1977-12-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As it is essential that this country overcome its $11.5 billion a year trade deficit in manufactured goods and as this can only be done if we greatly increase our sales efforts abroad and let far more people in the world market know what this country has to offer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott):
That the government allow producers to write off 200 per cent of all expenses connected with making sales trips abroad, displaying their products at foreign trade fairs and any other expenses incurred in sales promotion in the export market and any other expenses incurred in sales promotion in the export market in excess of those made in the base year-the year before the plan goes into operation.
Such a program would greatly increase our sales effort in the export market-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is permitted to put his motion forward but not to argue it. The motion can be presented to the House at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


An hon. Member:: No!



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Workers being interviewed for jobs at Syncrude, which is partly owned by the federal government, are being told the plant will operate without unions. Since this appears to contravene the Alberta Labour Code and federal government labour policy, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House advise the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to instruct Syncrude officials that they are not to interfere with normal union organisation within the plant.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion having been raised under the provisions of Standing Order 43, can only be put to the House with unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!



INFORMATION


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43. It deals with matters of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the need to obtain recommendations concerning legislation affecting government secrecy and clarifying issues of security and ministerial responsibility. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the Green Paper on legislation on public access to government documents be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can only be put to the House with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Oh, you know where you stand, then!

[ Translation]



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43,1 seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of extremely urgent and pressing necessity.
In March 1977, the Senate indicated that a single person with a $3,981 income was on the poverty line. Since old age security pensioners of single status are receiving only $261.06 a month or $3,132.72 year, which is $848.28 a year below the poverty line, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert):
80027-5 314

December 16, 1977
Social Security
That the House urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to increase the old age security pension, the guaranteed income supplement and the spouse's allowance, so that they may reach at least the poverty line.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a motion under Standing Order 43. I would direct it particularly to the attention of the Minister of Justice who is responsible for the administration of the Bill on Human Rights and to the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations who is also responsible for the status of women. I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House deplores the discrimination against women being practised by the British American Bank Note Company in its refusal to pay wages to its female employees equal to those it pays to its male employees, and this House calls on the Minister of Justice and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women to make it known that if this practice is not corrected the federal government will have to cease doing business with the said company, it being the view of this House that our laws respecting discrimination against women must be upheld.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented to the House only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the inflation rate is constantly going up, to the great prejudice of low wage earners and the needy; considering as well that low wage earners, the unemployed and welfare recipients have no protection against rising inflation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):

That this House urge the government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare to bring forth the annual guaranteed income program and that this income be indexed to the cost of living.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



SUGGESTED LEGISLATION PROVIDING FOR MANDATORY


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of the same order. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) on October 21, 1976 stated in this House that:
Canadian firms may decide nonetheless to agree to certain boycott clauses and forego Canadian government support for the projects concerned. All Canadian firms, however, whether they accept boycott clauses or not will be required to report all instances of their complying with boycott provisions. Information obtained from such reports will be made available to the public.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) has stated outside the House that he has no plans to make such a list public and would not indicate how many companies the department has found signing contracts with boycott clauses, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That legislation be introduced prior to the Christmas adjournment which requires mandatory reporting of Canadian corporations which agree with Arab boycott clauses.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



INFORMATION


Mr. Basford:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River moved a motion without discussion with the House leader. There has not been that discussion and if it were moved again it would be agreed to by this side.
December 16, 1977


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would, of course, require the unanimous consent of the House to ask for unanimous consent a second time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Then if it is agreed, the motion that the hon. member for Peace River put earlier was:
That the green paper on legislation on public access to government documents be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
I understand that the motion was moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). The House has heard the terms of the motion and it can be presented at this time pursuant to Standing Order 43 only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, there has been some discussion which indicates that there might be agreement reached, at this time of Christmas and all that goes with Christmas, to arrange time for debate. I think the understanding is that it will be a short debate. The time, the method, the number of speakers and so on will be discussed. We have no willingness on this side to have a long debate, but I think there should be some discussion about the debate between all the House leaders. So would Your Honour simply let the motion stand? There will be the usual discussions, out of which will flow some tremendous arrangement.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I think for neatness we had better deal with it on the basis that, pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion has now been presented in the regular way. It is moved by the hon. member for Peace River, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. The motion is now in the possession of the House and I think debate on the motion ought to be adjourned at this time. Equally, it could carry now without debate.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to pass this motion right away. If the opposition wants to talk out the motion or to find some way of not putting this matter before the committee, that is for them, but we are anxious to have it referred to committee. Why does not the House agree to pass the motion right now without debate?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister is not aware of the discussions that have taken place between the deputy House leader (Mr. Cafik) and myself with respect to this debate. They have proceeded most cordially. I would like to inform the Prime Minister through
Oral Questions
you, sir, that there will be one speaker from each side in the debate at a time to be arranged. Because third reading of Bill C-5 may be reached today on consent, perhaps we might be able to do it later this day. I know that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the deputy House leader agree that the whole purpose is to ensure that this matter reach the committee as quickly as possible. 1 deemed it wise to inform the Prime Minister of this arrangement in the event he has not had a chance to consult his colleagues.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps he is too dumb to understand it.


Mr. Speaker:: We are now well into the question period. In the circumstances we ought to consider that it has been moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), seconded by Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton), that this debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt that motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: The question period will terminate at approximately three minutes past twelve.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. On the 21st of October, 1976, the Secretary of State for External Affairs took the time of the House on motions to state the government's position on economic boycotts and I quote:
All Canadian firms, however, whether they accept boycott clauses or not, will be required to report all instances of their complying with boycott provisions. Information obtained from such reports will be made available to the public.
Yesterday, outside of the House, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said that it is not the plan of his department to make public information concerning Canadian firms complying with boycott provisions. Sir, we have a situation here where two ministers of the Crown have made directly contradictory statements. I would like to ask the Prime Minister which minister speaks for the government on this matter?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition were to look at the full statement and the debate which followed, he would understand that there is no inconsistency. In fact, there is still a problem to be resolved with regard to publication. The difficulty, and it also has been expressed by some members opposite, was whether the names of companies which had been invited to participate in the boycott and had

December 16, 1977
Oral Questions
declined to do so should be published, since they had done nothing that was either improper or regarded as being illegal or reprehensible. Therefore, there is discussion presently going on between myself and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and other colleagues to resolve the issue in the manner I have outlined.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is clearly a problem to be resolved. The problem is within the Government of Canada because they cannot agree on their policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REPORTING OF COMPANIES COMPLYING WITH BOYCOTTS- REASON FOR DELAY IN PUBLICATION OF REPORT
Charles Joseph Clark: The Secretary of State for External Affairs, who seems to be answering the question because the Prime Minister does not want to, will recall the Deputy Minister for Industry, Trade and Commerce in January of this year promised that there would be a report published twice yearly relating to the firms that are affected by this policy position. That undertaking was given in January. It is now December and there is still no report. Is it still the policy of the government to make that kind of a report on a semi-annual basis? And, if so, where is the report?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as to the preparation or the current status of that particular report. I know that a good deal of work has been done on it. Incidentally, I do not believe it necessarily needs to be a matter of argument. I return to the fundamental point. There is a question of how this can be dealt with in a manner fair to those who are dealing with countries which have boycott clauses, but which have not themselves done anything that is improper or in any way regarded by this House or by Canada as being an offensive type of action.
I suspect if the hon. members wish to have a reasonable discussion on how this matter can be dealt with, and at the same time indicate our abhorrence of the kinds of boycotts which all of us on this side and members opposite have always referred, then there is no good reason that we should not talk about it in a reasonable way. When the report is completed, I appreciate it should be dealt with, and we should carry through on our commitment. The matter is not a matter of saying how many have complied or otherwise with the boycott, or how many have been asked to comply. Strictly, it is a matter of finding out which companies have no reason to be reprimanded publicly and perhaps misunderstood publicly.
Hon. members opposite have claimed that we should not be doing anything which will make it difficult for companies to expand their export operations and the like or, in fact, to hurt their business within the country.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Hon. members may laugh at this, but I tell
you-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REPORTING OF COMPANIES COMPLYING WITH BOYCOTTS- STATEMENT BY TRADE MINISTER-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister has as much trouble speaking for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as he does staying on both sides of this question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I should like to ask the Prime Minister, since this is a policy question, whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was speaking on behalf of the government and stating government policy, when he said yesterday that in relation to the publication of lists of companies found signing contracts with boycott clauses "that kind of thing, when we're trying to promote world trade, is something we don't want to get into". Was the minister speaking for the government when he made that statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that was the first question the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked. He asked who was speaking for the government, and I told him it was the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Charles Joseph Clark: We have just had such a repudiation of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that he is ashamed to show his face in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Members opposite seem to feel if they shout enough they will draw the hon. minister back. We will see if he has the courage to return after being repudiated by the Prime Minister on the floor of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REPORTING OF COMPANIES COMPLYING WITH BOYCOTTS- AVAILABILITY OF REPORT AND DATE OF PUBLICATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the position of the government on this question of principle remains very, very unclear, would he tell the House whether the policy announced by the minister has been carried out and whether firms have been required to report? Are those reports in the hands of the government? If they are, will the information be made public immediately as the minister undertook in his statement of October 21, 1976?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, the

December 16, 1977

Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has compiled a list and there has been a reporting procedure. There was no attempt on anybody's part to disguise this, and it came out in the debate at the time that making the information public is not the difficulty. The difficulty is whether individual firms will be identified as complying with the boycott or merely asked to comply with the boycott.
The hon. member has referred to a difference of opinion on this side of the House. Many members on his side have told me also that they understand this quandary and, in fact, spoke for companies that were concerned that they might be identified when they had committed no offence.
To return to my basic point, if the House is satisfied with declaring without identification that X number of companies have complied, or those that have been asked to comply, I do not believe that creates a serious problem. The problem is whether companies are identified, when there is no particular reason for them to be identified publicly in that way, because they have committed no particular offence.


REPORTING OF COMPANIES COMPLYING WITH BOYCOTTS- ALLEGATION ONLY TWO NAMED
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If the minister has worked as closely as he claims with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, can he confirm that there are only two names of companies on the list. Can he confirm that?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that in specific terms, because I have not seen any list in recent days or recent weeks. I know there are a minimum number of companies which have been involved in this particular exercise in any way.


REASON FOR DELAY IN REPORTING COMPANIES COMPLYING WITH BOYCOTTS-POSSIBILITY EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION EXCLUDED
William James Kempling: We understand this report has been on the desk of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce since September, but we cannot understand why, if it has been in his possession for so long, it has not been released. Does it contain information supplied by the Export Development Corporation or is this Crown corporation excluded from the government guidelines?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker. The Export Development Corporation, as the statement which was made in the House some 14 months ago clearly states, is obliged to follow the guidelines as they relate to the boycott and the anti-boycott provision.
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


ALLEGATION NAVIGATION ORDERS DISOBEYED-GOVERNMENT POSITION-REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister confirm that the existing air navigation orders issued by his department to ensure the safety of the public travelling by air have been disobeyed on numerous occasions in the past by regional and national airlines, thereby jeopardizing public safety?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is asking whether a whole body of regulations has on occasion been breached, the answer clearly is yes. Indeed, charges have been laid and occasional action taken to suspend certificates. I am not quite sure from the general question what the hon. member has in mind. Perhaps he could be more specific.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I asked in my question to the minister about air navigation orders. In my supplementary question to the minister I should like to ask him, in view of the revelations of the Carswell-Slaughter investigation of breaches of air safety regulations in northwestern Ontario, an example of irregularities by the national airline which was brought to the minister's attention by the National Dispatchers' Association, as well MOT investigation into the 1976 crash of an Air West airplane in British Columbia which concluded that the carrier did not meet safety standards and that Transport Canada's monitoring of the carrier's operations was inadequate, whether the minister will now admit that the situation is serious enough to warrant a full public inquiry into air safety regulations and their application across Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that the investigation had revealed certain deficiencies which should have been corrected and steps have been taken to correct them. Obviously, there will be breaches of regulations, including air navigation orders by some individual operators. I would not want to join the hon. member in making it sound as though air carriers flagrantly abused the regulations, and I would even want to emphasize that it is completely untrue and unfair to carriers to suggest that they are frequently engaged in activities which are unsafe. The fact of the matter is that our standards in our air navigation orders are very high. That is the standard we want observed, but a breach of the air navigation orders in those circumstances may not always involve a high risk but only a failure to attain our very high standards. We still attempt to observe them and we are amending our air navigation orders where required to do so. We are appointing additional inspectors and we are following other recommendations which were made by our investigators who did a very thorough job.

December 16, 1977
Oral Questions


ALLEGED FAILURE TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATION-REASON FOR DELAY IN ADOPTING RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Reginald Cyril Symes: I have evidence of serious breaches in the regulations on a nationwide basis, not just related to northwestern Ontario.
I should like to ask the minister if he can explain why, after complaints were lodged with his department as early as in 1972 by the Canadian Airline Dispatchers' Association and the review of procedures was begun, the new regulations entitled "Acceptable Means of Compliance with Operational Control Requirements" completed in 1976 have not yet been implemented? Is the minister bowing to pressure from the airlines?


Otto Emil Lang: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, while dispatchers may have registered complaints about some regulations in 1972, it was only seven or eight days ago that I visited with them and had a long meeting to discuss the problem. I assured them I would take a personal interest in the question which had not been brought to my attention before. If the hon. member has additional evidence of difficulties I hope he will bring them to my attention rather than simply making broad allegations. Having heard from the dispatchers, I am looking into the matter and will take appropriate steps if there is any problem which needs to be solved.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
A few months ago Quebec and Ottawa signed an agreement. Commenting on it, the minister stated that the south shore region might benefit from it, for instance by way of access roads to forest areas and the like. Can the minister tell the House whether he has received any requests from organizations of this region concerning the program which had been outlined by him as regards forest areas?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember personally such requests from the region mentioned by the hon. member. It is possible that representations were made in the last few weeks to our offices in Quebec city. However, possibly some groups in that region did communicate with the Quebec Office de planification du developpement or with the Quebec department of lands and forests on this subject. Then, I shall inquire and communicate again with the hon. member.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Could the minister tell the

House if there are other projects, besides those mentioned earlier, which have been proposed by south shore area organizations to launch new industries or expand the ones already existing?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, in the course of our recent negotiations there have been discussions and proposals concerning assistance to some infrastructures to accommodate industries in this part of the lower St. Lawrence area. Decisions are to be made very soon at both government levels and some proposals which were made to us might be accepted.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question concerning the ambassador of the United States, Mr. Enders, whose professional stature is reflected in the fact that having been appointed ambassador to Canada under a Republican administration he was retained by the Carter Democratic administration. On Wednesday the Prime Minister said that the Minister of Agriculture was speaking for the government when he complained about certain viewpoints expressed by the ambassador in speeches in Canada. This statement by the Prime Minister, if allowed to stand, will unfortunately diminish-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Douglas Roche: Did the Prime Minister intend to diminish the usefulness of Mr. Enders? I would ask the Prime Minister to clarify this most important matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Gladly, Mr. Speaker. I think I made it quite clear by my answer to the supplementary question that I consider Mr. Enders is free to state publicly in Canada the views that represent those of his government just as I would want our ambassadors abroad to express their views. I think Mr. Enders has been doing it consistently, and there has never been any complaint officially or any note sent to Washington from this government. I added that a minister is perfectly free to disagree, just as any other member of this House would be free to disagree with Mr. Enders. I had not and I still have not read the speech of the Minister of Agriculture. He may have used language which is colourful and which he frequently uses in this House. I am standing by the position that the Minister of Agriculture is free to criticize and disagree with Mr. Enders, but that Mr. Enders was perfectly entitled to speak for his government and to continue to do so.


Douglas Roche: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it from that answer that the Prime Minister wishes to remove the cloud that has been cast over Mr. Enders. May I ask if it is the policy of the government that ministers of the Crown can
December 16, 1977

publicly complain about the expressed viewpoint of ambassadors without reducing their credibility and hence calling into question the effectiveness of their representation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be surprised if the opposition agreed with the right of anybody to disagree with an ambassador who is speaking for his country. The interests of Canada are not necessarily those of the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is certainly no intention to cast a cloud over Mr. Enders' capabilities or his ability to speak for his government. I made it clear in my answer that I considered he was a gentleman and was doing his duty just as I would want our ambassadors to do their duty. Too many ambassadors try to be popular in the country to which they are delegated. I do not think that is their job; they are there to represent the countries from which they come, not the countries to which they go. I respect Mr. Enders for taking the positions he does if they are those of his government. I just do not think we should be shy or embarrassed about disagreeing with him.


Douglas Roche: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the desired popularity on the part of ambassadors in Canada, would the Prime Minister outline for the House the guidelines that ambassadors should follow with respect to their conduct?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the Prime Minister wishes to do that or if the House wishes to have the information it will have to be obtained in some other way.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the President of the Treasury Board with reference to the announcement made yesterday about the creation of 157,000 man-months of work at a cost of $150 million. Is the minister in a position to advise-and I am sure much study has gone into this proposal-what the weekly rate of pay will be for the individuals who are to be employed? Will it be in the vicinity of what was paid under LIP or Canada Works?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Boa 1):: Mr. Speaker, the intention is to pay the going rate in the particular locality for the type of job being done. Generally speaking, this will be maintenance, labour or clerical work and the wages will reflect the going rate in the area. Some of the projects may require experienced or skilled personnel, so it will vary. I could not give an average rate except to say it will be the going rate in the area for the particular skill or trade required.
Oral Questions


Robert Muir: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that 157,000 man-months of work divided into $150 million is $955 per month or $11,500 per year, which comes to slightly under $6 an hour, can the minister give an idea of how much money will be used for administrative purposes? Will it be 40 per cent of $150 million or something in that vicinity?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to evade the question as I think it is pertinent, but the 15 departments and the several programs or projects within them are so varied and diverse that I cannot give the House or the hon. member a simple formula such as the percentage of the gross amount that will be devoted to administration and material. Those are the factors plus capital costs and the hon. member has arrived at an hourly rate by simple division. He has also indicated that he recognizes there will be other deductions-some administrative costs, capital costs, material costs, and some will be for straight labour, but some projects will require some material investment for the project to go forward.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Montreal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State responsible for the CBC. As he left his seat a few moments ago, I will direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The Secretary of State for the CBC having resumed his seat, I will now put my question to him.
On November 29, I directed a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion concerning the publicity of his department broadcast only on some private networks in Montreal. Could the Secretary of State tell us whether he has considered the matter. If so, has he spoken to the CBC and can he tell the House the results of the inquiry concerning that publicity only be given on private networks?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have raised the matter with the CBC and they are reconsidering the criteria involved.

[DOT] (U42)


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreviile):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the proposed increases in the tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway which I understand are to be implemented shortly after the first of the year. Having regard to the widespread opposition to
1944

December 16, 1977
Oral Questions
the increases, in some cases increases of over 100 per cent, and given the fact that the increases will have a disruptive effect upon Canadian industry and will in all likelihood divert some of the traffic from the seaway, I wonder if the government is giving any reconsideration to implementing these rather alarming increases and, if not, is the government at least considering the possibility of staging the increases rather than having the impact brought to bear in one fell swoop?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as usual, we have been taking careful note of the views of those who are affected. While we recognize the smallness of the impact compared with the total cost of transportation, the increase in value of goods and the fact that there have been no increases for almost 20 years, we are aware of the concerns some people have voiced about the impact and perhaps even the psychological impact, and we have been taking that into account in our discussions with the United States. A decision is now very close, but I cannot say whether it will be announced in a matter of hours or days.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, am I to take it then that talks have been going on with the United States counterparts, that initiatives have been taken by the U.S. counterparts and that the suggestion in fact came from the U.S. government as far as the staging process is concerned?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think it would only be fair to say that, yes, discussions have been taking place. I have had discussions with Secretary Adams of the United States. Similar representations have been made to both of us, and I think our reactions to those representations have been quite similar as well. However, beyond that I will not go.


RESOURCES
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Charlie McCarthy of the cabinet. In view of the fact that the Ontario provincial government has set up a special legislature committee to look into the nickel industry in Ontario vis-a-vis the recent actions of INCO and Falconbridge in laying off some 4,000 workers in the Sudbury basin, in view of the fact that the federal government has a vital stake in the nickel industry in Canada because of its resource taxation policies and since the federal government has already taken some responsibility in this area with the special internal report by the Department of the Environment regarding highgrading of nickel in the Sudbury basin, can the minister tell the House if his department intends to appear before the special committee to discuss its views and approaches to the nickel industry and, if not, why not?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to find out

whether we have received any request from the select committee.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the minister if he received a request. I asked whether he has taken any initiatives to ensure that his department appears before that committee to present the views of this government regarding a very vital resource which affects not only Canadians from coast to coast but specifically the workers in the Sudbury basin. I wish the minister would not assume such an insensitive and callous attitude.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained to the House and to the hon. member on previous occasions that I took a number of initiatives some weeks ago with respect to the minister responsible in the Ontario government; not the select committee, the minister responsible. I should be meeting with him very shortly, and I hope it will be possible for the two governments to come together with a plan of action which will help solve some of the problems about which the hon. member is so concerned and about which we on this side of the House are very concerned.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in effect the minister says he has not made a request to the provincial legislature committee and will not be appearing before it. Since the vitality of the nickel industry is of absolute importance to Canada as a whole and since the management of that industry is now being called into question, will the minister tell this House if he is prepared to call before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works the management of Canada's nickel industry so that they can be questioned about their management of our vital resources?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is confusing the jurisdictions of the federal government and the provincial government with respect to select committees. He is also trying to create the impression-and I think purposely-that a minister can require a committee to call witnesses before it. The hon. member must know that the committee will decide what persons it will call before it.


THE ROYAL FAMILY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister is aware, the University of Western Ontario has been forced to withdraw an invitation to Prince Charles to come to London to receive the prestigious centennial degree from the University of Western Ontario because the university


NICKEL-SUGGESTION INDUSTRY OFFICIALS APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE TO EXPLAIN OPERATIONS
[Stage Direction]
December 16, 1977
[Stage Direction]
has been unable, after a year of effort, to secure the co-operation of the federal government. Can the Prime Minister tell the House why it is that he has yet to reply to the letter of February 24 from Premier Davis in which Premier Davis stated that there was an invitation and offered to pay for the trip, or the letter of November 23 in which Premier Davis requested prompt consideration and reply from the Prime Minister?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check. I certainly authorized a reply to be sent in my name, and I think it has been received by now. I will verify that, but the letter points out to Premier Davis that the Royal Family was in Ontario this year and that Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Phillip will be going to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland next year.


Mr. Stevens:: That is better for you in an election year.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The latter two provinces have not had a visit from the Queen in many years. In addition to the visit of Her Majesty to Ontario this year, Prince Andrew stayed in Ontario for a school term, and we felt that this was the schedule for the time being.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is there a quota?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get some understanding from the Prime Minister as to what his policy is. Do I understand the Prime Minister correctly that he has some objection and that this is the reason the reply was not received? Does the Prime Minister have some objection to the offer by the government of Ontario to have Prince Charles visit Ontario cities, including Hamilton and London, for three to four days at the expense entirely of the provincial government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of expense; it is a question of the Royal Family itself. They are invited constantly, not only by many provincial governments and many institutions-


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: An hon. member from somewhere in Vancouver asks what is wrong with that.


Mr. Fraser:: This is one time when I did not say anything, Pierre.


An hon. Member:: Even when you do speak you don't say anything.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not hear the hon. member say anything, Mr. Speaker.


John Allen Fraser: I never heard you answer anything either.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Merry Christmas.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Did that loud voice come from Calgary, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions


John Allen Fraser: Santa Claus.


Charles Joseph Clark: Just because you can't find Ontario does not mean Prince Charles can't.


George Harris Hees: Be a big boy and answer the question, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Whenever the House wants to hear the answer, I will give it.


URANIUM CARTEL-REASON FOR REFUSAL TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and it relates to the production of documents relating to the uranium cartel which has been denied by the government at each request by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. In view of the fact that the minister has maintained all along that the cartel was legitimate, required and necessary, would he clarify for the House why he has refused many of these documents on the basis that the documents might be detrimental to the future conduct of Canada's foreign relations?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, that is the reason.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this government puts us into a preposterous position. We were going to debate freedom of information. How can the minister justify or rationalize the fact that the government-for the purpose of covering up any discussion and investigation of the cartel-refuses documentation which people can obtain in the United States under the American freedom of information act or indeed through the various houses in the United States? How can the minister rationalize refusing to give the people of Canada these documents through their elected representatives?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking for information about which it has been made very clear to him and the House that in the government's judgment it would not be in the public interest to release, information dealing with arrangements entered into with foreign governments. The hon. member must know that this is a basis that has been used by the government in the past and accepted by the opposition.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the minister ought to know that is not a basis upon which the House has been refused documentation before, the basis that it is detrimental to foreign relations. I would ask him to justify that position in the House. On what basis is a matter merely being confidential and therefore one on which he refuses to give this information to the House, which is another reason he gave in response to the hon. member?
80027-54'/2

December 16, 1977
Oral Questions


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the death of a spray plane pilot last year. The jury recommended that the Ministry of Transport do more thorough inspections of airframes of airplanes over 15 years of age. Can the minister tell the House his reaction to that recommendation and what action he is prepared to take on it.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing the recommendation to my attention. I will be asking my officials for a report upon it to determine the feasibility of implementing the suggested additional inspection.


FINANCE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Since Canada's manufacturing industry today is in serious trouble with some 100,000 fewer people working in manufacturing today than there were three years ago, I ask the minister if he is aware of any new policies to help high technology industries which is machinery, electrical products and the chemical industry. Does the government have a target, for example, for cutting our deficit on trade in fully manufactured goods, a target that would square our balance of payments on current account and hopefully add a few more people on our employment rolls?


Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in order to help the manufacturing sector of the Canadian economy, there are tax proposals included in Bill C-11 which should enable them to invest more and expand some of their operations where this can be done successfully. There are other policies in other departments to help those industries. We are doing our best to ensure a viable manufacturing base in Canada.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister as it involves at least two or three departments or ministers. It concerns the very serious aspect of discrimination of employment affecting the 25 employees of the British American Bank Note Company in Ottawa who have been on strike for many weeks. In light of the very real imbalance in the pay structure, the very real discrimination between the employment of women and men in that company, since the Government of Canada is the prime customer of this company and in light of the human rights legislation passed by this House in June which is clearly directed against that kind of discrimination, will the Prime Minister indicate whether the government is contemplating any action such as discontinuing its present contract?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details of this particular labour dispute. I can assure the hon. member as a matter of principle we do not encourage third parties to involve themselves in disputes by exercising any kind of economic boycott, if that is what the hon. member is suggesting.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am sorry the Prime Minister is not aware of the situation because the president of the company has justified this discrimination on the basis of it being historic. If there has ever been an obvious case of discrimination between men and women, it has to be this case. When he looks at it, I hope he will look at section 19 of the human rights bill which allows the governor in council to make recommendations respecting the terms and conditions to be included in or applicable to any contract, licence or grant made by Her Majesty in right of Canada. It very clearly gives the government the right and responsibility of making regulations affecting discrimination in employment. Has the Prime Minister been consulted by the Minister of Justice or is consideration being given to including in regulations to be brought down under the human rights bill some clear-cut responsibility in this matter with regard to a major company with whom the Government of Canada is almost the total contractor?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the bill provided for a certain process after which the government would take action. The hon. member is suggesting that we intervene in a labour dispute as a third party and that we use economic leverage to settle this dispute in a particular way. I suggest that is a completely incorrect way of proceeding.

December 16, 1977


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The United States has offered to pay approximately $4 million for mitigating works to offset the effects in Manitoba of the state of Minnesota's Roseau River diversion project. Has the Canadian government determined whether there will be advantage to Canada for this project. If no substantial advantage can in fact be determined for Canada, can I have the assurance of the government that they will forward a note during the negotiations with the Americans that we wish that the project not go forward?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot answer the hon. member in detail on that question at the moment without running the risk of saying something that will be inaccurate. I would like to take time to go into it. I recently discussed it briefly with some officials. If I understood the hon. member correctly, I think the answer is yes, we will continue to ensure there is no damage done as far as Canada is concerned. As to the rest of the question, if the hon. member will agree, I will get him a more detailed response.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Postmaster General. As Canadians are tired of the continual increases in postal rates and at the same time the cutbacks in postal service, can the Postmaster General tell the House if there is to be a cutback in rural route service in Manitoba and also Saturday morning wicket service in this province?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the post office has to be very sensitive to conditions in the market place and the demands that are made on its service. In areas where the demands have fallen in terms of the services that have been offered, we have taken decisions to cut back those services. Indeed, in the province of Manitoba, there has been a cutback on Saturday rural mail delivery in certain areas as a result of a decline in demand for that service. It was only done after surveys had been conducted and there was an indication that the service was no longer required. In terms of Saturday morning wicket service, the same criteria apply. Indeed, we have cut back the services where the demand was not made known in certain areas. Decisions are based on local demand and local criteria.


Donald Craig Stewart: Last month in this House the Postmaster General assured the hon. member for Huron-Mid-
Oral Questions
dlesex there would be no cutback on Saturday rural route service in Ontario. Due to the fact there have been demands to continue the same type of service in Manitoba, rural routes and Saturday morning wicket service, is the minister saying there is one type of service for Ontario and another type for Manitoba?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I did indicate to the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex that in the area in which he resided there would be no cutback in service. I stand by that statement. As 1 indicated, there may be different conditions in different areas. It is done on criteria that are established after local investigation.


FISHERIES
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. It concerns the potential for aquaculture in British Columbia. Mr. A1 Meneely, a Canadian owner and operator of a salmon aquaculture farm, was driven out of business because the Department of Fisheries refused to supply him with salmon eggs. First of all, would the minister advise the House why it was that Mr. Meneely was refused a sufficient supply of salmon eggs so that he could continue his business?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member checked his facts he might not have needed to ask his question. This matter was raised in an article in the Reader's Digest and reproduced in one of the weekend inserts-either Weekend or The Canadian. We tried to put the facts on record. I wrote a lengthy letter to the editor but I have no knowledge as to whether the editor honoured my request to publish the facts. These allegations seem to have a very long life and re-establishing the truth is very difficult. I would be happy if I could find a way to put my answer on the record of the House. It is rather lengthy but I certainly believe the hon. member would not want to be a party to misinformation. I know him to be a much more honourable man than that.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, there is one fact which the minister can confirm-that a company called Union Carbide has received approval from the Foreign Investment Review Agency to carry on the business of aquaculture in the Province of British Columbia. This is a multinational company which is now taking up the role Mr. Meneely formerly played in the aquaculture business. Can the minister also confirm to the House that this same company has exported salmon eggs from British Columbia to some of its subsidiaries abroad?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check into recent developments. It is some months since I have seen the dossier, but I cannot think of one dossier in the

December 16, 1977
Oral Questions
whole department on which I have spent more time checking and rechecking than the one to which the hon. member has made reference. I am satisfied that the articles which have been published were full of misinformation. However, some of the information the hon. member has referred to may be accurate and, of course, I will check into it.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Postmaster General? I know I speak for the minister and for all members of the House when I say we are all dreaming of a white Christmas, but it appears westerners will have a wet one. Is the Postmaster General aware that several tons of mail from Toronto arrived in Calgary soaking wet and badly damaged? Is the hon. gentleman prepared to investigate this situation and prepared to tell us what is to be done?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, that matter was brought to my attention yesterday. I have had an investigation conducted in this connection and I am pleased to advise the hon. member that the report is completely inaccurate. There were one or two bags of mail which had been somewhat affected by rain but none of the mail was damaged. It is being processed in the normal way and will be delivered, only slightly affected, to the addressees.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: My question is for the
Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman knows there was a disastrous fire at the Ogden Point Pier in Victoria on August 8. On August 18 there was a meeting at which his senior officials said we should be able to get a lease or agreement signed between the government and Wescan in order that it might continue operations. With 93 people out of work four months after that meeting, we still do not know when the agreement will be signed. There have been leaks from the minister's department to the effect that it will be signed any day. Could the hon. gentleman report to the House on this question?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, after the destruction of the wharf there was a change in the ownership of the land from the CNR, adding certain legal complications which had to be cleared up before progress could be made with respect to a lease. We have made an offer recently to the operator who is interested in constructing a new wharf. 1 have not personally seen the terms and conditions of

the agreement and cannot therefore say whether we shall soon be in a position to sign. I do understand, however, that he has told the press we have an agreement, from which I assume the operator is accepting the terms. If that is the case, I expect it will now be only a question of completing the paperwork.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. Has the hon. gentleman taken any initiatives to investigate the appropriateness of the CN laying off approximately 360 employees on a nationwide basis from its express division and whether the reason given by CN-lack of business-has been due to its own lack of initiative in promoting business?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have been fully informed of this situation by CN. The layoffs reflect a decline in business of a seasonal nature. They are for a specific period of time and those laid off know when they will be back at work. This can be said of almost every case. Canadian National has acted in a very fine fashion in the way it has handled this situation both in discussion with the union and the workers involved. It might indeed be said to be an example to other companies which do not always follow such a course.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Without disputing the minister's premise, I would like to point out to him that there has been a steady erosion of jobs with the CN right across the country. At the same time there has been a diminution of the level of service, which discourages Canadians who might wish to use that service. There is thus an unproductive cycle established. Is the minister looking into the situation to ascertain why business appears to be seasonal and why there is not a greater utilization by Canadians of CN services in the hope that we might be able to stop this constant erosion of jobs without any corresponding increase in business?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, Christmas is seasonal and a dropoff in business seems to accompany that particular season. It happens every year. The hon. member should know that Canadian National is in fact handling more goods and covering more ton miles with a smaller number of employees. This, surely, reflects efficient management and success in finding ways of avoiding an unnecessary salary load-an unnecessary burden of cost upon the economy. The efficiency of management in handling more ton miles with a smaller supply of labour and capital is the kind of improvement in productivity which we want to see generally in the economy.
December 16, 1977


PRIVILEGE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given you notice. It arises from what was said in the House yesterday by the Minister of Finance in response to a question put to him by myself with respect to the introduction of an important tax credit bill which has been proposed.
The minister stated, as reported at page 1893 of Hansard:
When we started Bill C-l 1 the hon. member said that second reading was to be three or four days and it lasted three weeks. Thus, I cannot rely on him very much.
I interjected that this statement was not true.


Mr. Abbott:: It is true. You are unreliable.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I maintain that the minister, in making that statement, imputed bad faith on my part. He was suggesting I had entered into some kind of understanding or agreement with him with respect to the early passage of Bill C-l 1 through second reading. I deny that, without qualification. There is no truth in the minister's statement. There was no conversation between him and myself with respect to the time we might take on second reading debate of Bill C-ll.
Not only do I deny the truth of what the minister said, but I would draw to your attention a second untruth which I believe Your Honour can check for yourself by reading Hansard. The minister stated that Bill C-ll took three weeks at second reading stage. That is not true. Second reading began on November 7 and ended on November 24. If it had taken three weeks, the terminal date would have been November 28. So on the face of it the minister's statement is untrue. Further, I recall that not only did we spend a relatively short period debating Bill C-ll on second reading, but between the dates mentioned we had at least two supply days, and there were several questions of privilege raised-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now expressing disagreement with the minister with regard to the duration of a debate on second reading. His question of privilege basically relates to a statement by the minister that there had been some consultation between him and the hon. gentleman about the second reading debate lasting three or four days.
I have to tell the hon. member that, aside from the fact that essentially we are dealing here with a disagreement, the remark complained of was made during the course of the question period yesterday. Our practice normally requires that any member wishing to raise such a matter by way of a question of privilege must do so at the earliest opportunity. The hon. member was here yesterday and the occasion for raising the matter as a question of privilege, had he wished to do so, was yesterday at the conclusion of the question period- not 24 hours later.
Business of the House
Therefore, I am in double difficulty about going any further with the disagreement which the hon. member has, which again I say is essentially a disagreement, in any case, and not a question of privilege.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to the points you have made, I did not raise the question yesterday because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the hon. member is procedurally out of order in going on with the matter today when he had an opportunity to do so yesterday.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to explain to Your Honour why I did not raise it yesterday. The fact of the matter was that I heard what the minister said, but I was not sure whether I had heard him correctly. I watched the 11.30 TV performance last night, and it confirmed what he had said. I did not get Hansard this morning until 10.25. I telephoned Your Honour's office before ten o'clock and stated that I felt the minister had made a statement that was completely untrue; that if, in truth, it was recorded that way in Hansard, I hoped to be able to raise a question of privilege at the appropriate time. That I am attempting to do. If Your Honour would give me the opportunity, I want to refer to certain statements of Your Honour and precedents cited with respect to this type of matter on previous occasions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. First of all, I allowed the hon. member to develop his question of privilege and to indicate his abject disagreement with and denial of what the minister had said yesterday. That seems to me to give the hon. member for York-Simcoe some latitude in raising what was essentially, and remains, a disagreement with a remark made by the minister.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Which is untrue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has put his interpretation forward. He has put a denial on the record. Essentially it is a disagreement; but in any case there is another difficulty, which I have outlined, and I do not think the hon. member should go any further.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He should retract.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During today's question period the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton I think may have inadvertently misled the House when he indicated that an agreement had been reached in relation to the motion put forward by the member for Peace River, and that the Prime Minister had not been aware of that agreement. The fact of the matter is that no agreement had been finalized. I had approached House leaders on the other side to determine

December 16, 1977
Business of the House
whether there was a disposition to limit debate or to have no debate at all on a motion to refer the matter, but no conclusion was reached. I felt it would be a bit misleading if the impression were created that the Prime Minister ought to have been informed of an agreement which had not been reached. I would have felt obliged to inform him of one that had, but certainly under no obligation to inform him of one that had not.


Mr. Speaker:: These are the difficulties we face continually if we attempt to negotiate something on the floor of the House. These ongoing discussions leave some loose ends, and these leave different impressions on both sides of the House. Again it is an indication that we ought to firm up such arrangements before attempting to report them to the House or to deal with them on the basis of consent. I understand, however, that on orders of the day there may be some accord resulting from developments in the meantime, and we can deal with that at that time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises from the statement that you have just made. I feel that you have put me in an unbelievably untenable position. I was attempting-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to remind the hon. member, I hope for the last time, that whether or not the hon. member seeks to agree or disagree with rulings by the Chair, rulings by the Chair on procedural matters are final. 1 have made a disposition in respect to the procedural correctness of the hon. member's position. As the hon. member said in his remarks today, he complained yesterday from his seat, at the time the remark was made, that the remark was not true. The hon. member was in his seat, he was aware of the remark, and he said that it was not true.
I do not often lean on the requirement that a matter of this sort be raised on the first occasion. I have often extended leniency in that regard. However, if the rule is to be respected at all, certainly in a situation where the hon. member recognizes a remark to the extent of denying it from his seat in the House, as he did yesterday, he must surely recognize that, if there is any validity at all to the regulation, I have to enforce it in these circumstances. I do not take particular pleasure in that. That is the primary concern.
In any case, on balance there is a direct disagreement in this matter. The hon. member has put his accusation and his denial of what the minister said yesterday on the record and has said it is untrue. He has done so under the guise of a question of privilege. It is not a question of privilege, but in any case, even if it were, the only time it could have been properly raised in the procedural sense was yesterday.
(Mr. Cafik.J



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker on behalf of the Prime Minister I should like to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies, in both official languages, of a progress report from the Lambert Commission on Financial Management and Accountability.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of the report on performance measurement.


GRAIN HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table copies, in both official languages, of the third volume of the report of the Grain Handling and Transportation Commission.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 36, 51, 67 to 98 inclusive, 329, 337 and 733.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	During the summer of 1977, did the Minister of Transport hold a private party on government railway cars at the Ottawa Railway Station and, if so (a) on what date (b) what are the names of all persons in attendance (c) were any railway employees on duty to serve those involved and, if so, what are their names (d) did the Minister pay for all the expenses and, if not, what was the cost to the taxpayer (e) was any rental paid to the government for use of the cars (0 what is a full description and names or designations, if any, of the cars involved?
December 16, 1977

2.	Did the Minister leave in the cars on a trip and, if so (a) to what locations (b) who accompanied him (c) what was the total cost to the taxpayer (d) how many days did the Minister make use of the cars and on what dates?
3.	Is it government policy to permit Ministers to use government owned railway cars for private purposes and, if so, on what date and by whom was such policy created?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. No.
2 and 3. See response to Question No. 11 page 459 of Hansard for October 26, 1976.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is an investigation being carried out into possible use of the UIC computer in Montreal, by private interests, during the time that Mr. Robert Kingsley was Director of the Regional Payment Centre in Montreal and, if so (a) on what date did the investigation begin (b) who was or is conducting it (c) has it been completed and, if not, on what date will it be completed?
2.	Has the RCMP become involved in any such investigation and, if so, what are the details of their involvement and on what date did it begin?
3.	Does any investigation include examination of whether or not the UIC computer was used without government authority by private interests and were any charges made for such use and, if so, who received the payments?


Yvon Pinard: 1. Yes. (a) See reply to part 2. (b) RCMP. (c) No. It is not known at this time when the investigation will be completed.
2.	Yes. The RCMP is currently carrying out an investigation as a result of a letter of request received from the Unemployment Insurance Commission on July 29, 1977. The investigation commenced shortly thereafter.
3.	The investigation is still pending.


Mr. Dick: In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?


Otto Emil Lang: This reply is also in response to questions Nos: 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98. See response to Question No. 11, page 459 of Hansard for October 26, 1976.


Mr. Dick: In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Fisheries and of the Environment, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 69-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Multiculturalism, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 70-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of State (Environment), since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?
Order Paper Questions 
Question No. 71-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 72-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of State (Small Businesses), since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 73-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Secretary of State, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 74-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Solicitor General, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 75-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Postmaster General, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 76-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of National Revenue, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 77-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 78-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Employment and Immigration, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 79-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 80-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Public Works, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 81-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport), since she has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 82-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of National Health and Welfare, since she has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

December 16, 1977
Order Paper Questions 
Question No. 83-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Communications, since she has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 84-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Veterans Affairs, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 85-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 86-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Agriculture, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 87-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 88-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Supply and Services, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 89-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Transport, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 90-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of National Defence, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 91-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the President of the Treasury Board, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 92-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Secretary of State for External Affairs, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 93-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Justice, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 94-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Labour, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 95-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Finance, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 96-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 97-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the President of Privy Council, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?

Question No. 98-Mr. Dick:
In (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 to date, did the Minister of State for Science and Technology, since he has been a Member of the Cabinet, use a private railway car and, if so, on what dates or during what period of time?


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Northern Transportation Co. Ltd. obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Northern Transportation Co. Ltd. in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a)(ii) 1975, 3; 1976, 5; (b)(ii) 1975, 2; 1976, 7.
2.	No. Self generated cash flow.
3.	(a) Alberta 1975, $5.32; 1976, $5.62. (b) Not known, (c) Total paid to agencies in 1975, $9,038; in 1976, $19,366.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Textile and Clothing Board obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Textile and Clothing Board in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. (a) The Textile and Clothing Board has obtained part-time employees from private employment agencies only in Ontario: 1975/76 fiscal year, 4
December 16, 1977

employees; 1976/77 fiscal year, 12 employees, (b) The Textile and Clothing Board has not obtained full-time employees from private employment agencies.
2.	Such part-time employees were paid from Textile and Clothing Board Vote 5 Operating Expenditures in fiscal year 1975/76; in 1976/77 such employees were paid from Textile and Clothing Board Vote 5 operating expenditures plus supplementary estimates.
3.	Ontario Employment Agencies: (a) Average hourly rate paid to employment agencies, 1975/76, $6.55; 1976/77, $7.05. (b) Not known, (c) Total amount paid by Textile and Clothing Board, 1975/76, $1,624; 1976/77, $27,000.


Mr. Jones: 1.	What are the duties, responsibilities and authorities of the proposed Anti-Terrorist Group to be formed by the Department of National Defence?
2.	Will the group be similar to that of West Germany?
3.	To the knowledge of the government, does the West German Anti-Terrorist Squad take part in incidents other than hijacking and kidnapping and, if so, what are the details?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.
The duties, responsibilities and authorities of a proposed AntiTerrorist group have not yet been determined.
2.	See part 1 above.
3.	Not known.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



INFORMATION


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, earlier in our proceedings today the House gave unanimous consent to put a motion proposed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). As a result of that, I have had discussions with members opposite and believe there would be agreement to proceed with the motion at this time, under a couple of conditions, namely, that no more than one speaker be allowed per party and, secondly, that no member shall speak for longer than 15 minutes.
The next point I should like to put forward-and perhaps I can attend to this in a moment-is that the motion requires some amendment, to which I hope there will be unanimous consent. In light of the fact that it is a joint committee which is referred to, there is a technical flaw in the motion. Therefore, I would like to propose an adjustment to it after we have decided whether we can proceed in that manner.
Access to Documents


Gerald William Baldwin: That is perfectly all right with me, Mr. Speaker. Any time the government can improve on a motion I make, I am always glad to accommodate them.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms and conditions of the motion. It is proposed that the matter be proceeded with at this time on the basis that there be no more than one speaker from each party and that each speech will last no longer than 15 minutes. In addition, an amendment will be permitted to give recognition to the fact that it is not a standing, but a joint committee and some adjustment may have to be made with reference to the other place. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered. The question, therefore, is the following. Moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the green paper on legislation on public access to government documents be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members on both sides of the House for their accommodation, and I also offer thanks for the alacrity with which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has accepted the invitation to have a debate. 1 am only sorry that the Prime Minister is not here to debate the matter, because he has learned a lot about security and ministerial responsibility over the last few weeks. He has had a very "Liberal" education with respect to this matter, and I had hoped that he would be here for this debate. However, I see my hon. friend, the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) is here, and I have reason to believe that in general he believes in good legislation, at least to the extent that cabinet solidarity permits him.
The period of gestation for any reform is always fairly lengthy, though with this government it is extremely lengthy. Hopefully, because of the number of conditions which have been placed on this reform, we are getting close to the stage of reaching committee and we may be able to do something constructive on this very important issue concerning circumstances in this country and other countries in the civilized and democratic world.
I believe it was John Stuart Mill who mentioned the necessity of there being a free marketplace of ideas in order for there to be good government. A free marketplace of ideas does not exist where you have government secrecy. Government secrecy has been the way of life of many governments in democratic countries. 1 hope we are now coming to a stage where that will be concluded. Government secrecy is a palpable defect. It is widespread. It has run so deep that it has become a malignant disease and what I would call a political distemper which constitutes a major impediment to the free marketplace of

December 16, 1977
Access to Documents
ideas. It spawns corruption, incompetence and indecision. We have seen a lot of that, Mr. Speaker, over the last two or three years.
It is a major factor in the cynicism and loss of confidence which has spread over this land. Any member of this parliament who is honest will agree with me when I say, travel any place in Canada and you discover a feeling of outrage, frustration, anger and disbelief among the people which has constituted an impediment in the capacity of governments today to deal with the problems which afflict us. Most of those problems are man-made and can be cured by man. It takes a relationship between the government and the governors which is non-existent not only in the federal system of which I have some knowledge but in other systems of government in this country.
Mr. Speaker, people may forgive politicians and governments for erring, but they will no longer forgive them for lying, for deception, for procrastination linked to deception which have become the trademarks of Ottawa. Open government by a workable freedom of information law will have very definite advantages for this parliament and for the public of Canada. Canadians are entitled to know what the government is doing to or for them, what it is costing them, and who will receive the benefits of the proposals which are made. This parliament will then be a better place. We will have a more efficient question period, with crisper, shorter questions, if members of parliament on both sides of the House are armed with the knowledge permitting them to contribute to any debate in a meaningful, effective way.
The right of freedom of speech is often talked about. Mr. Speaker, what good, what use and what value is freedom of speech without the knowledge upon which we can base that speech? I am convinced the quality of debate in this House will be vastly improved when and if that time comes. The word is "when" because this has become a major issue. I do not believe the public will tolerate refusal by this or any other government, be it federal or provincial, to delay the enactment of a workable freedom of information law. When it comes, Mr. Speaker, it will be a better parliament because of the quality of the speeches we will be making and the questions we will be asking.
There have been challenges to the kind of law which most of us want and when I say "most of us", I give credit to a great many people on the government side. If I were free, under our rules, to introduce a freedom of information law myself, and should it be put to the question without any whips being present, 75 per cent of the members of this House would support it, and at least that percentage in the other place. We would then have a bill in short order.
The government is indicating that they have approached this problem with undue caution, with Scots caution, delaying caution. They talk about ministerial responsibility. Mr. Speaker, ministerial responsibility in Canada has become a farce, a myth. It no longer exists. The average minister does not know one per cent of the work being done in his department. He is, in effect, the spokesman, the advocate for his department and

its officials. He reads the departmental brief in cabinet, in cabinet committees, to this House and to the public.
By the very nature of the kind and quality of our government, the massive intervention the government has made in the lives of people, it is impossible for any minister to know what is going on. Even when he is given information by senior civil servants on how his particular department is run, he comes into this House and what is the situation? We had a typical example during the last few months, specifically in the past few weeks, regarding security. By interpretations which have been placed by the Chair based on precedents of this House- and I do not challenge them-we have been prohibited from questioning ministers who have considerable knowledge, or should have, of the workings of the Department of the Solicitor General. These people are eminent parliamentarians-I will use that expression as it is Christmas time. However, under the Government Reorganization Act, the Prime Minister is able to move a minister to another department when things become awkward, and he falls outside the scope and scrutiny of this House. That is the situation which exists. How can you have ministerial responsibility in a situation of that kind?
The situation is of ministers sent to a royal commission under terms of reference established by the Prime Minister, by personnel appointed by the Prime Minister who will report to the Prime Minister. This royal commission may hold many of its deliberations in secret. How can that be held to be, in any sense of the imagination, ministerial responsibility? Anyone who suggests ministerial responsibility constitutes a barrier to a freedom of information act should have been in this House for the last two months. They would then know it does not constitute any meaningful alibi.
We talk about ministers having the right, the final word, and not the judges. Every day of the year, magistrates in the federal and provincial courts examine issues dealing with federal and provincial legislation which involve making a judicial interpretation of certain aspects of government behaviour initiated by ministers. We have many examples. The Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) has shown no unwillingness to seek judicial guidance on certain decisions he has arrived at in the course of the debate on security. Four times he has seen fit to go to a judge, and each time he has been rejected. For a government which states that it is not prepared to entrust to judges the right to scrutinize the decisions of ministers, the Solicitor General shows a remarkable alacrity to accept another attitude.
We have the case of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) who went to a judge with respect to an issue. We have the case where the AIB program was referred by this government to the Supreme Court of Canada. During the days of the year when courts are sitting, they have occasion to decide and deal with issues in which the government is involved. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that is not a reason. The real reason is-and we all know it; members on the other side know it; cabinet knows it-fear of exposure, fear of embarrass-
December 16, 1977

ment. Those are very understandable fears for a government which has been in power for any length of time.
The reasons advanced by this government are precisely the same as those advanced by President Nixon, through his counsel, to the Supreme Court of the United States. Also, these reasons were advanced on behalf of the Harold Wilson cabinet in the United Kingdom when the court was considering the Crossman diary litigation which exposed the workings of the United Kingdom cabinet for what they were. It is the fear of embarrassment and the fear of being caught-not viciously or in terms of corruption, but it is human nature not to want to be proved wrong. I am sure ministers of the government make as many mistakes as myself, and perhaps more. There is no reason why their mistakes should not be exposed and subjected to scrutiny by this parliament, on behalf of Canadians. This does not constitute any barrier to the passage of legislation.
Today, the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), acting through a whim of secrecy, evaded a reasonable question posed by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn). My colleague was asking for information about the uranium cartel. Members of this House, and Canadians generally, are entitled to that information. The period is long past when that information would be of any consequence. It is a terrible thing for members of the public to witness the manner in which the minister evaded a proper question put by a member of my party.
In conclusion, we are not seeking something which will put this country or the government down the drain. Any government can live with it. We want a declaration indicating that all documents in the possession of the government are available for examination by the public and by parliament, subject to certain precise exceptions. There is little disagreement between the government and members of my party as to what the exceptions will be: they can be thrashed out.
As soon as possible, we would like to see indexing of documents to enable members to identify them. It is a humiliating and demeaning experience for members of the opposition to be required to rely on leaks from public servants in order to perform their duties. We are entitled to something better than that. We must have a proper appeal process to an independent tribunal. The decisions of that tribunal must be binding on the government and the other party concerned. I would like to see rules making that procedure simple and inexpensive, so there is no delay. People should be allowed to obtain a document on the payment of a reasonable fee. I do not think it should be free: the fee would pay for the cost of the service.
If the government believes there is no public support for this suggestion, it is wrong. We have gathered support from 45 or 46 organizations which have a total membership of approximately three million people. These organizations are of some substance and are influential. I will not get freedom of information by leading an attack on the barricade; but if the
Access to Documents
government delays implementing a proper, workable, freedom of information law prior to the next election, it will have a penalty to pay and its name in the history books of this country will be lower than it is at the present time.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the members of parliament who participated in this most excellent study. I did not have an opportunity to participate, but the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) did on behalf of the New Democratic Party. This is a substantial move toward finally having a meaningful bill presented in this House.
I endorse what was said by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). He indicated that it was incumbent upon this government to do something once the study comes out of committee. The reason for that, and the reason we are now hearing a few cooing noises from the government side concerning this subject, is that the government now realizes the political impact of this particular subject. Canadians are tired of seeing a government which represents a bureaucracy rather than its constituents. That is the key question in terms of freedom of information. The lockup between the government and the bureaucracy should never be so close that the difference cannot be recognized.
The House has witnessed a substantial amount of evidence concerning the Royal Canadian Mounted Policy inquiry, as well as many other matters, where ministers have failed to distinguish between the interests of their own bureaucracy and the interests of the public. Often there is a distinct conflict between those two areas.
I congratulate the hon. member for Peace River for doing an excellent job by bringing this matter forward once again. In an untiring way he has led the fight to bring forward a decent piece of freedom of information legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We should not forget the contributions of other members in the House. I am thinking particularly of Barry Mather who sat in this chamber as a member of the New Democratic Party for many years. From 1965 to 1970, yearly he introduced a private members' freedom of information bill. Also, I would not want to discount the efforts of the hon. member for Greenwood or those of the venerable and honourable member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has been an untiring advocate of freedom of information in this House.
From time to time we receive interesting answers on the subject of freedom of information. When one requests the opening up of bureaucracy to provide more information to the public, quite often a minister of the government will say, "All you are doing is increasing the cost of government, the volume of work, the number of employees, the number of computers, as well as duplicating work".
Approximately a year ago I went to Washington to look at their freedom of information law to see whether there was any validity in the answers which I was receiving from the

December 16, 1977
Access to Documents
bureaucracy and the ministers. Possibly the environmental protection agency was hit hardest by the United States freedom of information legislation, and their people totally support that legislation. The result in the United States is that a person simply writes a letter requesting information. There is a time limit for the agency to reply to that letter. The request does not have to be fulfilled if the information provided is not specific enough. The person is required to pay a nominal charge for duplication, and the information is forwarded.
Our government has forgotten that these documents are not the property of the government, nor members of parliament; they are the property of the public who pay the taxes, and they are entitled to that information. The sooner that fundamental principle is realized, the sooner Canada will have a freedom of information law.
I was delighted with the recommendation suggesting the establishment of a panel of judges to review the question. It will wash the dirty linen of the RCMP. If one looks at the wiretap legislation, he will see the same principle is involved. When the government decided on the wiretap legislation, they decided we would allow judges to issue warrants on wiretaps except in matters of national security. We do not have confidence in the bench for that; we will let the Solicitor General do it. Again, that is a fundamental weakness.
I say, trust the courts, trust the judges. With the capacity they have and the tenure they have, they are the best we can have in the country to protect the civil rights and freedoms of Canadians. On many occasions this government has felt it could not invest the courts with that kind of trust. I hope that the all-party report will also spur the government forward in those areas-sometimes, of necessity, in camera-in providing the courts with the decision-making process in those areas.
We will probably see a bill. I am afraid I am cynical enough to believe it has something to do with the timing of the next election, but 1 urge the minister seriously to consider these recommendations, particularly in terms of narrowing the definition of information which may not be released, and particularly with regard to allowing a panel of judges to make the final decision. There is no way that a minister can act objectively on a request for information which may be embarrassing to his personal performance. The old cliche that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done never applied more than it does on the question of freedom of information.
I do not want to be long-winded. I just want to say how delighted our party is that this report has come forward, and how delighted we are that members of parliament such as the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) are associated with it and have placed their names on it. We also have our Social Credit friends associated with the report. I hope that the efforts which have been made by many members of the House will now come to fruition.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to give my support to the motion, which has been expected for some time and should lead to a statute ensuring greater freedom of information. Such freedom of information has been requested by everyone, not only by members in this House. Because when members ask for information or the production of certain documents, when they insert questions on the order paper, very often it is because of queries from their constituents.
And when, as very often happens, we are told we cannot have the information because it is confidential, we wonder whether we are not dealing with some kind of in camera government. A democratic country such as we have in Canada is entitled to something better. Sometimes we are told that questions on the Order paper cannot be answered because this would be too costly, too expensive in terms of both time and money.
Mr. Speaker, if a question is too expensive in terms of time, in terms of research to find answers, it may be that there are deficiencies on the part of the bureaucracy, that bureaucrats do not take the trouble to keep note or maintain files of their actions and expenditures. If such files were kept up to date, it would be easy to give us the required information without too much time or money.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore feel that members of parliament and the general public need to be better informed if this Parliament is going to perform its function in a democratic country.
In my view, the bill that has been called for by the opposition and a variety of organizations working in that area should bring more freedom of information without putting the government in hot water, which too often is what they fear.
Mr. Speaker, in very limited areas only should the government withhold information, but as I said, in a democratic government information must be readily available, to meet the Canadian people's information needs.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first of all, that I welcome this initiative on the part of the honourable and learned gentleman. It helps me meet the commitment which 1 made to the House and to him, that as quickly as possible we would have the government's green paper on access to public documents forwarded to the joint committee. As hon. members know, we have had on the order paper a government motion to that effect. I welcome his motion, just as I welcome the activity of the joint committee in studying this extremely important issue. I welcome, as well, the initiative of my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), and the members of the committee of which he is chairman.
Some hon. [Members: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: I think that their contribution is extremely useful to the discussion of this important question, and I know

December 16, 1977

that the joint committee will be looking at their recommendations. I want to add that it is my hope that other organizations, such as the Canadian Bar Association and others, will come forward to the committee with constructive suggestions on how we can improve the position which has been outlined in the green paper on access to public documents.
I want to say, also, that it is not a question of whether there is great public support for these changes which I think all members of the House wish to make. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) assures me that there is great public support for these measures. I would say to him that even if there were not, these changes should take place because they are essential to the functioning of a healthy democratic society.
At the outset of his remarks, the hon. member for Peace River asked me to specify, within the balance of the possibilities of collective responsibility, my commitment to the principle of open government. I am pleased to do that and to draw his attention and that of members of the House to the first two paragraphs of the introduction to the green paper on legislation on public access to government documents. Having written them myself, they represent my sincere view and also the commitment of the government to follow the precept of open government.
It has always seemed to me a paradox that in the parliamentary system-with its emphasis, at least in the past, upon confidentiality within the public service, and secrecy of decision-making in the cabinet and secrecy of party decision-making in various caucuses of the various parties-that in a country which espouses open government, so much of the decision-making process should take place behind closed doors and away from public view.
The commitment, which has been eloquently expressed by the hon. member for Peace River, is one which members on the government side share and, indeed, one which is shared by members of all parties.
I can say parenthetically-I do not think the hon. member will mind-that his view that one of the results of the legislation would be to improve the quality of the question period is something that I would devoutly support. Anything that would improve the quality of the question period or that would assist in the improvement of the kind of questions put by members of the opposition is a step devoutly to be wished for.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the minister not agree that the quality and shortness of the answer period could also be vastly improved?


John (Moody) Roberts: I have often been much more impressed with the quality of my answers than I have with the quality of the questions.


An hon. Member:: You are the only one.


John (Moody) Roberts: I thank the hon. member for admitting that in my case, at least, it is true.
Access to Documents
The hon. member cited John Stuart Mill, a Liberal for whom I have a particular affection. I think the hon. member and I would both agree-if I can return a quotation of Mill's to supplement his own-that, "Whoever knew truth to be put to flight in a fair encounter?" It is my commitment-and I think it is evident in the paper that it is also the commitment of the government-to ensure that as much information as possible is available to the public and to hon. members, so that a full understanding of the context of decision-making is available and so that the public can properly judge the efficiency and the correctness of decisions which are taken.
In the few moments that are left to me, I want to emphasize the purpose of the government's presentation of the green paper on legislation on public access to government documents. I am sure hon. members of the House appreciate, but members of the public may sometimes not, that the green paper is not a description or a setting forth of policy positions to which the government is committed in a hard and fast way. It is, rather, a study document. It is a document prepared for the purposes of examination and discussion, and that is the process we have followed in presenting the green paper.
Some have interpreted the green paper to be-and they are mistaken in their interpretation-a disguised hard and fast policy position, and they feel that the various options which are described in the green paper are not really options but are a kind of stalking horse for some policy which has already been decided and which will be unveiled in a hard and fast way at a certain time. I want to emphasize that that is not the case.
The government is presenting this study paper because it genuinely thinks it is important to move in this area. We think there are problems involved, and we very much wish to have the counsel of the joint committee on the recommendations made in the paper. We are not committed to either the specific exemptions which we have described nor to any specific review process. We are committed to the idea of implementing open government in this country and expanding access to public documents. We accept that material prepared at taxpayers' expense should be available for the public to see unless there are extremely good reasons why it should not be so available.
I want to draw the attention of the House to pages 10 and 11 of the green paper which outline in a tentative way a possible description of what exemptions there should be to the basic principle of providing access, which we accept. I do not argue that the description of these exemptions is perfect in the document we have presented. There are many difficult problems to wrestle with. Some have suggested that we should, for instance, simply apply the standards or the language used in the American freedom of information act, but because we have a different system of government, the effect of applying the words used in that act might be unforeseen. There might be undesirable effects which hon. members of the opposition-not me-would be the first to resist. We have presented the American wording and we have also presented the wording which was used in Australia in relation to some of the exemptions, to try to get the committee to focus on this question and

December 16, 1977
Access to Documents
to assist us in coming up with better wording if better wording can be found.
I want also to refer to pages 16 and 17 of the green paper which outline the review process and present five options or five different approaches. There may be others. If there are others, I hope the committee will present to us other ways of reviewing how the exemptions might be applied in practice. Here, too, we see that there are problems. The fact that the green paper discusses those problems should not be taken as an indication that the government has settled upon one final approach as to how a review process should be undertaken. That is not the case. We are open and willing to consider the recommendations which will be made to us by the committee.
There are problems with judicial review. There are problems with many of the options described. Judicial review can often be a costly process. Perhaps it need not be so. Perhaps there are ways of achieving the objective which I believe hon. members on both sides wish to achieve without the process of judicial review. That is one of the matters I hope the committee will look into very seriously.
Questions of ministerial responsibility are important. As the hon. member for Peace River has indicated, over the past few weeks the House has been considerably exercised as to what the responsibilities of ministers are and how they should be enforced. I doubt that members of this House would wish to see us implement a policy which would tend to undermine the accountability of ministers to the House. However, again we throw those questions, which can be complicated questions, to the committee for discussion and we are eager to have the counsel of the committee and its advice on those questions.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt)- who, unfortunately, is not now in the House-referred to the question of cost and the experience in the Elnited States. I would like to point out to hon. members that on pages 26 and 27 of the green paper the whole question of cost is discussed. Apart from the whole process of judicial review, the estimated present cost in the United States of administering their freedom of information act is, in round figures, approximately $150 million a year. I would not for a moment suggest that because the process is costly, it should not be embarked upon; but I think hon. members will want to know what the cost will be for whichever of the various approaches to the question may be taken.
As hon. members will have noticed, I am not in very fine voice today. I do not wish to go on at great length. 1 hope the committee will wish to have me come and speak to it: I am anxious to do that. I believe that for technical reasons it is important for me to move an amendment. I, therefore, move:
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a semicolon and by adding the following words:
"and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof'.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) says he is always anxious to consider improvements to his motions. I hope he agrees that this change is an improvement.

I believe it is incumbent upon me also to ask for unanimous consent to withdraw my motion No. 8 which had as its purpose to do what the hon. member's motion does. The hon. member's motion seeks to refer the green paper to the joint committee. That is a commitment we have made. We wish to follow upon that, and that is the purpose of our original motion which has now been obviated by the hon. member's motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am always glad to act as a catalyst to precipitate government action, but I knew this action would have come anyway. I am glad to agree to the changes which have been proposed. Before sitting down, I would like to say to the minister that I am not asking that this be incorporated in the motion, but would he and the government be good enough to consider the need to equip this committee with special counsel? I am not suggesting that it be in any large degree. We have counsel now, but they are fully occupied with statutory instruments, which come forward in very large quantities. I think it would be useful to have special counsel who would be related to this aspect of our duties.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly sympathetic to this request. I would have to take it into consideration and, of course, there might be implications here, as far as the House leaders are concerned, about which 1 would have to inform them. I cannot make the commitment the hon. member is asking for, but I shall certainly be an energetic vehicle of transmission of his request to the appropriate minister.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the minister's request for unanimous consent to withdraw motion No. 8 standing in the name of the government, we concur.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So do we.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the government to withdraw motion No. 8 from the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Roberts) agreed to.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 1.02 p.m. the House took recess.
December 16, 1977



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, December 15, consideration of Bill C-5, to amend the Canada Elections Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mir. Deputy Speaker: Order, please hon. members are aware that motion No. 15 standing in the name of the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) was stood yesterday by unanimous consent. It is the last motion to be considered. The House has been informed that the motion did not meet the requirements of our Standing Orders, as it went beyond the scope of the clause and beyond the scope of the bill in amending the act and was not acceptable under our rules. It has been suggested by the minister, and requested by many members, that the motion be considered by unanimous consent. Unless hon. members are prepared to give unanimous consent for consideration of the motion at this time, report stage of the bill will have been completed. Is there unanimous consent to allow motion No. 15 to be considered?
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, this completes report stage of Bill C-5.


Mr. Benjamin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a "No" to unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There was a "No", and I know where it came from.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, did he say it, or merely shake his head?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member who said "No" said it loud and clear.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there is agreement to proceed immediately with third reading.


Norman Augustine Cafik: that Bill C-5, to amend the Canada Elections Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, be concurred in.
Canada Elections Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Norman Augustine Cafik: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I must say a few words on third reading of this bill which otherwise I would not have done-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I did not see the minister stand. I do not know if he wants to speak. The fact that he moved the motion will make him lose his right to speak unless he receives consent at the end of the debate or at any other time. That is the only way he would be able to intervene. He will either have to speak at this time or seek consent to speak later in the debate.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay this debate. I certainly do not want to interfere with the right of any member to intervene at this moment. I would simply say, in summation on third reading, that we as a government have adopted a very flexible stance in relation to this bill, in a genuine attempt to try to accommodate the disposition of all members. Perhaps this is the reason we had some difficulties at report stage in trying to achieve that objective. However, I followed that flexible course in both committee stage and at report stage. We feel we have achieved a very broad basis of consensus on the elements contained in the amendments to this bill which reflect the disposition of members of parliament, the ad hoc committee, and largely, if not totally, the Chief Electoral Officer.
I would underscore one point which I think is more significant than any of the others. Allowance has been made in this bill, through the amendments at report stage, to accommodate the voting rights of those who are teachers and administrators attached to DND bases overseas. This is a very important step forward. A number of representations have been made by individual members and by the Teachers' Federation. We, as a government, are very pleased to associate ourselves with the achievement of that objective. It is an achievement and objective that can be shared by members on both sides of the House. We consider it a very important step forward.
The second point I would make is with regard to motion No. 15. Although it has not received unanimous consent, I would simply indicate, with regard to that motion dealing with the difficulties being experienced through a particular by-election, the problem being referred to generally as the Roach case, that the government never did strike a particular disposition. We attempted to respond to our perception of the disposition of members of the House of Commons in bringing forward an amendment that we felt would be acceptable. The fact that it did not receive unanimous consent does not in any particular way aggrieve the government in that regard. We were simply trying to serve what we perceived to be the interests of members of parliament.
I do not think it is necessary for me to recount all the amendments related to this bill: they are well known. I spoke

December 16, 1977
Canada Elections Act
of the original amendments and the nature of them at second reading. I addressed myself in very brief form to each of the amendments at report stage. In connection with the committee, the record stands for itself as to the disposition we have taken in that regard.
We think it is a positive step to come forward with these amendments. We hope they will substantially improve the application of the Canada Elections Act. I want to express, on behalf of the government, appreciation to the committee members and to the House of Commons for a tremendous degree of co-operative effort in order to help achieve a bill which affects each of us individually, all of us collectively, and all Canadians in general.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to rise on third reading of this bill, but in light of what has occurred I feel I must. I agree with the remarks the minister made a few moments ago. There has been a degree of co-operation and flexibility shown, not only by the minister and the government but by members of the committee and, in most instances, by members of all parties on the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. It was a repetition of what has gone on in that committee since I became a member of parliament in June, 1968. I have been a member of that committee since the twenty-eighth parliament in 1968.
We spent almost two years dealing with the entire Canada Elections Act. Most of us on the committee also sat on a special committee on election expenses. We worked on that project for about a year and a half and then submitted a report to parliament on election expenses. We sat again when the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections dealt further with the Canada Elections Act and amendments thereto.
During those nine years and some months, outside of some good-natured teasing it is one committee where there has been a minimum of partisan politics and a maximum of co-operation, accommodation, compromise and mutual agreement. On one occasion, the major provisions of the Canada Elections Act changes were dealt with by committee of the whole. At that time, the same kind of non-partisan co-operation was evident. I recite all this because that is one committee where there must be a maximum of co-operation and a minimum of partisan political activity. That committee must deal with election law and election expenses. On occasion there are references to that committee dealing with members' rights and privileges. Therefore, there must be a minimum of partisan politics and a maximum of co-operation and flexibility in order that we may, as often as possible, arrive at unanimity in our decisions and reports to parliament.
In many instances, the amendments to Bill C-5 to amend the Canada Elections Act were agreed to in committee, with only the very rare occasion where there was a vote or division. Amendments by government members and members of opposition parties were accepted. It is very rare in parliamentary committees that the government and the responsible minister are as co-operative and flexible as they were on this occasion.
[Mr. Cafik.J
[DOT] (M22)
Whatever one might think of the deputy government House leader, he is a nice fellow personally, but he is also a very tough politician, and partisan in terms of his political beliefs. But even he set an example by way of co-operation and flexibility by doing his utmost to meet the wishes expressed in favour of changes in Bill C-5. He returned to his cabinet colleagues and in most instances got approval for changes to be made, which meant that he, as the minister piloting the bill through the House, had to bring forward amendments and royal recommendations at the report stage. I believe that in every case this was done at the request of members of this committee and of opposition parties. That is a good example of co-operation, a good example of all parties working together to get the best possible election provisions.


An hon. Member:: Not in every case.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Perhaps not in every case, but certainly in most cases. I mention this because I feel badly that we could not have decided all the motions which had been accepted by the Chair or with which there had been unanimous consent to deal. Every member has the right to withhold unanimous consent, but I submit that if this right is not used with care and good judgment, it is being abused. On this occasion I feel the right has been abused; I feel it has not been used with care and good judgment. I say this in spite of my liking for the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick).
Motion No. 15, with which we could not proceed because unanimous consent was not given, embodies an amendment without which a loophole remains in the law allowing the spirit of the elections act to be subverted. In the committee, the hon. member talked a great deal about closing such loopholes. I sincerely believed that he would be the first among all the members of the committee to be concerned about ensuring that it would not be easy to evade or subvert the intent and spirit of the elections act. I heard him on frequent occasions express his fears about brown-bagging and the diversion of funds to areas in which they should not be used. Our failure to deal with motion 15 could mean that his fears would be realized. I cannot fathom the reason he would not want this motion dealt with.
I believe it was understood that on this issue, as well as on several others, we would give unanimous consent as necessary when we reached the report stage, on the basis that these were measures which needed to be taken. They concerned matters which have been fully discussed in the committee on privileges and elections. On May 15 they were discussed by an ad hoc committee comprised of senior representatives of all the parties meeting with the Chief Electoral Officer, and that committee reached the conclusion that amendments must be made to the bill with respect to third party advertising.
It seemed to me that the degree of co-operation and agreement expressed then was being fulfilled by the government and by the minister through the presentation of motion 15. We liked the motion as far as it went, though had we been given an opportunity to discuss it, I would have gone further by moving
December 16, 1977

an amendment to strengthen it. But even had my amendment failed, the motion would still have meant the strengthening of the legislation.
The argument put forward by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton yesterday in justification of his desire not to deal with this motion was that the matter was presently before the courts. I am not a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member is, and he should know a lot more about such matters than I do. But the precedent for passing or amending legislation in this parliament and in other legislatures while matters are before the courts has been established on a thousand occasions. I need only remind hon. members that when we were enacting amendments to the Criminal Code in 1969 and 1970, hundreds of cases involving the Code were before the courts directly relating to dozens of the sections we were amending. If the hon. member's argument were to stand, it would mean that parliament should not, and would not, deal with legislation at any time as long as the subject was somehow or other before the courts.
The hon. member's argument is so palpably absurd that I am surprised he would even put it forward. Parliament could not function if we were to follow his logic to a conclusion. Motion No. 15 and the amendment I would have moved would have been a valid exercise for the House to deal with. The hon. member's statement about the subject being before the courts is totally irrelevant. The hon. gentleman does not have the support of his own caucus with respect to the matter, and the House should be aware of it. His own party organization wanted this matter dealt with. In leaving this loophole open, we have provided a possibility that the intent and spirit of this law may be evaded.
I believe there is a deficiency in the law with respect to third party advertising. I say at the outset that in no way do I wish to infringe upon the freedom of speech or upon the right of every citizen to express his views before, during or after election campaigns. But the public has long demanded election laws and provisions to control election expenses so as to require that money spent by political parties is indeed spent on behalf of parties and candidates for office. It includes provision for disclosure of contributions in excess of S100. The law provides for controls on such expenditures, and that there shall be reimbursement for some portion of this expenditure by the national treasury. It also provides, but inadequately so, that if there is advertising carried on by those other than a political party, its official agent or candidate, which is of a political nature, it shall be construed as political advertising and the cost thereof must be shown.
The Roach case, as it is called, which is before the courts is an example of how the election law was weak in this area. It showed how a citizen, with the most honest and best intentions, may have broken the law. But the law is unclear. In my opinion, the Canada Elections Act is not clear enough, and frankly I do not think it is strict enough.
Canada Elections Act
I should have liked to see an addition to the law to include not only the motion with which the minister would have required unanimous consent to deal, but an amendment to the last part of the motion. So that the last paragraph would have read as follows:
-he did not mention or display the name of, or specifically identify,-
Then I would have inserted the following words:
-or did not explicitly or implicitly offer support for, or opposition to, any candidate or registered party.
I feel that the motion suggested by the minister, on the advice and at the request of the ad hoc committee composed of all political parties, with my amendment would have done what I believe we all want to see done. If even then it was still deficient, we would have had to wait until the courts decided, should the court be presented with a case to decide.
I said earlier that there is implicitly, in this kind of provision in our electoral law, that fine line between what would be evasion of the law and the freedom every citizen has, namely, the right to freedom of speech. It is perfectly proper and fitting for any individual, organization or association in our nation, during election time as well as any other time, if they so wish, to buy a radio spot, television ad or ad in a newspaper to expound their views on an issue of the day, and to call upon fellow citizens to support that view. That is a valid and worth-while exercise, whether or not any of us agree with that particular point of view.
However, where an individual, organization or association purchases a half-page or full-page advertisement in a newspaper, for example, in the midst of an election campaign expounding a certain view in support of any one of a dozen or so issues, whether capital punishment, marijuana, abortion, negotiations having to do with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, issues which are now or which will become current, and that individual, association or organization, not a political party or candidate or the agent of a party or candidate, specifically, explicitly or implicitly identifies a candidate or a party, or offers support for, or opposition to, a party or a candidate, then the advertisement becomes a political advertisement, the cost thereof should be assessed and the matter dealt with in accordance with the other provisions of our election law.
I am saddened that the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) took the position that he did. If he wishes to oppose this kind of motion, he could well have done so. He is very capable on his feet and he could very well have done so in a debate on the motion or in a vote on the motion. I hope we are going to continue to have the degree of co-operation and non-partisanship that has been almost historic in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections; but I say to my hon. friend that what he did today severely jeopardizes for the future what has gone on among members of parliament for many years.
Whether or not one likes a particular item which is proposed or is under discussion, this has always taken second place to the committee accomplishing the maximum amount of work,

December 16, 1977
Canada Elections Act
particularly in the area of election law and control of election expenses. This is something that is basic and fundamental to the welfare and good order, not only of our parties and candidates who run in elections but of the whole nation. I hope the hon. gentleman will decide that he can no longer be a member of that committee, that he no longer wants to sit on it. I want to tell the hon. member that there were many occasions when I did not want to be so co-operative; I wanted to raise hell and I had to bite my tongue and force myself not to. But that is a secondary consideration. We did not always get the kind of law and amendments that we wanted, but at least we had something that was common to members of all parties in the committee, and has been for the 9'/2 years I have been on the committee.
I am pleased with the improvements which have been made in the law by the rest of the amendments. I think they will generally prove to be of value and will make it easier for candidates and parties to abide by the law. A great deal of work will be required on the part of parties, candidates and workers to educate themselves and to inform the public of the provisions in this new law. I do not doubt for a moment that during the course of and following the next general election it will come to light that many mistakes have been made. Since the law is new, we will all be working under it for the first time. But I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of the mistakes will be honest ones.
There will have been no deliberate intent to evade or avoid the provisions of our law. No doubt there will be a few cases which the commissioner of election expenses will have to deal with. I would not be surprised to see a small number of official agents or candidates, or even elected members, paying some very severe penalties all the way from jail terms to losing the seat to which they have just been elected. That may well happen in a few instances. There will be some mistakes made, but they will not be deliberate mistakes. We will need that experience to learn how well the law operates.
The amendment we have passed to provide for review is particularly pleasing. Once all the returns are in and expenses are filed, the Chief Electoral Officer refers the reports to parliament. The privileges and elections committee can meet subsequent to the next general election and assess the experience, the results, how successful the limitations on expenses are, and if the reimbursement provisions meet the requirement. There are a host of other things we can review and make recommendations to parliament for any changes that may be necessary in a future parliament for preparation of a subsequent election. That is a valuable provision, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to see it in many other pieces of legislation. After a certain period of time has passed, there is a provision for review by a committee of this chamber.
I express my disappointment at not being able to deal with an important and fundamental point regarding third party advertising. I am pleased with the success we have had-some of it not as much as 1 and other members would have liked-in

dealing with the remaining amendments in this bill. I hope that by passing this bill today they will have provided the Chief Electoral Officer with sufficient time to get ready for a general election. I hope that we have made it easier for him and his officials to carry out the implementation and the overseeing of this law.
I wish to express the commendation I made to the minister and the members of the committee for their co-operation, and particularly to express appreciation and gratitude to the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel, and his staff for the many hours they spent during the day and at night meeting with members of our committee, with members of the ad hoc committee, and meeting in the office of the chairman of the committee, assisting us, providing information and answering questions. If it had not been for their co-operation, we would not be at the stage we are now.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments we have made will prove beneficial to all Canadians.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, we should mention the people in the ad hoc committee who contributed so much. Actually, they were the master craftsmen of this bill. They were instrumental in whatever improvements have been made to the bill. I am not saying it is a poor bill. We all received much co-operation. But to those unsung heroes who probably do not have the opportunity to express their views in such a forum as this, I particularly want to mention Mr. Hamel and his staff. Also, Mr. Laschinger who represented our party at the ad hoc committee. There are many others, whose names I do not know, who were very much in evidence representing other parties of the House of Commons.
I would like to congratulate the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette), for his work in handling the committee. He did exceptionally well. It was a committee where there was much harmony and co-operation. I would also like to mention the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) who took a very active and co-operative part in the proceedings. One of the amendments we brought in was indexing. At this time, when everyone is talking restraint, our party in particular felt it very necessary that we ask for an amendment to the indexing clause. After researching the last ten by-elections, on a party average only 89 per cent of the limit which would have been allowed under the act was spent. Taking these things into consideration, and coupled with the economy of the country, we could not go along with the indexing of pensions at this time. Probably in the future, after the next election, this could be reviewed. We are not saying the door has to remain closed forever. Taking everything into consideration, we reached the conclusion that we must oppose indexing at this time.
Mr. Speaker, concerning the anonymous donations, there were several recommendations presented to the committee. We felt at this time that was just a way of buying the election, so during the committee proceedings, from the beginning we objected to the brown-bagging, as it is called, and asked for all donations to be accounted for. That was another restraint that

December 16, 1977

was needed. We want to be responsible and know where our money is coming from, and to keep election expenses clear and above board.
I was disappointed a little while ago, after we had started debate on third reading, to hear so many members kill time on an issue which means very little now in terms of changing the legislation. We expect this bill will be passed, and I think too much time has been taken this afternoon criticizing this bill.
I hope the amendments that have been made will do much to strengthen our political system. I was also a little disappointed in motion No. 8, in that the government refused the amendment respecting cases where the returning officer and the poll clerk were of opposite political faith. The province of Ontario has seen fit to extend this provision to the opposition parties. In this modern day of politics, Mr. Speaker, it is only fair that the two parties, one party representing the government and the other party polling the highest votes, should have a choice in naming either of the two people involved in the polls on election day. I thought the spirit of co-operation that we enjoyed in the committee probably would have prevailed here. That was one motion that we tried in a small way in committee, but we were stonewalled. I was hopeful that when we returned to the House some consideration would have been given to this motion, which I believe is very timely and probably long overdue.
I hope the changes that have been made to the Canada Elections Act will improve our democratic system, and that some of the changes which have been set aside will see the light of day in the not too distant future.


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-5. I wanted to take a few moments to speak about this bill as a member who has had the very special privilege of seeing his private member's bill incorporated in it.
Voting is the absolute fundamental or bottom line of the democratic process, followed by who is allowed to vote, and the ease of access to vote. It is not simply to give a certain percentage of the population a vote; it should include all people within the system who are properly and democratically citizens of communities. After that, when universal suffrage is operative, all the people within the system should have equal access to the right to vote and it should be easy for them to exercise it.
In the last election during 1974, a particular situation arose in my riding. A lady who suffered a handicap registered her particular concern that she, and others like her, would be humiliated and would have some difficulty exercising their right to their franchise. As a result of that, at the beginning of the first session of the thirtieth parliament, I submitted Bill C-292, which would assist the handicapped by providing the minimum difficulty possible to them in order to exercise their vote.
I am pleased, as are other members who have private members' bills included, that the particulars of the bill were
Canada Elections Act moved on to committee. In turn, the committee and the Chief Electoral Officer did everything possible to accommodate us. The end result is that in my bill, clauses 29, 50, 51, 52 and 53 accommodate a particular problem. It is not a universal answer to the problem; it is a beginning. In urban areas, where someone has a handicap, is wheelchair-bound or suffers from some other type of infirmity, rather than facing the possibility of being carried into a polling booth or humiliated in some other way, they will have access to an advance poll. That level access will be advertised in notices of advance polls and, in turn, without too much difficulty people can transfer their votes to that advance poll.
In the future we will have to consider all people who want to play a full role in a true democracy, despite their particular situations or backgrounds. There should be better facilities for them in the future. Through the accommodation of the Chief Electoral Officer and the committee itself, my particular private member's bill has gone forward incorporated in Bill C-5. At least it is a beginning. Even if people are handicapped, they are every bit as good, as bright or as much a participant as anyone. Because these people have suffered handicaps and have survived as good Canadians, we should lean over backwards within our democratic process to prove to them that we want the particular understanding and sensitivity of their vote exercised. Therefore, I am proud that this has come forward and will be a part of this new act. I hope the Chief Electoral Officer and members of this House will consider the possibility of extending it on a much wider basis.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I feel I have some right to speak on this bill because I was one of the original members of the committee some four years ago which brought the original election expenses bill to the House.
I listened with interest to last night's debate, as I did to the debate on second reading and to the interventions which were made this afternoon by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). I admit that the New Democratic Party has contributed substantially toward many things in Canadian public life, but certainly I cannot go as far in this adulation as the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) did, as reported at page 438 of Hansard dated October 31, 1977, when he said:
I think it was no accident that this electoral reform was carried out when the New Democratic Party held the balance of power in the twenty-ninth parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I am glad to her that applause by hon. members of the NDP, because it makes it easier for me to comment. What actually happened was that the NDP talked almost interminably in an effort to keep this bill from being passed in 1973 and 1974. It caused me, as reported at page 8911 of Hansard dated December 19, 1973, to mention that I thought I should identify myself as a Progressive Conservative, because the preceding seven speakers were all from the New Democratic Party. That is how they displayed their great rush

December 16, 1977
Canada Elections Act
to get that bill through, and now they would like to have credit for it.
I should like to remind the House that we are seven years short of George Orwell's date for the rewriting of history, as was attempted by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie the other day. On the day of voting, there were eight votes and the final vote on third reading of the election expenses bill, and members of the New Democratic Party supplied some of the dissenting votes. In fact, three of the ten dissenting votes were from the New Democratic Party. Often we judge people's promises by their performance.
In this respect, I should like to point out that the performance of parties differs quite considerably when it comes to adhering to the former elections act. The authority in Canada for election expenses and accounting is Professor Paltiel of Carleton University. I have found no reference work which is more dependable or highly regarded than his. At page 113 of Professor Paltiel's book entitled "Political Party Financing in Canada", there is a table of eight previous elections. The table is headed "Percentage of Candidates not Submitting Expenditure Declarations in Eight Canadian Federal Elections". Presumably this has something to do with what the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie said, as reported at page 438 of Hansard dated October 31, 1977:
It has always been a very long-standing and firm commitment on the part of our party that election reform was desperately needed in Canada to restore confidence in the democratic and electoral process.
While I agree they contribute a lot, I could do with less sanctimony from that party. Returning to the table at page 113 of the professor's book, it indicates for the last eight elections the percentage of candidates who did not submit expenditure declarations as required by the elections act. If one looks at the table, he will see that the NDP led the three major parties in every one of those eight elections in not completing their election expenses returns.
Now I should like to deal with the reforms that will occur because of this bill. I am glad the government finally bowed to the pressure imposed by the Progressive Conservative party, the New Democratic Party, the Social Credit party, as well as government backbenchers who were concerned about anonymous donations. The entire Election Expenses Act, with all of its forms and attachments, would fall down if anonymous donations were allowed. If the $100 anonymous donation provision had remained, nothing would have prevented an unscrupulous party or politician from pretending, for example, they had received 300 $100 donations. Surely people would say that is deceitful. There is no indication that we should expect anything else.
I am looking at Election Expenses Form 64 and I object to it remaining in the same shape in which it was before, in which the same questions are asked. In Form 64, which has been in use heaven knows in how many elections, there is a column in which the name and occupation of every person, including the candidate, and of every club and society from whom any

money, securities or the equivalent of money received, should be set out. This form happens to be for the Victoria NDP candidate in the last election and only has three lines filled. You would have to be naive to believe that every person who contributed to even such a small party as the NDP in Victoria could be listed in these three lines. I do not think the NDP are the only ones to do this.


Mr. Woolliams:: I think so.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: No, they are not; here is the Liberal party doing much the same thing. On the second page we find the name of one stalwart individual who has contributed $6,500. It is not very likely. I think it is much more likely that many other people contributed to that individual in the name of that one person-he was the bag man. I think we are not blameless in this regard either.
I would have liked to have seen some method of preventing this in the future because, if we are going to allow this information to be put in the light of the noonday sun, we should have everything out and let everyone see who is contributing how much and to which candidate. I hope the new bill will do this.
I must say I was rather alarmed when I questioned the Chief Electoral Officer in committee on how he was going to find out, if someone had contributed $100 or if the Election Form 64 showed they had received dozens of $100 donations adding up to one large sum, whether or not it was a true return. He told me it was quite easy, he would go to the taxation department. I am not sure that in the present climate in this country we want anyone to go to the taxation department to prove whether one has done this or that, the secrecy of tax returns being what it is supposed to be.
There is a very good amendment according to which the Chief Electoral Officer will assume the financial burden for publishing summaries of election expenses. In the election before the last one there were several independent candidates running in my constituency. I thought they added a lot to the electoral process. They were mostly young people. They had something to say, and they said it. They had very limited budgets and it was a terrible shock to them when it was all over to find that they had to pay bills in excess of $100 for the required advertising to publish details about their own defeat. I am pleased that summaries now will be published by the CEO.
I do not think there can be a dissenting voice in the House or anywhere else about the right being given to teachers employed overseas to vote. Having been a teacher myself, as some hon. members may know, I could never understand why teachers were not given the same rights as others. After all, embassy employees have that right as well as servicemen abroad.
I should like to mention also my support for the Chief Electoral Officer who, I think, has done a very good job in assisting and advising the committee. I should like to mention three or four other people such as the executive directors of the political parties who know a great deal about fund raising and
December 16, 1977

perhaps not so much about how the funds are spent, but they were of great assistance during the deliberations of the committee. I would like to agree with the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre who pointed out that there was a certain amount of good-natured raillery in the committee but the end result was politicians meeting in committee and hammering out compromises which, I believe, have vastly improved the bill. I take pleasure in supporting it.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, as we have been listening to this debate I am sure that all of us have been thinking how fortunate we are to live in a democracy where there is open access to the political process. Equally so I think the care and attention which members on all sides of the House have given to the details of this bill are evidence of how important it is, and how members prize access to the political process. The very careful attention, as a number of members have said, and the non-partisan quality of the attention given in committee are another indication of the importance of amendments to the Canada Elections Act.
The amendments that have been made in recent years have all been aimed at broadening the basis of participation. An amendment was made some time ago to allow new citizens earlier access to the political process. I want to address myself very briefly to the question of new parties.
There are two national parties now represented in the House which began as regional parties. Changing times require different responses. Political parties express the way in which people want to work for social betterment and social change. Different times require different solutions, and a statute which is aimed at some degree of permanence obviously must provide ease of access for new parties which may be needed in future times.
In this connection the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) yesterday described, very accurately I think, the tax credit as being the most progressive measure introduced since universal suffrage. But measures that are intended for the common good may be misused by a minority, and I think there is a potential for abuse through a loophole which exists in the present bill and which it was not possible to close now but which I hope the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections will address when it next considers amendments to the Canada Elections Act.
At present there are 15 fringe groups which have signified their intention to run candidates in the next election. If they meet the requirements for auditors, and so on, and if they nominate 50 candidates, they will maintain their rights until the following election, whenever that may be. Thus, regardless of their share of the popular vote, regardless of whether the public has indicated support for their policies or their ideas, as things stand, any fringe group which has 50 candidates nominated and which has met the other requirements will be able to retain its right to give tax receipts. I suggest that this is perhaps not the intention of the act and therefore should be reviewed.
Canada Elections Act
If I may make my point with figures, let me point out that of those 15 fringe groups which are now ready to organize candidates in the next election, two ran a substantial number of candidates in the last election; one party obtained nationally 16,260 votes, or .17 of the total votes cast, and the other party obtained 12,100 votes nationally, or .13 of the total votes cast. To put it another way, neither of these parties which claim to be national parties received as many votes as the one independent member who sits in the House.
While I think it is extremely important that access be kept open for new parties, I also suggest that in future, after having allowed a party access during one election, if at the end of that election the voters by their ballots give a message that a particular party is not accepted, as indicated by its share of the popular vote, consideration be given to de-registering that party.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I do no intend to take up too much time in this third reading debate, but having sat on the committee in past months when we were preparing suggested amendments, and then having sat again as we studied the amendments brought forward by the government, I have a few things to say.
I am always a little concerned when all-party co-operation reaches the point where one finds a prairie radical praising the extent of that co-operation. Something has gone rather sadly wrong when that happens, and while I do not ordinarily consider myself an iconoclast, I become a little suspicious when I hear a hymm of praise being sung to cosy arrangements by which everything is worked out through a thoroughly mutual agreement. I am happy to say that there was an instant or two in the processing of these amendments when committee votes were held even if that meant that objections were overridden by a majority of people opposed to the objectors. However, at least that happened.
The essential system in Canada errs basically as long as we have a situation-and this is my personal opinion, not the party doctrine-where tax funds go to help finance candidates, and I hope that the review promised after the first real test of the Canada Elections Act will take a good look at that aspect.
When everybody concerned is involved with the central authority and is partially funded by it, we have a breeding ground for cynicism, particularly amongst the young and the disaffected. I was not in parliament when that major change in principle was accepted, so I do not feel personally responsible for it.
I am concerned-and I am glad the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) raised this-about the weaknesses of the Canada Elections Act in terms of the frivolous party and the frivolous candidate. I know one can become very sanctimonious about democracy and easy access through this act for everybody, but one of the things about modern electioneering and modern technology is that both have vastly increased the rewards to people who are either neurotic or slightly

December 16, 1977
Canada Elections Act
deranged-and I hesitate to use those words-who manage to get over the easy hurdles to become candidates and who may have a sufficient number of like-minded friends to be registered as a national party. To me this is done with ridiculous ease. There are televised all-candidate forums, halls are rented, and other opportunities are provided.
There is an enormous amount of free publicity for anyone who manages to become a candidate in an election. There is a great capacity for mischief. We are so deeply into the process of funding mischief publicly at election time that 1 think we must examine this aspect very seriously.
Through the Canada Elections Act I suspect that we will have succeeded in producing ballots which will be of enormous length. The candidate field will become increasingly crowded by people who will have no particularly good reason for being there except a love of attention and lust for the free publicity which comes with the electoral process.
We have spent a lot of time on the issue of easy access to polling stations. Nobody would deny that there are benefits, whether they are for teachers overseas, the military, or the handicapped. All that is entirely and utterly praiseworthy, but we have still failed to adopt a permanent voters' list and a full scale absentee ballot. Until we do that I do not think we can be very proud of our easy access.
We have extended slightly the provision for advance polls. That takes care of the holiday week end trap into which we have fallen in recent elections. I am very concerned, however, about the clause which slipped through, over objection, regarding the extended eight days of voting in the returning officer's office. I am gravely concerned about control. I know how busy those offices are during the days prior to an election, and the last thing a returning officer wants is to have people showing up over a period of eight days asking to vote. I am not talking about advance poll dates.
Does this mean that the 15, 16, 20 or whatever number of registered political parties there might be will have scrutineers sitting around the returning officers' offices? If that is the case, they will be all over the place, and I suspect that the efficiency of the offices will be greatly hindered and that in the end, particularly in close elections-and I speak as one who has suffered through one of those-it is going to be dismaying to find, when everybody thinks the ballots are counted, the returning officer showing up with one more barrel collected in those eight days, dumping it out, and possibly altering the result of a close election. I will be interested in seeing how that little clause works in actual practice.
I know that when we speak of a permanent voters' list the question of the terrible expense is always raised, but I have yet to see a really good analysis of what that expense would be compared with the expense of our present enumeration system.
One of the things that amazes me in our increasingly urban society is the way the Canada Elections Act still reflects in several instances the old myth that country life is pure, serene, and innocent, and that city life is corrupt and defiled. I suspect it works both ways. In town two people do the enumerating,

but in the country there is only one. On the other hand, I suspect it is easier now to miss an entire high rise apartment block than a single farm house in a rural area.
There are many anomalies. A missed rural voter can be sworn, but not an urban one. I find this kind of discrepancy between urban and rural amazing, particularly when our urban population is so enormous in proportion. When we pass Canada Elections Act amendments I am surprised that there is not rioting in the streets of our larger urban centres. However, people do not seem to be quite aware of how much this myth, which has outlived its day, persists in this act. I still suspect, though, that the reason we never seriously face up to the question of a permanent voters' list is our delight as politicians in the enormous source of small patronage which is handed out very directly and individually at election time.
I hope within the next decade or two we can adopt a permanent voters' list that would permit a full-scale absentee ballot. It would be much better than scrapping the list after every election. That strikes me as a pretty amateurish move when through technology the election, campaigning, disclosure, use of the Income Tax Act and many other things have become very sophisticated. In this one area, however, we remain singularly primitive.
I am happy for the change that provides that the cost of a recount can be borne publicly if the margin is low enough. I know from personal experience how easy it is, when margins are small, to find a variety of ways in which minor factors can mean winning or losing an election. I fought one close election where an entire community was disenfranchised without recourse. I admit the circumstances were unusual, but they lost their vote until the next election four years later.
It seems that 1972 is the last year for which we have the report of individual expenses of those candidates who declared them. I could not locate one for 1974 and I think I know why. In the majority of cases in 1972 the winning candidate was the one who spent the most money. Where he spent about twice the amount spent by the other candidates, the majority was higher.
I was pleased to see that the move to index election spending has been halted. There are parties in this House who have some way to go to meet the limits which, to my mind, are ridiculously high. The escalation of election expenses has been fantastic. When I came here in 1965 I declared $2,160 in election expenses and was the second "cheapest" member elected that year in terms of expenses. In 1968 my campaign cost $6,000; by 1972 it was up to $12,000, and in 1974 it was $17,000. That kind of escalation of expenses is unnecessary, but even at that the $17,000 spent in 1974 was well below the limit set in the act.
I think many elections should pass before the limits are raised. In our deliberations here we have greatly contributed to the cost of elections. I would rather some of that money went to the development of a permanent voters' list and an absentee

ballot rather than toward an over-kill in election campaign expenses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I will be quite brief but there is one point I should like to make with reference to the Canada Elections Act. Changes to the act since the last federal election impose a number of restrictions on what a candidate may do, most particularly on the amount of money that may be spent on a campaign. That is good. There are restrictions in the act and it calls for penalties if they are breached. But if a candidate's official agent makes a mistake in collecting or spending money, the candidate who unintentionally disobeys the act may have to pay a fine or even go to jail. I do not know whether mens rea applies.
Sometime ago under the Protection of Privacy Act a section was bootlegged that went into the Official Secrets Act. Under this section it is very possible that a Solicitor General-of any party-may be able to get a warrant without authorization from a judge and by making the usual application under the Criminal Code could issue a warrant to have a candidate's campaign headquarters, his personal telephone or the telephones of his friends wiretapped.
I must give credit for this conclusion to someone else. Mr. Ron Atkey and I were on a panel addressing young people in the Quebec convention, on privacy. I dealt with the problems of the Code and he dealt with this, and I was so impressed that I felt I should bring it to the attention of the House this afternoon. Section 6 of the Protection of Privacy Act reads in part as follows:
The Solicitor General of Canada may issue a warrant authorizing the interception or seizure of any communication if he is satisfied by evidence on oath that such interception or seizure is necessary for the prevention or detection of subversive activity directed against Canada or detrimental to the security of Canada or is necessary for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information essential to the security of Canada.
It defines the terms "subversive activity" as follows:
activities directed toward accomplishing governmental change-
God knows we need a government change-do we ever need a new government. It continues:
-within Canada or elsewhere-
It then deals with various methods-force or violence-but I leave that out. It is the following "or" that counts when it continues:
-or any criminal means;
Let me read it again, Mr. Speaker: activities directed toward accomplishing governmental change within Canada or elsewhere by force or violence or any criminal means;
When I go into an election campaign, Mr. Speaker, I not only work my heart out but I pray that we will get a new government some day-especially since 1968. I do everything in my power to bring about change in this country. I speak outside Alberta; I go to Ontario, to British Columbia, I do everything I can, but I have not been fortunate enough to get a change of government, but if I do it by criminal means-
Canada Elections Act


An hon. Member:: The good Lord is not listening to your prayers.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Sometimes the good Lord loves those who work hard but do not accomplish their objectives. All of us on this side of the House try to change the government. While we are about that, our official agent may make a mistake under the Canada Elections Act. If mine did, somebody could go to the Solicitor General of the day and say that quiet, well-mannered, soft-spoken young fellow from Calgary North has violated the Canada Elections Act and is guilty of criminal activity. The Solicitor General could then authorize a wiretap on my campaign headquarters, on my home telephone, and on the telephones of my political friends, of whom I have many. Our majorities on this side verify that we all have. I am sure the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), who put his foot in his mouth today-and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has now disowned him-will find out that his majorities were not won through his own efforts. I give that credit to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) because at one time Alberta was not Conservative. In 1953 Alberta had two Conservative members and Saskatchewan had one member. You could generally hold your meetings in a clothes closet in the prairie provinces up until the time of the right hon. member. Then fellows like myself came along. We defeated the Social Credit party federally and we came into the House.
There is a point I want to drive home with a sledge hammer because this was bootlegged in under this act. I am always guilty of trying to overthrow the government. I try to do that every day. However, I do not do it by any criminal means. I do not have any worker tearing down Liberal signs or wrongfully collecting money. I will bet at the time of the next election there will not be one candidate elected who has not broken this act.
All this rhetoric is very well, but I have talked to a lot of good lawyers about this act. I went to one. A lawyer never tries to act for himself because he ends up with a fool for his client. These lawyers inform me that no one could obey this stupid act.
I am always guilty of trying to overthrow the government. I might have some worker getting into some criminal act under the Canada Elections Act and I will end up with wiretaps. I do not want that after what we have seen in this House this past month or so. We saw that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) could not make any statement under the rules because they had left their nice little jobs. They keep sweeping everything under the table to cover up these things. I do not have enough faith to believe that this could not happen in this nation. I tried to get recognized during the question period today in order to ask the minister about that. I may do that later.
It is not the Elections Act that has to be changed, but the definition of subversive activity. I have never heard of any-
1968

December 16, 1977
Canada Elections Act
thing so nonsensical. It refers to "activities directed toward accomplishing government change within the act by any criminal means". If that does not mean what Ron Atkey claims it means, I do not understand English. As a senior member of parliament, I warn this House that we had better make that change.
I do not want the telephone in my campaign headquarters tapped. There have been times when I have said some things about my dear old Liberal friends that may have been a bit unfair. When I listen to their speeches, they have one song for Quebec, one song for Ontario, and a chorus for British Columbia. They could not say the same thing in the same place in the same way, twice.
As an example of that, I can refer to wage and price controls. During the last campaign, they said that would take out the heart of every Canadian. They said it would ruin the labour movement and management and would control farm prices at the gate. Before the Prime Minister got back to Sussex Street, with or without his campaign manager, he implemented what all his candidates criticized. There they sit, hushed with that degree of integrity which only their party can muster. I do not take kindly to that.


Mr. Harquail:: What a joker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to deal with the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) over television. He is always talking, always yelling from his seat. I have asked him over the years he has been here to please make a contribution to his constituency, to get up and say something, even if it is good-bye. His yelling makes the Canadian people angry because he has no manners.
I believe I have made my point, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the kind attention that has been given to me this afternoon.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I do not think it is in order for a member when speaking on a particular matter before the House to spill over in the way the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) just attempted to do in a most improper manner. I wanted to point that out so the record will demonstrate that he was completely out of order.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) knows more than the Speaker as to when order should be restored.


Maurice James Harquail: Who are you? Where did you come from?


Paul Wyatt Dick: We in this country have been indeed fortunate over the past number of years to have as our Chief Electoral Officer a man of the calibre, integrity, ability, and non-partisan fairness of Jean-Marc Hamel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: I joined the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in January, 1973. I have had the opportunity of

seeing this man being the witness at our meetings. He has always tried to be fair, tried to live up to the reputation of being non-partisan and giving fair quarter to each and every person. I have never seen a witness do a better job before any committee I have attended. I give him full marks for running a good show. I do not think anyone else could do it on the budget that he has. In this committee there has been a sense of non-partisanship, a sense of fairness, and a sense of people wanting to work together to improve the electoral system within Canada.
If we look at the minutes of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for April 29, 1976, we see the names of six or seven private members whom we formally thank in the report back to the House for their contributions of private members' bills which came to the attention of that committee.
The committee adopted the content of those bills from all parties on all sides of the House. It considered them in a non-partisan manner. Some were too expensive to be implemented, some were considered to be appropriate and we recommended that the government introduce them. The government brought them forward in Bill C-5 and they will shortly be part of the law of this country. That shows the importance that individual members can have in trying to perfect our electoral process.
It has been suggested that Bill C-5 to amend the Canada Elections Act would be a very complicated piece of legislation. You will need a Philadelphia lawyer at your elbow every time you want to collect ten cents for this or spend ten cents for that. A chartered accountant will be required in your office most of the time. No doubt the complexity of the Canada Elections Act has been increased since the 1974 election. I hope that all members of the House will agree that some time in the future, perhaps after the next election, the Canada Elections Act will be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. This would allow them to go over the act much as they did in 1968 and 1970 to streamline it, to find out the flaws, to identify the well-meant ideas in the legislation which just cannot be carried through in practice.
I hope, too, we could renumber the clauses because I am getting tired of looking at decimal places. We talk about section 70, section 70.1, section 70.2, subsection 3, subparagraph (a) (i) and so on. It becomes very complicated because of the amendments which have been introduced. It is nobody's fault, but it would be good from the point of view both of hon. members and of electoral procedure if the bill were streamlined.
I did wish to speak briefly on a matter which unfortunately was brought up on the report stage-motions Nos. 8 and 12. These dealt with the deputy returning officer being appointed by the candidate who represented the political interests of the government of the day. I was very disappointed that the proposals in this regard were not accepted. On the other side it would have meant that the poll clerk would have been appointed by the candidate other than the candidate of the political
December 16, 1977

interest who had come first or second other than the opposing interest to the government's interest, which would have meant a Progressive Conservative poll clerk in some situations or an NDP or Social Credit poll clerk; possibly it could be a communist or a Marxist-Leninist. They have the right, they have the freedom, and I think it would have appeared fair to have embodied such a provision within the election law. This is the way things are run in the province of Ontario following a change in the early seventies. It is run this way in the province of Quebec, except that in Quebec it is provided that the government of the day appoints the deputy returning officers and the party which forms the official opposition appoints the clerk. Having it the other way spreads it out among all the parties. Both, in essence, are the same.
Representatives of two parties are within reach of the polls, and to my mind this indicates a sense of balance, a sense of fairness, especially when one considers that we appoint members from two parties to be enumerators in urban ridings. One never finds members from the same party enumerating a single poll, and since the practice has been adopted in that case it seems to me it could follow through to the DRO and the poll clerk. I believe such a measure would avoid a great deal of confusion. After talking to those who work as returning officers or who are employed in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, I understand this is the biggest single problem they face on election day consequent upon the confusion between the provincial acts and the federal act. I believe the change I have in mind would bring equity to all, and I hope some day the government might see fit to bring in this progressive piece of legislation.
There are other matters upon which I should like to comment. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), one of my colleagues on the committee, made various statements in the House yesterday and again today. First, he told us how he had gone to a political fund-raising dinner. He did not think I knew how fund-raising was done in our party or in his party or in the Liberal party. I certainly know how it is done in my party and in my constituency, and I have a reasonable idea of how it is done in the other parties. But since I am not a member I cannot vouch for every detail. He may know better what goes on in the other parties than I do.
He told us how he went to a banquet along with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in honour of the eightieth birthday of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). He said he was embarrassed that he had gone there, and that I did not know how the fund raising was done, and so on. I see, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre is back in the Chamber after having a smoke. All I wanted to say was this: I know he might have been embarrassed, but it was political good sense that the member for Regina-Lake Centre, in the middle of Saskatchewan, should go to a celebration in honour of the premier politician of that province because, if he did not go, he probably would not get elected the next time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not mind the hon. member referring to my remarks, but I want
Canada Elections Act
him to be accurate. I said I was embarrassed by receiving a receipt for tax credit purposes from the Progressive Conservative party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have the floor. Sometimes the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre does not even read what he himself has said. If he would read Hansard at page 1921 he will find that his words were:
I am slightly embarrased to tell him of a banquet which was celebrated in honour of the eightieth birthday of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. That celebration was attended by approximately 2,500 people. As a matter of courtesy, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself paid $50 each to the Progressive Conservative party to attend that banquet.
He said he was embarrassed because he went. I do not see anything about tax there at all.


Some hon. Members:: Read on!


Paul Wyatt Dick: I intend to go on through the speech. Everyone is entitled to his turn. He went on to say I had forgotten to mention that the Progressive Conservative party was using the tolling-through system by using the federal tax credit. I want to assure him that I certainly did not intend this. In fact, as reported at page 1914 yesterday, the hon. member will see that I did refer to the fact that my own party was involved as well, although we had refrained in the first year. 1 also said in the committee that my party was involved in this as much as any other party. The fact is, the parties themselves have a stake in it, and that is the reason they do not want to get out of it. I am not saying it is right. I know what the parties want, but I feel very strongly it is wrong.
The hon. member went on to talk about the loopholes. He did not go on to talk about the financing by Canadian tax dollars of municipal elections, the Spanish Socialist party or the potential funding of parties in Chile and in Argentina, but these are matters which have been discussed, and since I put them on record yesterday I do not propose to do so today.
What did concern me somewhat today was that the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre was perhaps a little unfair. To begin with, on a point of order, he asked the Speaker, "Who said no?" He said: "I didn't hear anybody." And although he professed not to have heard anybody, he then singled one member out when he got up later. I do not know whether it is proper to single out a person on the basis of how he votes, whether consent is given or not. I would remind hon. members that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre drew attention to the absence of a quorum in December of 1974 in a surprise move which caught everybody off guard and had the effect of preventing the debate from proceeding. No strenuous objection to that was voiced in the House, although I know there were comments in the press and there were probably some comments behind the curtains. I might also say that the former member for Skeena, Mr. Frank Howard, had a reputation for denying consent.


Mr. Peters:: But he always knew why he did it.
80027-55%

December 16, 1977
Canada Elections Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) has mentioned my name I think I should make one slight correction. I would be quite happy if I could take the credit for calling the quorum on that particular occasion, but the credit should go to my hon. friend from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


Paul Wyatt Dick: My apologies. I made an error. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is well known for his knowledge of the rules, and he has on many occasions denied unanimous consent. At least, to stand corrected, he has called a quorum. I do not feel that I should be embarrassed since the New Democratic Party has done this sort of thing on numerous occasions. I can also point to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) who has done this on many occasions, especially when he was on this side of the House. The government does it every day with motions under Standing Order 43. Yet I am now asked to quit a committee because I did it on one occasion. I do not think that that is a fair reflection.
I have worked on the committee and supported many amendments which the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has proposed. I supported many amendments to the Election Expenses Act which John Harney, a former New Democrat from Toronto, put, as well as amendments put by the former member for Skeena, Frank Howard. The hon. member singles me out, not knowing this has happened, and I am supposed to feel embarrassed, but I can hardly do so when his own party has such a good record of obstruction.
The hon. member talks of diverting funds, and says we are worried about brown bags. I argued very vociferously in Committee on the disallowance of anonymous donations. He said that if motion No. 15 does not go ahead there would be room for the little brown bag to be used for siphoning off purposes. I suggest the hon. member has not read that particular section in the legislation which specifically states, in subclause (4), that such a person cannot in any way be affiliated to a political party which is running a candidate. Otherwise a person would have to commit perjury in our courts and he would be tried for that crime as well. Is the hon. member suggesting that political parties will tell people to take an extra $1,000 and force them to commit perjury? This situation is already covered in the act, so I think he is completely off base there and does not really know what he is talking about.
There is no doubt that the party back room boys might have liked the motion as well, and perhaps it was discussed by some of them in an ad hoc committee in a back room somewhere.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Are you accusing hon. members of going into the back room?


Paul Wyatt Dick: I am not accusing anybody. Whether or not it was done in an ad hoc committee, it certainly was never done in the Standing Committe on Privileges and Elections. I have before me issue No. 1 of the committee proceedings, on page 18 of which the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) discussed the matter thoroughly with Mr. Hamel. The

chairman became involved, and so did a Mr. Gorman. They discussed the matter, but it was dropped. No motion was moved. There was no further discussion at that stage.
At pages 18 and 19 of issue No. 2 I asked Mr. Hamel a few things about the Roach case. Again no motion was moved. There was no suggestion that the bill in front of the committee at that time should be amended. There is no suggestion in that regard anywhere on the record.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You know where it came from.


Paul Wyatt Dick: 1 came up again briefly on Wednesday, November 23, at pages 17 and 18 of issue No. 3, in a way that indicated that the existing section was perfectly adequate. But other than those three isolated instances, Mr. Speaker, there is no discussion of the matter in committee. As I say, no motion was made to amend the bill in committee.
If a motion had been made in committee and had been lost, then 1 would certainly have supported what the committee said and would have endorsed it on the floor of the House. I approached three members of the House, and the first time that I saw that amendment was when it was set down on Tuesday. I showed it to a person in my own party who has been following the matter very closely. I showed it to a member of the Liberal party, whom I will not identify-he can identify himself-and he was shocked and surprised and did not know that it was going to come up. I expressed the view that the government was trying to bootleg something in.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that amendment would deny freedom of speech to a number of people. It would mean that you cannot name a candidate or a political party. If I am the Conservative candidate in an election for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton and I take a different position from that taken by a member of, say, the Pro-Life League, then if a newspaper cannot report that there is a denial of a right. After all, if you cannot stand the heat in the kitchen it is time to get out. If a person makes a statement, Mr. Speaker, a newspaper should be able to use his name and point to his party. The fact is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) is seeking the floor on a point of order.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would not want to mislead the House. Would he permit a question to clarify that latter statement?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Perhaps at the end of my remarks there will be time for a question. The fact is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik) is rising on a point of order.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, before the time expires for government business at four o'clock 1 think it is important to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that there is a House order to dispose of all aspects of this bill prior to entering into
December 16, 1977

private members' hour. I draw that to the attention of the Chair so that we do not miss that point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Precisely. Since it is four o'clock and a House order was issued yesterday that the question be put at this time, the question is as follows: The Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik), for Mr. MacEachen, has moved that Bill C-5, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be now read the third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, private bills.
Order No. 2, the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay); shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.
Order No. 4, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis); shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.
Order No. 5, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald); shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.
Order No. 9, the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis); shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.
Order No. 11, the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies); shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.
Order No. 12, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche); shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.
Caribbean Community
Order No. 15, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia); shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons should be established to consider the advisability of taking an initiative in promoting closer commercial and cultural relations between the Dominion of Canada and the communities of the Commonwealth Caribbean and that inter alia such committee should consider (a) subsidization of sea-borne transport between this country and the Commonwealth area (b) Canadian governmental assistance in the upgrading of the sea ports of Atlantic Canada (c) such tariff changes as might facilitate the exchange of commodities between the two areas (d) encouragement of the exchange of students of the two areas (e) recommending assistance towards meetings of political, business and educational leaders of the two regions with a view to stimulating a north-south exchange of goods, people, services and technology in a mutually advantageous way.
He said: I am inspired by this packed House and attentive audience on a Friday afternoon before Christmas to deal with a subject which is of importance to me.
It is well known that the rules of our Chamber allow each member only one notice of motion per session. I have used my one per session thirteen different times in my years here to deal with this particular subject which I believe is of the utmost importance.
I said it the first time I spoke on a similar motion that the relationship of our country to the Commonwealth Caribbean could be the most important touchstone of our whole external outreach program, as we used to call it in those days. If we cannot be successful in our dealings with the sister states of the commonwealth to the south of us, we may find ourselves incapable of launching vast programs across the world.
I have enlarged my motion of former years and I have no specific reference in this year's motion to such places as the Turks and Caicos Islands. While I have not altered my view that the Canadian people, parliament, and the government should always welcome any desire of the people of the smaller islands to the south who might wish to unite with us, the subject was well discussed in previous debates. I still say, however, that the reason advanced by a government spokesman a few years ago was, in my opinion, most outrageous in that he said we could not assist the Turks and Caicos Islands

December 16, 1977
Caribbean Community
because to help them might cause other islands to feel that they had been neglected. That is a very narrow view of world leadership and community relations in this hemisphere.
There has been a long story, Sir, of the special relationship between our country and the lands mentioned in this particular motion. We took a long time to get out of our own colonial status, and it was a good many years before we had any real expression in the field of foreign policy. History records that the first area to which we gave attention in a diplomatic way and in terms of economic relationship after the United States and the United Kingdom-an interest in which we could not escape no matter how we tried-was the Commonwealth Caribbean. In a recent book on "Canada and the Third World"-modesty forbids that I mention the author of the section on Canada and the Caribbean-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Please do!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: It indicates since the days of John A. Macdonald there was a special concern. Sir John A. Macdonald appointed Sir Francis Hincks-as his special adviser on Caribbean affairs. In 1912, 1920 and 1925 there were meetings at the very highest level of the leaders of the government from that region and from Canada. I had the privilege of being in attendance at the 1966 meeting. I was not born in the time of the first two. I was much too young to be admitted to the third one, but I did make it for the last one and it was a great occasion.
The motion, Sir, embraces some concepts that I did not talk about on previous occasions, and you have read them to the House. It deals more with economic situations than it did in previous years. I believe that reflects the concern that I have and that my colleagues have over the depressing economic ills that our country is now facing. I come from a part of the land where we have been disadvantaged so long that we have grown accustomed to it. But I can assure you we have not grown to like it, we do not intend to like it, and do not intend to tolerate it forever.
I have sought to put into this private member's motion some suggestions whereby the part of Canada from which I come, because of its propinquity to the Commonwealth Caribbean might take steps under government leadership to enhance our position in the eastern extremities of the Dominion of Canada. There once was a time when we were much privileged to be located on the Atlantic Ocean, when the Atlantic Ocean was one of the great corridors of commerce. Now we find that we are on the tag end of the transportation system. We pay more freight rates than anyone else. We wait longer to have our goods and services moved, and we have greater inconvenience than other parts of the land.
I think there is still an opportunity to make our maritime location an advantage. That is why I talk, Sir, of the importance of assisting in the shipbuilding industry. One of the tragedies that has occurred in this Dominion in my time, I haven't been through the whole thing, I am not quite a Father of Confederation but they say I look like one-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Thank you. I can remember when our merchant fleet was the fourth largest in the whole world. And now it matters not where I go, I always go to the wharves,- my father was a sailor and I love harbours-I always go down to the seaports and I never see a Canadian flag on any ship around-it is a disgrace that we should have lost our great tradition as the sailors, mariners, navigators of the world. I believe there is yet room for the construction of ships, for training in the most modern circumstances, with the best of refrigeration and exchange of goods and services between ourselves, the eastern seaboard of the United States and especially with the Commonwealth Caribbean. I am emphasizing that in my motion.
As a maritimer, I am emotional about this because we have long had ties of affection and good will with these people. Perhaps we reflect that in that we have learned long ago the virtues of rum, and we know there is only one area of the world that really produces good rum, and that is the Caribbean area.
Although I am a great nationalist and I am all in favour of the Chamber of Commerce of the Atlantic region in supporting maritime products, but because I love my stomach and my health, I won't go quite so far as to support maritime rum, and I have to deviate from that. We sold fish and we brought back rum, and nutritionally they got the best end of the bargain, I suppose. But in the gustatory sense I think we got the better end of the bargain!
There are opportunities, not vast opportunities, there is no way that we can expect tremendous expansion of trade but I am confident, and I have looked at the figures just an hour ago, that there are opportunities for improvement. I would like to see a committee of both Houses look at this matter very carefully. If I should happen to be sitting on the other side as one of the members of the joint committee, I will be quite delighted because I think the Senate study of the Commonwealth Caribbean was a very fine, definitive work and I consult it every time I make a speech or write an article about this particular area. They did a good job and they went into it thoroughly and came out with some very splendid recommendations.
I would like to see us return to leadership. I would like to see us do what the Hon. Leon Balcer did when he was minister of transport which was to encourage, assist and subsidize our shipbuilding facilities; and we have them in the area. I was shocked a couple of years ago to discover that representatives of the government of Cuba were coming to Canada and placing contracts with Canadian shipbuilding companies for ships to ply the eastern trade. Canadian shipyards, with Canadian inspiration and subsidization, should have been providing those.
A happy occurrence took place in recent years when the Cubans sent a ship into Charlottetown. That ship returned to Cuba with a cargo of the finest cattle and hogs that Prince Edward Island farmers can produce. No islander can make a speech without talking about potatoes or rum. Our best

potatoes are being sent down to the Caribbean, especially Puerto Rico this year. That will do wonders for their agricultural community.
We have a great opportunity, but we should give it more priority. There comes a time in the life of a nation when things are taken for granted, such as these very small communities in the Commonwealth Caribbean. These communities are able to function with the best traditions of the parliamentary heritage which is ours as well. I have seen tiny legislatures in the Caribbean which follow meticulously our rules and procedures. Although it is not for me to reflect upon any incumbent government, the people of the Caribbean are capable of changing governments from time to time. I believe that is healthy, in any case.


An hon. Member:: They do it more often than we do.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Yes. Since I have been moved from the far right of my party over to the far left, although I realize this right-left terminology is meaningless in Canadian political parlance, I am delighted to be here among my NDP friends.
I was never upset when I heard people referring to the election of socialist governments and how they should be watched. I do not think Mr. Manley is a communist. I had the pleasure of having breakfast with him at Blair House, when my leader invited me to do so. Also I have met Mr. Burnam and most of the other Caribbean leaders. Possibly in their efforts to stimulate the economies of their countries, they are implementing socialist measures as Sir John A. Macdonald did during the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which was a great step toward nationalization. Our party has contributed toward socializing the sectors of the economy which required socialization because of certain common goals.
I think Caribbean politicians are well intentioned, and I wish them well in their endeavours. Canada benefits if that part of the world is prosperous. We benefit if their political institutions are viable. There has been notable progress. As the time when their federation was breaking up, I felt many communities would not be able to make a go of it; but I am happily surprised that so many of the small communities with apparent disadvantages have been so successful. Canada should be a party to the furthering of their success in order to strengthen the ties between us that are historical, emotional, sound, rational, and geographic.
Since we are in the spirit of Christmas, I should like to say to those who take part in this debate, regardless of whether they speak for or against, are invited to join me in a pre-Christmas drink of the fruit of the cane. If they have a lesser taste in beverage, they can partake of something less delightful than rum. And although by tradition we do not formally notice their presence, I hope the diplomats from the Commonwealth Caribbean who are in the gallery, will also join us in order to discuss this matter more informally at the conclusion of this debate which, I am sure, will result in unanimous support for my motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Caribbean Community


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). His generosity has been extended well beyond the usual bounds, as evidenced by his invitation at the end of his speech.
Not only is he a member of parliament who has shown a great deal of interest in the Caribbean by visiting there but, as he indicated, on 13 occasions in 13 sessions of parliament he put this motion before parliament. That offered us an excellent opportunity to talk about the Caribbean, and especially the relationship which exists between Canada and the Caribbean. Certainly I support his interests in that regard.
As the influence of Great Britain has become less and less, more and more colonies of the Caribbean have become independent countries. This provides Canada with a natural opportunity to play a meaningful role there. The relationship which exists between Canada and the Caribbean is a mature and positive one, with no overtones of colonialism.
The hon. member for Hillsborough made a special contribution to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association by acting as a chairman of the Canada-Caribbean committee for several years. This committee provides a vehicle for meetings and exchanges between Caribbean members of parliament and legislators with Canadian members of parliament and senators.
I am sure his motion covers many of the important items to which any special committee of the Senate and House of Commons would want to address itself. With the kind of weather we have been experiencing in Canada during the last couple of weeks, because of the onset of winter, we are all very conscious of the special opportunities afforded to Canadians for vacation and recreation in the Caribbean during the winter months.
Our long association with the Caribbean dates back to colonial times when we exchanged commodities such as fish and wood products for such items as molasses and rum. The early commercial records of the Barbados mention that from 1771 to 1773 fish, lumber, shingles, staves, hoops, peas and beans were being imported from Canada. By 1860 Canadian vessels were sailing regularly to the British West Indies with fish, some potatoes and lumber; returning with sugar, salt, molasses and rum. There has been a continuing communication between our countries, a fact commented upon at the Canada-West Indies Conference of 1912 by the then minister of industry, trade and commerce for Canada, the Honourable George E. Foster. At that time he said the following:
For a number of years Canada and the West Indies have been communicating with each other, and have been endeavouring in various ways and at different times to stimulate the volume of trade and to improve the means of intercommunication.
At that time Mr. Foster also mentioned that for 15 years Canada had given preferences to goods coming from the West Indies. This 1912 conference saw the signing of a Canada-British West Indies Treaty. A second trade conference was held in 1920, and a Canada-West Indies Trade Agreement resulted.

December 16, 1977
Caribbean Community
A further development occurred in 1925 with the signing of another Canada-West Indies Trade Agreement, a significant feature of which was a fairly broad exchange of preferences between the signatories. This agreement regulated trade between the two parties until 1966 when, in recognition of the changes which had occurred over the years, heads of governments of the Commonwealth Caribbean countries and Canada met in Ottawa July 6-8, 1966, to discuss their relationship. Subjects of mutual interest were examined, including trade, aid, transportation, and communications. A protocol to the 1925 Canada-West Indies Trade Agreement was signed providing for review of the agreement following the Kennedy Round. The protocol dealt principally with specific commodities including rum, bananas, flour and codfish. It also provided for new consultative procedures on measures to encourage economic development and establish a Standing Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs.
A follow up meeting took place in St. Lucia the next year, and in 1970 there was a special Canadian mission to the Commonwealth Caribbean. By November, 1975, Canada and the Caribbean were again responding to changing conditions by re-examining their relationship. The discussions initiated at that time are continuing and are aimed at the conclusion of a new and updated agreement covering economic and trade matters.
Throughout the evolution of relations between the two areas Canada has remained an important supplier to the Caribbean. In general, we are the fourth or fifth most important trading partner of the various countries there, supplying to each about 5 per cent of its total imports and usually taking about 5 per cent of the exports of each. Indeed, Canada has achieved a relatively higher degree of penetration in this market than in most others.
From what I have just related, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the maturity of our relations is such that means for maintaining and enhancing them are already well established. Further verification of this is indicated by the diversity of formal and informal contacts between the two areas. Part (e) of the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough, touches on this subject and I would like to take the opportunity now to relate some examples of these contacts with particular reference to the last few years.
In 1975 our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) visited Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados and Guyana en route to the Commonwealth heads of government meeting. There have been three meetings since November, 1975, between Canadian and Caribbean officials to consider the formulation of a new agreement on trade and economic affairs. As I have mentioned, discussions are continuing.
Prime Minister Manley of Jamaica visited Canada in October, 1976. At that time a package comprising a line of credit, a short-term loan and CIDA aid for a total of $100 million was arranged. Utilizing Canadian consultants, CIDA has made an

extensive survey of the possibilities in Jamaica and Barbados for joint ventures between Canadian and local firms.
This past October, Prime Minister Forbes Burnham of Guyana led a delegation of Guyanese officials to Ottawa for talks with our Prime Minister and Canadian officials. I am very pleased that at that time we had an opportunity to speak to the Senate foreign relations committee and our Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and to respond to questions. I think this kind of opportunity for exchange is an important one, and one which seems to be expanding. It gives our parliamentarians who serve on that committee, and also to others who are interested, an opportunity to communicate directly in a semi-formal way with the heads of governments of the various countries in the Caribbean.
Also, this autumn, a group of Jamaican businessmen visited Canada to promote closer trade ties. Recently, a small delegation of Antiguan officials visited Ottawa for discussions with various federal departments. Apart from federally sponsored trade fairs and missions, there have been a number of provincially organized business missions to the Caribbean area.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the special relationship on a person to person basis which has developed between the CPA of the two regions. As you know, there are seven CPA regions in the world. One of them comprises all of the parliaments and legislatures in Canada, and another is the Caribbean region. We have an ongoing relationship, and I really want to compliment Mr. Speaker Jerome because I think he has given much momentum in increasing those contacts between the two regions of the association. Several representatives from the Caribbean attend international conferences such as the CPA conference which we held here in Ottawa in September of this year. That conference occurs in Canada only every ten years or so. Besides that, we have an ongoing special relationship between the two regions of the CPA because they are invited to our regional council meeting in May. It is essentially a meeting of Speakers of all legislatures. Special Speakers from the Caribbean are invited at that time to participate in those discussions, and they have an opportunity to visit various parts of Canada.
At our regional conference, which is held in one of the provincial capitals each summer, several delegates are invited from the Caribbean, and of course each November for the last five years we have had a seminar on parliamentary procedure at which there was very active participation. I believe three countries were represented, and three delegates this year attended that conference as well as two members from Canada who attended the regional conference. There is an ongoing exchange, and Mr. Speaker Jerome has been very active, together with myself, in promoting that. It falls in line with our general approach to enhance the relationship between these two regions of the world.
I would now like to turn my attention, Mr. Speaker, to the specific suggestions for improving Canada-Caribbean relations which my hon. colleague has made in his motion. I certainly appreciate his concern for this topic and the contribution a

motion such as his makes to examination and hence clarification of issues relevant to Canada's national issue. However, I have difficulty with some of the hon. member's recommendations.
With reference to item (a) of the motion, I wish to advise the House that a long history exists of subsidization of steamship operators who contracted to furnish regular service between Canada and the West Indies. Direct subsidy payments by the Canadian government were, however, discontinued with the establishment of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamship Limited in 1928, an operation that continued, albeit incurring a substantial deficit, until its cessation in 1957. Since then, commercial shipping companies have provided services without recourse to subsidy.
The Canada-Caribbean service has presented shipowners with the dilemma of unbalanced outward and inward cargo movements. Saguenay Shipping Limited, a subsidiary of Alcan, by loading return cargoes of bauxite and alumina from the Caribbean region, has established a viable commercial basis for a Canada-Caribbean service and is thus an exception.
I would now like to turn to the part of the hon. member's proposal that falls most directly within the responsibilities of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This is item (c) which reads:
that the proposed committee would consider such tariff changes as might facilitate the exchange of commodities between the two areas.
In order to explain some of the problems inherent in the proposal I would like to outline briefly recent developments in our trade relations with the Commonwealth Caribbean. Coming as he does from a region of Canada with longstanding trade ties with the Commonwealth Caribbean, I am sure the hon. member will be aware that our trade relations were primarily governed for many years by the provisions of the Canada-West Indies Trade Agreement of 1925, to which I have already referred. Under this trade agreement Canada exchanged tariff preferences with the Commonwealth West Indies.
In the early seventies some of the countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean established the Caribbean Common Market as the successor to the Caribbean Free Trade Association. The Common Market provided for free trade between its members and for a common tariff applicable to imports from outside the region. The existing Commonwealth preferences which Canada enjoyed under the provisions of the 1925 agreement were subsumed into the new CARICOM common tariff.
However, the member countries of CARICOM, along with a number of African, Asian and Pacific countries, the ACP, which had traditional ties with the member countries of the European Economic Community, entered into negotiations with the European community with a view to signing an economic agreement. This agreement, which became known as the Lome convention, provided, among other things, that the ACP countries would grant the EEC countries tariff treatment
Caribbean Community
no less favourable than that granted to any other developed country, including, of course, Canada.
In order to meet their obligations under the convention the countries of CARICOM introduced a single column tariff effective January 1, 1976, which applied to imports from all sources with, of course, the exception of intra CARICOM trade. Another factor to bear in mind is that the United States scheme of tariff preferences for less developed countries places a somewhat similar onus on beneficiary countries, as does the Lome convention. Thus, in order to obtain tariff preferences in the large United States market, Caribbean countries would be expected to phase out preferences granted to developed countries.
As the central element of the 1925 Canada-West Indies Trade Agreement is no longer valid, CARICOM and Canadian officials are negotiating a new agreement on economic and trade matters to provide a formal framework for the new relationship. The Bahamas, which is not a member of CARICOM, and Bermuda, which is not in the Caribbean but which was a signatory to the 1925 agreement, have both introduced one column tariffs. Canada continues to grant unilaterally the preferences in the Canadian tariff to the Commonwealth Caribbean and to Bermuda. In addition, these countries are also beneficiaries of Canada's system of generalized preferences for developing countries.
It follows from the withdrawal of our preferential tariff access to the Caribbean market that the only tariff adjustment possible which might benefit us is the reduction of certain of CARICOM's most favoured nation tariffs. These could, of course, apply equally to all outside suppliers to CARICOM. Canada will be raising this possibility within certain CARICOM member countries during the Tokyo Round of GATT tariff and trade negotiations now under way in Geneva.
Perhaps the greatest impediment to the sale of Canadian products in CARICOM markets is the extensive system of import controls now in effect in the region. Some of the countries of CARICOM, but especially Jamaica and Guyana, are suffering from severe balance of payments difficulties, exacerbated by rising petroleum costs, and have imposed stringent import control regimes. While we understand and sympathize with the difficult economic situation these countries find themselves in, we would expect to see the controls progressively dismantled as their economic situations ameliorate.
Trinidad and Tobago, alone among CARICOM members, is in a strong international financial position because of oil supplies there. We heard an excellent presentation by the High Commissioner in the committee of which the hon. member for Hillsborough is chairman, outlining the very favourable position of Trinidad and Tobago because of the oil resources in that country. However, Trinidad and Tobago has imposed a number of controls for development purposes. Random examples of Canadian exports which have been affected are apples, banned by Jamaica and Barbados; red kidney beans and onions, controlled by Jamaica; and synthetic fibre bags, banned by Trinidad and Tobago. Import controls and provi-
1976

December 16, 1977
Caribbean Community
sion for consultation on such matters will be one of our considerations during negotiations for the agreement which is under discussion now.
I hope these brief comments outline some of the considerations we should have in mind if the hon. member's motion is passed and is discussed by the joint committee proposed by the hon. member. I certainly want to indicate my support for his proposal.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I too want to commend the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) on motion No. 16 which is before the House today. I urge all hon. members to support the motion so that we can study it in a very serious way in a committee.
I think the economies of the Caribbean and Canada are complementary and that we should be exploring the possibility of a common market relationship between countries in the Caribbean and Canada. Any common market arrangement which might evolve would be useful to both, and perhaps a few years down the road that commonwealth arrangement, if it could be established, might evolve into a more political association between the two, and perhaps even the unity of Canada with some parts of the Caribbean.
It would be my objective, if indeed we could get a committee established, to try to strengthen the relationships between the two now, with the objective being a common market relationship between Canada and as many countries in the Caribbean as possible and with the ultimate goal being political unity or political association in the future. This would offer a number of advantages to both. Canada is a great and beautiful country, as we all know. It has many things, but there are a few things we do not have, and that is primarily because of our climate. We do not have a tropical climate, and therefore we do not have tropical foods and fruits and the weather that goes along with those things in the winter time for vacations and the like. All Canada really misses is a tropical climate. The United States, the Soviet Union to some degree, and I suppose China have that. An association with the Caribbean would give us what we do not have.
The second point which should be made, and made as often as possible when we are talking about this, is that if Canada as a whole could benefit from a close association with the Caribbean, that would be so particularly in the Atlantic provinces. It is not very far between the four Atlantic provinces and the Caribbean. There is a high unemployment rate in the Atlantic provinces, and many of the things we need from the Caribbean could come into Canada through the Atlantic provinces, putting people who are unemployed there to work.
The Atlantic provinces have the highest unemployment rate in our country. A close association with the Caribbean would perhaps create jobs in the transportation industry, the shipbuilding industry, and in our harbours. More jobs would be created in packaging some of the food which would be coming in from the Caribbean. Many of the things we might ship to the Caribbean would go through the ports of Atlantic Canada, and again there would be warehouses, packaging and trans-

porting of goods to the ports in the Atlantic provinces. These things would create employment, which would immensely help Atlantic Canada and Canada generally.
There is a common link between Halifax and some of the well known ports in the Caribbean. It would be very sensible to plan the world, our country, and the Caribbean states, keeping things that are mutually advantageous in mind.
The other point I want to make is that the time has come when we have to diversify our trade as much as possible. All of us are very fond of the Americans and of the United States, but at the same time I think we are putting too many eggs in the American basket. It would be to the benefit of all of us if we were to transfer a few of those eggs to other parts of the world, and the most obvious part is the Caribbean. Instead of bringing in oranges from Florida and California, they could come in from the Caribbean countries, which would be better for us as well as for them.
Many Caribbean countries lack the things we have in this country, such as technological skills, and we could help them train their people in this way. With our technical know-how we could assist them to build the factories that they need. They also need many of the raw resources that we have in abundance. If there were a close relationship they could benefit from all this. Indeed, if they wanted to, they could even share our winter weather. As the hon. member for Hillsborough and I go down there to swim and enjoy their beaches, so could their people come up here to ski. There are a lot of things in the two regions that are complementary, and I think it makes sense to have the closest possible relationship.
I should like to point out, too, that it is not just the English-speaking islands in the Caribbean that are complementary to English-speaking Canada. In many of the islands where French is spoken such as Haiti, Guadeloupe and Martinique, an exchange could be arranged with the province of Quebec or the other French-speaking parts of Canada.
Someone mentioned the hon. member for Waterloo-Cam-bridge (Mr. Saltsman) who, a few years ago, spoke of the possibility of the Turks and Caicos Islands becoming part of Canada. If he were here today I am sure he would still advocate that.
I hope the day will come when we have political union with some of the Caribbean countries. This motion should not be talked out today but should be given some serious study. In time we may reach a common market relationship and achieve a measure of political association. Several other hon. members have advanced convincing arguments, and I hope the motion will be adopted.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a few moments because I know that other hon. members wish to participate in the debate.
In 1975 I had the privilege of accompanying the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the heads of government meeting in Jamaica. Previous to that I went on a pre-tour to Guyana,

Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago. I should like to express my very deep feeling and respect for the many things that we have in common with the open and genuine people in that part of the world.
These days we hear a great deal, both critical and positive, about the role that Canada, as a developed nation, should play in the Third World. I believe we are moving in the direction of saying that if we are to have such a role we should work with those countries with which we have had long ties and have developed a close relationship. I cannot think of any part of the world with which we have a closer relationship than the Caribbean. Those countries have, in common with us, a democratic system and a British heritage.
In the pre-trip that took place before the heads of government meeting, I particularly remember the time spent in Guyana. Speaking as a backbencher in private members' hour I admit that I saw things I would like to change in their democratic process, and things that I would challenge. The fact remains, however, that despite their difficult background and great economic pressure, they have a system that they are trying hard to make work within the modern world.
In Barbados I found a people with a literacy rate of 95 per cent or 98 per cent. In their last election a great friend of Canada, Mr. Barrow, lost to a new government, proving that democracy does reign. In that country Canadians of humble means live side by side with, and equal to the original people of that country.
In Trinidad and Tobago there is a difficult and complex situation. The people are striving for a full and free democracy and have achieved the fundamentals of the democratic process.
I sometimes read in the press that the Jamaican system is not democratic and of Prime Minister Manley being too close to Premier Castro. That is an absurdity. When the premier of Nova Scotia visited Cuba someone said to me that Mr. Regan was down there trying to make a better deal with the Cubans and wondered what would be said if Rene Levesque had gone to Cuba. I have no particular liking for Rene Levesque, but I am trying to say that the success of our country depends on looking at our friends with some understanding of their backgrounds.
I should like to commend the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) for bringing this motion forward. With such a sensitive, positive motion he is obviously sitting on the wrong side of the House, he should be over here with us.
I hope members of the government will read today's debate and pay heed to what has been said.
I see a fellow member from Toronto over there who many Canadians may feel is a trifle insensitive to the needs of the maritime areas of Canada. I suffer from that accusation from time to time. I must say, though, that he is a good economist and has shown some sensitivity for liberalism at various levels in Canada. Sitting with him are members from Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island who understand the heart and goodness and practicality of this world in which we must survive together. As a developed nation we must show the
Caribbean Community
developing nations that we understand them and want to be a leader. As practical businessmen we want to create jobs and help our own people as well.
Three out of four of the members opposite are from the maritimes and, of course, recognize the importance of the fishery to both countries. We have fantastic resources in our fisheries although of course we want to rebuild depleted stocks. We must realize the strength we have in controlling our 200-mile limit. Our sales of fish to Jamaica, Trinidad, the Windward and Leaward Islands have shown an interesting trend over the last decade. They have faced problems on account of currency values and balance of payments, as well as the crash in the price of sugar.
Our nation depends on trade, and we must recognize the Third World. There is a real job to be done there. When I consider Trinidad and Tobago, as well as Jamaica and even the Dominican Republic, I realize there is the opportunity for trade with our fisheries, which would provide jobs for our maritime region where there is massive unemployment and would provide the Caribbean countries with the funds to buy the things they need.
I will be brief today, Mr. Speaker. Having had the advantage of being an active member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and having met those fine, aggressive, and bright people who represent the Caribbean islands, I respect their traditions of democracy. I have in my constituency many people from that area. They want to help build my community and be good Canadians. As I say, I had the privilege of participating with the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting. I therefore believe that we have a real role to play.
The hon. member's motion is not one which says we will give anything away during hard economic times. It states that if we care about our heritage, if we care about our brethren, if we are good businessmen, if we have products to sell, and if we want those nations to develop, they must have their fair share in the world. Canada should do what he suggests, and I hope we will.
Mir. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that the last thing my distinguished colleague, the author of the motion, needs in order to speak eloquently about the Caribbean is a packed House. He does not need a packed House to be inspired every time he speaks about the Caribbean. He always does that with great affection. My colleague, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming), has developed the same sentiment for the Caribbean. I had hoped he would be a little more brief so that I could have expressed some of the views I prepared on the subject.
I believe that members on both sides of this House hold great affection for the people of the Caribbean.
80027-56 V2

December 16, 1977
Caribbean Community

And I wish to congratulate my colleague and friend, the mover of this motion, for having enabled us to discuss in the House the possibilities of maintaining and developing better communications with the Commonwealth Caribbean. It seems to me particularly appropriate to show some concern for that part of the world which enjoys such a pleasant tropical climate while a premature winter has given us before Christmas some record low temperatures and several snow storms. While snow storms are welcomed by many among us who ski as I do, it remains that many Canadians can hardly wait for that season to go and enjoy the beauty of the south.
Of course, this subject is especially topical at this season since thousands of our fellow citizens are getting ready, as I said earlier, to fly to one of those islands in the Caribbean sea for the holiday season, which contributes to bringing us closer to those countries. Since recent developments in air transport have placed this area within a few hours of us and since the democratization of tourism has placed it within our means, the more than one hundred years old relations between our country and the Commonwealth Caribbean have become more intensified than ever.
This is why we must congratulate the mover of the motion under consideration this afternoon since it enables us once more to examine our relations with this area for which members on both sides of the House certainly feel much sympathy, great attachment and a unanimous concern to do everything possible to improve our present relations and to make current exchanges even more effective and meaningful. We must however ensure that the proposed methods are the most proper to meet this objective, and that they do not simply add to existing ones and contribute to slowing down present mechanisms, and, finally, hinder rather than help our efforts to meet our objectives. To bring more light into this matter, it would be appropriate to outline briefly the present state of relations between Canada and the Commonwealth Caribbean, the better to assess the suggestions made in the motion and determine if they are truly justified.
The ties between Canada and the Commonwealth Caribbean are nearly as ancient as the history of our country since they go back to the beginning of the 18th century. Even then, settlers in the Maritime provinces had developed trade exchanges based on cod and wood from Canada and sugar, rum, molasses and spices from the West Indies. This type of
exchange has survived under various forms to the present time and has become more diversified and more intensive, and now the Canadian people themselves are closely involved in these relations because of the many immigrants from these islands who came to Canada and the thousands of Canadian tourists who spend their holidays in the Caribbean.
We, in Canada, tend to consider this area as a group of countries with similar characteristics. Yet, nothing is less true to reality because if that group of countries have much in common they are nevertheless characterized by a great diversity, be it geographic, demographic, economic, social, or because of the very nature of the problems each country must face. This explains in part the difficulties those countries had reconciliating their differences with their common regional interests. In spite of everything, those countries as a whole make up an area united by various cultural and social similarities. Those are realities we must take into account when dealing with them.
The resources of those countries can also vary a lot from one island to another, contributing to great variations between their respective economies and making their objectives and priorities difficult to reconcile. Thus bauxite plays an essential role in Jamaica and Guyana, where as oil and asphalt form the base of Trinidad's economic life, and other islands have to rely on sugar cane. It is true that from an agricultural point of view each of those states has arable farm lands provided they can be properly irrigated. But one thing all those countries share in common is the sun which gives them a pleasant tropical climate during our severe winters, and very inviting beaches. Of course, this allowed them to develop a particularly thriving tourist industry which provides them with jobs and generates valuable currencies for their expansion. However the benefit they can derive from tourism should not be exaggerated because the development of this industry is tied to a great extent to foreign investments which must be refunded and to the import of products which must be paid for in currency.
The political diversity which characterizes all these countries should also be noted, some of them having become independent while others-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Private members' hour has now expired. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 19, 1977