allow teachers who teach in educational institutions in Canada to deduct professional expenses made in the course of their employment.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from another 250 residents of the Comox Valley who, in memory of Dawn Shaw, a little girl who was murdered and sexually assaulted in the valley, have petitioned Parliament asking that the present
Routine Proceedings
justice system be changed to allow for more protection for children in our communities who are increasingly becoming victims of sexual assault.
The petitioners propose a number of changes in the justice system which they believe would improve the safety of children and protect them from sexual assault. One of those changes is permitting police to take DNA samples from persons suspected of sexual assault and also that a national database of DNA imprints be kept in order to assist the police in tracking down people who perpetrate sexual assaults.


David Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition to the House from the constituents of Selkirk-Red River, Portage-Interlake, Winnipeg-St. Boniface and Winnipeg Transcona, calling on Parliament to reconfirm its commitment to seek the elimination of poverty among children in Canada by the year 2000.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today from the congregations of Knox Presbyterian Church and St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church both in my riding and as well from the people from Port Elgin, Southampton and Paisley in my riding, calling on Parliament to accept legislation designed to eliminate violence against women and children.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, because of some recent events in the health field, I have a petition to present.

The petitioners indicate that medicare is under threat as a result of reductions in federal cash payments to provincial health care systems, changes in drug patent legislation leading to monopoly production and rising drug prices, as well as a lack of a co-ordinated national strategy for health care reform.
They say there are alternative policies that would preserve medicare, provide medical services on a more efficient basis than the American pay as you go system and guarantee health care as a basic right for all Canadians.

Routine Proceedings
To sum up their 11 excellent points, although I do not have the time to read them into the record, they want a renewed commitment from all parties to the Canada Health Act and to the universality of health care. They also want to make sure that the freezes and the cuts to funding are removed, that appropriate funding is reinstituted for health care in Canada.
Finally, the petitioners want to make sure, before any changes ever occur, that there is full and open debate on the direction that any government would take.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present eight petitions containing some 271 signatures, 15 of them from my home city of Nelson, British Columbia.
The petitioners point out that two Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, who were sentenced to 28 years each in a Brazilian prison, have suffered miscarriages of justice, cruel and unusual treatment in Brazilian prisons and discrimination in sentencing and parole.
The petitioners further point out that riots in the same compound where they are held have demonstrated there is a real threat to their health and safety in prison. The only relief available from such severe punishment is for Canada to request expulsion in accordance with Brazilian law.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the Prime Minister to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada in accordance with Brazilian law.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the petitioners who have signed this petition really must be shocked at the government's inconsistent approach. The government talks about the importance of the global marketplace and how the development of education and research are very important to Canada's competitive position in that global marketplace, yet the
government imposed a goods and services tax on the printed word which includes educational materials.
The petitioners have taken the position that the government was wrong and I agree with them. The petition is signed by people from Kingston, Ottawa, Orleans, Westbrook, Tamworth, Harrowsmith, Oshawa, Sydenham, Pittsburgh, Odessa, Lyndhurst, Hamilton, Trenton, Willowdale, Battersea, Newmarket and a signature from someone from St. John's, Newfoundland.
These petitioners are all appalled at the government's application of the goods and services tax on the printed word, contrary to the normal democratic principles of freedom of the press, the importance of education in our society and so on. They call upon Parliament to repeal the goods and services tax on the sale of books, magazines and newspapers.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by about fifty people from the Montreal area who oppose the government's proposal to exclude from unemployment insurance those who quit their jobs.
The petitioners believe that these proposals, if adopted, will lead to excessive and costly litigation. They claim that these proposals will discourage workers from improving their position at work and decrease labour force mobility.
They also maintain that these proposals could subject workers to continuing discrimination, sexual harassment and undue stress on the job. They also say that these proposals will have a negligible effect on reducing the deficit and payroll taxes.
Therefore, the petitioners ask Parliament to reject these proposals contained in Bill C-105.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
February 8, 1993
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 415 will be answered today.


Mr. Simmons: Has the government taken any concrete action on the recommendations made by the Auditor General in his 1991 annual report to review the level of spending needed in carrying out harbour repairs efficiently and appropriately, to improve the preventive maintenance aspects of the program, to safeguard these assets in the long term, and to do a comprehensive assessment on the inspection and commissioning process for major projects in Newfoundland?


John Carnell Crosbie: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans continuously reviews the spending level needed to carry out annual harbour repairs. This exercise is used to establish budget priorities. The department has been and remains aware of the need to carry out harbour repairs efficiently and appropriately. Every effort is made to balance requests for harbour expansions, modifications and upgrades with the need to undertake preventive maintenance and repair work. Since funding needs for preventive maintenance and repairs at DFO's 2,127 harbours across Canada have increased but harbour budgets have not, the emphasis has shifted more and more toward preventive maintenance and repair.
As for the commissioning and inspection procedures followed on major projects in Newfoundland, each project is inspected and accepted by DFO staff as the Auditor General has recommended.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Questions Nos. 436 and 441. Due to the length of the answers I would ask that they be printed in Hansard as if read.
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

*


Mrs. Gibeau: Regarding the issue of the construction of a viaduct to bypass the railway track that intersects Henri-Bourassa Boulevard at Langelier Boulevard, Montreal North (a) have officials studied the matter and, if so, (i) since when (ii) for which departments do they work (b) is there a project supervisor and, if so, for which department does he work (c) has CN or VIA Rail or any other organization responsible for the railway been contacted regarding this matter and if so (i) what were the nature (ii) the conclusions of the discussions (d) have studies, recommendations or other options been drafted on this matter and, if so (i) what are they (ii) is the written documentation of a public nature and if so where can copies be obtained (e) does the government intend to build this viaduct or find another method to solve the problem of the bottleneck caused by the track and if so (i) what is the completion date and (ii) what are the cost estimates?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Officials in Transport Canada and the Federal Office for Regional Development in Quebec have been discussing the matter since the beginning of the summer with representatives of the city of Montreal. At this time the federal government has not decided on its involvement in this project and consequently, there is no project supervisor. No studies or options have been drafted by the federal government on this matter and the recommendations on a possible federal intervention are confidential. The federal government has not contacted CN or VIA on this matter.


Mr. Saint-Julien: With regard to Canada's national debt (a)what is the percentage of short-term debt (less than six years) (b) what is the percentage of long-term debt (more than six years) (c) to which countries do foreign holders of Canadian bonds belong, are there British, German, American and Japanese holders and if so, what is their share (i) in percentages (ii) in Canadian dollars, (d) what percentage of the debt becomes due in a fiscal year (e) what is its average rate of interest (f) what is the statement of change in loans made abroad by the government for each year from 1980 to 1992 inclusively?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in response to (a) it was 66.8 per cent as at March 31, 1992. This percentage includes all Canada Savings Bonds because their interest rates are adjusted annually, even if the term could be as long as 12 years. If we include only those Canada Savings Bonds that will come to term in less than six years, the percentage of debt coming due would be 61.8 per cent. In response to (b) it was 33.2 per cent as at March 31, 1992. This total excludes all Canada Savings Bonds because their interest rates are adjusted annually, even if the term could be as long as 12 years. If Canada Savings Bonds with a term of more than six years are included, then the percentage would be 38.2 per cent. With respect to (c)(i), it is estimated that Japanese investors held

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
about 15 per cent of Government of Canada marketable bonds in 1992 and U.S. and U.K. investors, about 7.5 per cent each. There are no figures available for Germany, (ii) It is estimated that Japanese investors held about $24 billion Canadian of Government of Canada marketable bonds in 1992 and U.S. and U.K. investors, about $12 billion Canadian each. There are no figures available for Germany. In response to (d) it was 49 per cent as at March 31, 1992. In response to (e) it was 9.16 per cent for fiscal year 1991-92. Direct borrowing in Canadian dollars by the Government of Canada on foreign markets between 1980 and 1992 was as follows:
Million Canadian Dollars
1980	2,195
1981	1,414
1982	1,699
1983	922
1984	1,548
1985	5,886
1986	6,027
1987	4,573
1988	2,247
1989	788
1990	1,122
1991	44
1992	745


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I raised this point a long time ago and you may be familiar with the case.

Over a year ago I had a question about the goods and services tax on the Order Paper as to how much it would in fact raise from Canadians. How much would it cost to administer? How much of that has gone toward the
deficit and reduction of the debt? I have raised this on several occasions. My colleague is very honourable, otherwise I would be angry by now.
I am in a really difficult situation. I have constituents asking me why that gentleman I call honourable is not giving me the answers. I say that perhaps there are others who are not quite as honourable as he who are not providing the information. I do not know.
They point out to me that there has been a number of articles in the newspapers asking: Is it possible that the goods and services tax has raised more money than has been suggested which might be used during an election? Is it possible that it costs a lot more to administer than the government has suggested? There are all kinds of rumours out there.
I am trying to help my constituents find out the truth. I assume that my colleague is continuing to try to get me those answers I desperately need for my constituents.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend raised this question with me last Wednesday if I am not mistaken. That was five days ago and I was hoping he might give me seven.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act and another act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When the debate was suspended at 2 p.m., the hon. member for St. Boniface still had 13 minutes left.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I will briefly summarize where I was because, as you will understand, I was not able to finish my speech. Here is what I had indicated.

This party will, in fact, support this legislation because we see it as a step forward for small and medium sized businesses. We would have liked the government to have gone further. At the same time, we are going to make some proposals that it may want to take very seriously.
February 8, 1993

Before I go into those proposals, I want to point out that as a party we acknowledge that small and medium sized enterprises do contribute a great deal to the quality of life of Canadians generally in a number of ways. Let me mention a couple. We have figures which show that in excess of 85 per cent of the new jobs created within the last couple of years have been made by small and medium sized enterprises. In fact that figure has been in excess of 80 per cent for a number of years. Many of these jobs are good jobs that challenge the intelligence and skills of Canadians in a very positive way.
Not only has there been job creation, but those small and medium sized enterprises have also contributed in a significant way to research and development. As I indicated previously, a lot of research and development has been undertaken by these particular firms. If one looks at their over-all expenditure in this area and the pay-offs as a result of those expenditures we find there is a lot of meaningful spin-off.

As I just mentioned, these small and medium-sized businesses greatly contribute to the quality of life of Canadians. A very significant proportion-I believe it is over 80 per cent for at least the last decade-of new jobs are created by these businesses. Not only are jobs created but there is also a whole field of research and development as well as extremely important investments in that sector which are very beneficial to us in the sense that they bring a lot to our country and of course to Canadians.

I would have liked the government to have looked at the excessive paperwork that prevents small and medium sized businesses from being as productive as they might be. This is an issue that is continually brought to my attention. As well, a lot of people believe there ought to be a one-stop shop where you can go to get advice, find out what kinds of programs are available not only from the federal government but from the provincial and the municipal governments.
One thing that has happened is there is a lot more glitz than substance to these supposed government programs. In other words, there is not a whole lot out there except a lot of glossy material. However, that does not resolve the problem for Canadian businesses and Canadian businessmen and women.
Another matter that needs to be looked at in a serious way is the whole area of financial assistance. A number of people come to see me after having been to the
Government Orders
federal, provincial and municipal governments and indicate that there is not a whole lot out there.
Sometimes there is absolutely nothing out there or sometimes what is available out there is not of a great deal of assistance because they need to be wealthy enough to qualify totally. If they are that well off obviously they would not have the kinds of problems many other people have.
I indicated before Question Period in my initial remarks that a number of people had difficulties. I gave some examples from my riding. I referred to an aboriginal inventor, a very creative and brilliant individual who came up with a number of really sound ideas according to all the advice that he has received. Although he has received some assistance, he is unable to receive enough assistance to have those projects realized.

What good are programs if they only help someone to go half way, if they do not enable someone to complete the whole thing? That is an example of someone who received a little help but not enough to complete this cycle. Unfortunately, this person has excellent ideas which might not materialize, and that would be sad, I think.

In another incident I mentioned two business persons. They had the idea of a tree farm where they would sell trees, particularly during the holiday season, that could be replanted, thereby saving trees and obviously contributing to the environment. They had a number of other unique features to this particular idea. When they explored the federal, provincial and municipal government levels there was virtually no money. It is very difficult to start any kind of business without financial assistance today. It is virtually unheard of. They are young men without a whole lot of collateral upon which they can rely to get the loans required to get this business working.
There were a lot of pamphlets. Initially in their conversations they felt there might be some help, but when they studied the various options available there was very little.
As well, I indicated that the president and owner of Astro Float Industries in Winnipeg has been trying to obtain a loan for years. I have no doubt the bureaucratic officials assigned to this dossier have looked at what he produces and the kinds of funding that could assist him in expanding his facilities to other markets besides the ones he serves now. At the same time there are rules in place that prevent this individual from going forward.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
This individual may need to go elsewhere. He may need to go to the United States in order to stay afloat, if I may use such an expression when I am talking about a company that constructs world-class floats and float materials in my riding. It is most unfortunate that we do not have the kind of assistance available to permit someone locally to expand his or her business enterprise beyond the immediate market.
It is contrary to some of the comments made by government ministers. Supposedly they want to increase productivity and competitiveness and create additional jobs for Canadians.
I mentioned as well a woman who had some unique ideas in the implementation of child care facilities. There again she needed some minimal financial assistance which was not available.
In another instance two women were interested in publishing some materials that were very useful in educational circles. They had been endorsed. In fact, to my knowledge and after having looked for a long time, there was no financial assistance whatsoever.
The sadness in all this is that governments-and I do not say it unkindly-talk a good story but there is not a whole lot that follows up in substantive terms, particularly when it comes to financial assistance.
We have to re-examine whether or not we are serious about helping current businesses thrive, expand, survive and become healthier entities and whether or not we are interested in trying to ensure that new businesses can come on stream and create additional employment opportunities for Canadians.
Once we have done that we have to look to see what we need to do to make sure that the right kind of culture is there to permit this to happen.

I recently conducted a survey of business people in my constituency, of whom some 1,500 own small and medium-sized businesses. We found out what the two main problems for these people were. First, these business owners have an incredible work-load and spend considerable time on government paperwork related to the GST and other things. This is so discouraging that some of these people tell me almost daily that they feel like giving up their business and finding another job in order to escape this heavy burden imposed by the government.

Paperwork is a major issue that taps into the resources of small businesses in a significant way from a number of programs and clearly from the goods and services tax.
Another thing business people have said to me, and I think with a great deal of sincerity, is that there is too much involvement of government.

Governments are too involved. Why not allow business people to decide what they must do, and of course provide them with the necessary support but be very cautious regarding the type of support given. Indeed, we should leave it up to these men and women to react in the manner they deem most appropriate for their business.

Another issue of great concern to them, quite apart from government interference very often in areas they feel governments should not be involved, is the whole idea of the tax burden itself. They feel that the tax burden has been increasing significantly.
During the last eight years there have been excessive tax burdens. We are talking about 30-plus tax increases; I am told it is 34. We are talking about revenue that has almost doubled since 1984. We are talking, despite those 34 tax increases and revenue almost doubling, about a deficit that has hovered at about the same amount throughout the last number of years and a debt that has increased substantially.
I have said in the House that the former Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, indicated in response to a question on the Order Paper that the debt the government inherited in 1984 was almost $168 billion. That is quite contrary to the other figures that we hear, but right now it is close to $450 billion.
February 8, 1993

While there are people who have said that simply is a result of the interest over the years, we know that is patently false.

I conclude by reiterating the support of my party. We believe that this is a step in the right direction but we want the government to go a little farther. Our party would also like the government to consider an in-depth review of the heavy burden of government regulations on business people. We would also like the government to review the tax rate on these businesses and to ensure that in a society such as ours these businesses are as free as possible to make the decisions necessary for their health and well-being.

We want to support this bill. It is a step forward. We encourage the government to look at other areas such as reducing paperwork and making sure the taxes are not overwhelming to the point where we chase people out of the business or we create unnecessary bankruptcies, a very serious phenomenon.
Finally we endorse the idea that while governments have to be aware of what is happening in this sector, they should not interfere unduly. There are a lot of bright men and women out there who know how to operate a business and really do not need help from government. In fact help from government can be very destructive.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to enter into the debate on Bill C-99 respecting the Small Businesses Loans Act.
Through my lifetime I have experienced being in small business, first in Saskatchewan in farming. It high time the country realized that farming can be a small or medium sized business and in some cases a big business. Somehow we have one rule for farmers who run a small business or a medium sized business and another one for the person who runs a business in a city.
After farming my family moved to Ontario and opened up a small restaurant business. With seven in the family all working together and hiring three waitresses, the little restaurant called "Lakeview Diner" was very
Government Orders
successful. We could not have managed had we not been able to obtain a loan. Thanks to a local bank loan and money obtained from selling the farm in Saskatchewan we got into quite a thriving little business. Therefore I speak with a bit of experience.
During December and January when the House was not sitting I visited many businesses in Parkdale-High Park. I was very pleased when I visited a business that was successful and was doing more business than at the same time the year before. I could count those on the fingers of one hand. The rest of them were asking: "When will the recession be over? What are you going to do to help small businesses? We are going under. I may be able to survive another six months but no longer".
When I asked what the problem was and how the government could help small business, usually the answer was: "Stop taxing us to death". Others would say that the GST was killing them with red tape, the paperwork and the taxes. Some even told me they preferred the GST-type tax to be hidden somewhere so that customers would know it is one price and that the price they pay is on the tag, instead of playing around with different prices.
Everyone hoped that 1993 would begin successfully with the economy taking on an upward trend. Unfortunately that is not happening. As a federal government, as provincial governments and as municipal governments we have to put our heads together to help small businesses. That is why I would like to add my support to Bill C-99. I am for anything that will help small businesses, providing of course the government accepts some of the amendments we are putting forward.
We have said over and over that small and medium sized businesses are the backbone of the country. They provide 80 per cent of the jobs. They provide family incomes. They provide jobs beyond the family. Yet, when it comes to help for small businesses, it is not there.
We have been hearing in this House about growing food banks in Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto. What do we do to try to correct that ill in our society? Do we get more volunteers out and throw some more money here or there? If we really wanted to get rid of food banks we would help small businesses to create more jobs. If people had jobs they would not have to stand in lines at food banks.

Government Orders
The hon. member for St. Boniface mentioned the important contribution to research and development by small and medium sized businesses. A weekend ago I met a Canadian who originally came from Taiwan. He is involved in research and development of automobile brakes. He and his colleagues have invented a brake which does not contain asbestos, an asbestos-free brake line. What a breakthrough. We know the environmental and health dangers of asbestos. Thanks to a bit of R and D in a smaller business there is an invention to solve this problem. There are thousands of inventions such as this through the smaller and medium-sized businesses.
Not long ago in Parkdale four or five gentlemen were working on a solar battery that would power an automobile for more than one day. Through lack of support from government that project unfortunately fell through.
I was sorry to hear this doom and gloom from the small businesses in Parkdale-High Park. One thing that bothers me about this bill is the government says it will increase the maximum loan to $250,000 or $200,000. That sounds great and looks good on paper, but the businesses I talked to could not get $30,000 or $40,000 loans from their local banks or commercial banks downtown. Business after business said there was no point increasing the maximum when they could not get small loans to hold them through the recession.
I also learned that women have a tougher time holding on to their businesses than men because banks somehow believe women are greater risks. One woman has been very successful in my riding for about 10 years. The recession has affected her and for the last two years she has been in the red. She went to the bank to get a loan to tide her over. The local bank said sorry, it only gave personal loans and did not handle commercial loans. This bank knows the businesses in that area and how long they have existed but says: "Sorry, nyet." We do not give commercial loans, you have to go downtown. Who knows this shopkeeper on Jane and Annett downtown? Of course she was refused a small business loan.
Somehow we have to do more to get women into various enterprises, because they are great entrepreneurs.
My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood told me he held a workshop to teach women how to get involved in self-employment. I think these are great projects and
they deserve the support of government assistance at all levels. Otherwise the free trade and NAFTA agreements are not going to help us and those jobs will leave us permanently.
In 1981-82 when we had the recession, firms that laid people off rehired them when the economy picked up. Now, once these firms close those jobs are gone forever.
I would like the government to look into the depressed areas of cities. I think anyone coming from a larger city realizes there are thriving sections but there are also deprived areas of the city. I visited some of these in December and January and they really need our help. People are going into the red month by month and year by year. They are losing their RRSPs which they have put away for their retirement. They are losing their homes. They are losing their condominiums.
I spoke to one family who is going back to Peru. The woman told me she sees a greater future for herself, her husband and five children in Peru than in Toronto. I found that very hard to believe. She had a big cleaning business that was thriving. She was putting her children through university but the recession just wiped her out. By June she will probably be heading for Peru with the entire family. Look at the talent we are losing. This is a family of entrepreneurs with children who are already in university. Imagine what they could do for Canada to stimulate other businesses. We are driving these people back to where they came from. That is a sad state of affairs.
Somehow the government must do more than increase the maximum on small business loans. It must help the small and medium-sized businesses that need $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 to hold them over through the recession.
One gentleman came into my office. He was not losing his business. He wanted to do something to really create jobs in this country. He was proposing a new type of food business because he had analysed the lifestyles of people. He said many people now with both spouses working like to drop into a food store and pick up dinner on their way home from work. They do not want a whole tailor-made pizza. They want to create. He developed many ways of creating dinners with a bit of this and a bit of that so people could prepare their dinners on the way home.
February 8, 1993

Of course, he needed proper refrigeration, equipment, et cetera for that. He mapped out three potential locations for the banks. It would create 12 new jobs. He went to the bank and read all the brochures from the Federal Business Development Bank. He met every criteria. He filled out his application and had other experts check it. He went to the Federal Business Development Bank and his application was refused.
The person processing the loan did not even have the courage to sit down with him and say why his application was refused. The refusal came in a letter through a third person. Is that not terrible?
The government wants to create jobs and increase the number of small and medium sized businesses in this country but how can we with that kind of mentality in our banks? The Federal Business Development Bank is a government bank. Surely to goodness our banks have a corporate citizenship responsibility.
We as Canadians have duties and responsibilities to our country. With the millions and billions the banks make, surely they have a duty and responsibility to save our beautiful country. They can save it by helping to create jobs and stimulate new businesses. They will take a loss on this one or that one, but that is the risk one takes in business.
When the economy is good, the banks are great at taking risks. They lend to the hilt as they did for farmers and others. When the economy goes bad they call in all their loans. They could not care less if a whole family is wiped out in farming or business.
I think it is high time this Chamber sent a message out coast to coast saying: "Wake up banks. You are Canadian corporate citizens. Do your duty. Do your responsibility to this country".


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Parkdale-High Park who spoke moments ago about the role small and medium sized firms and businesses and entrepreneurs play in the economic vitality of our country.
Amendments to the Small Businesses Foans Act started in 1961 and have been under constant revision and modification so bridging between government and businesses can meet the reality of the marketplace. It is an opportunity to have a debate in this Chamber that should go from words to action. For the last number of years members from all sides, and particularly members
Government Orders
from the government side have said with great fanfare and rhetoric that the Canadian small business network is the backbone of our economy. It is the greatest producer, creator and innovator of jobs and different techniques in our economy. Yet budget after federal budget, we open those books that are carted in by our pages and have the benefit of a couple of days of analysis. We go through those very colourful brochures that speak in glowing terms to the small business network but when you get a phone call in your constituency office from the small business entrepreneur around the comer looking for help, there is none.
This provides us with an opportunity to not only speak to the small business people out there but to do something for them and the future of small risk takers and medium sized firms still operating from someone's basement waiting to be created and explode into the marketplace. We have to make that transition. In Toronto alone there are 185,000 fewer jobs today than there were before the start of the recession. A lot of this can be attributed to the failure, unfortunately, of that small business entrepreneurial sector which the government has let down.
In the industrial and commercial areas of my riding of York West there are mostly small and medium sized firms. They are hurting and have been calling out for help for the longest time, yet we are deaf to those concerns. A lot of attention is being focused on those big business players and we know the role they have played with this government. We know the comfort zone that exists between the government and that level. We know the role they played in the last election campaign.
I do not want to begrudge the success of any large business entrepreneur who started in his or her basement or leased 1,000 square feet, had the family working seven days a week and now has a big business. God bless him or her.
When it talks business or says it is the government of business, that does not give this government the right to exclude this large sector of small and medium-sized firms. We do so at our own peril. When we talk about the problems afflicting that marketplace we can obviously and quickly look to the GST. Talk to those small business firms and ask them what effect the transitional expenses of implementing the GST system have had on them and what the GST has done to deflate their businesses and marketplaces.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
Is it any wonder that some of those small businesses are dealing in cash? Through the imposition of the GST and some 30-odd tax increases over the last number of years, we have contributed to expanding that underground economy.
That is why the government does not see the revenues it had anticipated. It is because those businesses are taking their own action. When painters are asked what it will cost to paint houses on my street in metropolitan Toronto the response is: "Well, are you going to pay me by cheque or cash? If it is the latter, it will cost less". The reason it is less is that they are trying to avoid the imposition of the GST.
I am not encouraging people and companies to break the law. All I am doing is acknowledging a fact that has mushroomed. Underground industry is alive and well.
We talk about regulations and the burden of paper. Not only is it a question of red tape but it is also the constant changing and revising of regulations which makes it much more troublesome for a small entrepreneur to plan and to keep up with the pace. One month they are under certain regulations and five months down the road another regulation from the same government or a contradictory regulation from another municipality or provincial government is impacting on that business.
Small business people are asking us to allow them the time to predict and to operate under a set of criteria that can be managed rather than constantly changing the playing ground under their feet.
People have talked about the banks and the role of lending institutions. Why is it we hear from small entrepreneurs who have been customers of various banks or trust companies for 20, 25 or 30 years, that they cannot get to first base any more? Why is it that our banks, the big five, are among the most conservative of lending institutions around the globe?
I am not suggesting we move into the deregulation system the United States has ushered in. As speakers before me have very articulately and passionately said,
we have to realize that the lending institutions also have a responsibility to the national economy.
If those banking institutions are pointing to governments and saying governments must lead the way as they should, those institutions have to recognize they have a very important niche in the national economy. That is to be risk takers like the entrepreneurs and to trust customers who have done well through the years and allow the banks to do well. They must be responsive and sensitive and not call in those loans at the first signs of fear or apprehension. They must commit themselves and redouble their efforts, particularly during the tough times, not only during the good times.
It is frustrating for the small business people not to be able to get working capital from their local banking institution after years of depositing, after years of having a rapport with the bank manager, years of taking the good advice and investment advice of the banking institution. Then when they really need that institution to be in their comer, to support them, to advise them, to reassure them and to build their confidence, all of a sudden, that institution forgets their 30-year relationship.
To make matters worse, the small business people read of the bail outs through grants and incentives by the federal and provincial governments of various large companies which high tail it out of the country whenever they feel like it. Obviously it does not build the kind of confidence in those small and medium-size entrepreneurs about their role in the marketplace.
Is it not a facade that in the budget and subsequently the economic statement the government has raised the ceilings from $100,000 to $200,000 and then to $250,000? Who is the government trying to kid? Does it think that smoke and mirror game is going to enhance the availability of capital in the hands of small and medium-size entrepreneurs?
As my colleague from Parkdale-High Park said moments ago, you cannot even get a $30,000 loan from the banks. Why should we be in the shell game of raising it from $100,000 to $250,000? There is great applause from the government side because the minister did a great thing.
February 8, 1993

Without getting into the $200,000 and $250,000 loans that many people cannot get, we should be encouraging those lending institutions to get behind those firms with much smaller loans.
What about providing assistance as previous governments did and try to tackle the problem of limited cash flow to those small businesses in operation or those being created which address the needs of our younger Canadians to get that first break, that first job experience and to have on the job training.
The previous Liberal administration had a program. It helped match those needs in society by going to small businesses. It said that if the firms hired young Canadians to do real jobs, if they were willing to provide that experience, that first break, that on the job training, the government would help with the salary. As an incentive to the employer, the government would kick in partial assistance for the salaries of those young Canadians.
That is money well spent. That is not money thrown at a problem. That is the positive use of government funds to tangibly assist small business meet the payroll. At the same time it gives that first important start to a young Canadian.
Why are we not doing things like that any more? If it is not that program per se, why are we not using the creativity that fuelled that initiative some years ago? Why not think of something along the same lines that would practically and tangibly address the different needs that we, as members of Parliament, are hearing from firms?
As a government and a country why are we not being aggressive in the international marketplace? I and other members have many small and medium-sized firms in our ridings that have bid on jobs along with Japanese and West German firms. They were not in the marketplace because the governments of those firms made our small business applications uncompetitive by virtue of the fact that the firms from my riding bidding on those international contracts simply did not have the back-up support, resources and level of financing from our governments that those same sized firms in West Germany or Japan had from their governments. We were not even in the ballpark.
Government Orders
We also have to just talk about the free trade agreement or the NAFTA and the government pounds its chest saying that we are really moving with the world, that we are talking about the new world order and we have to be competitive. The fact is there has been a hell of a lot more pain endured thanks to the FTA than there have been positive attributes.
When talking about firms competing with other firms, let us be very practical. Let us be in the ballpark and let us support those firms so that they can enter those bids at least with some assistance that is on the same level the other firms receive from their respective governments.
What about stimulating the economy? We have heard many times in this House that the government cannot do this, it cannot do that. It is unprepared to stimulate and spend money and suggests there is no money to spend.
I am not suggesting we become irresponsible with our finances. Do you not think the Americans have a concern with their finances? Do you not think the Japanese are concerned about their fiscal house? Do you think the European Community does not give a hoot about theirs as well? During these tough times, those different jurisdictions have made a concrete decision to try to get business, confidence, investment and spending moving again.
The refusal of this government, the stubborn, dogmatic, persistent refusal to try to stimulate our economy hurts first and foremost the small business sector. In my own riding many of the small businesses are in the trades and construction. Firms that used to employ 80, 90, 100 employees are now down to two or three. Those firms rather than looking to Toronto are looking to eastern Europe to try to build and construct. Firms are looking to Taiwan. Firms say that they are no longer getting jobs and investment opportunities in Ontario or Toronto. The main reason is that the marketplace is dead.
There has to be a recognition of the facts. We cannot hide behind ideology all the time. It has to be realized that to stimulate is not to waste money, but is to induce jobs, to encourage risk, to encourage small business, to hire more people, to increase revenues, to build confidence.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
Confidence is one of those ingredients one has difficulty in defining but it is important in getting the economy moving again. We need to place our economy back on track. It cannot be done when people are not confident and do not believe things will get better. That ingredient has been sorely lacking from the economic equation for many years. There is little confidence there because small businesses do not see the signs and signals from the national government that it is prepared to change, that it is prepared not to maintain the status quo, but is prepared to assist and encourage people to take risks again. That is the problem with entrepreneurs. There are not enough risk takers any more because they do not believe it is worth the risk. They are lacking confidence.
Governments have a leadership role, not always to play in that marketplace but to provide that confidence and to provide that incentive and inspiration for those entrepreneurs to be able to take those risks.
While we are supportive of many of the changes in the legislation before us I would like to leave a message with the minister of small businesses. That is we have to go beyond the Small Businesses Loans Act and look at the other elements of the small business equation. We must recognize it is time to go from words in a very good looking brochure and someone's budget to concrete actions in order to give wings to those small and medium-sized firms.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on this bill which is about providing assistance to small businesses. Having been a small businessman for many years, I happen to know that the trouble with government subsidies or assistance is mainly that the programs are very complex. The government increases subsidies from $100,000 or $200,000 to $250,000, but overlooks the fact that obtaining access to this program remains extremely complex. The trouble is that the banks that manage these programs are not interested in lending money for this type of business. That is the problem. Why are they not interested? Because it is complicated for them as well. That is the crux of the problem.
Often, financial institutions that lend money to small businesses find that after a while, if the business is in trouble, the government says: "Listen, Mr. Banker, you did not observe our criteria, so the loan is no longer guaranteed". That is the real problem. Actually, the Federal Business Development Bank should manage these programs, perhaps keeping a percentage of the profits as a management fee, instead of trying to transfer the responsibility to the banks. As soon as something goes wrong, the government says it will not guarantee the loan because the criteria were not observed. The basic problem is still the same.
I would like to ask the hon. member who just spoke if he would care to comment.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the member raises a number of pertinent points. I respect the fact that before coming to this place he was-or perhaps still is-engaged in the field of small business. My father started a small business and maintained it and is now retired.
We have all had some very close experiences with the whole world of small business.
The member talks about the regulations and the fact that perhaps some of them are not very well understood. I just believe that there is a problem with the attitude of our lending institutions and of our national government which is currently in office. That attitude toward small business is one that is not nearly as healthy as it should be. I referred to that in my remarks some moments ago.
However, I believe there is a role for our lending institutions, particularly during the tough economic times that we are experiencing, to be more respectful of the role that they play, to be more respectful of those business clients that they have had for many years. There is a role for a national government to ensure that takes place.
Whenever we suggest that, we get cries from the other side that somehow we are intervening and we are playing in the marketplace and we should not. However, those are the same entrepreneurs who sometimes take that tack and are coming to us and suggesting that governments have to move those lending institutions a little closer to where the need is. I think that attitude in the
February 8, 1993

last number of years in our lending institutions has not helped the recovery of this sagging economy.
I am not suggesting that we get on a campaign to undermine those lending institutions. All I am saying is that those lending institutions have to know that they play a role beyond their commitments to their shareholders and beyond those boards of directors that make up those institutions and that they play a very important variable in the national economic equation. If that variable is not exercised in the best interests of our country then the net output of that equation is not going to be strong. Therefore their business interests are going to be short changed as well.
That is probably the greatest single irritant that we have to cure as a country and as a Parliament. We must certainly meet those aspirations in the small business marketplace that are currently being unaddressed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate tomorrow as a supply day.


NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT CROSSING ACT
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works) moved: that Bill C-110, an act respecting the Northumberland Strait Crossing, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a considerable amount of pleasure to deal this afternoon with a subject that is not exactly new to this House of Commons. It had considerable focus back in the 1960s as a matter of fact.
Bill C-110 represents an important element in the process of making it possible to establish a permanent transportation link across the Northumberland Strait joining Prince Edward Island with New Brunswick and the rest of Canada. This is an undertaking that has been talked about, considered and assessed for more than a century. Passage of Bill C-110 will bring the concept of a fixed link one step closer to reality.
Government Orders
The bill sets out the terms and limitations of the subsidy to be provided toward the construction and operation of a bridge. However, it does not in itself guarantee that this project will become a reality. Rather, it is one of the key components of the proposed contractual arrangement that will enable it to proceed.
I am particularly pleased that this huge undertaking is basically a private sector initiative. Since we were first approached with the idea some seven years ago, it has been the policy of our government that if the project were to proceed it should be an undertaking of the private sector and at a cost to the Canadian taxpayers no greater than the over-all cost of continuing the existing ferry service.
Members may know that as a result of a competitive process the government has selected a Canadian consortium, Strait Crossing Incorporated of Calgary. Negotiations are currently underway to finalize the terms of a contractual agreement.
Construction of a bridge to span the nine miles from Borden, P.E.I. to Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick will be one of the largest engineering projects of its type undertaken in this country. To keep it in perspective, there are larger crossings in some other parts of the world. I refer to Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana, the Sunshine Skyway in Tampa Bay, Florida, the King Fayid causeway in Bahrain and the Pinang Bridge in Malaysia as examples.
The bridge of which we are speaking today will have a positive effect on the economies of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and on the entire Atlantic region. Construction will result in a direct expenditure in excess of $800 million. I am reluctant to put a figure on it, but it has been estimated that between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of the labour and industrial benefits will accrue to the Atlantic provinces.
The developer has estimated that during the five-year construction period the project is expected to generate
3,500	person-years of employment. The vast majority of the jobs and materials will be supplied from within Canada and most will come from Atlantic Canada. All in all, the bridge project will increase employment opportunities and enhance the Gross Domestic Product of the region for some significant period of time. In the longer term, the completion of the bridge will enhance P.E.I.'s economy, improve transportation service for its tourism, agriculture, fisheries and related industries.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
Our government has worked to ensure that there has been public participation as this project has advanced. The project has been subjected to a full public environmental review in compliance with the government's guidelines. This included the report of an environmental review panel which held public hearings in the region and a subsequent review by a committee of ice experts. The governments of Canada, New Brunswick and P.E.I. are satisfied that the bridge design now being considered meets the relevant environmental criteria.
I have worked closely with the premiers of both Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick on this matter. Last December we signed an agreement between our government and those provinces covering such areas as compensation for ferry workers displaced by a bridge, a contingency fund to deal with potential negative effects on the fishery, and the level of toll rates to be charged, as well as many other vital considerations.
I would be remiss at this time in not acknowledging the role played by Premier Frank McKenna of New Brunswick and particularly former Premier Joe Ghiz of Prince Edward Island. This project would not have advanced to this stage without their active support. They have realized the tremendous economic benefits that both of their provinces should receive from this bridge if it proceeds. I want to thank them at this time for their fairness and co-operation. In my dealings with them, I was tremendously impressed by their valuable counsel and the thorough way that they approached many of the multifaceted areas that required consideration in a way that expressed concern for all the parties involved.
The main feature of our proposed development approach is that the private sector will finance, construct, own, operate and maintain the bridge under a 35-year contribution agreement with the Government of Canada. At the end of the term, ownership of the facility will transfer to the government. The developer will assume all normal construction, operation and maintenance risks. In return, it will receive an annual subsidy from the government. Bill C-110 sets out the terms of the proposed subsidy.
The underlying principle is that the cost to Canadian taxpayers should not exceed the operating and capital costs of the Borden and Cape Tormentine Ferry Service
over the next 35 years. The subsidy would be approximately $42 million based on 1992 constant dollars.
The Northumberland Strait fixed link is clearly an idea whose time has come. We have capable private sector proponents ready and willing to take on the task. We have strong support from the two provinces most directly concerned. The economic benefits to the region and to Canada will be substantial. The environmental concerns have been thoroughly studied and to the best of our ability adequate mitigating measures are being taken.
This is a project that will create jobs and will be of great economic benefit to Atlantic Canada without imposing an undue burden on the public purse. With the passage of Bill C-110, the developer, Strait Crossing Incorporated, will be in a position to complete the financing of the project. I am hopeful that we will then be in a position to sign contracts this spring so that construction may commence before the summer.
I hope that all members of the House will support this bill so that we may then proceed with this important national undertaking which would be extremely beneficial to the economy of Atlantic Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Ottawa-Vani-er-Auditor General's report; the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby-Human rights; the hon. member for North Island-Powell River-Fisheries; the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception-Fisheries; the hon. member for Moncton-External Affairs.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today on Bill C-110 which will have such a great impact on my province of Prince Edward Island and will have a great impact on the maritime provinces in general.
The minister said earlier in his remarks that this legislation is no guarantee that the bridge will be built. I wish he told us exactly what he meant by that remark. As the minister indicated, this particular effort to connect Prince Edward Island to the mainland goes back a long way. It was over 100 years ago, in 1885, when it first came up in a serious way since we joined Confederation. It goes back much earlier than that.
February 8, 1993

It is a very serious question we are dealing with today in this bill. The Charlottetown Guardian and The Globe and Mail tried to lighten things up a little bit and held a contest to name the bridge. Some names reflected one's prejudices and some were quite humorous. One name submitted to The Globe and Mail was "A Faster Way to Leave New Brunswick Bridge".
The francophone entry to The Globe and Mail was La chaussee vers la patate which roughly translates into "a pathway to potato land". We have that to consider if the bridge is built. One of the entrants to The Guardian was "Coyote Alley". Apparently we are being infiltrated by coyotes lately and this I guess to one person's mind will increase our coyote population on Prince Edward Island. There were some very nice names too, the "Garden Gate Bridge" and the "Northumberland Bridge" and so on.
It seems some people are rightly having a little humour with this particular project. Maybe it is time to lighten up a little bit about it. However because it is probably the biggest engineering project ever in Canada, we have to take it very seriously these days. I know if we had gone with the causeway 30-odd years ago, we would really have some problems today with a stone causeway projecting out into the Northumberland Strait for miles on both sides.
The Northumberland Strait crossing project, or as it is commonly called, the fixed link, is without a doubt the single most important project to be undertaken involving Prince Edward Island since the province joined the Canadian Confederation. It is an issue so monumental in scope and so great in potential for economic and social change, it is difficult to grasp the magnitude of the impact that this project could have on maritime Canada, in particular on Prince Edward Island.
Because of its potential impact, it has been necessary to study this project with considerable intensity. Studied indeed it has been. It is estimated that over 90 studies have been conducted on various aspects of the project, most in the past five or six years.
Government Orders
I have a list of studies which have been done on the Northumberland Strait project since 1987. There have been 55 by Public Works Canada on the Northumberland Strait crossing project itself. Nineteen studies have been done by Public Works Canada for the Northumberland Strait bridge project and the concept assessment supplement supporting documents. FEARO and related reports have done four studies. There were three miscellaneous reports, seven Environment Canada and related documents, and four Strait Crossing Incorporated and related reports.
In the past number of years, over 90 studies have been completed on this particular project. That does not include the days when the causeway was being considered or the days when the tunnel was considered back at the turn of the century and earlier.
Since the time Prince Edward Island became a British colony in 1767, the question of a transportation and communication link to the mainland has been bandied about. From the 1830s onward summer steam vessels and winter ice boats provided a spasmodic kind of service between Prince Edward Island and various points in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
When the Charlottetown conference in 1864 was called, it was intended to be a discussion of maritime union. One of the items on the agenda was a transportation and communication link to the mainland. Even though the Charlottetown conference actually gave birth to the concept of Confederation, the issue of P.E.I.'s link was a major consideration in deciding whether the province would or would not join.
As things turned out, P.E.I. did not join in 1864 and discussions continued on the terms under which we would become a part of Canada. The issue of a transportation and communication link continued to be a major factor in the decision-making process.
When Prince Edward Island finally became a province of Canada in the spring of 1873, one of the terms of Confederation dealt with the link. In it Canada assumed a constitutional obligation to provide a continuous connection to the mainland. The terms of union clause reads:

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
That the Dominion Government shall assume and defray all the charges for the following services; vis., efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers to be established and maintained between the island and the mainland of the Dominion winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the intercolonial railroad and the railroad system of the Dominion.
We have to be careful with that particular condition of entry into Confederation. In the Minister of Finance's economic and fiscal statement of December 2, 1992 there was a paragraph on page 28 that said:
In addition, the federal government will commit to the construction of a fixed crossing to EE.I., if the province recognizes that the facility meets Canada's constitutional obligation. To demonstrate this commitment the government will facilitate advanced engineering and environmental work.
This is if we agree to write off the constitutional obligation.
The project, expected to begin in the spring, will generate up to 3,500 person-years of employment over a five-year construction period. Roughly 70 per cent of the estimated $800-$900 million project cost will be spent in Atlantic Canada.
I am happy to say that the condition which was laid out has since been withdrawn, if I am not mistaken. I believe some people got carried away with the fact that the bridge would be built and forever Canada would have washed its hands of its constitutional obligations. With some vigilant negotiation that has been dropped as a proposal.
During the first years that P.E.I. was a province this so-called continuous service continued to be provided by steam vessel and ice boat. In 1885 the idea of a tunnel under Northumberland Strait was proposed. This was supposed to ensure year-round communication. The tunnel concept was studied and analysed off and on for the next 30 years but never really got beyond that stage.
In 19iy-18 the advent of ice-breaking ferries put the tunnel and the concept of a fixed link to rest until the mid-1950s. In 1966 construction was actually begun on a bridge-causeway combination. Access roads were built but before work on the actual bridge-causeway got started the project was scrapped. That is when the province of P.E.I. signed a development agreement with the federal government in lieu of continuing with the bridge-causeway concept.
The latest round of discussions began with the public works study in 1982. This was followed by unsolicited public and private sector bids. A major Public Works Canada feasibility study took place in 1987-88 and further bids were solicited during that time.
This brings us to 1988 and the move by the Government of Prince Edward Island to consult the population on whether or not they wanted a fixed link to the mainland. On January 18, 1988 Islanders voted. The results were 60 per cent in favour of the link and 40 per cent opposed. Prior to the vote, then Premier Ghiz wrote to the public works minister, Stewart Mclnnis. November 6, 1987 was the actual date of the letter. In his letter Mr. Ghiz, on behalf of the Government of P.E.I. indicated that support for the link was contingent upon the satisfactory address of 10 principles. These 10 principles had to do with highways, the Woods Island ferry, the submerged lands, tolls and how they would be arrived at, the displaced workers at Borden-Cape Tormentine, economic development for the town of Borden, the Atlantic content in the materials which would be used and the labour required, an environmental impact study, the fisheries which was very important to Prince Edward Island, and the utilities. That was the utility corridor to be used at no cost to the province.
These 10 points have been addressed to the satisfaction of both Premier McKenna and Premier Ghiz. A short time ago they signed an agreement with the three levels of government addressing all of these problems. Whether or not they have been addressed adequately, it was adequate enough for the two premiers and the federal government.
In the fall of 1992 Mr. Ghiz in his capacity as premier signed a federal-provincial agreement, along with Premier McKenna of New Brunswick and the federal Minister of Public Works. This signature indicated that he was satisfied that all 10 of P.E.I.'s concerns had been addressed. This has assured me and most Islanders that in the opinion of the province of Prince Edward Island, the premier of New Brunswick and the federal government, every reasonable measure has been taken to ensure that this project was environmentally, economically and socially acceptable.
February 8, 1993

On the list of concerns the environment has moved to the fore. In fact the environment was always one of the main concerns of building a fixed link of any sort across the Northumberland Strait. To show environmental compliance the following clauses are included in the federal-provincial agreement. I think these clauses are extremely important and I will quote them in their entirety. Clause 6(1) reads:
Public participation in the federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process, commonly known as EARP, was undertaken to the satisfaction of Canada, P.E.I., and New Brunswick.
Canada through its Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, and Transport Canada, in conjunction with the provinces of P.E.I. and New Brunswick had deemed that a fixed crossing can be constructed in an environmentally acceptable manner.
Clause 6(2) reads:
The construction and operation of the fixed crossing shall comply with the environmental laws, regulation, and relevant environmental codes of practice of the provinces of New Brunswick and P.E.I. and the government of Canada, as well as other specific requirements identified by means of the evaluation conducted under the federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process.
Clause 6(3) reads:
As a condition to the coming into effect of this agreement and prior to financial closing, the developer must obtain the necessary approvals under provincial and applicable federal environmental assessment legislation and complete an environmental management plan acceptable to Canada, New Brunswick, P.E.E and the province of Nova Scotia.
The inclusion of these three clauses in the federal-provincial agreement to proceed with construction of the fixed link is extremely important. It tells us that all three governments have agreed that the environmental studies conducted to this juncture are more than adequate to ensure that any potential environmental difficulty has been mitigated to the point where we can proceed without undue concern.
Environmental concerns have been the most pervasive of any reservation that people have had about the construction of the link. Consequently much of the study of the proposed link has been devoted to these environmental concerns.	-
Back in January 1989 the federal government appointed a panel to review the equity, environmental,
Government Orders
social and economic impacts of the project. Public Works Canada published a bridge concept proposal which attempted to address all the environmental aspects of the project.
During the summer of 1989 the review panel held some focus sessions in communities in P.E.I. and New Brunswick to determine whether the information base was sound enough to proceed to public hearings. Later that year Public Works Canada published a supplement to the bridge concept assessment so that the review panel would have more information with which to work.
In March 1990, 12 federal public hearings were held in order to provide people with an opportunity to present their views on the project. Approximately 150 groups and individuals took advantage of the opportunity provided.
In August, the FEARO panel published a report which contained suggestions for proceeding with an environmentally acceptable project. One of the major concerns expressed by the panel dealt with ice and ice-out delays in the strait if a bridge were to be built.
Nothing more than a two-day delay would be acceptable. That is a two-day delay over a 100-year period. Environment Canada responded to these concerns by appointing a committee of ice experts to study the impact of a bridge on ice-out time in the strait in the spring.
This was done in November 1991. The committee reported in April 1992 and concluded: "A bridge which meets the criteria for ice delay established by the FEARO panel can be installed across the Northumberland Strait".
In May 1991, the Minister of Public Works announced that developers were invited to resubmit their proposals for the project. These proposals would then be evaluated against the government's financial criteria and the environmental requirements outlined in the federal government's response to the FEARO panel report.
The result of this process was that the company Strait Crossing Incorporated, commonly known as SCI, won the bid. Although SCI has been chosen as the company which will build the fixed crossing, it has yet to enter into a contractual agreement with Public Works Canada. The company had to develop a financial plan and an environmental management plan before moving to the contractual stage.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
Since the financial plan is a matter between the company and the government, and since at this stage it is not a subject of great debate, I would like to devote my attention to the area which has been of great concern and the focal point of the arguments against the link.
SCI submitted its financial management plan on December 21. In January the company took the plan on the road and held nine public meetings so that it could explain the situation and the environmental management plan, determine the areas of concern in the public sector and give itself the opportunity to address these concerns in the final draft of the plan.
Opponents of the fixed crossing publicly expressed their dissatisfaction and labelled the hearings a sham, a failure of due process and a superficial treatment of the environmental issues.
Each of these meetings was attended by hundreds of concerned citizens from P.E.I., Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The meetings lasted until every question raised was dealt with. However some of the critics did not see fit to attend any of the meetings.
I will deal with opposition to the link a little later. It seems that there is a group of opponents who fall into the category: If my mind is made up, do not confuse me with the facts".
The purpose of the environmental management plan is to manage and mitigate potential impacts throughout the life of the project. Protection measures recommended by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Panel are also incorporated into the plan.
As well, any contractor would have to comply with all existing environmental laws, regulations, guidelines, standards, permits, approvals and authorizations. Without going into detail, the protection part of the plan deals with environmental protection procedures for activities such as clearing up the areas and disposal of the debris; road preparation; building and crossing streams, marshes and other environmentally sensitive areas; blasting and filling in quarries and related activities; dredging and disposal of material; disposing of sewage and other waste material, handling and storing hazardous materials and the movement of equipment and vessels.
In addition, there are continuous measures for dealing with events such as fuel spills, fires and vessel accidents.
After the more than 90 studies done for the fixed crossing, after the environmental management plan has been submitted, after the federal government and the governments of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have indicated their satisfaction, I believe that most of these environmental concerns will be met.
However, there is a court case scheduled to be heard during the first week of March. The pointed issue here is whether or not an adequate environmental study has been completed. The complainants, the Friends of the Island, indicated in a press conference on February 4, 1993, that they are willing to drop the case if any of the three options are pursued. The options are to debate the bridge in the P.E.I. legislature, hold another plebiscite or go through another environmental review process.
At this point, I want to quote from an editorial in The Guardian of February 6: "What message are we left with? For years now, Friends of the Island have been playing Chicken Little, moaning about the potential environmental horrors of a bridge to New Brunswick. Judging by the options laid out by the group, any environmental concerns will be addressed by a blast of hot air in the P.E.I. legislature. The message is the environmental concerns are a mask for a political agenda that has no popular support in 1993".
There seems to be a lot of back-pedalling by the Friends of the Island in issuing those three conditions. However, the bottom line is that the case is still scheduled to be heard in March and whatever the decision, we will have to live with it.
All along, Islanders felt that if we were going to do this project, then we should do it right. This structure will be permanent. It will be there for a long, long time.
Some believe it has not been done right. The judgment of the two provinces and the federal government is that they have done it right. We will see if this House of Commons agrees at committee stage that it has been done right. We will also have to wait for the Supreme Court case to see if it also believes that it has been done right.
February 8, 1993

There are some people who are fundamentally and philosophically opposed to the idea of connecting P.E.I. to the mainland. No amount of effort, no amount of study and no amount of delay is going to change these people's attitudes. They just do not want a link of any kind.
Cathy Edwards was one of the members of the federally appointed environmental assessment and review panel that tabled this report in August 1990.
At an anti-link rally in April 1991 spokesmen for the Friends of the Island referred to "the greatest single issue the province would face in this century". They also spoke of the role of passion in the debate of the issue.
This is what Cathy Edwards was quoted as saying: "It has been a precarious journey with the island hanging in the balance. Maybe ice is not the issue at all. We can do something about ice. It is called mitigation. I doubt that there are mitigating measures for the heart. The heart has its own reasons".
"I doubt there are mitigating measures for the heart. The heart has its own reasons". There in a nutshell is an eloquent yet concise statement of fact that underlies the opposition to this project. There are people who are opposed and will continue to oppose any form of fixed link to the mainland. They will do so as a matter of emotion and as a matter of the heart. Nothing anyone can say or do will change their minds. No orators, no scientists, no engineers, no matter how many, no matter how great their reputations and no matter what array of facts, figures and scientific arguments are presented will ever change their minds.
When Premier Ghiz put forward his so-called 10 commandments or 10 conditions that would have to be met before he would agree to support the link, they said: "The feds will never meet these 10 conditions. Let us base our opposition on that".
When the 10 conditions were met, this issue was dropped and new grounds for opposition were dredged up. There was the idea that a bridge would cause an ice buildup so huge that it would take half the summer to melt and thus cause all kinds of other problems. The opponents used that argument.
When a panel of internationally acclaimed ice experts debunked that theory, it was dropped and a new argument took its place. When asked if they would cease to
Government Orders
oppose if a second plebiscite was held and the results supported the bridge, the answer was: "No. We will never go away". This small group of opponents to the bridge will always be with us. For them it is an issue of the heart and no logic will dissuade them.
However, there are people who raise concerns of a material and practical nature. There are two main issues involved. They are the possible damage to the fishery in the strait area and the fate of the Marine Atlantic employees who will be displaced when the ferry service ceases its operation.
SCI has moved to address the fisheries question. The company has established a $10 million fund for fisheries compensation. It is left to be determined whether this amount of money will be sufficient.
This fund is to be overseen by a fisheries liaison committee headed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Local fishermen's associations and unions will be represented on this committee. However, the ultimate responsibility for addressing any problem which might arise in the fishery must remain with the federal government.
There are several questions which must be addressed. Who will determine the level of compensation for the fishery if there is damage? How long a compensation term will be considered? Will the area of compensation include the whole strait or just an area adjoining the bridge?
I congratulate P.E.I.'s new premier, Catherine Call-beck, on her success. This position automatically makes her the premier of Prince Edward Island, succeeding Mr. Ghiz who resigned after serving 10 years as party leader, including six very successful years as premier.
One of Mr. Ghiz's final acts as premier was to sign the federal-provincial agreement on what is officially known as the Northumberland Strait Crossing Project.
Mr. Ghiz has just been appointed dean of the law school at Dalhousie University and I congratulate him on that appointment.
Premier Callbeck has indicated that she is also a strong supporter of the fixed link. However she has also expressed some concern about the fishery and the ferry workers. In the past week the premier has written to the Minister of Public Works outlining these concerns and requesting an immediate resolution to outstanding issues in these two areas.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
I want to reiterate my concerns with regard to the fisheries compensation package as well as to indicate that a ferry workers compensation committee must also be struck as soon as possible. As with the fishing committee, the ferry workers compensation committee is also the responsibility of the federal government. The 500 to 600 employees of Marine Atlantic have entitlements. If one looks back into the not too distant past one will find the total abandonment of the railway in Newfoundland, a total abandonment of the railway in P.E.I. as well as the partial abandonment of the railways in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Settlements with displaced workers in these areas have provided precedents for the kind of settlements to which Marine Atlantic workers are entitled.
I do not think we can underestimate the positive economic impact that a fixed link would have on Prince Edward Island. Everything indicates that if we are to improve or even maintain our standard of living we must also become more self-sufficient. We must have a greater degree of economic independence and we must become more competitive.
An improved transportation system is crucial to our becoming more competitive. Whether it is for our manufacturers or processing sectors, our agricultural sector, our fishing industry or our tourism, we have to keep costs down if we are going to be competitive. Economic activity will grow not only during construction, but in the years afterward. The link will generate industrial expansion and create jobs. The link will generate growth and tourism and create jobs.
P.E.I. has a desperate need for meaningful, full-time jobs. There will never be an opportunity as great as this one we now have within our grasp. The successful completion of the fixed link is vital to the future of Prince Edward Island.
Let us hope that all parties have done their homework properly.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak about Bill C-110 this afternoon. However, I regret to say in the opening of my remarks that I think it is the ultimate double-cross of the people of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, the maritimes and of Canada generally because this government is on the record as saying it is committed to
sustainable development, yet not too long ago it passed the new environmental assessment legislation in this House.
I really felt it did commit this House. Although I voted against it because I thought it was inadequate, I still thought that it was a good intention by members of Parliament to indicate where we were going on environmental assessment.
However, I do not think that anyone who has followed the cabinet's guideline order since 1984 and its tortuous movement through the courts of this country all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada can be anything other than deeply hurt today to see Bill C-110 being passed with the quiet acquiescence of the Liberal Party. Apparently it openly supports it if that is the only speaker we are going to hear. There is also the support of the Conservatives on that side of the House.
This is an abusive process. I intend this afternoon to lay out precisely how bad the abusive process is and who the critical players are. Keep in mind that Strait Crossing Inc., SCI as it is called, is the same group of promoters and developers from Calgary that have been involved in the Oldman River dam. That involved the destruction of 38 kilometres of an internationally recognized river system for a highly questionable project. It was finally forced by the courts back into a second environmental assessment and review process where the number one recommendation was to decommission the dam.
The government only accepted the recommendations following that and none of them have been lived up to by the government. This was an abusive process that flew right in the face of the Supreme Court of Canada.
This project contained in Bill C-110 has never been approved by an environmental assessment process in this country. It is a hoax to hear the Liberal member from Egmont and the Minister of Public Works rise in this House and use very carefully crafted language to suggest to the people of Canada that this project was ever legally, legitimately, morally, ethically or properly approved through any kind of an environmental assessment process. The environmental assessment process said no to the generic crossing proposal. It went before this non-peer reviewed, non-public hearing group of so-called ice experts and now the government claims: "Oh well, everything is fine now; we can just forge on ahead".
February 8, 1993

I think my credentials in following the fixed link go back quite a way. My great grandfather James Stewart was the premier of Prince Edward Island. This was talked about in the family when he was the premier of Prince Edward Island. That side of the family has talked about it for the better part of a century. On the other side of my family, my great-grandfather Peter Mitchell was the premier of New Brunswick at the time of Confederation. That side of the family has talked about this so-called missing link since this country began. The country has been well served by the marine ferry service back and forth.
We listened with care on this side to the Minister of Public Works when he said that this is a private sector project. That is a crock, Mr. Speaker. You and I know it. The government plans to give $42 million a year in fixed 1992 dollars to this corporation, 70 per cent of which is owned outside of Canada in the United States and Britain. No one wants to talk about that.
I looked back through press clippings and noticed that as recently as 1990 this project was touted throughout the maritimes as $600 million. By 1991 it was $700 million. By 1992 it was $800 million. The minister in his remarks was talking $800 million. But when you open the bill, and I hope Canadians read it, it says $42 million in inflation protected 1992 dollars for the next 35 years. I am sorry to the government and to the Liberals, but I can multiply. That comes to $1.47 billion if you keep it at 1992 fixed inflation protected dollars. It has risen from $600 million to $1.5 billion in two years.
Who is in this consortia? This is a private sector driven project, but they have driven their snouts right into the trough. This is double. The Auditor General should be looking back through the marine accounts right now. The Government of Canada is only giving $21 million and a little bit more to the ferry connection to P.E.I. right now. How does it suddenly leap? Here we get a 100 per cent leap of faith to $42 million times 35 years. And what will we inherit if this monstrosity is built? Thirty-five years from now we know it will be a rusting hulk hanging out there over the water. Anyone who has driven across the Lion's Gate Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Fauna Bridge or any of these other bridges knows if you are near salt water the concrete is going to decompose.
Government Orders
The steel superstructure, all of the superstructure and the asphalt is all going to disintegrate.
So the minister says that is wonderful. It will be fully amortized after 35 years and we Canadians will get to inherit a rusting hulk when it is hitting its critical years for reconstruction. The most you can get out of a bridge of this kind on planet earth in a high energy atmosphere is a century. No one has even lived that long to find out if that is true.
We will inherit a rusting hulk, all the debt and all the maintenance problems. The minister, whom I like dearly, tells us in this House that this is a private sector project. This makes me want to vomit. Every single voter in Prince Edward Island should be infuriated at the kind of hoax that is being perpetrated and perpetuated on the floor of this House. People in New Brunswick should be livid that this kind of crap is being homswoggled around in the House of Commons and jammed at the people of the maritimes. I think they should be outraged and they should throw every single member of Parliament out who has anything to do with this because it is a hoax.
This has never been environmentally assessed. There are these so-called ice experts but that is not the only ground upon which this project was turned down. Let us look at some of the material. Let us look at what the minister's colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said publicly. He said if the fishermen opposed the project he would have it blocked. Well, let me read from a fax I received today from Buck Watts, the president of the P.E.I. Fishermen's Association. This resolution was duly passed less than a month ago in Charlottetown. It states: "The P.E.I. Fishermen's Association is opposed to the construction of a bridge to the mainland until further and more appropriate environmental study has taken place. We suggest an environmental review panel as advocated by the group Friends of the Island".
Where is the minister of fisheries? He promised the bridge would be blocked if they opposed it. Of course that is along the way. Somebody speaks out and you just throw a little bit of political oil on the waters I suppose. In 1990 the scientists in maritime Canada said: "No higher fishing quotas". This same minister of fisheries overrode that and increased the quota allowance by 50 per cent. In 1993 we have no cod fishery.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
Are these the politicians we are supposed to trust when they say the ice-out is not going to be a problem? Where are these four scientists? Why were they not peer reviewed? Are you going to go to some bum down the street because he says he is good at doing open heart surgery? Give me a break. This is crap. It is time people in this House started to stand up for the truth.
The Conservatives say this is going to bring lots of benefits to Prince Edward Island. What about the studies that have been done in P.E.I. that say it will be a net loss of $1 billion to P.E.I.?
The member for Egmont says: "Oh, well, those people there just have concerns from the heart. They are just a little group. They do not even know what is going on". I have many relatives in P.E.I. They are not opposing this bridge concept because of concerns of the heart. They know it is a crock. There will be fewer jobs. This is corporate welfare of the very worst kind. They have come up with the proposal. I know what the sworn affidavits say. I know they were pushing this back in the early 1980s.
In 1985 three unsolicited proposals arrived here in Ottawa. People in the maritimes do not believe in Tinkerbell any more. We know that in January 1987 the project was actually put forward by Public Works Canada. It became the locomotive. It started dragging this monstrosity around the maritimes.
I have already gone through the figures and the level of inflation within the figures. I think anyone in Canada would understand that I oppose this project on good grounds. I think many people have come to realize this very wealthy group of corporate promoters plans to pin the tail on the donkey. They see the public purse as the donkey and say: "Let us pin the tail on the donkey and we will make ourselves rich forever more. It is $42 million a year, consumer price index protected, protected against inflation forever more. In 35 years, the moment it is a rusty monster, we will just turn it back to the taxpayers of Canada".
If this were to continue as a marine ferry service it would maintain more good jobs. Last year out of 13,000 sailings only five were even delayed. This government
has been undermining the marine ferry service for years by refusing to provide new equipment, refusing to upgrade the docking facilities, refusing to do what we do in British Columbia. There we try to make tourists and passengers happy while they are waiting for a ferry. We sell them a hot dog, give them a cup of coffee, let them buy some local goods, have a few people playing guitars, give them newspapers and have a little fun.
Good grief. I remember the last time I tried to cross from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island. Treat the public decently. Give the corporation a little bit of money instead of starving it. The government has been trying to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy so people will say: "Good grief, we have to get rid of the ferry service. It is terrible. We have to have the bridge. We never realized it before, but we have to have the bridge". What a crock.
Whatever became of the tunnel? We now know it would have been cheaper. In terms of environmental impact we know that subterranean tunnels in almost all locations where they have been used are almost environmentally benign because they go below the ocean in the dry zone. Then you can shock treat the walls. You can put in lighting. You can put in breathing apparatus. If there has to be a fixed link, why was that removed from the terms of reference of the FEARO process? Why was the tunnel not reviewed? Well, we know this little cadre of government friends wanted the bridge concept. It has been corporate driven. It has been bridge-concept driven and it has been driven straight to the public taxpayer's wallet and this is a crock.
Mark my words. I predict the Supreme Court of Canada will come down much more harshly on this project than on the Oldman River dam. It will not be amused and in fact will be downright angiy with the government after all of the legal proceedings on the Rafferty-Alameda on the Oldman and all the shenanigans in Quebec about James Bay II. It is going to be pretty damned angry to put it mildly, with due respect, with this kind of jiggery-pokery, end-running and hoax playing that has been going on from the government benches.
February 8, 1993

Let us have a look. I have dealt with the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. What about the Minister of the Environment? Right now in his office his knees are probably trembling and his spine dripping mustard coloured sweat because we know what has been going on. He wrote to me and threw in the towel on March 10, 1992. He said: "The requirements of the EARP have been fully satisfied with respect to that proposal". Well, in February, a few days before he wrote this letter Environment Canada gave sworn evidence to the FEARO panel that on the cumulative impacts, "this matter has not been addressed to the satisfaction of Environment Canada".
That is his department. Ministers are supposed to stand up for their departments. A cosy deal is going on in cabinet. The promoters are here from Calgary, London and Houston and they are saying: "Look, we have been waiting for a decade to build this damned bridge. Just give us the money. Forget about your voters. Forget about the taxpayers. Get over to the mint and give us $1.5 billion. Who are you guys anyway?" Joe Ghiz and Premier McKenna are trembling. Well, what about the fisheries at about $100 million a year? We know how it has been savaged by political incompetence and neglect on the east coast. It is just now occurring on the west coast. We know what happened to the Great Lakes. We know about tioxide in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence.
What about the lobster fishery? What about the groundfish? What about the migration back and forth of the invertebrates? The reason for the concern about the two-day delay in ice movement is all temperature related. This was not plucked out of the air by some airy-fairy scientist. It is based on critical, known, scientific, peer review data. It is not the B.S. that has been coming from the cabinet.
The courts are going to be extremely angered by this kind of approach. The Environmental Assessment Act must now be seen in this light. People who are concerned about the environment and sustainable development now know the government's intention to politically manipulate the new Environmental Assessment Act is demonstrated by what it is doing today.
The likelihood of the Liberals ever standing up for the Environmental Assessment Act is dashed today because
Government Orders
it is cowardly to rise in this House and not stand up for the laws that are passed in here.
It is just tom-foolery to say: "Oh, this is going to help our constituents. It is going to mean more tourism and we are going to be able to move potatoes more quickly and all these things are going to be great". Studies have been done in all these sectors that have never been given the opportunity to be assessed by a public review panel under federal law. Those who travel around the mari-times saying: "Oh, it has had an environmental assessment" should also add "and it was turned down". No one seems to give a damn any more and it infuriates me.
There are three ministers of the Crown. The Minister of the Environment threw in the towel, ran away and is hiding in his office. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans told the fishermen: "If you do not like it and you tell me you do not like it, I will block it". Well, they said they do not like it and he will not block it. The Minister of Public Works, through some kind of corporate infection that apparently has no treatment other than defeat electorally, has been driven to approve this project and bring it before this House. It is an incredible embarrassment to this country that it has been done.
How did big money do this? It is a very primitive plan and let me run through it quickly. First, hunt around for a project that has some public support but do not ever let the public get a clear focus on it, particularly its costs and the alternatives to it. Second, identify a few key spokespersons who appear to represent large sectors potentially affected by the project and keep them oiled well. Third, make sure the taxpayer pays the full shot for everything including the decommissioning of the project. That has been done in spades with this project.
The only silver lining in all of this is that we went through this exercise in this Chamber in the mid-1960s. The approaches for either side of this notorious project were begun in 1966 and the plug was ultimately pulled. Money was voted forward, property was expropriated and so on.
We know that these sorts of things tend to repeat themselves. We know that for more than a century generations of maritime politicians have made their careers on the back of the fixed link. It has always been the missing link to their electoral success just as sightings of the sasquatch have been in British Columbia.

Government Orders
To have manipulated the public in those two provinces, to have manipulated the law so crudely and so vulgarly is delinquent and perhaps worse. I think the courts are going to have something to say about that. I am proud there are Canadians who have not been brow-beaten by their neighbours and are willing to take this kind of matter before the courts.
I would like to quote briefly from one member of the council, Mark Freiman, who points out quite clearly what the problem is. He writes: "Bill C-110 seeks to authorize and so that it is also aware of just how many important environmental issues have either not been addressed or have been ducked up to this point. Even those who favour the idea of a fixed link between P.E.I. and the mainland should be made aware that the government has not abided by its own guidelines", and he goes on.
With that in mind and knowing that the government's intention is to have this matter sent to a legislative committee, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-110, an act respecting the Northumberland Strait crossing be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on the Environment.
I do this knowing that the environmental side of this issue has been buried and hidden from all Canadians and there is a sense of urgency.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Having tabled a motion for amendment the hon. member does not have the floor now.

The Chair will take the motion for amendment submitted by the hon. member for Skeena under advisement.
Ten minutes for questions and comments. The hon. member for Longueuil.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, the minister said earlier that it would cost $800 million to build this bridge. I have some serious doubts because I know a bridge across the St. Lawrence cost close to $1 billion. We are talking about a bridge that would be about 13
kilometres long. It would be built where ice and currents are a problem. I doubt very much that it would cost only $800 million.
Through the hon. member who just spoke, I would like to ask the minister a question. I find it hard to understand how a company could take sole responsibility for the construction of this bridge without having guarantees. Could the minister inform the House whether the company has any guarantees from the federal government in case it goes bankrupt or fails to cover its costs? Is the government going to pay for all the project evaluations? Will it do research for the company? How much is this going to cost? This is important, because we are talking about 35 years. The government is committing itself to paying $42 million per year for 35 years. That is a lot of money.
I wonder whether the company will be able to survive that long without guarantees that the government will subsidize this project to the tune of who knows how many millions of dollars. With all due respect for the people of Prince Edward Island, there are only 127,000 people living there. We have to consider the number of inhabitants in relation to what is being spent here. The government is committed to paying about $1,360 million per year, for 35 years, just for a bridge. We on Montreal's south shore were rather taken aback by this announcement, because we have been trying to get $75 million for Highway 30 for the past 10 years. And for the past five or six years we have been trying to get $80 million to build a tunnel under the St. Lawrence, but nobody is listening. We have 350,000 people living on Montreal's south shore. I mean, it is rather unusual to see the government getting involved in such a major project for a population of 127,000.
I agree with the hon. member for Skeena who just said that the environmental impact should be given further study before a start is made on such a major project. I therefore support the hon. member for Skeena and his demands for an in-depth study of the environmental impact before construction is started on a bridge of this size.
February 8, 1993


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer on behalf of the minister who I am sure would give the same one I am about to give. That is that the government has provided that titanium credit card to the SCI consortia in terms of its expenditures and its ability to raise the capital from the banks or where ever it likes. It is guaranteed $42 million a year for 35 years in inflation protected 1992 dollars. That is $1.47 billion in 1992 dollars. I hope the media will stop calling it a $600 million, a $700 million, an $800 million, or $1 billion bridge because the company is getting $1.47 billion.
Perhaps of greater concern is the overrun and I refer to a very excellent paper done by Friends of the Island. On page 13 they point out that SCI's completion bond will only cover up to 25 per cent of the overrun. Not only do the taxpayers get the bridge back, we get the honour of paying for it totally. We get the honour of getting it back once it is a rusting hulk to have to rebuild it, plus SCI's completion bond will only cover 25 per cent of the overrun, keeping in mind that it began at $600 million. It has already gone up $900 million in two years before one shovelful of sand has been moved. It did not go up 100 per cent. It has gone up 150 per cent in price before it has even moved off the drawing board.
In an article in Policy Options Professor Peter G. C. Townley concluded that: "It is important for decision makers to understand that the economic viability of a fixed link has not been established".
My friend is quite correct. These are the kinds of questions that need to be addressed in this debate. I have a few minutes to respond to the other questions he raised.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Other members want to raise questions with the hon. member for Skeena.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to agree with my colleague from Skeena on the reasons for blocking this bill. I think it is another testament of the kind of scurrilous activity in this House on the environmental assessment review process.
I would like to ask the hon. member to expand on some of the other reasons that we oppose this project.
Government Orders


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands for the question.
It is important that Canadians have some understanding of some of the other implicit costs. I quote again from the paper "Against the Bridge":
Maintenance costs of the bridge will be high. Public Works Canada calculations that justify the bridge subsidy do not take into account bridge maintenance. The Gardiner Expressway in Toronto costs $1 million per mile each year to maintain, with exposure to salt occurring only a few weeks a year. Additionally, the elevated road is serviced by land, not water. A bridge in Jutland, Denmark operating in conditions much less stressful than the Northumberland Strait has cost more in maintenance than the original construction price.
That is precisely why we are supposed to have full, proper environmental assessment and review procedures: to look at all of the social, environmental and precisely project related implications.
If anything can come out of today's debate it is important that a focus come back to what is being done in terms of an end run on the taxpayer. The most malicious end run, of course, is on the people of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. The generic bridge concept that went before the environmental assessment and review process was turned down. That needs to be kept very clear in people's minds.
What ultimately happened with the Oldman River dam has not yet occurred in this case. This bridge has not been built yet. What occurred with the Oldman River dam was that the legal arm of government ultimately found that the dam should be decommissioned and taken down. This was after it had been built at a gigantic cost to the taxpayers principally of Alberta by this same company.
Let us keep in mind that it is the same company, the same consortia which has these visions in the light of these projects that the private sector would never do. It knows how to shilly-shally and dilly-dally and lobby. It knows how to do all these things to get through to government. It gets government caucuses rolling. It gets people rolling. It gets promoters rolling. It oils the wheels and goes straight to the public trough to build these monstrosities.
The bridge is not necessary. There is perfectly adequate, quality service between the two provinces. That is the constitutional requirement.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
How is it that costs are paid by the Government of Canada according to the Auditor General at $21 million per year and the consortia now says it needs more per year? The government did not want to promise something that was going to cost more than the ferry service. Therefore, it would not say that the ferry service cost $42 million a year, but it would say that $42 million a year was all that it was going to pay to the consortia, inflation protected for 35 years.
That is pretty close to what is found in the Criminal Code. This is supposed to be the highest court of the land. We are supposed to make carefully thought out, reasoned judgments on legislation. I think any clear-thinking member of this House would agree.
Here is a project that has never been assessed as required by law in Canada, as required by the legislation we passed in this House. It has not yet been proclaimed but that is the intent of this House. We should vote to send this legislation to the environment committee where we can begin the long slow process of uncovering the truth. Canadians deserve that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the amendment moved by the hon. member for Skeena is in order. The debate is now on the amendment.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I understand we are debating the amendment put forward. It ties in partly to where the Liberal Party is coming from with respect to Bill C-110. We have to keep it in perspective that we are talking about a fixed link. It conjures up all kinds of ideas as to just exactly what is a fixed link and what its impact is going to be. We have to recognize that it is a bridge.
Bridges have existed on this planet since the time the first tree fell over a creek and formed a bridge. I do not think we have the proper perspective as we analyze this situation. It is simply a bridge. We have been building bridges for years.
We have built bridges for the obvious reason of connecting one part of the country to another. We have an obligation to Prince Edward Island, to New Brunswick and to Nova Scotia to have a transportation link that functions and functions properly.
With that in mind, we in the Liberal Party have supported the fixed link for years. I probably should not admit this but when my mother was the member of Parliament for Moncton she turned the first sod in 1965 for the ramps to the bridge. Since that time construction
has been a little slow and it has not really manifested itself in the way we had hoped in 1965.
The time for talk in large measure about whether or not a fixed link is necessary has now passed. A plebiscite has been held in Prince Edward Island. Sixty per cent of the people are supportive of the fixed link. I conducted a referendum and a study in my own riding, and 67 per cent of people in the Moncton riding are supportive of the particular project.
As I look at it, and I am saying this on behalf of the Liberal Party, we support sending Bill C-110 to committee. Whether it is the environment committee or another is not as important to us as keeping the project going. We support it going to committee. There are some questions that still have to be dealt with and there are problems with the environment.
Quite frankly we are disappointed in the way the government has handled the whole project. It has had eight years to get the project on the go and to do something with it. The project should have been started a number of years ago. TTiis government should have done a full environmental assessment of the project in general. Since the time of ascertaining that this bridge consortium should be approved, it should have done an environmental assessment of the particular project.
We are of the view that assessment should still be done. We have not changed our position in that respect. At the same time we are most supportive of the project, the concept and this particular bridge. In large measure it seems to serve the needs. We want this legislation before committee so that all those affected by the particular project will have an opportunity to have their say and at the same time give a full airing of the different environmental and job security matters associated with it.
We have heard comments today about the number of studies that have been done. My hon. colleague from Egmont has listed 90-odd studies with respect to a fixed link. The number of studies with respect to the bridge are somewhat limited. This is why we are supportive of the concept of a full environmental assessment.
There are also other confidence building factors which call upon us to support the project. Former Premier Ghiz had 10 points which had to be met. In them were environmental assurances that the project would not be damaging. Premier Ghiz, as he then was and now dean of the law school at Dalhousie University, has said that he is satisfied. He has put his name to the document that starts this process.
February 8, 1993

Premier McKenna of the province of New Brunswick has had strong concerns about the environment and the direction that we as a country and we in New Brunswick as a province should take. He has been supportive of environmental concerns. He too has put his signature to the document that starts the process.
Liberals are hoping for a full, fair and frank discussion of the issues before a committee that will take a look at the environment. We recognize that this is probably the only fishing area left in Atlantic Canada. We have seen the destruction of the fishery in Newfoundland, in much of the gulf region and along some of the coast of Nova Scotia. The fishery in Northumberland Strait is one of the strongest. It is in the best shape and is the only viable fishery left on the east coast. Therefore we do not want to take any chances with respect to that fishery. We want to make sure that what we are doing will not have an adverse impact.
We recognize that when we build a bridge there is some environmental damage. It is going to have some impact as each pier goes down and as the bridge extends across Northumberland Strait. The fishery is going to be adversely affected. From the studies we have seen it has been indicated that the impact will be of a very short duration. We feel the proper compensation packages must be set up to compensate the fishermen who will be adversely affected in the short term by the construction process.
This agreement provides $10 million for that particular fund. We want to hear evidence as to whether that is sufficient and whether the fishermen of the Northumberland Strait will be adequately compensated by that fund.
Workers presently working for Marine Atlantic have been trained and are skilled in their jobs. They will ultimately lose their jobs as a result of this particular construction. The bridge will offer new careers for some of these workers. Again I think the committee looking at this particular bill should hear evidence as to the types of programs and support mechanisms to be put in place.
Marine Atlantic headquarters is located in Moncton. This could possibly have an adverse effect as well. We have heard the assurances of the government and of
Government Orders
Marine Atlantic that no changes will arise from the construction of the bridge, but I have heard those assurances before when we were not going to see the CNR shops close. I heard the same assurances when I was told that rather than close the supply depot in Moncton we were going to see the supply depot enhanced, subsequently to be closed.
It is absolutely essential that we make very clear commitments to the workers at CN Marine at Cape Tormentine and at Borden, to the maintenance of the headquarters in Moncton, and to the maintenance of the positions of the people working in Moncton.
As we look at what is going on here we have to recognize that there will be a bit of a boom-bust circumstance. The expenditure of a large sum of money, $800 million in actual construction, will have a tremendously important impact on the economies of Prince Edward Island and the southeast portion of New Brunswick, but that will only be for roughly five years. We have to ensure that the mechanisms are there to smooth out the transition from that boom to a bust situation, that we put in place the necessary protections to ensure an easy transition.
We must also make sure that new technology will be developed to make that bridge as environmentally sound as it possibly can be, that it will be maintained, and that knowledge will be developed that can be utilized all around the world. In that sense when the committee takes a look at this project we must ensure those types of measures or protections are added to this particular bill.
We are anxious to get on with this particular project. The time has come to move on. Let us take a look at the project, have an environmental assessment, and proceed as quickly as possible with the construction of the bridge.
We in the Liberal Party support the bill going to committee. We are concerned about the environment. We are concerned about the people presently working for Marine Atlantic. We are concerned about the fisheries on the east coast, particularly in Northumberland Strait. We want the assurances and the in-depth analysis the committee can bring to this legislation and this particular project. Let us keep in mind always that this is a bridge. It is not a causeway. It is not a project that will have a massive impact on the environment.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
There are some concerns with respect to icing in the strait. A previous study carried out indicated clearly that could be a problem. We understand, but we require assurances before the committee that the new design implemented with respect to this particular bridge has accounted for particular problems in the area of icing in the strait.
The Liberal Party will support the bill at this particular stage as it goes to committee. In the end we hope it will come back from the committee as a better bill, a bill that is supportive of the environment, a bill that is supportive of fishermen, a bill that is supportive of the workers of Marine Atlantic, a bill that is supportive of the communities of Borden and Cape Tormentine and quite frankly all of Prince Edward Island, and a bill that is supportive of the southeast region of New Brunswick that will benefit from the particular project.
I thank my colleagues for giving me an opportunity to speak to the bill. I apologize for the sound of my voice, but I have managed to catch the proverbial Ottawa cold.
This bill is good for Atlantic Canada. It is good for Prince Edward Island. It is good for New Brunswick. It will be better if the things we have called for in the bill are done. That is what we should hold out for.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, let me start by congratulating my colleagues from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. They have been continuously pushing in the House for government action on issues relating to Atlantic Canada, in particular to Prince Edward Island. If we had the same commitment on all sides of the House for other projects, a lot of them would have probably been put in place a long time ago.
As a member with municipal background who was involved in infrastructure I had a chance to visit the hon. member's province some time ago to look at infrastructure. He was former co-chair of a task force of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I am delighted to see him speaking in support of the link between Prince Edward Island and the rest of Atlantic Canada.
Could he tell Canadians about other difficulties Atlantic Canada is faced with when it comes to infrastructure? Could he tell us a bit about the importance of investment in infrastructure when it comes to job creation, as well as when it comes to encouraging economic growth not only in Atlantic Canada but elsewhere in Canada?


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the question has been asked. I thank the member for Ottawa Centre because it prompts me to think of something I had in the back of my mind to mention and failed to do so.
People have heard us talk about one critical thing to New Brunswick being improvements or upgrading of the Trans-Canada Highway. Those who have never before had the pleasure of visiting New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island will learn very quickly that we do not have the advantages of divided highways. We are still back in the Dark Ages with a Trans-Canada Highway which is just a two-lane road. It has turned out to be a killer highway as a result.
Coupled with this particular structure is the need for the improvement of highway infrastructure throughout New Brunswick. I am sure that my colleague from Egmont would agree that is the case in Prince Edward Island. The highways in New Brunswick are in deplorable condition.
If we are making a commitment of this magnitude to build a link and then on either side of the bridge we have deplorable highways that cannot stand the volumes of traffic generated by tourists and shoppers going to and from Prince Edward Island, we have really created nothing.
Therefore the member for Ottawa Centre is absolutely correct in saying that coupled with this is the need for a new Trans-Canada Highway in New Brunswick. The government has promised additional funding in that particular area, but recently the amount of funding allocated for improving the Trans-Canada Highway is very small. The premier of New Brunswick said it is going to take us about 35 or 40 years to upgrade the Trans-Canada Highway on the basis of the money we receive from the federal government.
February 8, 1993

We need a renewed, firm commitment to improve the Trans-Canada Highway as well as to finish the bridge- and I keep saying that-the bridge to Prince Edward Island.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from the Liberal member from the area just exactly what the Liberal position is on environmental assessment. The member is aware that there has been no environmental assessment and review done of the bridge proposal contained in Bill C-110, that the generic bridge proposal was turned down by the FEARO panel.
I would like to know from the member, since the Liberals are supporting the project, what is their position on environmental assessment? That is a critical concern to Canadians in all areas of the country.


George Saunders Rideout: I thank the member for his question. He raises some important considerations. Maybe the halls and the walls were echoing with the reverberations from his speech and therefore it plugged his ears, like mine are plugged with a cold.
I stated the position of the Liberal Party very clearly and straightforwardly. We support this project. We want this project to go forward. We have supported this project over the years that it has been discussed.
We also support the principle that there should be a sound environmental policy dealing with these types of megaprojects, and that there should be an assessment. We support this going to the committee, but we also want a full environmental assessment of this particular project and this particular bridge.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate this afternoon.
This place gets curiouser and curiouser. Just to put it on the record, the population of Prince Edward Island, as received from the Library of Parliament this afternoon, is 129,800 people. The population of my riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands in the 1991 census was 122,051. The people of Saanich-Gulf Islands might very well ask where their billion dollar project is, when we are talking about per capita dollars from the federal government.
This whole megaproject mentality that has its genesis with this government, and obviously is supported by the Liberals, is just incomprehensible, particularly in light of this government's rhetoric flowing out of the earth summit in Rio on sustainable development.
Government Orders
Does the government really believe what it said in Rio? Obviously not. I think we have a fair answer in this House today with the tabling of this bill and its support of it.
One billion dollars for a fixed link. As an Islander, I ask sincerely why do they need a fixed link? I know the people in my riding and the Gulf Islands want ferry service, and as a matter of fact not too convenient ferry service. It is a means of controlling development because the development is going through the roof. Why should we have our environment degraded by population growth, by fly-by-night developers coming in and ruining our land base?
I ask sincerely of this government and the Liberal Party that is obviously supporting this project, what is the thinking behind a fixed link? Why should you make it a billion dollar project to facilitate more truck and car traffic to an island? Prince Edward Island is a beautiful part of Canada. As a Canadian I am concerned, not just about my area but for all of Canada. My concern is sincere. It seems like such a wacko scheme.
The current project, as the minister cited in his speech today, did not originate with the general public, the provincial government or the federal government. The idea was generated by the private companies lobbying for a billion dollar contract. This is a sort of carte blanche. Yes, we will manage to expedite your ability to earn a billion dollars from our tax dollars.
In this so-called era of restraint, one wonders how they can possibly look at themselves in the mirror when they say out of one side of their mouths: "We have a real deficit problem. We have real concerns about the base of support in Canada". Yet out of the other side of their mouths they are willing to give a private corporation a billion dollars for an environmentally unsound project.
I also want to talk about the federal environmental assessment, a six-member panel which was convened in April 1989. The public hearings from that FEARO project were held in the three maritime provinces between March 12 and March 30, 1990. There were over
1,500	participants in those hearings, an intense public participation in that federal environmental review. That was on a generic bridge concept. The public participation increased the credibility of the process. A lot of people viewed it with great scepticism. With those 1,500 participants their credibility increased.

February 8, 1993
Government Orders
This bill assaults that environmental assessment review process. The panel tabled its findings in August 1990 and I will cite some of the findings when it asked that it not be proceeded with. The panel's rejection was based on numerous significant reasons. These include: potential impacts on marine ecosystems and agricultural micro-climates arising from delayed spring ice-out; risk of damage to near shore spawning grounds; limited knowledge of the Northumberland Strait ecosystem making it difficult to predict monitor mitigate impacts and determine appropriate compensation to fishermen; incompatibility of the project with sustainable development; inadequate consideration of cumulative impacts; difficulties in finding socially acceptable solutions for displaced ferry workers and fishermen; inadequate consideration of the environmental and ecological impacts on the island of predicted type of tourism growth and the need to resolve numerous land use issues in Prince Edward Island.
It was a comprehensive environmental review. That is what an environmental review is supposed to be on a generic bridge concept. My colleague from Skeena is quite correct in saying that the bridge concept, as we now see it, is a particular concept that has not been reviewed.
All sorts of reasons were brought forward. The panel in conclusion said; "There is a need for improved transportation service between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. After careful consideration, however, the panel concludes that the risk of harmful effects of the proposed bridge concept is unacceptable. The panel recommends, therefore, that the project not proceed".
So when the minister stated in the House today, very carefully, as did the Liberal member for Egmont, that there had been an environmental review-let me just get the minister's words on this-there had been a full environmental review. The full environmental review said: "Do not proceed". What is this government doing? It is proceeding. What is the Liberal Party doing? It is recommending that it be proceeded with. Is it any wonder that people are so sceptical of the political process when you see the way some politicians are willing
to act. If they do not like one answer they ask another panel and that is exactly what this government has done. The government did not like that answer so what it did was focus only on one narrow consideration of the environmental assessment review, the ice-out. The government found four so-called ice experts. I do not know the qualifications of these people. The people of Canada do not know these people's qualifications, but this government has based Bill C-110 and is proceeding with this project because of what was said by these so-called ice experts. It is no wonder that people are sceptical of the political process when politicians behave that way.
We had an environmental review process. It went through, the environmental panel said not to proceed. The government has found a way to circumvent that process and proceed and the Liberals are going along with it.
I wonder why that would be. Do you perhaps think that maybe there is politics involved here in this 1993 election year? Do you think perhaps that the Liberal Party, which has based its support in the maritime provinces, thinks there might be some political advantage to this? Do you think the government would perhaps want some of those seats as well? Who will pay the most?
Where does sustainable development fit in this scene? Where does concern for Canadian tax dollars fit in this scene when "it is up to the trough and snout your way through it" mentality, the megaproject mentality which both the government and the Liberal Party seem to be supporting. Where does sustainable development and all the rhetoric we heard in Rio fit in this?
The minister said there are 3,500 person-years involved. Who looks after the fish? Who looks after the lobster? Who looks after the climate and the ocean? That is the responsibility of Environment Canada. Environment Canada is on one side saying one thing and the Minister of Public Works is on the other side saying something else. It is no wonder the public is confused because there is not one single message. Politics are being played here.
February 8, 1993

Politicians have to realize that the time has come for a stand on these issues and to give the straight goods to Canadians. Sustainable development is what all Canadians want. They want jobs. Of course they do. They want jobs so they can contribute to the betterment of our country. They want Canada's international reputation to be good environmentally. This project will not accomplish that.
We have to look at the land use consideration. Why do the people of Prince Edward Island even contemplate putting a fixed link to the mainland? I value being an islander. I like being islander. It is important. When you are an islander it is the world in microcosm. You know the limitations. You know the finite nature of resources. You live it every day. You know there is a finite amount of water, there is a finite amount of garbage that you can deal with so you mitigate your actions accordingly.
By connecting with the mainland, all of that goes out. You think that oh well we can ship our garbage off, we can ship our water on. This is not sustainable development, this is a wacko political re-election bid by both the Liberals and the government.
I noticed also that the minister said there is no guarantee that the bridge will be built. It is nice that he is at least that honest because it will not be built after the election if the government is re-elected, God forbid, or the Liberals are re-elected, God forbid. There will be no bridge built because it is economically, socially and environmentally unsustainable.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, last November 24, following the tabling of the Annual Report of the Auditor General of Canada, I asked the Minister of Finance why the government was allowing Canadian businesses operating foreign affiliates to use tax loopholes to reduce their taxable income in
Adjournment Debate
Canada. According to the Auditor General of Canada, these loopholes could cost Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The Minister of Finance replied that he had made some efforts by introducing the general anti-avoidance rules. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that these anti-avoidance rules have not yet been used.
Also, several tax experts agree that the general antiavoidance rules are inapplicable and therefore ineffective because these tax avoidance schemes are not forbidden under the Income Thx Act. Unless the minister asks for Parliament's approval to promote competitiveness by allowing Canadian companies to use avoidance practices which are less abusive, he must demonstrate to Canadian parliamentarians here today that he has the will to eliminate these tax loopholes. He must review the abusive tax arrangements for foreign affiliates to minimize tax losses. These losses are of the order of several hundred million dollars. This is not peanuts, as we say; it is a lot of money.
At a time when the government is trying to reduce its budget imbalance, the Minister of Finance is, in my opinion, only further eroding our tax base.

Will the Minister of Finance review the foreign accrued property income rules, better known as FAPI? The Income Tax Act must define active and passive income in the context of the anti-avoidance rules. Even Revenue Canada is concerned over this issue. The Department of Finance was provided on many occasions with specific recommendations to amend the Income Tax Act in respect to the FAPI rules. The Department of Finance has not acted on any of these recommendations from Revenue Canada.
Furthermore, many Canadian corporations receive tax free, active business income earned offshore by their foreign affiliates in a designated country. The problem is that many of these designated countries are tax havens, as we call them, and should not be listed as designated countries. For example, Liberia is a designated country listed in the income tax regulations despite the fact that 12 years ago this Parliament refused to ratify a tax treaty with that country. Even officials with the Department of Finance agree that when it becomes obvious that Canada will not be in a position to conclude negotiations, considerations should be given to take countries off the designated list.

February 8, 1993
Adjournment Debate
Does the Minister of Finance think it is fair to allow Canadian subsidiaries to reduce their taxable income simply by operating in a tax haven? Will the Minister of Finance follow the advice of his officials and review the list of designated countries to eliminate tax revenues?

In order to make the necessary changes, the Minister of Finance should first complete the studies begun in 1987 on this issue. It is becoming more and more obvious that the Conservative government is dragging its feet when it comes to eliminating tax loopholes, but it is certainly quick to tax Canadians. The Conservatives can increase personal income tax. They have done so fairly steadily in the last eight years, hitting Canadians with some 32 tax increases. Consequently, will the Minister of Finance complete the studies on tax avoidance schemes which began in 1987 and are still not completed some six years later?

While working on these studies, would he suggest interim budget amendments to the Income Tkx Act? Even Revenue Canada wrote to the Department of Finance that it should "consider interim budget amendments to the foreign affiliate rules to address the more obviously abusive tax practices".
Will the Minister of Finance or his representative tell the House tonight that he is going to move on this issue that costs Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars. Those are not my words, but the words of the Auditor General of Canada.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has suggested that hundreds of millions of dollars in potential income tax revenue are being lost annually under the current system of foreign affiliate taxation.
As well, he has put forward a number of examples in support of his conclusions. It is important to recognize that these examples all predate the 1989 taxation year.
As such they occurred prior to the introduction of the general anti-avoidance rule or GAAR.
GAAR was introduced by this government specifically in order to combat transactions that are entered into solely for tax avoidance reasons and more specifically, transactions that while technically consistent with the specific rules of the Income Tax Act, are abusive in tax policy terms. While GAAR is still relatively new, it is a powerful tool. It is anticipated that Revenue Canada will apply it on a regular basis in those cases which involve abusive tax transactions.
While several examples cited by the Auditor General are presently under review by Revenue Canada, it is not clear that in the remaining examples Canada is actually losing tax revenues as a result of the transactions in question.
This government has an enviable record of closing tax loopholes and ensuring that corporations, which under previous governments paid little or no tax, are made to pay their fair share. In particular, since 1984, we have among other things eliminated scientific research tax credits, stopped loss trading by corporations, terminated par votes in the resource sector and restricted after-tax financing.
Ultimately, the foreign affiliate tax regime accurately reflects the intentions of Parliament and provides for full taxation of all income that is intended to be taxed in Canada. The hon. member must remember that in the field of international taxation, more than one country will inevitably have jurisdiction to tax a particular source of income.
Therefore, in order to avoid double taxation, income must be allocated equitably among different countries. This is done largely through bilateral tax treaties. Where appropriate, it involves Canada waiving its rights to tax certain incomes in favour of another country in order to foster international competitiveness of Canadian business. This does not represent avoidance, but rather, a recognition that in certain circumstances-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order please. Your time has now expired.
February 8, 1993


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the Canadian government to show international leadership to close the rape-death camps of Bosnia-Hercegovina.
At least 20,000 women and little girls have been interned and gang raped. Many have died. Babies bom of this violence and hatred are being abandoned. There is profound and indescribable trauma resulting from this attempted genocide and a lack of knowledge as to whether one or one's closest family members will survive the day.
My New Democrat colleagues and I have risen in the House and have written letters to the ministers asking Canada to target humanitarian aid to the survivors of the rape camps.
Following our interventions, $250,000 was specifically targeted to aid the rape survivors. However, that really is just a drop in the bucket. Women are the key to rebuilding any society and these women have been severely traumatised. They will need much more help. I have again written to the minister responsible for external affairs asking that targeted aid be increased.
I want to thank the Liberal and Conservative MPs who signed their names to a statement that I wrote to close the camps. I think that kind of co-operation among the parties in this House goes a long way to show leadership. Unfortunately, there has been no further action.
I asked the minister responsible for the status of women whether Canada would act to get the UN to recognize rape as a war crime in the Geneva Convention and investigate it as such a crime. I am pleased that I have received an answer from her that was positive. Women around the world are watching our government on this very important issue.
I want to point out that rape is a crime of war and oppression around the world that Somalian, Peruvian, East Timorese women and women from every continent have experienced. In every war against races, religions and ethnicities, there is also within it a separate war against women.
I have recently written a letter to the new Minister of National Defence about the behaviour of peacekeeping
Adjournment Debate
troops overseas. They need training, a code of ethics and an enforcement of that code of ethics to make sure that they do not add to the oppression of the women and the cultures they encounter in their duties. Today I want an answer to as many of these questions as possible.
Further to my question in the House I want to know what specific action the Canadian government will take to close the rape and death camps in former Yugoslavia.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for raising this veiy important issue. The most harmful and least recognized human rights violation is violence against women. The systematic rape of women that is going on in the former Yugoslavia, particularly in Bosnia-Hercegovina, certainly is the most disgusting example of this violence. On several occasions already the Canadian government has unequivocally condemned such barbaric and degrading actions. These actions aimed at terrorizing civilian populations constitute serious human rights violations.
The government has promised to have those responsible for such violations tried. That is why we endorse the creation of an international ad hoc court to try these crimes. We have responded to these violations with concrete measures, providing $250,000 through the High Commissioner for Refugees to assist rape victims in Bosnia-Hercegovina. We have also set up an information centre to collect testimony from Canadians about these crimes. We are actively looking into other ways to help the victims.
At the session of the Commissions on Human Rights to be held in Geneva, Canada will exercise leadership and ask the international community again to make such violations stop. These rapes violate the Geneva convention and follow-on protocols.
We understand that the expert commission set up by the UN to look into allegations of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia will investigate this systematic raping as part of its mandate, and that there will be a Canadian, in the person of Commander William Fiedrich, on this commission.

February 8, 1993
Adjournment Debate
Violence against women in Bosnia-Hercegovina is not an isolated case. Quite the contrary, this is a global issue. In the reaction against violence directed toward women, Canada has led the Commission on the Status of Women in Vienna in drafting a statement against violence against women-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I cannot allow her to continue, her speaking time having expired. The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise as a follow-up on a question I had last year on compensation for fishermen. I want to use the opportunity to go through the chronology and to report on where we are and what adjustments we might still be able to invoke.
Roughly a year ago, February 14, there was an announcement that the northern cod quota would be greatly reduced. This of course affected the offshore processing plants. The announcement caused a lot of consternation and resulted in a lot of fishermen, trawler skippers and plant owners being laid off. It was the beginning of a series of questions from the opposition for compensation for those people.
That announcement was a prelude to a more drastic series of actions which took place on July 2, when the northern cod fishery in 2J3KL which affected all of my riding, was made.
Between February 14 and July 2, practically every day concern was shown on this side of the House for these people, to ensure that adequate compensation was put in place for those involved in the fishing industry who were to be drastically affected because they had no source of income when this occurred.
I know that we had two emergency debates on this in the House, and I think you sat in on at least one of them, Mr. Speaker. Again, on my own part and largely because I was the most affected in that interim period, I had no fewer than 30 interventions, either in the form of questions, statements, participation in debate or whatever.
In any case compensation was announced with the closure of the northern cod fishery on July 2. From July 2 to the end of the year two major adjustments were made to the program because the first compensation package was certainly less than adequate.
There has been the involvement of very dedicated officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and individually. The people in my riding who worked on this matter and I have a lot of fine things to say for the way they handled the tremendous volume of activity involved. Later in the year a final announcement was made with respect to older workers involved in the fishing industry and owners of vessels who were particularly hard hit.
There are still people who have an attachment to the industry and are hoping for compensation in some way, shape or form. We are still looking at that, together with the department.
Three months after the announcement was made on one of the five telephone lines in my riding and in Ottawa Newfoundland Telephone recorded 10,485 calls in six days which would give some indication of the numbers of people who were trying to clarify their situation. That is still going on. Not to the same extent, but we are receiving between 75 and 100 calls per day and still sorting out where people stand with respect to the compensation.
My concern is that while communications continue to improve there has been some back-tracking in the sense that DFO has now taken one individual per riding and is using recorded messages which I believe do not really help clarify the confusion that still exists. However the situation has improved and it should get better downstream.
In closing, I would ask for continuous smoothing of the process. I give notice right now in this fishery debate that we will be looking at the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. We have not forgotten about that. This is a good time to do it when Newfoundland and Atlantic fishermen cannot fish.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, many times the hon. member opposite has raised the concerns of his community and others in Newfoundland regarding the fishery problems encountered, particularly in the past 12 months.
February 8, 1993

It was back in June when he asked the question we are dealing with tonight. At that time the Minister of Employment and Immigration wanted to assure him that circumstances would call for measures to be taken to help the people and that the government would do everything possible.
That has been done. I am glad to see the member tonight acknowledging that many things have taken place. It is still not perfect and improvements can be made.
In addition to the income assistance measures, income training within and outside the fishery, early retirement and licence retirement options have been provided to northern cod workers with unique opportunities that would otherwise not have been made available to them.
The once in a lifetime openings will equip individuals affected by the moratorium to make informed career choices and to do away with the image of the fishery as the employer of last resort.
While the fishery has been experiencing a recurring downturn in some sectors, the past year has been exceptional across Atlantic Canada, particularly in Newfoundland.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration has recognized that in certain communities individuals were unable to secure sufficient weeks of insurable employment qualify for UI benefits. In response to this urgent need and in co-operation with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, emergency funding was provided to create employment needed to obtain the minimum number of weeks.
Clearly, however, continued emergency responses are not the desired solution. It is evident that long-term adjustments are necessary and critical for rebuilding the stocks and to restructure the labour force into one the fishery can realistically support.
The fishery that will emerge from the adjustment process will support a smaller but highly professional work force. The number of people who will depend on the fishery will be reduced. Short-term solutions include compensation for early retirement, licence retirement and so on. The task force on incomes and adjustments is expected to provide valuable insights on how to achieve stable and adequate incomes for fisheries workers and to realize alternative training and employment possibilities.
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry but the time is running out.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss again the question of two Canadians who are imprisoned in Brazil. They are Christine Lamont and David Spencer.
I am sure that most people are familiar with the facts of this particular case and that we have been pushing the government to request the expulsion of those two Canadians from Brazilian jails and have them returned to Canada and their families. The government so far has been opposed to that particular procedure.
As time passes and as we look at this particular circumstance I believe that it becomes more and more urgent that this government take action with respect to these two Canadians. If you accept their guilt, which I do not, then given the time spent in relation to their original sentence of 10 years and 8 years, they both would be eligible for release and parole here in Canada. Their sentence of 28 years was acknowledged by the minister of external affairs to be discriminatory, excessive and an offensive penalty.
If we look at the other circumstances, then the time that has already been spent is sufficient for this government, if it is convinced of their guilt, to ask for their expulsion and have them returned. If there is any doubt, which I believe there is, as to their guilt then by all means we are allowing an improper and a sad circumstance to continue far too long.
There are now new conditions which prompt me to rise and speak about this circumstance. We have now learned that Christine Lamont has tested positive for tuberculosis. The Prime Minister in one of his answers to my questions said: "Oh, she just had swollen ankles and it was not anything serious". I think tuberculosis is serious. If she has tested positive then that again is an indication that the health conditions are not that great. This is further impetus for Canada and the Canadian government to respond.
Another factor which recently came to light-I received a copy of a recent wire service story-that 100 military police have been charged in an incident involving the slaying of over 200 prisoners during a prison riot in a prison adjacent to where the Canadians are kept. I think it is good. It shows a positive response by the

February 8, 1993
Adjournment Debate
Brazilian government to take this step to charge these military police with crimes associated with what they did.
However, one can hear and read about the indiscriminate sweeping of machine gun fire among all the prisoners. They had their hands up in surrender so that they would not be hurt, yet they were shot by these military police. This is a dangerous situation and it goes beyond an acceptable level. It calls upon the government to come to the aid of these two Canadians.
As I said, the Brazilian system of justice is different from ours and there are problems with some of their police and judicial systems, but what has happened with respect to those military police shows a positive sign on the part of the Brazilian government and we encourage that. However, please act now to save these Canadians.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has set out her views on this case in very great detail in letters dated August 13 and December 8, 1992 to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
It cannot be assumed that if Canada were to ask for the expulsion of Christine Lamont and David Spencer, that it would be granted automatically. While the Brazilian president had the discretionary authority to grant expulsion, it has been emphasized to us that there is a clear distinction between the authority as set out in the Brazilian constitution and the practice according to which the authority is exercised.
We have been told that in practice, expulsion would not be granted while appeals are under way or before the convicted prisoner has served his or her sentence. We have also been told that the Brazilian government would not agree to expulsion in these circumstances because it would amount to unwarranted interference by the executive branch of government in the affairs of the judiciary
and would discriminate against the other defendants who would not be released or expelled.
On many occasions the Secretary of State for External Affairs has expressed concern over the severity of the sentences received by Miss Lamont and Mr. Spencer. These sentences and the convictions are being appealed in the Brazilian courts and the Canadian embassy in Brasilia has been working actively to ensure that both the appeal of the convictions and the appeal of the sentences move forward as quickly as possible.
We understand the Brazilian courts recessed in December for the Christmas season and will reconvene in February. The embassy will continue to do everything possible to ensure the appeal process keeps moving expeditiously.
The embassy's efforts to hasten the ratification of the transfer of offenders treaty between Canada and Brazil which was signed last July 15 have also been achieving some success. The treaty was approved by the foreign relations committee of the Chamber of Deputies in December and will be considered by the justice committee when it reconvenes this month.
Finally, I would like to reaffirm that the consulate General in Sao Paulo is doing everything possible to ensure the safety and welfare of Miss Lamont and Mr. Spencer. The consulate general is monitoring the situation very closely and has met with prison authorities and with Miss Lamont and Mr. Spencer and their lawyers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to be adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 9, 1993