1981-06-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Canadian bakery industry, representing some 30,000 jobs, faces a very real threat due to the rapidly escalating price of Canadian flour in the widening gap between domestic and American flour prices. Because this situation makes it much cheaper to produce baked goods in the United States, and has resulted in more and more baked products being imported from the United States, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
That the Minister of Agriculture immediately convene a meeting with representatives of the Canadian bakery industry in order to hear its concerns and consider ways of stemming the importation of American bakery products.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Yesterday an historic statement of concern on the issues of hunger and underdevelopment, signed by 52 Nobel Laureates, was released simultaneously in Europe and at the United Nations. Among the signers was a distinguished Canadian Nobel Laureate, Dr. Gerhard Herzberg. The statement appealed "to all men and women of good will, to all those in power and to all ordinary people, whatever their responsibilities may be, to bring back to life the millions who, as victims of the political and economic upheavals of the world today, are suffering from hunger and privation". I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House draws the attention of all Canadians to an historic statement of concern on the issues of hunger and underdevelopment signed by 52 Nobel Laureates which was released simultaneously in Europe and at the United Nations, and commends the Nobel Laureates for this initiative to aid the plight of 800 million people who live on the margins of society.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgency. It appears that little progress has been made at the bargaining table between the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Treasury Board. The government is apparently unwilling to accept many of the recommendations made by the conciliation board chairman, Pierre Jasmin. In light of the fact that the postal union is in a position to go on strike Monday night, and that such a strike would cause severe interruption of a vital service to the Canadian public, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That the government undertake to negotiate in a meaningful way with representatives of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers in an effort to avert such a strike.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 25, 1981


ASTRA TRUST
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House calls upon the federal government to launch a judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the licensing, operation, and collapse of Astra Trust and related companies, and in particular to answer the following questions:
(1)	Why was a licence granted when reports were available questioning the bona Tides of the principals of the company?
(2)	Why did it take over a year for the Department of Insurance to learn of the incorporation of Re-Mor Investments if Astra was under "close supervision"?
(3)	What contact was there between the federal and provincial governments throughout the period 1974-1980?
(4)	What compensation should be paid to depositors in Re-Mor and depositors of over 520,000 in Astra Trust, who assumed a federal guarantee for their deposits?


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TERPSICHOREAN ART
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, under provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise to seek the unanimous consent of all hon. members of the House. Yesterday at the third Moscow International Ballet Competition, five Canadians received awards second only to the number of awards given to the host country. In light of this remarkable performance by these dancers from the National Ballet Company and the National Ballet School, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder):
That this House recognizes the outstanding achievement of the Canadian dancers competing in the Moscow Ballet Competition, and in particular Kevin Pugh and Kimberly Glassco, each winners of silver medals in the senior category, Owen Montague who placed second in the junior category and received a special award, and Martine Lamy and Serge Lavoie.


Madam Speaker:: The House will want to show its appreciation by its applause.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUGGESTED STUDY OF URANIUM INDUSTRY-MOTION UNDER
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent importance under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The world will be moving more and more toward nuclear energy use, giving rise to increasing concern and apprehension as to nuclear weaponry proliferation. Canada is and will be playing an ever-increasing role in the supply of uranium fuel and safeguarding against the inappropriate use of such fuel. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
That the government undertake a uranium inquiry by reviving the 1980 resolution of the Progressive Conservative government establishing a joint committee of the House and the Senate to examine and report on all aspects of Canadian uranium mining, processing, use and marketing, both domestically and internationally.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TOURISM
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. American motorists coming to Canada for gas which is subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer account for 50 per cent of the tourism increase in the first quarter of 1981. According to figures released by Statistics Canada, a colossal surge in same-day border crossings from the United States to Canada in the first quarter accounted for about half the increase in all visitors from the U.S. to Canada compared to a year ago. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the House, once again, demand that the National Energy Program, which is aggravating oil pricing negotiations between Alberta and the federal government, be scrapped, and at the same time the House congratulate the minister responsible for tourism for his ability to manipulate Canada's ridiculous energy policy and the oil pricing impasse into his plans to expand this country's tourist industry at the Canadian taxpayers' expense.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 25, 1981


PETRO-CANADA LAY-OFF OF UNION OFFICIALS FORMERLY EMPLOYED BY PETROFINA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker,
I rise under provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that on the takeover by Petro-Canada of Petrofina, both president Hopper of Petro-Canada and president Nadeau of Petrofina gave assurances that no workers would lose their jobs as the result of this takeover either before or after it, and that since the takeover both the president and secretary of Local 14, United Oil Workers, were laid off three days before the official takeover, and since this union has filed seven complaints against Petrofina for union-busting activities, [Translation]
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources direct the boss of Petro-Canada to meet with union officials with a view to having the laid-off workers rehired.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing business under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the announcement by the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) minutes ago that the Government of Canada will issue a stamp titled "Marathon of Hope", which recognizes the significant achievement of Terry Fox, 1 move, seconded by the hon. members for York East (Mr. Collenette) and Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen):
That the cabinet be congratulated for again recognizing the outstanding achievement of Terry Fox.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRIBUTE TO MR. DINSDALE, DEAN OF THE HOUSE, ON THIRTY YEARS OF SERVICE
Madam Speaker:: Before I recognize the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) on orders of the day, I would
House of Commons
like to say to the House that today marks the thirtieth anniversary here of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris as a representative of his constituency. His representation is continuous, without a break, and he has justifiably earned the title Dean of the House of Commons.
Editor's Note: At this point the hon. member for Brandon-Souris was accorded a standing ovation.


Madam Speaker:: Since the return of the writ on July 16, 1951, the result of a byelection held June 25, 1951, as members know, the hon. member has had a very distinguished career. He has served as an alderman for the city of Brandon, as mayor, as a member of the legislative assembly, as a member of this House, and as a minister of the Crown. Also he has had a very distinguished career in the Royal Canadian Air Force during which time he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. I now give him the floor.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, I hope I have your permission to make a preliminary statement and then ask my questions. After 30 years I suppose a situation like this is best described in the words "I am a survivor". I think it was Premier Khrushchev who was once asked what he did during the Stalin years, and he said, "I survived."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We in Canada do not need to have any fears with respect to that kind of survival. However, I would like to make one point. I suppose one should make a profound statement on an occasion like this, and I borrow that French phrase:
plus qa change, plus c'est la meme chose.

The more things change, the more they are the same.
I came to Parliament as a member of the opposition. I am still a member of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I came into Parliament when the late C. D. Howe was the minister of everything, as we used to say back in those days. I suppose, if I may put it into the contemporary context, he would combine in his person our present minister of resources, the Minister of Finance, and even the Prime Minister himself as constituting the whole part and parcel of government, with one exception, and I say this to the Minister of Finance. The catch word in those days was, "What's a million?" Today it is, "What's a billion?"
Money values have changed obviously. It is an honour to have served in this House for a period of 30 years. I have established warm friendships on all sides of the House. This is

June 25, 1981
House of Commons
something that people outside Parliament cannot appreciate when they see the rough and tumble of debate. One of my friends recently came to the House during one of the heated moments of debate and said, "Now I understand the meaning of original sin". That is what it might look like to people looking from the sidelines.
I had a very good relationship with the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), especially when we were both engaged in helping to resolve the postal strike pre-Christmas, back in 1975.1 was in hospital at the time-


Mr. Mackasey:: I almost was.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -undergoing some heart surgery. There arrived at my hospital room a tape. The hon. gentleman knew I was fond of music. The title was quite significant under the circumstances. It was "The Sound of Music". He might send a copy of the same tape to other people of whom I can think, for "music hath charms to soothe the savage breast". We have had tragedies in our family. But one of the things I remember with great appreciation was the rallying of members of Parliament from all sides of the House. Incidentally, the first letter I received came from the late governor general, Georges Vanier, who had great sensitivity in these matters.
We were stricken with severe disability 15 years ago in the bosom of our family. Today in the Year of Disabled Persons, 1981, it has been my privilege to be involved in a vitally important exercise. I think it is fitting that we are again honouring Terry Fox who, more than anyone, has raised the level of awareness of the special needs and the special abilities of the disabled. It has been my privilege through the parliamentary process to help change what was tragedy into what we believe is going to be a triumph and a major breakthrough on behalf of disabled people in this country.
We have had a parliamentary prayer breakfast, believe it or not, all through the years. Sometimes the public believe that the only kind of praying that parliamentarians do is spelled "preying". The prayer group has been a source of warm fellowship to me over the 30 years.
Finally, I pay tribute to my constituents who, for 30 years, have seen fit to support me during 12 elections. I have had only one slogan: Has served, is serving, and will serve. They have accepted that slogan as a sincere indication of what I planned to do as their representative.
I should point out that my predecessor who sat in this House for a number of years, and also I believe became the Dean of the House, and was a Liberal during all those years, did not get into politics until he was 65. He died in office in 1950 at the age of 81 which precipitated the by-election to which you, Madam Speaker, have referred. He was a very distinguished gentleman. When my Liberal friends ask me if I am thinking of retiring I say, well in light of the experience and the service of my predecessor, I have at least 25 years to go yet!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I remember the hon. Bob McGregor who used to be known as "Silent Bob". Some members will remember him. He became the Dean of the House. It does not happen very often, but he had to make his maiden speech in response to what was said by the Speaker in the House. I can remember his maiden speech very, very vividly. It was brief. He said, "If some of you fellows in this House would speak less, you would be here a lot longer." And the next election he was defeated.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The verdict was that he had talked himself out of the House of Commons. I am not going to do that, but with your permission, Madam Speaker, I will now pose a question to the President of the Treasury Board, and I think perhaps he knows the subject matter involved.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Notwithstanding the revolution in communications technology which is now upon us, postal service is still an essential service in Canada, particularly to pensioners, low-income groups, and small businesses which cannot afford the higher costs of electronic communications and courier service. Arising out of the critical stage of current contract negotiations with CUPW I would ask whether the President of the Treasury Board can assure the House that he has taken the necessary steps to ensure that there will be no interruption in postal services at this time.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to have the first question from the Dean of the House, and I might say that I am sure all of us enjoyed his remarks. With respect to the question he has posed, clearly in the event of a strike there is bound to be disruption of postal services, but I can assure the hon. member that steps have been taken to ensure that pension cheques and other security type payments will be delivered and that the people of this country, dependent upon that aspect of the service, will be protected.


PLANS TO CONTINUE SERVICE
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Madam Speaker, Canada is on the eve of the establishment of a postal corporation. This policy has been in contemplation since as far back as 1962 when it was first recommended by the Glassco commission report. In light of this very significant development which is supposed to represent a major breakthrough in solving the
June 25, 1981

on-going labour problems in the Post Office, and because the public is already in a state of panic over the threatened strike, will the President of the Privy Council indicate what plans he has to ensure to the people of Canada that the mails will go through, and also to ensure a happy transition toward a Crown corporation? I think it would be most unfortunate at this time it we had a breakdown in postal services.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I think the question was addressed to me as President of the Treasury Board. I remain very optimistic, and I would like to assure members of the House that every effort will be made to bring these negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion. The parties are at the table; they were at the table yesterday, they were at the table this morning, and they will be back at the table this afternoon. I maintain every hope that a negotiated settlement will be arrived at.


SERVICES OF NEW CROWN CORPORATION PRESIDENT
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Madam Speaker, does the government have at this stage of the implementation of the Crown corporation, the postal corporation, the services of the highly reputed new chairman of the postal corporation who is skilful in managerial and negotiating procedures? Are his services available to the government at this time?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the responsibility for negotiations with CUPW, that particular postal union, will remain with the Treasury Board until such time as the Crown corporation is proclaimed and in existence. Accordingly, we are proceeding in the normal way.
I would like to point out to hon. members that there is the odd celebrated dispute, but 1 believe hon. members will agree that many, many settlements are arrived at without difficulty, and by and large our record in this regard is quite excellent. I have every confidence in the capacity of our negotiators and, as I indicated earlier to the hon. member, I believe this will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.


RECOMMENDATIONS OF CONCILIATION BOARD CHAIRMAN
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, my question is also to the President of the Treasury Board. The issues involved in the contract bargaining process between the Treasury Board and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers include proposals for 12 statutory holidays, improvements in premium pay for evening and night shifts, stronger health and safety provisions, and four weeks' vacation pay after five years. In light of the fact that the conciliation board recommended adoption of these proposals, could the minister outline the position of the government on these issues and why there is reluctance on the part of the government to accept the recommendations?
Oral Questions


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, first I point out that the recommendations to which the hon. member makes reference are those of the chairman of the conciliation board. As hon. members know, it was not a unanimous report. As far as individual items are concerned, I think it is best that these be left to the negotiators at the negotiation table.


GOVERNMENT POSITION IN NEGOTIATIONS
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. If the government is not about to negotiate in a meaningful way with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, a strike seems almost certain. A postal strike is perhaps the last thing this country needs right now. With the economy of the country in such disarray and the financial burden on almost every segment of the population increasing daily-I am sure the minsiter will agree with that-can the minister tell this House how the government can justify its reluctance to accept the recommendations of the conciliation board when a postal strike would impose severe hardship on the needy, old age pensioners, and small businessmen who cannot afford couriers at $6 a letter and up, and on the millions of other Canadians who rely on the postal service for personal and business transactions?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am sure we all share the concerns expressed by the hon. member, but we do indeed have a responsibility to the people of Canada as taxpayers. Surely the hon. member is not suggesting, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party, that settlements should be made with public service unions in general, at any cost, in order to avoid the inconvenience which strikes sometimes entail.


Stan Darling: I didn't say that.


Donald James Johnston: I inferred that from the hon. gentleman's remarks.
However, I would say that these matters have all been taken into consideration. Negotiations are proceeding. I have indicated that mechanisms are in place to ensure the delivery of old age pension cheques and so forth and, as 1 said, I have every confidence that a negotiated settlement will be reached.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, before I direct my questions to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport I want to say that I and my colleagues in this caucus join with Your Honour and the President of the Treasury Board in congratulating the hon. member for Brandon-Souris on his length of service in this chamber. We look

June 25, 1981
Oral Questions
forward to being with him in this chamber for many more years.
I should also say that this is the thirteenth anniversary for the class of 1968.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Of the some 96 members elected then for the first time, there are 15 to 20 survivors. Some of the recidivists include the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody, the Solicitor General, and one or two others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. We are into a summer of discontent and dispute between several unions and their employers on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, which could result in severe damage to the Canadian economy. Would the minister tell the House what measures he is taking to resolve these disputes and to prevent a shutdown of the shipping industry? A major part of the dispute is about safety conditions, all of which could be resolved by the government. Would the minister agree that workers should not have to bargain for safety standards and that the government should take these items off the bargaining table and put those standards in place?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member and the class of '68.
The hon. member's question was quite comprehensive. At the present time there are three collective bargaining renewals-which are at various stages of conciliation-which affect the movement of grain and other goods on the Great Lakes. In two instances conciliation commissioners have been appointed, and in relation to the third one, which involves the Canadian Lake Carriers Association and the Seafarers International Union, I am considering at the present time the possible appointment, as a next step in the conciliation process, of a conciliation commissioner.
The question of what may be bargained is not as simple as outlined by the hon. member, because it is quite obvious that one party to a collective agreement may feel that the safety standards question has been taken care of but another party may make some demands beyond that. There is no question but that the matter of safety conditions in the shipping industry is one which is subject to re-examination at the present time with reference not only to the exact articles but also in relation to where the jurisdiction will lie for the health and safety of workers. However, I believe the essence of the negotiations respecting these contracts involves matters other than those referred to by the hon. member.


EXTENSION OF CANADA LABOUR CODE TO COVER MARINE WORKERS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, the minister may feel that one side thinks safety is adequate, but
the other side does not. I remind him that eleven seafarers have lost their lives since the last contract. At least three, and possibly eight, would be alive today had the union's safety proposals been in effect. As I have said before, the government could solve all eight safety problems. Would the Minister of Labour solve four of those under his jurisdiction by extending the safety protection of the Canada Labour Code to these workers? Would he tell us why marine workers should be left to sink or swim and be denied the same protection being given to other workers under federal jurisdiction?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will be aware that in the various federal departments there have been, for many years, some 16 different statutes which deal with health and safety in the workplace with reference to different types of undertakings in the country. That is quite aside from the question of employment which falls under provincial jurisdiction.
In relation to the shipping industry, because of the fact that at the time of its passage the federal labour code was made subject to the provisions of other existing federal statutes with respect to safety conditions, that means that the CTC and the Department of Transport still are major factors in relation to safety and health conditions on the ships themselves. This is a matter which is under review and a matter on which there would have to be a governmental, rather than a departmental, decision.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, this is a running away from the issue if I ever heard it.


ENFORCEMENT OF CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, may I turn to the Minister of Transport and direct a supplementary question to him, because he could resolve the other four safety issues in dispute between the Seafarers Union and the ship owners. The seamen want water walls as a place of refuge from fire. That is not unreasonable. They want survival suits made mandatory. They want the companies to provide bilingual safety information.
Will the minister issue regulations, which he has the authority to do, to cover these items, and will he enforce the Canada Shipping Act? Will he also assure this House that his department will not put up any roadblocks to prevent the Minister of Labour from extending the safety protection of the Canada Labour Code to marine workers?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, it is obvious that my colleague was very careful in answering the questions, and I intend to do the same.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Why? Because negotiations are under way, and they have reached a very delicate point. However, one thing seems sure to me, and I would like to try to make it clear, that it might be unwise to conduct discussions on regulations for
June 25, 1981

safety in general at the same time as negotiations on a labour agreement. That would be very unwise.
I just want to say that during these negotiations I made sure the marine administrator of my department was providing information to both sides as to the progress being made on the three or four points mentioned by the hon. member. For example, there has been progress on survival suits. Standards have been developed by the department. There is a manufacturer offering them now. Progress has been made, and that progress has been communicated to both sides.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Last Tuesday I questioned his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, about a serious leak that occurred in his department in 1978, and a subsequent investigation by the RCMP which was instigated by the Attorney General's office. The minister first denied any knowledge of the affair at all. Having said that, he said the matter is before the courts. Then, with righteous indignation, he accused me of making false allegations before the House, for which he should apologize to both me and the House.
Yesterday, superintendent Bentham of the RCMP confirmed an investigation is taking place; the matter is not before the courts. My question to the Minister of Justice is: when did he or his officials initiate the investigation and did he inform his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and if so, when?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, indeed, on January 14, 1981, there was an investigation in a case. It is a special case and the investigation is still going on.


QUERY RESPECTING LEVEL OF ALLEGED LEAK
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It has now been confirmed there is indeed an investigation going on by the RCMP into his department concerning an alleged leak. The answers he gave me in the House on Tuesday were hogwash. He knows now what the situation is, just as I suspected he did then. My question is: at what level did the leak occur, departmental or ministerial?


Mr. Lalonde:: From you.


Robert Alfred Corbett: The second part of my question is: since Mr. Bertrand was relieved of his position by this government after the business of the uranium cartel was brought before the
Oral Questions
House, after the business of the oil rip-off was brought before the House, and now this business of a leak from within his department, will he instigate a special parliamentary inquiry bringing Mr. Bertrand before it to answer the obviously unanswered questions?

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs and Postmaster General): Madam Speaker, clearly the hon. member has obtained some information from a constituent and uses his privilege as a member to create doubt and uncertainty with a series of questions. The fact that there are ongoing investigations should not be emphasized in this House, since it might impede the orderly conduct of such investigations. If the hon. member is responsible, Madam Speaker, he will understand that we cannot answer, either to confirm or deny that investigations are going on, otherwise they would become pointless. However, I find the hon. member's questions unfortunate and unacceptable.


RAIDS ON THOMSON NEWSPAPER OFFICES
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has now had his attention formally drawn to this question in the House. He has had an opportunity to look into the matter himself. Will he tell this House whether, to his knowledge, there is any evidence that any officials of the Thomson Group had advance knowledge of raids by combines investigation officers on any of the offices of the Thomson Group?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, this is currently under investigation, and I feel it is unadvisable and rather useless and irresponsible on the part of the Leader of the Official Opposition to try to elicit information, when it is clear that the police are investigating. The Leader of the Official Opposition should let the police conduct their investigation and he will get answers later. In my view, his attitude can hinder the RCMP in completing their investigation.


ACTION TO PREVENT FUTURE LEAKS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we have a situation here where, by the minister's own admission in this House, a late admission, there has been the possibility of a leak by combines investigation officials to officials of the Thomson Group, giving advance warning of a raid. He says that matter is now under investigation by the RCMP.
Can he tell us, as the responsible minister, whether he has taken any action to ensure there is no continuation of leaks in his department in relation to this or any other investigation?

June 25, 1981
Oral Questions
Has he satisfied himself as to the source of the leak, or is he trying to fob it all off on the RCMP?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I would like to know if the Leader of the Opposition has satisfied himself that no one in his party is leaking information concerning himself and his precarious leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Call a judge.


Mr. Lawrence:: Boy, you are not leaking; you are bleeding.


EXERCISE OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Charles Joseph Clark: I am not
sure, Madam Speaker, why this minister, who has presided over the uranium cartel inquiry which has not been made public, who has presided over the departure of the Director of the Combines Investigation Branch, refuses to tell this House whether he has done his duty as the minister responsible for combines investigation activities in this country to see if there is a continuing danger of companies which might be subject to investigation by his branch being advised in advance of those raids. That is very much a question of public policy and the responsibility of the minister. He cannot shed that responsibility simply by trading insults across the floor of this House or by passing off his responsibilities to the RCMP.
He has a responsibility as minister to this House. Has he exercised it, has he determined whether or not there was a leak, and is he taking any action to ensure there are no subsequent leaks which would frustrate the operations of the Combines Investigation Branch?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Give us another flippant answer. [Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I will answer very briefly to the long and nebulous comments of the Leader of the Official Opposition. I am aware of my responsibilities and I discharge them.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister has acknowledged the importance to our long-term economic strategy of the report of the task force on major capital projects in Canada to the year 2000. Could the
minister outline what steps he intends to take to facilitate government co-operation with leaders of Canadian business and labour, in terms of a written response to the recommendations of this important report?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, we are proceeding immediately to form an appropriate interdepartmental group, led by myself and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and working with other ministers, to begin not only analysing the report but developing a response which we hope to work out very soon with the provinces and the private sector. The report shows a remarkable degree of consensus on the part of both business and labour as to the steps we should be taking to maximize for Canadians the benefits from major projects in this country. I think we have to take that report very seriously, and I can assure the House that will be the approach of this government.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding his responsibilities. On June 29 the board of review concerned with urea formaldehyde foam insulation will hear submissions from industry and other interested parties. I believe the deadline for those appearing is tomorrow. Since this hearing seems to be only in the interest of the industry which, like the government, is trying to downplay the health hazards of this foam, will the minister guarantee that the board will tour Canada and be available to local areas to hear from consumers on this very urgent matter?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has made an interesting suggestion which I will bring to the attention of the chairman of the review board. I understand that steps are being taken to hold hearings in other parts of Canada, not only in Ottawa. I am sure the chairman will receive the representations of the hon. member.


FUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF FOAM INSULATION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. The National Research Council has substantiated that the health hazards from urea formaldehyde gas increase as the foam disintegrates and as it is exposed to heat and moisture. Therefore it would seem that the results of tests which are done today will not be relevant a month from now. Why, then, is the government investing $5 million in irrelevant testing and surveys, when instead it could use this $5 million to assist home owners remove this foam which has proven to be a health hazard? This is the only real remedy to the situation.
June 25, 1981


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is jumping to conclusions. In my opinion, it would be wiser to wait for the test results. I remind the hon. member that there are to be three types of tests, done on different dates in order to get a more accurate reading and a better idea of the problem. Also, the review board, which will hold hearings this summer, will no doubt come up with findings which we will have to take into consideration. I would therefore suggest that the hon. member wait for these results before drawing such conclusions.


HOUSING
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It has to do with the subject raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East.
Not only does the testing of urea formaldehyde foam vary from time to time but it varies from home to home. Inasmuch as many people are suffering financial and health hardships as a result of this situation, and since the Ontario government has now recognized its responsibility to test all homes in which this foam has been installed to ascertain if there are dangerous situations house to house, will the minister undertake to try to influence his colleagues to establish the same kind of testing right across the country, to be conducted by the government which is generally responsible for the problem in the first place due to faulty testing in advance and an endorsement under the CHIP program?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I believe my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, has answered the hon. member's question.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ATTEND SCARBOROUGH MEETING
James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, is the minister aware that tonight in Scarborough town centre, the minister's own riding, there will be a meeting of the UFFI home owners from around the Toronto area and southern Ontario? Will the minister undertake to attend that meeting, which he has not done up to now, and hear the complaints and hardships being experienced by these people? Will he try to have a little compassion for the serious plight these people face, and will he face up to this serious problem so that he can influence his colleagues in cabinet to come up with a real solution and not a cheapie, mickey mouse solution which he has suggested?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the hon. member. In fact the
Oral Questions
meeting tonight is the second of such meetings. I did have a representative attend the first meeting. I was in my constituency office yesterday and received representations on this subject. I am aware of the problems and I am sympathetic toward them.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration but in his absence I would put it to the Deputy Prime Minister. Austria has a proud record of handling refugees and people exiled from eastern Europe. There are 7,500 surplus people from Poland presently in Austria. I understand that both the Canadian and American quotas have almost been filled. Will the Deputy Prime Minister bring to the attention of the Minister of Employment and Immigration the fact that usually there is a contingency number which can be used to add on the numbers we are prepared to accept in the form of designated people, or refugees? Will the Deputy Prime Minister ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to see if more people from Poland could be taken off the hands of Austria which has handled these refugees at great expense to its taxpayers?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member will be aware, under the current refugee program it is estimated that about 4,000 east Europeans will be admitted to Canada, and a substantial proportion of these, about 1,100, will be processed through the Canadian embassy in Vienna. I should also add that next month additional officers will be sent to Vienna to facilitate the processing of these potential refugees. The target is 4,000, but it may be possible to add additional refugees in the course of the year if circumstances justify that course.


NATIONAL REVENUE
[Stage Direction]
ACTION TAKEN BY DEPARTMENT AGAINST TARSANDS MACHINE & WELDING CO. LTD., FORT McMURRAY, ALTA.
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue my question is for the Minister of Finance. Two weeks ago officials from the Department of National Revenue filed a third party action against Tarsands Machine & Welding without any discussion whatsoever with the directors or the president of the company. This action forced the Royal Bank to place the company into receivership, and it has since gone into bankruptcy. This company is the third largest employer in Fort McMurray, employing 350 people.

June 25, 1981
Oral Questions
At the time the company closed it had approximately $5 million in receivables, a payroll of $350,000, which has not been met, and payables of between $1.7 million and $2 million. Will the Minister of Finance appoint officials from his department to go to Tarsands Machine & Welding in order to give it the same consideration which has been given to Massey-Fergu-son and Chrysler in the past, since this company is experiencing a cash flow problem at this time?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I will gladly convey the hon. member's representations to the Minister of National Revenue, who could not be here today.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT CO-OPERATION
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I again address my question to the Minister of Finance. I would like to draw to the attention of the minister that these representations have been made to the Minister of National Revenue. The Department of National Revenue seems hell bent for election that it is going to make this third party action stick though it appears that by taking court action in Alberta, which has forced this situation, this will prevent the department from receiving one cent in arrears since the bank has first claim. Will the minister direct officials from his department to sit down with Tarsands Machine & Welding and the receiver in bankruptcy in order to work out a solution which would allow this company to remain viable? The trustee receiver has stated to me very emphatically that this company could survive if it had the co-operation of the government. That is all it needs.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I am sure that if the hon. member has already made representations to the Minister of National Revenue, the latter is working assiduously to resolve the problem which has been identified.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. On May 18, 1981, at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs I asked the Solicitor General what the total cost would be if the RCMP "E" Division moved from Victoria to Vancouver. The Solicitor General replied, "I do not have the figures here but I will produce them." More than one month has passed since the minister made that promise and I am still waiting for his answer. Will he tell the House when we can expect him to produce the figures?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I am expecting to review some figures on that subject with the
RCMP at a regular weekly meeting which I will hold with them tomorrow. Perhaps after that meeting I will be able to make the information public.


CONFIDENTIALITY OF FIGURES
Allan Bruce McKinnon: I am more interested in the figures on which the minister made his decision to move them, not on some figures which may crop up tomorrow or any time in the future. I find it very strange that when I asked for the production of papers covering that move, the Solicitor General was unable to supply us with the papers and the figures which I requested and now he seems quite willing to do so. Why was it that those figures were confidential last week, but it appears that they will not be confidential next week?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, my main interest was in providing a basis for excellent policing for the province of British Columbia. It was on the basis of good policing that the decision was made to move the headquarters in that province from Victoria to Vancouver. Of course there are costs associated with it. We are aware of the costs, but they had not been put together in the kind of report which I have asked the force to prepare, and which I hope to be able to make public shortly.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. Yesterday we learned from Murray Chercover, the president of CTV, that CTV intends to replace CBC as host broadcaster for the economic summit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: While the Conservatives applaud, I might remind them that this move clearly constitutes grounds for action under section 184(3)(c) of the Canada Labour Code regarding the right to refuse struck work. I think it would be the same situation as if, during a postal strike-if there should be one- the government contracted that work out to Loomis or Pink Lady.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Nevertheless, I would like to ask the minister if he will assure the House that everything will be done in his power to have CBC remain responsible as host broadcaster, since a good deal of money has already been invested by CBC. Will he put pressure on CBC management to resolve this problem with NABET so that this job can be done by the CBC? If not, why not?
June 25, 1981


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity of speaking with the president of CBC this morning. He informed me that negotiations with NABET were ongoing this afternoon in Toronto. As far as the question of asking the CBC to remain as host broadcaster is concerned, CBC approached NABET last week to ask them to give guarantees that, if the CBC remained as host broadcaster, NABET would co-operate and allow the CBC to act as host broadcaster. These guarantees were not forthcoming from NABET.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET WITH UNION
Mark Willson Rose: The minister has already had meetings with CBC management to hear CBC's side of the story. In fact reliable sources allege that the Prime Minister's office, the PMO, even discussed strike-breaking contingency plans with the CTV a week ago. Will the minister now assure us that he will immediately take up the CBC-NABET invitation, to meet with NABET immediately, so that the minister and the rest of us will finally understand what is going on for a change?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, on this side of the House we believe that we know, indeed, what is going on. I would like
to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: I would like to inform the hon. member that I have asked my office to be in touch with NABET, and that my expectations are that I will be meeting with them at 9 a.m. tomorrow.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. It relates to the charges against certain members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police arising out of the proceedings of the Keable Commission. The minister is reported to have said in the Citizen of June 15, 1981, that:
-his department is prepared to provide legal assistance to those charged, in line with a long-established practice in such cases.
That refers to legal assistance to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who may be charged.
I want to ask the minister how far does that extend. Does it extend to former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who are no longer members? Will it extend, as well, to former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who may have been discharged, but who, during the course of their employment with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, were
Oral Questions
involved in matters which have led to charges or may lead to charges against them?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the question relates to an internal policy of the RCMP which provides, in general, that members may be granted legal counsel at public expense if they are charged with the commission of offences in the course of their duties. The very specific questions which have been asked are not necessarily covered by the detail of the policy as I have stated it. Obviously some of the situations which the hon. member may be contemplating will require a specific decision to be made within the force.
To trigger this mechanism, a member of the force makes a request to the commissioner. No requests, of which I am aware, have been made, as yet, in connection with the Keable matters. We want to be fair, and I will be expecting to review the decisions that the commissioner makes in this regard as requests come along to see whether the policy which is now in effect is, indeed, adequate.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Walter David Baker: It was a question of the adequacy that led to my question in the House. The minister, as a minister of the Crown, reports to the House for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and speaks for the government with respect to them and the policy which ought to relate to them.
Would the minister assure the House that he will advise those who are in charge of establishing the internal policy in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that it is the wish of the government that all members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, including members who were discharged but were involved in matters which have arisen in the course of their duty and have resulted in charges as a result of the Keable Inquiry will, in fact, be covered by that policy, and that, indeed, that is the position that the Government of Canada is taking? I was asking the Solicitor General that question in his capacity as a minister of the Crown.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I am not prepared to say that yet. I feel that the decision should be made on a case by case basis, and not in the blanket way which the hon. member suggests. Each member or former member of the force is free to make an application to the commissioner. I have stated the policy. I am prepared to make public the policy statement in its present form. I think that as each case is reviewed by the commissioner, I will watch, and I know other hon. members will watch with interest to ensure that the government does do the right thing by members and former members of the force.

June 25, 1981
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


HERD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM-REVIEW OF FILES REPORTED TO BE SEALED IN REGINA
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question through Your Honour to the Minister of Agriculture, regarding the compensation payments for herd maintenance which were supposedly to be out approximately two and one-half months ago.
It is my understanding that there are 1,100 files which were rejected for herd maintenance, sealed in Regina, to which the review board and the cabinet review will not have access. I would like to ask the minister why these 1,100 files will not be reviewed. I understand they were turned down because of the yield which was put on the numbers on those files. I would also like to warn the minister that the hon. member for Medicine Hat will have a question regarding the same thing.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: I should make it understood to the hon. member through Your Honour that the herd maintenance program does not come under the directorship of the Ministry of Agriculture or the Minister of Agriculture. It comes under the minister in charge of DREE. I am sure the hon. member realizes that. We do have some input. I have not heard the accusations, or I have no evidence, and I have not previously heard what he has said, about 1,100 appeals, I believe, or applications being locked up some place. I will certainly make some inquiries of my colleagues and see what we can find out. However, if I understand correctly, there are about 3,400 applications which have been sent to Ottawa. They are being looked at. We had a meeting a week or so ago about them. We hope to be able to finalize them in the next few days.


COMPENSATION TO FARMERS FOR EMBARGO ON SHIPMENTS TO RUSSIA-EXCLUSION OF OIL SEED PRODUCERS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and deals with the compensation payments arising out of the Soviet embargo, particularly as it relates to the payment, or non-payment, for compensation as a result of losses which occurred in the oil seed sector. Could the minister explain to the House and to the oil seed producers of Canada why oil seeds were not included as being eligible for compensation payments under the Soviet embargo compensation payment program?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, to give the hon. member a detailed answer may take longer than necessary. The working model which we use is one of the best in the world. We even had our people go down to the United States to study it. Their people came to Ottawa to show our officials how this model worked, using all price changes and everything that may effect the price of the commodity. Under some of the most capable people in the
departments concerned, led by Dr. Stu Borland from my department, we did everything we could to try to make a payment available to them. Actually, the prices showed an increase at that time and a larger amount of sales to the U.S.S.R. than at normal market time.


FACTORS INVOLVED IN DECIDING AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the minister should know, first of all, that there is a direct relationship between feed grains and oil seeds because both are used for animal feeds. The minister should also know that, according to the government policy statement, payments were made not on the loss of sales but on the price of these commodities, and the price of rapeseed, canola-seed, had dropped very dramatically during that period. Given those factors, surely the minister cannot stand in his place and rely upon the Americans to make that value judgment. Surely that decision could be made right here in this country.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Americans did not make any judgment whatsoever. We just used the working model. We used the system that they used which is considered to be the best in the world. It was developed in the state of Missouri. If the hon. member would like, we can make arrangements for members to have Dr. Borland's group present the facts the way they were presented to us, showing how they studied the markets at that time-all aspects of markets, everything that had an effect on it. There is nothing that the Minister of Agriculture would like to be able to do more than hand out some more money to farmers, but there is no way that I could do it from that fund.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of Labour. Last July 17 the government passed regulations under Part IV of the Canada Labour Standards Code to implement the provisions of the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, and regulations for employees working under federal jurisdiction, such as uranium miners. The validity of these regulations was questioned by the Burkett Commission on Mine Safety which suggested that the matter be referred to the Supreme Court. Can the minister tell the House whether the government plans to refer this matter to the Supreme Court?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the Department of Justice has recently reaffirmed its earlier opinion that the referencing of the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act under Part IV of our code is valid and is in force. The government has no plans to refer the matter to the Supreme Court, as a consequence.
June 25, 1981


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, we all know that tomorrow is designated as the last allotted day. I wonder if the government House leader could indicate to us his intention with respect to the business for today and into next week?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, today we will be studying third reading stage of Bill C-13 and then, I hope, the three stages of the two following bills, C-65 and.C-68. Tomorrow, as my hon. colleague indicated, will be the last allotted day. We have had consultations and have agreed to the following. If I may, before I talk about the business for next week, I would settle that question by moving the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, if any division is required on any motion relating to the business of supply on June 26, 1981, the division or divisions shall be deferred until 3.00 p.m. on June 30, 1981 and, at that time, the Speaker shall put forthwith and successively, without debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, any opposed item in the Estimates and for the passage at all stages of any bill or bills based thereon.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions and we are agreeable.


Mr. Knowles:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: Concerning House business for next week, Madam Speaker, on Monday we will bring before the House the three following bills: First, Bill C-37, to designate the first day of July as Canada Day, then Bill C-67 concerning the Adult Occupational Training Act and, if we have time, Bill C-53, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences.
Hon. members know that Wednesday is Canada Day and therefore the House will not sit. On Tuesday and for the rest of the week, the House will study the legislation required to implement the various programs described in the estimates and which were listed in your recent ruling, Madam Speaker. Essentially, that is the House business for next week.


Walter David Baker: Two questions arise, Madam Speaker. There is not very much legislation for today. Has the government House leader given any thought to what we might do if the business that he has outlined for today is completed? Does he have some back-up legislation for today?
Business of the House


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am very happy to hear my colleague indicate that we will make serious progress today. I appreciate that very much.
We will resume debate on the bills on which we have already started debate, namely, the second reading of Bill C-58 followed by Bill S-6 and by Bill C-12. If we have time to deal with those three bills today I will be around and will be glad to designate other items of business for my colleague.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, in the statement of just a few moments ago the President of the Privy Council mentioned legislation to handle matters in the Estimates that Your Honour had ruled out of order. Has the government made any decision with respect to how it will handle this legislation? I am talking about the form that the legislation will take when it reaches the House.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the House leaders had an interesting discussion this morning and that subject did come up. It is only later this afternoon that we will have an opportunity in cabinet to make a final decision about the type of legislation. There are two options: first, that it be an omnibus bill or, second, that the bill be split into several separate bills. Should we favour the second option, it has been agreed that the House would very quickly dispose of each of those bills.
I will not elaborate on the tentative agreement, but I think that as early as tomorrow, when the decision will be known, we will be able to draft an order of the House confirming that agreement so that next week we will be able to study the legislation concerned in a very orderly manner. I say "legislation" because at this very moment it has not yet been decided, of course, whether it will be introduced as a single omnibus bill or as six or seven separate bills. I want to point out, however, that the suggestions made to me by the Progressive Conservative House leader and the New Democratic Party House leader that the bill be split into several separate bills with the understanding that there would be a very short debate on each of them at all stages does appear to me as a very constructive approach. I will take it under very serious consideration this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, first, may I confirm that if the cabinet decides this afternoon to deal with those estimates that were ruled out of order by means of several bills, we are prepared to join in an agreement that each bill be dealt with on the basis of one speaker per party, and perchance even to reduce the length of that speaker's remarks.
I may add, Madam Speaker, that between what the government House leader has told us now and the discussions we have had at House leaders' meetings, we have a fairly complete picture of what the government wants the House to deal with before we rise for a possible summer break, except that he has omitted one item. As the minister knows, both the opposi-

June 25, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
tion House leader and I have been able to give him a commitment that on the bill to correct the oversight in last summer's Bill C-40 regarding veterans' widows, we are prepared to deal with it expeditiously on the basis of one speaker per party.
I wonder if the minister can tell us when he plans to bring that legislation forward so that it can be passed for the benefit of 15,000 or 20,000 veterans' widows?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the bill referred to by the hon. member is fundamental and very important, and there are several others which are or are not on the Order Paper and for which we would welcome the same kind of agreement. Still, with respect to the bill over which the hon. member shows concern, I want to assure him the cabinet is studying the question very seriously and at the end of next week at the latest, I hope to be in a position to give notice of our intention to introduce such a bill in the House before the summer recess.


POINT OF ORDER
Madam Speaker:: Would the House give me permission to make a ruling although the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) is not here? Is that agreeable to the opposition House leader?


Walter David Baker: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I want to rule on the matter raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre about Supplementary Estimates (A) 1981-1982, which were tabled on June 3 last. These estimates contain but one item, vote 20a, Energy, Mines and Resources.
What is interesting is that the hon. member in his intervention does not complain about that item, and probably with good reason because that item, vote 20a, fulfils to the letter the requirement of an estimate or vote; that is to say, it seeks approval to spend, and cites the legislative authority on which the request is based. Rather the hon. member's point of order relates to, and I believe for the first time, the description or information concerning a statutory item that accompanies Vote 20a in these Supplementary Estimates (A).
The hon. member objects that it is not in order for the estimates to contain information on government revenues because they should relate only to expenditures. As a second reason he says, in effect, that the statutory item is irrelevant to the item to be voted and therefore, while it is not only improper to show any offsetting revenue, it is aggravated because the revenue shown has no relation to the expenditure. Finally, he alleges that the statutory item anticipates legislation that will establish a fund at some time in the future and at this moment in time has no basis in law.
In reply, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) agrees that the fund in question is yet to be established but adds that this netting or offsetting of revenue shown will not occur until that fund is supported by legislation. For the moment its purpose is simply to convey information.
While the arguments here are very technical, the real issue is the question of the form in which the government prepares the Blue Book of Estimates for submission and tabling in the House of Commons. Members will appreciate that the form of the Estimates has been the subject of debate for many years and I expect that will continue. As I understand it, changes have been taking place over the years as a result of recommendations from many quarters, including the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. But this is an ongoing matter of public debate and not for the Chair to decide.
Therefore, while the hon. member has submitted very interesting arguments, and while the Chair will continue to rule on the propriety of votable items, I must rule that the matter raised by the hon. member does not constitute a valid point of order.


TRIBUTE TO MR. DINSDALE, DEAN OF THE HOUSE, ON THIRTY YEARS OF SERVICE
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Madam Speaker, I have a correction to make to Hansard. It concerns the kind remarks that you made at the opening of today's session. You attributed to my record the career of alderman, mayor and MLA. I wish to inform Your Honour that that is the record of my father. Between the two of us we have 50 years of public service. Next year Brandon will be celebrating its centennial.


Madam Speaker:: I can see there are many distinguished members in your family.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions be will be answered today: Nos. 853, 1,283, 2,352 and 2,441.
June 25, 1981


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Since its inception, how many homes were purchased under the Assisted Home Ownership Plan (AHOP) in the constituency of Simcoe South and what was the total value?
2.	For the same period (a) how many homes have been re-possessed by the government (b) how many owners have filed quit claims, signed units over to the mortgage holder or walked away from their investment and what was the total value?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	CMHC does not record data on a constituency basis. However, during the period 1973 to 1978 approximately 530 AHOP units were approved in the Simcoe South area, the vast majority being in the city of Barrie. The total value is approximately $15,900,000.
2.	In the CMHC Barrie office area which includes the counties of Grey, Bruce, Simcoe and Muskoka district, 1,541 AHOP units were approved. Of these, 235 units had been repossessed by CMHC. Information on the number of quit claims received or the total value of the repossessions is not available.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, what amount was contributed to the Enterprise Development Program (EDP) fund and, by how much per cent, did the annual contribution change in constant dollars?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and
Commerce	is concerned:	Per cent changeExpenditure	1973/74 Dollars*	from previous yea1975/76	28.2 million	22.0	1976/77	26.9 million	19.2	- 12.721977/78	34.0 million	22.7	+ 18.231978/79	20.6 million	12.9	- 43.171979/80	38.5 million	22.0	+ 70.54
* Using the implicit price index for the gross national expenditure published by Statistics Canada, the above values have been computed in terms of the F.Y. 1973/74 dollar.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, does France restrict Japanese imports of automobiles to three per cent of its car market?
2.	In the past three years, what percentage of the Canadian car market was held by Japanese automobile imports?
3.	What is the estimated number of man-years of employment created by the manufacture of 1,000 automobiles in Canada?
Order Paper Questions


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Statistics Canada as follows:
1.	There is no quota on the importation of Japanese cars into France but there is an informal arrangement which limits the market share of Japanese cars to 3 per cent.
2.	In the past three years, the following percentage of the total Canadian passenger car market was held by Japanese passenger car imports:
1978-	11.4 per cent
1979-	8.0 per cent
1980-	14.8 per cent
1981-	(2 months)-20.2 per cent.
3.	No cars are wholly manufactured in Canada. Extensive use is made of imported components.
The 1979 statistics for motor vehicle manufacturers, show that 39,008 person-years were used in the production (assembly) of 1,586,238 vehicles, of which 960,614 were automobiles, 615,326 were trucks and 10,298 were buses. The employment figures cannot be allocated by type of vehicle.
Based on these data, the average number of person-years used in the production (assembly) or 1,000 vehicles was 24.6, in 1979. Productivity in the automotive industry does vary considerably by volume of production run and is therefore significantly influenced by the size and type of automobile.
In addition to employment in the actual production (assembly) of vehicles, there is significant employment associated with the manufacture of automotive parts and components as well as with the manufacture of products such as steel, aluminum, glass, rubber, plastics, etc., which go into the components themselves.
The total impact on the suppliers industries including parts manufacturers, material suppliers, etc. brings the total person-years to about a maximum of 150.


Mr. Herbert: Which departments have the basic capacity to conduct quality program evaluations and which departments are expected to be added to the list during the next year?


Donald James Johnston: 1. At present the office of the Comptroller General, program evaluation branch is working with over 30 departments. In order for these departments to meet the OCG expectations, they must have a DM approved organization, a departmental program evaluation policy and an approved program evaluation plan. As of March 30, 1981, a total of 14 departments have all three requirements. These are: Agriculture, Customs and Excise, Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, Veterans Affairs, Energy, Mines and Resources, External Affairs, Indian and Northern Development, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Labour Canada, Ministry of Transport,

June 25, 1981
Order Paper Questions
National Health and Welfare, Correctional Services Canada and Taxation.
2.	It should be noted that as of March, 1981, 20 program evaluation plans had been approved by the deputy ministers while four more departments had draft program evaluation plans.
3.	In terms of these departments with which the office of the Comptroller General maintains active liaison, it is estimated that at least 12 additional departments will have the basic capacity necessary to produce quality evaluations by March, 1982. These are: Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Canadian International Development Agency, Public Works Canada, Department of Regional Economic Expansion, Department of Supply and Services, both the Supply and Services Administrations, Employment and Immigration, Justice, National Museums, RCMP, Secretary of State, Statistics Canada.
4.	Other departments and agencies may have the basic capacity for evaluation. To enhance its over-all effectiveness, the program evaluation branch at present maintains active liaison only with the larger departments, accordingly it may not be aware of the state of development in all agencies.
5.	During the past two years, the office has emphasized the establishment of the evaluation function in departments. Now that the function is in place in most major departments, our emphasis is being redirected to ensuring that the quality of the evaluation studies is improved. This will require professional development of those officers already in the program evaluation units in departments and reallocating skilled staff from other functions.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 1,550 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 1,550 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 31, what were the dates applied to each trip made by a Soviet diplomat beyond the established limits from Ottawa?
Return tabled.


David Michael Collenette: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Paul James Cosgrove: that Bill C-13, respecting the relocation of government agencies, as reported (without amendments) from the Standing Committee of Miscellaneous Estimates, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I had understood that the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) was going to make a statement on third reading. I had actually asked him about that, and he did indicate that he would.


Madam Speaker:: I understand the minister will make a statement on third reading.
When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.
)


Paul James Cosgrove: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions when speaking to this bill before the House I indicated that, in view of its long history before the House, the bill was one of a housekeeping nature rather than one of substance. In fact, the legislation really conforms with the physical facts that pertain and are in existence. In other words, those head offices-for example, the Economic Council of Canada, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Canadian Transport Commission and the Public Archives-which were transferred to Vanier and Hull in recent years are not now in accordance with the technical legislation giving them their jurisdiction in the first place. Accordingly, the bill moves to put the legislation in accord with the actual physical location of these boards and commissions.
In addition to that, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Pension Commission and the Pension Review Board are operating in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and that is not
June 25, 1981

in accord with the technical introductory provisions of the legislation giving rise to the jurisdiction exercised by those agencies.
I took the position that this bill was housekeeping. In fact, the legislation has been before the House, not only as legislation emanating from this government, but it was introduced by the former Conservative government through Bill C-22.
To refresh hon. members' recollection of the bill, I want to say a few words about it. The bill affects those departments or agencies which are subject by statutory requirements to having their head offices and to performing in the city of Ottawa. As I have indicated, the majority of these bodies have been moved to Vanier and Hull with the exception of the one to Prince Edward Island.
In the case of the Department of Veterans Affairs, instead of reading "rather than the head office shall be the national capital region", which would embrace the first commissions I mentioned, the amendment shall read: "or whatever place designated by the Governor in Council".
While the present bill is identical to Bill C-22, it differs from the previous bill C-23 in that all reference to the Farm Credit Corporation has been deleted. This change was introduced following the last government's decision in July 1979 not to relocate the Farm Credit Corporation to Camrose, Alberta. It was judged appropriate, therefore, to delete reference to that move in the present bill. If you do not think this is technical, I do not know what is. The bill is very short and plain. It is a housekeeping matter. This is the position the government has taken all along. With that, I rest the explanation of the legislation.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is not our intention to carry on debate on a bill which the minister described as housekeeping. But in terms of the issues involved, under which the act occurred, this is the act to develop "Fort Fullerton" in Hull. As you know, Mr. Speaker, being the member for Ottawa West, there were great difficulties with regard to the development of the city of Hull, a move that was and still is in some quarters regarded as a surreptitious move of departments across the river. They are there. The buildings are there. When I park my car in the morning, I see those buildings. There is nothing one can do about taking them down brick by brick and moving them back, even if one wanted to. I would not volunteer for the job.
I do not think the bill should be described merely as housekeeping. It is a major piece of legislation in the sense that it involves making legal that which is illegal. It will continue to be illegal until this bill passes here, goes to the Senate and receives royal assent. One wonders what causes of action there might be from the point of view of class actions if people felt like bringing actions with respect to the moving of head offices of government.
The minister was quite right when he said that our government had to look at the facts as they existed when we took
Decentralization
office. We had to look at the realities. I do not know of anything that was handled in a more, to put it at its kindest, unusual way than the development of Hull. It was handled by the previous Liberal government almost without consultation between the Government of Canada and the local municipalities.
When the Portage bridge was to be developed, it was announced by Mr. Fullerton, then chairman of the National Capital Commission. It was going ahead and that was all there was to it. There had not been any consultation with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec or the local municipalities on either side of the river. It was a dreadful mess.
I want to quote what I said on second reading because it is important with the minister being in the House. This is what I said with respect to the relations that ought to exist in the national capital area with local governments. I said at that time, and I quote from page 2525 of Hansard July 2, 1980:
So that members of Parliament will have no doubt about my feelings with respect to the matter, let me say quite frankly that I do not begrudge the good fortune of the city of Hull with regard to this development. However, I say to the House that the government handled it in a very ham-handed, unconsultative way. As a result of how it was handled, a great deal of misunderstanding developed in the national capital area. An opportunity for consultation which should have taken place with the provincial authorities, regional government and others, did not take place until after those moves were made.
I would feel much better if the minister would give an undertaking that this kind of thing will never happen again with respect to his government. I hope it would never happen with respect to any government formed by our party. It did cause difficulties and a great number of misunderstandings. There are still spillovers in the area.
The question comes up about what we should do about it. The buildings are there. In this bill we are looking to make legal what heretofore has been illegal. I am told there is a great deal of goodwill and consultation takes place at the staff level of the National Capital Commission with the local governments on both sides of the river. That is to be applauded.
I have felt for some time that things like this and other surprises can happen if there is not the same degree of consultation at the policy making level of the National Capital Commission. I intend in another session of Parliament to put down a private member's bill that will make room on the board of commissioners of the National Capital Commission for incumbents in the chairmanship of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the Outaouais municipality so that both sides of the river are represented in this federal agency.
I must confess there is one disability with respect to that, and that is that I cannot provide in a private member's bill for any compensation, even for the usual daily expenses. I hope that when that private member's bill comes forward the government will grab hold of it and make it part of government policy. Is there any good, sound reason why, in an area such as Ottawa-Hull, the major landowner and therefore the major mover and shaker of events, the National Capital Commission, ought not to have represented on it representatives of the

June 25, 1981
Decentralization
provincial governments which constitutionally have jurisdiction over property and civil rights, zoning and land use?
In the Outaouais region and the Ottawa-Carleton region, the planning process has been moved more and more away from the provincial governments and into those two regional municipalities. If the right hand is to know what the left hand is doing and if we are to have agreement and consensus with regard to how this area will be developed in the future, it is not unreasonable to suggest that all of the players should be at the table and understand one another.
The reason I would like the government to adopt this suggestion is that it can provide for the normal day-to-day expenses of a commissioner in the person of the chairman of each of those municipalities. I am not suggesting that the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton or the Regional Municipality of Outaouais must appoint that person, but there would be a place at the table for them. I suspect that if that were the case, they would take advantage of it. I can see no reason why they would not do that. I hope the minister will consider that matter even before my bill comes up. I am satisfied that a bill to amend the National Capital Act in that regard would get very swift passage in this House.
Since we are dealing basically with relocations within the National Capital Region, the question comes up as to where the moves should occur. There has been a tremendous concentration in the centre of the city of Ottawa and the centre of the city of Hull, the core of the National Capital Region, by the federal government. In some respects the land use planning of the National Capital Commission and the local governments have collided rather than colluded. That is to be regretted.
I want to call the minister's attention with respect to relocation to the fact that there are official plans of local municipalities within the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, and I dare say within the Outaouais region, which have within the terms of the planning process provision for the location of government agencies, whether head offices or otherwise. There are some now within the city of Nepean and I know more would be welcomed. The official planning of the city of Kanata with an industrial park, the official planning of the township of Goulbourn, again with provisions for industry, have been designed to welcome that kind of location in those areas. I know the city of Nepean is anxious for a site to accommodate high technology development, and this involves consultation between the two levels of government, the local and the federal governments.
There is an attempt being made to diversify the employment and assessment base within this area. In fact, within the National Capital Region we have the potential for the second growth industry in Canada, energy being the first, the second being high technology. It would be helpful to all those areas in terms of commitment by the Government of Canada to have a demonstrated commitment to the growth of the area as a whole rather than to particular municipalities, not denying them anything to which they are entitled. It is important that
the Government of Canada make some commitment in those areas. I know the electoral district of Ottawa-Carleton, taking in as part, as it does, the township of Gloucester, is suitable and I would hope that the Department of Agriculture might look at sites in the officially planned municipalities of Osgoode. Rideau township now has some with respect to Parks Canada, and there are places for other kinds of agencies of the Government of Canada.
What I am trying to say is that I would like the National Capital Commission, the Government of Canada, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) and others to concentrate their thinking in terms of planning not merely on the core of the National Capital Region, but rather to look out into the regions of the national capital. I can speak, I think, for the municipalities on this side of the Ottawa river, and other members can speak for municipalities on the other side because they know the cases more intimately. This is something I would ask the minister not to lose sight of as he deals with the very important program of planning the national capital, because this bill makes legal something which, when it was brought about, had a great effect, not just in terms of the movement of people but certainly in terms of the development, indeed the well-being, of the central part of the city of Ottawa and Ottawa-Carleton.
It is for that reason that I have joined with the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) and the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) in trying to assist as best I could the Government of Canada in making a decision regarding the Rideau Centre. That kind of development, the convention centre which will follow it and the hotel that will come, can do great things for the central core of this area, and from that pebble being dropped in this lake the ripples of advantage can flow out across the area.
If we are to develop, whether in terms of high technology industry, the tourist industry, or even in terms of other forms of employment for our young people, this will take a great deal of co-ordination by all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal. This will take a vow by governments, whether formed by the Liberal party or the Progressive Conservative party, that never again will we allow to take place development in the way in which there is no consultation whatsoever, which causes such great upset. That is what we are trying to make legal here by the passage of this bill.
As I said at the outset, it is not our intention to hold up the passage of this bill unnecessarily. I felt I wanted to put that case to the minister, and I intend to keep putting it to this government at every opportunity.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about Bill C-13 before the House today and I shall be brief.
Much of the bill is basically symbolic, although it deals with a number of very important moves made in the past. I want to associate myself at the beginning with the words of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who talked about
June 25, 1981

the lack of consultation before the move to Hull. I can remember not only concern by people on the Ottawa side of the river, but a lot of concern by people on the Quebec side. I remember the 1976 election campaign in Quebec, for example, when the move was an issue in the local Hull constituency, and was one of the reasons a lot of the people in that constituency voted against a long time Liberal member and voted for the Parti Quebecois, electing to the National Assembly a friend of mine, Jocelyne Ouellette. One of the issues was the relocation of federal buildings without adequate consultation with the government of Quebec, which by the way was the government of Mr. Bourassa in those days, and the city of Hull. The federal government failed to practice what I call, and perhaps this is a new term, democratic federalism. The very essence of democracy is to involve people and consult them before one makes very important decisions. I hope in the future that kind of consultation will be carried on automatically by the government of this country.
For example, many people in that part of Hull were moved out of their homes very quickly. There was not adequate compensation in many cases. Neighbourhoods were destroyed and people were dispersed throughout the city and throughout the Outaouais. I think that is a very sad reflection on the predecessor of the present minister who now occupies the position.
In terms of the bill itself, it is essentially changing the name of the city of Ottawa as it pertains to the Economic Council of Canada and other agencies and the location of head offices of these agencies in the National Capital Region. We have moved now to the concept of a National Capital Region, which I and members of this party support. The reason for that is that the national capital must be as reflective as possible of the country. It is very important that we recognize in this country that we have many cultures, that we have a very diversified Canada with two official languages, English and French. Since Ottawa is right on the border of Ontario and Quebec, it is very important that a number of the head offices be located on the Quebec side. I believe that could be very, very important indeed.
I think it is also important to say a word or two about reforms of this nature in the years to follow. I have already mentioned the importance of consultation, which the government has not done adequately in the past. We should look at reforms to our institutions in this country which serve all of Canada, that serve that federation, and we should have as an objective as members of Parliament making these institutions as national and as reflective as possible of the country as a whole. Too often that does not occur, though they are more reflective now, perhaps, because some of them are in Hull and the people who work there may be more aware or cognizant of the French fact in this country.
I believe we must make more of an effort not only to have Francophones in the senior echelons of the public service, where they are still underrepresented, but also to bring into
Decentralization
government and our national institutions people from other areas of the country, such as northern Canada. There should be more Indian and metis people, western Canadians and people from Atlantic Canada.


Marc Lalonde: And Saskatchewan?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) says even people from Saskatchewan. Perhaps. We have done very well. There are many ex-CCF public servants who now run many agencies of government. One is A1 Johnson, who is head of the CBC, and there are many others indeed.


A. Daniel McKenzie: What a mess the CBC is in.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: No comment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Saskatchewan mafia.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As my colleague says, the Saskatchewan mafia. I believe an effort must be made to bring people from all parts of the country into the centre of the country rather than having ideas from the centre being imposed on the various areas and regions of Canada.
In the same vein we should look seriously at reforming some of our national institutions to make them reflect better the country as a whole. With respect to constitutional change, perhaps some members of the Supreme Court should be appointed by the provinces and perhaps the directors of the Bank of Canada should be appointed in part by the provinces. Because what the provinces do is very important in relation to the court and in the case of the Bank of Canada when it comes to monetary policy. These institutions should be made to reflect the country-to be a mirror of the country-and I think in some cases that is not as much the case as it should be.
The last matter upon which I want to touch briefly deals with the whole question of decentralization. I believe an effort should be made to decentralize more federal government departments to various areas across the country so there is more of a federal government presence in the regions. I am talking about decentralizing relevant departments or relevant departmental agencies. For example, it made sense to locate the head office of Petro-Canada in the city of Calgary, the oil capital of the country. I think it would make sense to do some more relocation of that sort in other areas. Perhaps there should be more decentralization of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to Atlantic Canada or to British Columbia. Perhaps there should be more decentralization of the Department of Agriculture to the prairies than is presently the case. Other departments could be relocated and decentralized in order to bring the government closer to the people of all regions and to make government more relevant to the citizens of each and every province.
I did not want to take up too much time, but I did want to make those two or three comments. I think it is important to make the institutions of our country more national and to look very seriously at a well-planned program of decentralizing

June 25, 1981
Decentralization
some of the departments and agencies of departments of the : federal government.
The last point I should make is that when departments are decentralized it is important that we do not replace one bureaucracy of a department which was here in Ottawa with another one. Let us not duplicate services. Let us make sure the services are available, but let us not build empires. In a modern society of high technology and sophisticated communications it does not make much difference whether the Department of Agriculture operates its major functions in the province of Manitoba, for example, in Saskatchewan or here in the city of Ottawa. With mass communication it does not make any difference at all. We can now communicate instantaneously right around the world. I think the government and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) should look seriously at a program of relocating more of the agencies of the Government of Canada.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak just for a few moments on Bill C-13 respecting the relocation of government agencies. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) pointed out that this is more than a housekeeping bill and that the government could use it for moving other government departments. I want to comment on a couple of points the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) missed with respect to this bill, and I will do that in a minute.
I am interested in making a few comments on the move of the veterans pension commission to Prince Edward Island and the serious problems that is causing for the department and especially for veterans. This is covered under Part II, which deals with the Pension Act. There is a reference to the Statutes of Canada, P-7, which is a direct reference to veterans affairs and the Canadian Pension Commission. In addition, the Department of Veterans Affairs is very much affected by the Public Archives Act.
Another point the minister did not cover is that if we are going to be moving government departments either across the river or across the country, it causes very serious problems for the departments concerned if staff do not want to move. The matter whether employees have to move if a government department is being moved was raised just a few weeks ago in the Public Accounts Committee. Mr. Brittain, the deputy minister of veterans affairs, gave the following answer to the Public Accounts Committee:
-there is indeed nothing to force a person to stay in his or her job or to resign. There is no job guarantee for the people who choose not to move to the Island. Under the Public Service Employment Act, there is a provision that they be looked at first by other departments who are recruiting. If they have the qualifications to meet the requirements, then they are offered the job. That is the way the Public Service Employment Act and regulations are written. They have no trouble finding jobs.
It is fine that the employee has no trouble finding a job. The trouble in connection with the veterans pension commission is that the chairman of the commission cannot find suitable people as replacements, and he has to hire new people. Many of the new people do not want to move. It now takes up to five years to process veterans' applications. It is all very well for
the government to be moving government departments around, but then heads of departments cannot find suitable people to run the departments. There is no advantage to anyone in a situation like that. We are losing all of the expertise in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The staff do not want to move to Prince Edward Island and we are not getting any clear-cut answers from the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs as to what he is going to do about it. In the standing committee he always tries to slough it off on his officials. He will not commit himself to anything.
I want to refer to an explanation given by the chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission, Mr. Solomon, at the last meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. He pointed to the problems he is experiencing with the Canadian Pension Commission going to Prince Edward Island. The government will have to consider seriously leaving the Canadian Pension Commission here in Ottawa. Mr. Solomon made a statement to the press today that things will get worse. We cannot accept that things will get worse at the veterans pension commission.
Mr. Solomon pointed out in the committee, and I quote:
-the question that was directed to me really related to the staffing problem and whether we are going to continue to have this problem with respect to the Prince Edward Island move. Certainly, as far as the pension commission is concerned, there is no doubt that we have had a very severe staffing problem. We believe the staffing problem has been caused, in the main, by the fact that members of the staff and, unfortunately, trained members of the staff, do not want to go to Prince Edward Island and have left or are leaving or are planning on leaving.
Where does that leave him? That leaves him holding the bag, and he does not know how to correct the problem.
I am not through with that issue. I was not satisfied with the answer I received from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on Tuesday, so I have written him a rather lengthy letter respecting the serious problems with the move of the Canadian Pension Commission to Prince Edward Island. I hope the Prime Minister will take a serious look at the issues I raised in my letter to him. I will not go into all the details of that here this afternoon; I just wanted to highlight the problems we have with respect to moving government departments.
If we move a government department just across the river to Hull or a little further into Quebec, there are language training problems and problems respecting the language laws of the province of Quebec. Several civil servants who were to be transferred to the province of Quebec have come to me with very serious concerns about whether their children would be able to learn in English. These things have to be taken into consideration.
With respect to the Public Archives, the Canadian Pension Commission requires access to service documents which are held in Ottawa in the personnel records centre of the Public Archives. They are walking over there across the street practically every day, I should imagine, to go through the archives for detailed information on a veteran's background. I do not know what they are going to do if they all move to Prince Edward Island. Somebody mentioned we have great communication today; I do not know whether they are going to be phoning the archives every day to rummage through the files
June 25, 1981

to find out where some veteran was in 1939 or 1940. The government is certainly going to have to think about that.
They have certainly found a way of streamlining pension applications in the United States, Mr. Speaker. There it takes only 60 to 90 days to process an application, whereas in Canada it takes from one to five years. In fact, we have evidence of some which will take up to six years to process. Mr. Solomon is in an impossible position with the commission move to Prince Edward Island and, as he says, it is going to get worse, not better.
So I hope the Minister of Public Works will take into consideration the Public Service Employment Act regarding employees who do not have to move if they do not want to. If we are going to have a policy of decentralization and only about 5 or 10 per cent of employees want to move, I do not know how we are going to have room for all the civil servants here when their department goes. We are going to hire staff there, untrained, and I certainly would not want to be a head of a pension commission or government department with an arrangement like that. I think the government is going to have to take a serious look at the Public Service Employment Act in that respect.
I thought these points should be put on the record this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in regard to these bills. I hope the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Works or the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs will come up with some answers in the very near future, especially for the veterans service organizations across Canada who are deeply concerned, and for the many veterans who are dying off before their pension claims can be processed.
[ Translation]


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in the debate on Bill C-13, but after listening to the comments made by the hon. members for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), I feel that I must make a few comments. I appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. Of course, he is looking after the interests of his constituents, but the fact that the cities of Hull and Gatineau are also included in the National Capital Region, is always overlooked. As for the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, he referred to the election of 1976 and said that the construction of federal buildings was partly to blame for what occurred. I must point out to him that the constituency of Papineau did not get any new large buildings and still elected a PQ member. There was a general feeling of discontent in the province, and there still is. We shall try to fight against it, but not by saying that constructing new buildings in the province of Quebec is one of the reasons why the people voted for the PQ in 1976, and perhaps also in 1981.
At this time, I would like to tell the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) that it is unfortunate that the government thought about crossing the Ottawa River and forgot to
Decentralization
do the same for the Gatineau River because it is also part of the National Capital Region. 1 would ask my hon. colleague, the Minister of Public Works, to go around Rockcliffe and to look across at my constituency, and then to cross the Ottawa and Gatineau Rivers, drive along Jacques Cartier Street and look at Rockcliffe; he will note a very big difference between the two towns.
Let the government keep up the good work! I approve of this bill. Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. minister will not forget the constituency of Gatineau in the future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words concerning an aspect of this bill that has been brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie). I am sure all of us agree that, whatever views we may have had about the move of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Charlottetown, that move is so far along that there is no point now in arguing it should not have taken place or should be stopped. However, I do want to underscore the view that this should not be allowed to work against the needs of our veterans.
The fact of the matter is, as has been stated by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine, that the handling of cases by the Canadian Pension Commission is not catching up as we thought for a number of years would be the case. It is really admitted that one of the problems is in getting personnel to move to Prince Edward Island who are capable of handling this type of work. For one thing, a great many doctors are required to assist the commission in its job. It has even been suggested to me that it will take more doctors to do the work of the commission than it takes to meet the needs of all the people of Prince Edward Island. After all, it has a pretty small population.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the start, I am not complaining about the move. I had my doubts about it to begin with but it is an accomplished fact, but let us not make the veterans pay the price of it. Let us not take the view that this move must be made in a way that saves money. If it is the government's position that departments and agencies are to be centralized in various parts of the country, that may cost some money and it may cost money to engage doctors and additional staff and specialists in veterans affairs to handle these cases. I urge very strongly that this be given consideration not just by the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs, but by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), indeed by the whole cabinet.
It has been very interesting to me across the years to note the way in which the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans' organizations adjust their priorities according to the needs of the time. It is only in the last few years that they have put the concerns of widows right up at the top. 1 hope the whole House is aware of that concern through my raising the question so often.
The number two issue in the recent brief of the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans' organizations was the

June 25, 1981
Early Retirement
time it is taking to deal with cases that come before the commission. As I say, Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to assess the blame for that situation, but it is a fact and the veterans should not be made to suffer. I hope the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) and the Minister of Finance will realize that the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs is making a very valid request when he asks for more money so that doctors and other necessary personnel can be employed in order that the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Canadian Pension Commission in Charlottetown can do the job that our veterans, their families and survivors deserve to have done for them.


A. Daniel McKenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just want to clarify my position. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to the move of the Department of Veterans Affairs to P.E.I. I just want to make it perfectly clear that I was just referring to the pension commission and their problems with the move. 1 was not referring to the department's moving. I just want to clarify that.


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

Donald James Johnston: that Bill C-65, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act in respect of the early retirement of air traffic controllers, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to propose that the Public Service Superannuation Act be amended to establish special pension arrangements for air traffic controllers. These proposals will introduce, for the first time, pension arrangements which are particular to employees in a specific occupation. The problems of the optimum career pattern for air traffic controllers, their early retirement, and alternative career opportunities have been, as hon. members know, significant issues for many years. The new pension arrangements will facilitate the management of the controller work force and ensure fair treatment for controllers who must be removed from operational service or who have spent many years as operational controllers.
Although controllers' wages and other working conditions already recognize the unique nature of their duties, experience has shown that many operational controllers cannot cope with the demands of operational air traffic control up to the time of normal retirement. Much like professional athletes, air traffic controllers must be in top physical and mental condition. Anything less would compromise air safety and would be clearly unacceptable. At least once a year, air traffic controllers are required to pass complete medical examinations and
demonstrate technical proficiency in order to continue to operate as controllers.

Controllers certainly have shorter careers than other civil servants. A number of countries, including Belgium, France and Switzerland, already offer their controllers special retirement schemes. The Americans introduced in 1972 a complete early retirement plan which we have used as a model. The proposals submitted today are part of a program put together by the Department of Transport with the assistance of the controllers' union, the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association. Their purpose is to help, through an integrated scheme, air traffic controllers to prepare for a second career through retraining or to seek a new position, allowing them to collect the whole or any part of the pension benefits to which they are entitled by way of compensation for their loss of income.
The Department of Transport now provides capability assessment services, vocational guidance and retraining courses to controllers who are retired automatically after at least ten years of operational service. The retraining program has only been available recently. Its effectiveness, therefore, cannot be assessed as yet, but my colleague the Minister of Transport and the controllers themselves appear to be quite satisfied with the early results.

The pension part of the program is contained in Bill C-65, which provides for early retirement for air traffic controllers and, under special circumstances, for the payment of partial pensions while continuing work. The proposed pension arrangements will provide a means whereby controllers can be removed from air traffic control-or can voluntarily remove themselves-without severe economic penalty when the state of their health or technical proficiency might affect their performance and compromise the safe and efficient movement of air traffic. Because the government agreed to the pension proposals in the early part of 1976, the new benefits will be available to any eligible controller who left operational service on or after April 1, 1976. In return for these special pension features, controllers are to make an extra 2 per cent contribution to the pension plan, to be matched by the government as employer.
The proposals in Bill C-65 were included as part of the pension legislation introduced in the House on October 26, 1978. However, as hon. members know, that legislation was only at report stage when Parliament was dissolved on March 26, 1979. The air traffic controller provisions had received general approval at that time, with the exception of deferred indexing of the special benefits and the requirement in certain circumstances for the extra 2 per cent contribution.
[ Translation]
I will deal with indexation in a few minutes, but first I would like to explain the problems created by the additional contributions. During committee hearings on the previous bill on the public service superannuation, the president of the
June 25, 1981

Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association stated that many members of the association were against paying additional contributions of 2 per cent after the age of 55 and 30 years of pensionable service. According to him, those employees were already entitled to full pension under the existing provisions of the Public Service Superannuation Act and the additional contributions would not translate into more benefits for them. On the other hand, since it is indeed a group plan, it seems contradictory that certain controllers be exempted from paying the additional contributions. Therefore, the government has decided to wait until the new plan has proven itself before making a decision.

The bill now before this House therefore requires that all controllers in operational service make the extra 2 per cent contribution. However, 1 would point out that no retroactive contributions will be required for the period between April 1, 1976, and the date of enactment. The 1978-79 pension bill proposed that controllers make the contribution for the first nine months of the retroactive period. However, for reasons of equity primarily, and administrative difficulties secondarily, it has been decided that the requirement for employee contributions for the first nine months should be waived.
I spoke a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, about the indexing arrangements in the earlier bill, which had as one of its general proposals that there would not be any cost of living adjustments paid before age 60, except for disabled pensioners and survivors. CATCA, that is, the union, argued strongly and convincingly that there should be immediate cost of living adjustments for air traffic controllers who are removed from their position. The present bill therefore includes such a provision, and is also less restrictive than in the earlier bill for employees who leave of their own accord. I would add, Mr. Speaker, that these indexing arrangements are in line with the original 1976 agreement.
Apart from these two exceptions on contributions and indexing and some technical fine tuning, the bill before us is essentially the same as the proposals presented in 1978. As in 1978, we are proposing that any employee with at least ten years of operational service who is moved from air traffic control be allowed to retire on a reduced pension, or draw a partial pension while remaining employed in some other capacity. Employees required to leave after at least 20 years of operational service would be eligible for a partial pension if they move to another job, or if they retire from the public service altogether for an unreduced immediate pension.
Controllers are required to leave operational work if, for example, they cannot meet the medical requirements of an ATC licence, if they have lost their technical proficiency, or if management is concerned that continued service would seriously jeopardize their physical or emotional well-being. [Translation]
Controllers aged 45 or more who want to retire after at least 20 years of operational service would be entitled to a reduced pension as soon as they resign from the public service. Con-
Early Retirement
trollers aged 50 or more with 25 years of service would be paid full pension. Those who voluntarily leave the service in the operational service would not get any partial pension.

As hon. members know, we are examining a number of the features of the public service pension plans with an eye to possible change. I have already indicated our intention to prorate the first cost of living adjustment for anyone retiring on or after January 1, 1981, and we plan to introduce further amendments at a future date. But the provisions in this bill cover pension arrangements for air traffic controllers only. They are designed to recognize the need for earlier retirement and to preserve the safety and efficiency of the air traffic control system. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member who just sat down knows, there has been a great deal of discussion about this bill and the importance of it to air traffic controllers over the last number of years. If one were to ask an air traffic controller what he thought about this bill in terms of its introduction, he would say that it is long overdue. I do not say that in the sense of any criticism, because I know how these things happen. However, that is what he would say.
I think that all members of the House who look at the bill as described by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) would have to say that it contains a great element of fairness. It recognizes the peculiar nature of the work of air traffic controllers, work which has stresses which few of us could imagine unless we were placed in their shoes, and that is impossible. However, anyone who knows an air traffic controller or a group of them and has spoken to them knows the peculiar strains which their work can have on their health and ability to function. Therefore, somehow or other, the government has had to marry the concept of safety on the one hand, which is important, with the idea of fairness on the other. The third concept is the recognition of the facts as they apply to a particular profession.
We have a special bill. What do we do with that bill? It is possible for us to debate the bill this afternoon and send it to a committee where it can be studied; but I think that would be most unfair. I think it is the kind of bill which should be dealt with here and now, today, in a Committee of the Whole House, and we can do that later on this afternoon. Then it should move immediately into the third reading stage and the bill should move out of this place into the Senate. It is a bill which has been around for a long period of time and I think it serves, quite appropriately, a group which need assistance in a particular way because of the nature of their work.
During the course of his remarks, the minister made a statement with respect to a program within the Department of Transport on the retraining of air traffic controllers, who are people who still want to function within the public service. He indicated as well that it was a matter, the efficacy of which he could not as yet comment on because it was quite new. Speaking for my own party, I hope that a year from now we

June 25, 1981
Early Retirement
can have a statement from the minister, whether or not it is in the House of Commons, about how that program of retraining is working. There are great changes, and not just this one, having to do with health as it relates to safety in transport. However, there are great problems within the public service, of which Your Honour is well aware, problems of change as government programs change and priorities change and as restraint takes hold, which involve the shifting of public servants from one occupation to another within the public service.
I have spoken in the House of Commons previously about the necessity of training. The government has made statements with respect to the necessity of training and retraining these people in order that public servants will not be victimized by change. I hope that while the President of the Treasury Board will be assessing the particular training problems which affect the licensing of air traffic controllers, and the strictness which must be observed so that public safety can be protected in terms of that licensing, he will also not let his attention stray from the importance of developing, within the public service, retraining programs for public servants who find themselves caught in a process of change which seems to be moving rather quickly.
There have been consultations with various associations, I know. The president of CATCA spoke to me the other day and indicated the importance of this bill to the members of his association. I have looked at this problem before, and I can only say "hear, hear" to what he told me on the telephone.
Therefore, I am glad that the bill is brought forward today. I am very pleased to be able to say, on behalf of our party, that in order to speed it through so that it can get through the legislative process as quickly as possible, we are prepared to deal with the bill in Committee of the Whole this afternoon and go on to third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has suggested that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole instead of being referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. This would require the unanimous consent of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was going to make that suggestion, so we agree to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: So ordered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, thank you for taking care of that point so that we can deal with this bill today, through all of its stages so far as this House is concerned. Since the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) has referred to his conversations with CATCA, since the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has indicated that he, too, has had a conversation with CATCA, if I then say I had the same conversation, it sounds as though CATCA is pretty effective. It is satisfied, more or
less at least, with the provisions of this bill. It has come out of what amounts to collective bargaining discussions. I think that since there has already been a couple of years of delay, there should not be any further delay and we should put this bill through today.
I welcome very strongly the idea that there are certain kinds of employment which create so much stress and strain that earlier retirement should be considered. 1 think that that principle, so far as this bill connects it to air traffic controllers, who are public servants, is a good one. We are glad to see it implemented in this legislation.
I have studied the bill which is before us. It seems to me that the various provisions, such as the arrangements where the service is ten years, 20 years or 25 years, are satisfactory. I believe that the minister's explanation about the extra 2 per cent is a reasonable one, at least until the whole matter can be reviewed.
Therefore, as I say, we welcome this bill. We are quite prepared, after it has been given second reading, for it to be dealt with in the Committee of the Whole, and by leave of the House, to be given third reading today as well.
There are times in this House when a bill to amend a statute creates a desire in the hearts of some of us to get into other phases of the statute than those mentioned in the bill. That can lead to procedural arguments and to stress and strain for the Chair, to the point where he thinks he should have early retirement as well. However, I do not intend to digress. I do not intend to get into the Public Service Superannuation Act generally. Even so, there is one point which is brought to a head by this ealier retirement for certain people which I want to mention. Then there is one other point which the President of the Treasury Board mentioned on which I should like to make a comment. I hope Your Honour will agree that I am staying within the confines of this particular piece of legislation.	i
As I say, this bill provides for a number of people to have earlier retirement. That is bound to increase the number of cases where a retired public servant marries after retirement and then finds that when he dies there is no pension for his widow. That is a rule in many pension plans. It is a rule in the Public Service Superannuation act across the board. It is the rule in the pension act that applies to members of Parliament. It is a rule in railway pension plans, and so on.
However, many a person comes up against this and is quite surprised. Many a retired person says, "I have worked all those years, I contributed to the fund. My first wife died some years ago; I married again just after I was retired. But no matter how many years my second wife may have looked after me, there is no pension for her."
I suggest that this situation is becoming more and more one that has to be looked at, partly because longevity is increasing and retirements are taking place earlier. There are more cases of these marriages. I should not call them second marriages and I always write back to these people and tell them the
June 25, 1981

problem is not because there is a second wife involved, it is that the marriage took place after the man's retirement. A first wife, if married after retirement, would not qualify and a second wife married before retirement would.
The number of people that this affects is increasing, partly because of longevity and partly because of earlier retirement, and I think the problem has to be addressed, Mr. Speaker. I wrote a letter at some length on this subject to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) some time ago because it came up in some House business discussions. He assured me that he would send copies of my letter to the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne), the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and others who have these plans before them.
I raise this point now to ask the President of the Treasury Board to address himself to the problem in any further reviews of the Public Service Superannuation Act that take place. The problem is already there. I have raised it a good many times. A number of years ago when we were in committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act, I thought we had almost got to the point where we were going to remedy the situation but the government backed off.
As I say, the problem has increased through early retirement and greater longevity and it is an issue that the minister should consider. Perhaps when we are in Committee of the Whole on the bill he might answer this representation on my part even if all he can say is that he will study it a little more than it has been studied in the past. I hope that at least he will do that.
Still complying with my own stricture that we deal only with what is in this bill, I draw attention to the fact that, in referring to Bill C-12 of a couple of years ago, the President of the Treasury Board noted that it contained a provision to adjust the first indexation that takes place in January after a public servant retires in order to put it on a prorata basis. The minister says that the government has already announced that it intends to do that this year, making it effective as of January 1, 1981. 1 was not surprised when I heard that announcement because, as I say, it was part of Bill C-12, which we considered in the Thirtieth Parliament.
1 should like to make this point to the President of the Treasury Board before he pushes that matter too far. Plausible though it may sound to give a public servant who retires in November or December a much smaller increase in January than would be given to the person who had the whole year, that would have been acceptable in the days when inflation was not so severe and when the changes over the last six years of employment were not so great. In other words, when those changes were not so great, and when a public servant retired with, say, 30 years of service, which would give him 60 per cent, it was 60 per cent of the average pay for those last six years, and the average of those last six years was not very much below what he was making at the point of retirement.
At the present time, however, in a public servant's final six years there can be a tremendous increase in his salary over what it was in retirement minus six to what it was at the point
Early Retirement
of retirement. When he is given only 60 per cent for 30 years' service or 70 per cent for 35 years, on the average of those six years he will receive a much greater drop from his pay in the last year he was working to his superannuation than has been the case over the years. I know that public servants who are concerned about this will admit that it sounds plausible to go for this pro rata basis but, say, by retiring in November or December the little bit of bonanza they get in January makes up for the other.
I will tell the President of the Treasury Board that I am not asking for it both ways. I am not asking to change the six-year basis and keep the bonanza. If he cannot change the six-year basis, however, then they have a right to think that the bonanza, as I have called it, is something to which they are entitled.
I would urge that the minister be very careful about removing that right to full indexation in January before he does something about the six-year average. If he will change that, I think it has to come down to two or three years. Then I would say that it would be quite fair that the first indexation would be on a pro rata basis. I hope that the minister will look at that very carefully.
I have been asked a few times why it is that some of us do not ask as many questions about public service superannuation as we used to. I suppose the plain fact of the matter is that we did not want to put ideas in the minister's head to do things to restrict the Public Service Superannuation Act. We still want improvements. We want the two or three-year average. We want the corrections with regard to wives as survivors where a marriage takes place after retirement. We want guarantees about the maintenance of indexation. In fact, I have said many times, and it has been said by Liberals too, that the answer to those who complain about public servants getting indexation is not to cut it back or take it away from them, but to legislate indexation for all pensions plans.
I must not carry on much longer, Mr. Speaker, or you will say that I am violating my own stricture that this is a restricted bill. I leave it at that. We welcome early retirement for air traffic controllers. We think the arrangements set out in the bill are good and fair. They are certainly acceptable to the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers' Association. We are happy to see the bill go through all the way today, but I hope the minister will give consideration to the other points to which I have referred.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Francis in the Chair.
Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
June 25, 1981
Early Retirement
On Clause 1-
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, since Clause 1 is the title and is general in nature, I wonder if the President of the Treasury Board would give me an answer to, or make a few comments on, some of the points that I raised. I refer especially to the point that is brought into the open by this early retirement bill, namely, the right of the survivor of a pensioner to a survivor's benefit, even though the marriage may have taken place after the date of retirement.
Mir. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member mentioned during the course of his remarks, the whole area of survivor benefits is one that we are addressing. I think there are a number of areas besides the specific one which he has brought to our attention this afternoon which must be examined. I noted with interest and will pay heed to the suggestions he has made. I cannot guarantee that we will move as far as he would like in many of these areas but his point with respect to the increasing number of early retirements, and perhaps the increasing incidence of persons marrying after the date of retirement, is one that should be examined.
The hon. member touched on a number of other points as well, particularly with respect to the retroactive adjustment. I think hon. members recognize this generally has been the subject of some abuse and criticism in the past. I believe that is why it was first considered in Bill C-12.
The hon. member raises the question of this retroactive adjustment as a bonanza, which perhaps should provide some compensation for the fact that with the kind of inflationary rates we have experienced the six-year average for best years of income, used in terms of the basic pension benefit, is somewhat distorted by inflation in his view. Elence the amount of the so-called bonanza goes in some measure to compensate for that.
1 would certainly look at this kind of proposal, although I would judge if we are to make changes in our legislation with respect to the six-year period, or any other period for that matter, or if we are to compensate in any way for the inadequacy of that formula, I would like to think it would be done on a more scientific or rational basis than leaving in this measure, which, in my judgment, has been subject to some abuse. As I indicated earlier this year, we intend to correct that. Clearly, we do not have legislation before the House, but in fairness to those public servants who might be contemplating retirement, we made the announcement so that they would be aware of our intentions and the date when we expect to introduce legislation and from which it would have effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the President of the Treasury Board for his commitment to study the question that I raised about marriages taking place after the date of retirement. I appreciate the fact that he accepted as valid my contention that with earlier retirement and with greater longevity the situation is one that does arise more often
than used to be the case. I hope that the matter will receive the study I feel it deserves.
With respect to the other question, that of doing away with full indexation in January for a public servant who has retired late in the previous year, I agree with him that one should not correct one wrong by another method which has some element of abuse in it. In other words, this bonanza in January should not be the permanent answer to the fact that when public servants retire they lose because of the inflation that takes place in their last six years.
I quite agree with him that there should be a more scientific way to deal with it, but I believe even having admitted that, that I have a case for saying that one should not do one without the other. One should not take away something that is there, whether it is scientific or not, which is a measure of compensation until the other has been corrected.
I think the minister would find it much easier to get the House to accept a bill-if he is going to bring one in this year-that had in it both elements, something that got rid of the abuse which takes place in some cases but corrects the other situation at the same time. If he does not, many public servants will feel that the unfairness they suffer by still having to base their pensions on the average of the last six years, when salaries were going up so much in the last six years, will be very real. I thank the President of the Treasury Board for offering to look at that as well. I felt that the offer in the first place was a little more meaningful, as though he really might do it and get right at it, despite the fact that these things take time; but in the case of the latter, I urge that very serious consideration be given to not making a correction this year without going all the way and correcting the situation caused by the six-year average in a time of inflation.
At any rate, we are ready for improvements in the Public Service Superannuation Act and we are ready for improvements in the indexing of pensions across the board. We Ijope that the government will soon get its policy straightened out in this regard.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, as the minister knows, there is a concern with respect to public service pensions. My friend ranged rather wide in terms of his question, given the clause that we are dealing with.
May I ask the minister a question. With respect to the general revisions of the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, there has been some discussion in the House relating them in some way to what would flow out of the pension conference recently held here in Ottawa.
Could the minister tell me now whether in terms of bringing in legislation, a white paper or however it is to be dealt with, the situation will be dealt with in the context of an over-all review of the pension system of Canada, or is it the intention of the government .to bring in a special piece of legislation dealing with public service superannuation and supplementary retirement benefits and those related areas in which the minister knows I have an interest?
June 25, 1981


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the outcome of the National Pensions Conference has been of great interest to us in terms of conducting our own review. During the course of that conference, as well as before and after, in terms of response from various sectors, some quite helpful commentary has come in.
I also believe the time has come for us to move forward with a number of amendments to our own legislation. It is my hope that what we bring in will be compatible with the kind of consensus which has come out of, and I think will continue to come out of, the continuing negotiations in all sectors on pension legislation.
The act, I believe, clearly requires some adjustments in a number of areas. We are working toward bringing forward some proposals for my cabinet colleagues to consider, I hope in the relatively near term.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, I gather from what my friend is saying that it is not the intention of the government as far as the public service is concerned to deal with this from the point of view of a white paper, or even a green paper, in anticipation of any legislation, but to deal with it in legislative terms fairly soon. Would I be embarrassing the minister if I asked him to tell me whether it is the intention of the government to introduce a piece of legislation prior to Christmas, 1982?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: With respect to the hon. member, the measure before us is a very specific one. The hon. member is ranging just a little from the subject before us, but perhaps the President of the Treasury Board might want to comment.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the issue is under review. When I am satisfied, and when I can satisfy my cabinet colleagues with the kind of measures which should be introduced, I will then be in a position to bring legislation forward. Hoh. members know, particularly the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, what a difficult and complex area pension legislation is. I believe it requires a great deal of study. There is a lot of knee-jerk reaction around the country to pension legislation and various provisions. There is much folklore associated with pension schemes, to a degree associated with the public service pension schemes, not only at the federal level but at other levels as well.
This question is obviously one which must be handled with great care. It is one area of high priority with me, but I would be very reluctant to put a specific timetable before my colleagues in the House when at this point I have no basis to proceed. I am just not at that point of making a statement as to when any such legislation might come forward.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one comment. I am delighted to hear the attitude of the minister toward the folklore, mythology and other things which have developed around public service pensions. I share that attitude.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Currency and Exchange Act
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: that Bill C-68, to amend the Currency and Exchange Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members for their eagerness to co-operate and their willingness to deal expeditiously with this legislation. I will try not to abuse the patience of the House while making a few remarks on the nature of this bill and its importance for Canadians. [English]
Consequently, I am pleased to propose the second reading of Bill C-68, an act to amend the Currency and Exchange Act, first reading having occurred on June 22, 1981. The aim of this bill is to permit the governor in council to issue gold coins. Permission was already granted further to an amendment to this act, approved June 20, 1978, which amendment was limited to January 1, 1981.
The debates of the committee and of the House of Commons before the adoption of Bill C-39, in May, 1978, centred on the opportunity of launching a Canadian gold bullion coin program, as suggested by the Canadian Mining Association and other groups from private industry as well as by the Canadian gold mining industry. These discussions raised considerable interest and a great deal of enthusiasm from both sides of the House, after which the members of the opposition recommended a prompt start to the program.
Following representations by certain members of the opposition, Bill C-39 was modified to limit the legislation's power relative to the issuance of gold coins to January 1, 1981, and also that the minister responsible report to Parliament on the administration of the program during the month of December 1978 and every six months thereafter. The aim was to permit gold coin programs for a three-year trial period, after which we would undertake the evaluation of the results.
Afterwards, the Royal Canadian Mint was authorized by the governor in council to launch a gold bullion coin program and the board of directors of the Mint was commissioned to evaluate the results of the program, to eventually inform cabinet, through myself as minister responsible, of the advantages of such a program to Canada and also of the consequential effects on the Canadian gold mining industry as well as the relevant facts that come into play, such as inflation, the balance of payments, the profitability of such a program and other aspects.

June 25, 1981
Currency and Exchange Act
Consequently, the board of directors of the Mint retained the services of Price Waterhouse Associates to evaluate the gold Maple Leaf program and, in effect, gave them broad terms of reference for their evaluation. The evaluation has been completed and the report submitted to the board of directors of the Mint. The board of directors has approved that recommendation and I can only qualify the recommendation from Price Waterhouse as being completely positive. [Translation]
The report from Price Waterhouse Associates was approved unanimously by the board of directors of the Mint, who then recommended that I seek the necessary authority to continue the gold Maple Leaf program on an ongoing basis. The Royal Canadian Mint has never asked the government for financial assistance to carry out its operations since it became a Crown corporation in 1969. The last report to be tabled in the House after the Currency and Exchange Act was amended in 1968 indicates that for the period from July 1, 1978 to December 31, 1980, the gross receipts from the sale of gold coins amounted to $1,456,911,000, and the net profit to $31,682,500. The gold coin programs have benefited the various private companies involved in the advertising, processing and sale of precious metals, the supply of materials, the provision of transport services and comprehensive insurance. They have benefited as well every government which levies a provincial tax on coins sold in Canada.
Last year, in northern Canada, that is north of the 60th parallel, I had the opportunity to explain to the inhabitants of that area the exceptional benefits of the program now under way, and I am very pleased to see that the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, for the riding of Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), will be here to voice the official opposition's views. I look forward in a very positive frame of mind to hearing his remarks which I trust will be approving. The gold required by the Canadian Mint for making the coins authorized by the government, as a result of the amendment to the Currency and Exchange Act and the 1978 amendments, came from Canadian mines or, whenever there were shortages, from the gold reserve of the foreign currency account of Canada.
The gold Maple Leaf coin, offered for the first time in September of 1979, was very well received throughout the world, as results proved during the first four months of sale in 1979: one million coins were sold. That coin was considered a valuable option for dealers in gold, international bankers and investors who were looking for an alternative to the South African Krugerrand which had been on the market since 1967. The only reservation ever expressed about the Canadian gold leaf coin was that the program was only temporary. Such a reaction influenced the strategy adopted for the marketing and promotion of the coin. Official North American and European distributors were therefore most reluctant to encourage investment in a product whose future was dubious. All those who took part in the gold Maple Leaf program, and more specifically the representatives of the gold mining industry, are very anxiously waiting for a favourable decision on the part of this Parliament, hoping it will agree to extend the gold coin programs.

That is why I am most pleased at the prompt and complete way this chamber has decided to deal with this bill at this time.
The Canadian gold coin program, that is, the $100 gold coin commemorating special events and the $50 gold coin commonly known as the gold Maple Leaf, are prestigious items for Canada and have attracted world wide attention to the importance of the gold mining industry in our country. I hope the House would proceed with the debate, but I would call it five o'clock. I understand the Chair will be reading the questions to be debated on the late show this evening, and then perhaps we will proceed with this debate.


Walter David Baker: No, with private members' hour.


Mr. Blais:: I thought we had done away with that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, just Mondays and Tuesdays.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Let me deal with the questions to be debated at the time of adjournment this evening. It seems to me from information I have received that there is no agreement to dispense with private members' hour, so we will be proceeding with notices of motions, specifically No. 33 and the continuation of the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Laniel). Perhaps while I am dealing with some of these topics we will discover whether there is an understanding. I will deal with the matters I have before me at this time.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-The Economy-(a) Statements made by Leader of Liberal party in Ontario, (b) Low interest rate paid on government annuities; the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek)- Energy-(a) Request for reduction in federal share of revenues. (b) Energy tax rebate program; the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Environmental Affairs-Result of
June 25, 1981

minister's discussions on acid rain with United States Secretary of the Interior.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
Items Nos. 22, 5, 4 and 35 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

[Stage Direction]
REDUCTION OF SHAREHOLDINGS BY TATE & LYLE HOLDINGS LTD. IN REDPATH SUGAR LIMITED
The House resumed, from Thursday, February 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Herbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all agreements, correspondence, notes and other communications relating to the requirement by the Foreign Investment Review agency that Tate & Lyle Holdings Ltd. reduce its shareholdings in Redpath Sugar Limited.
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to continue the remarks I began the last time motion No. 33 was before the House on February 12, 1981. Notwithstanding all the opinions which were expressed in good faith at that time, I think it is my duty to put forward some of the facts and rules laid down in the law which dictate the actions of FIRA, the Foreign Investment Review agency.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, as 1 have just said, I am pursuing the comments I started on February 12. The hon. member for Vau-dreuil (Mr. Herbert) moved that an order of the House do issue for copies of all agreements, correspondence, notes and other communications relating to the requirement by the Foreign Investment Review agency that Tate & Lyle Limited reduce its shareholdings in Redpath Sugar Limited. It is surely not the first time that this motion has been discussed in the House, since the member introduced a similar motion in 1979. On that occasion, the House was told that the Foreign Investment Review agency had been advised by its chief legal adviser that the said documents were deemed to be privileged under section 14 of the Foreign Investment Review Act.
The motion was discussed further on November 22. The member for Vaudreuil again introduced that motion during this session, that is on January 14 last, and I advised him in an answer which 1 gave in the House on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), minister responsible for the administration of that act, that the agency
Foreign Investment Review Agency
had received a legal opinion once again to the effect that the said documents were privileged.
What the hon. member is again asking is that the government disregard the provisions of an act adopted by Parliament. Section 14 of that act clearly stipulates as follows, and I quote:
Except as provided in this section, all information with respect to a person, business or proposed business obtained by the minister or an officer or employee of Her Majesty in the course of the administration of this act is privileged and no person shall knowingly, except as provided in this act, communicate or allow to be communicated to any person not legally entitled thereto any such information or allow any person not legally entitled thereto to inspect or have access to any such information.
Without such provisions, Mr. Speaker, for all practical purposes the review process prescribed in the act would be well nigh impossible. Let me explain. When filing a notice the investor must describe his intentions and during the meetings which generally follow he reveals, perhaps not details of a confidential nature, but at least all sorts of information concerning his operations. How can anyone expect an investor to disclose to the government, through the agency, every aspect of his situation, his projects and his intentions if that information is not to be held confidential? He has therefore every right to expect that this information will not be released, at least prematurely, to third parties and, in particular, to potential competitors.
Before deciding whether a proposal is likely to be of significant benefit to Canada under the terms of the act, the government must obtain from the investor very precise information on his projects as well as on the parent company on which he depends and, should it be the case, on other corporate branches. It is obvious that in many cases the disclosure of that kind of information might be detrimental to the investor in the conduct of his business. That is why it was absolutely essential to include section 14 in the act, which reads as follows, and I quote:
Any information with respect to a person, business or proposed business obtained by the minister or an officer or employee of Her Majesty in the course of the administration of this act may,
(a)	on request in writing to the agency by or on behalf of the person to which the information relates or by or on behalf of the person or group of persons carrying on or proposing to carry on the business or new business to which the information relates, be communicated to any person or authority named in the request, or
(b)	for any purpose relating to the administration of this act, be communicated to a minister of the Crown in right of any province or to an officer or employee of Her Majesty in right thereof.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot disclose confidential information on an investor other than within the scope of the act and, to do so, he must secure the expressed and written authorization of the person from whom the information comes in the first place. On the other hand, it may happen that, over and above that permission, if a company files an application with the review agency and makes certain details public or publicly announces that it has applied to take
10958

June 25, 1981
Foreign Investment Review Agency
over another company, then a certain part of the information is disclosed because it has already been made public.
Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member raised the matter in 1979, the agency had asked the company concerned to authorize the disclosure of the information involved but this was not allowed. Such a refusal should not come as a surprise. Those papers include, among other things, very confidential information on the financial situation of Redpath Sugar Limited and of its parent company. If that information was ever supplied to the government, it is precisely because those companies were protected under section 14 of the act. Otherwise, probably it would not have been disclosed . Those companies did not want that information to be made public, and therefore they did not permit the agency to disclose it, which they had a right to do under the Act.
Section 14 provides for access to information which is essential to the assessment of a proposed investment while assuring the investor that the information is obtained under the seal of secrecy. On the other hand, because of that secrecy requirement, the reviewing process appears to be an operation which the government wants to hide from the public. On the contrary, we try to make the implementation of the act better known, better understood. But we are forced to comply with the act as it is now.
If the minister is planning to amend it so that in certain circumstances some information can be made public or made available to some people, under certain requirements, then we shall see. In the meantime, this act is the law of the land and those who have to implement it must comply with it.
This act gives a privileged character to the information provided by an applicant in the reviewing process of his proposed investment. It would simply be illegal and shameful not to abide by section 14. It would be a breach of trust, just as if we publicized information drawn from income tax returns, and submitted it to the government with the understanding that it would be used only for specific and limited purposes and that it would be kept secret. Would the hon. member himself be willing to let information contained in his income tax return and provided under the seal of secrecy be made public in a high-handed way if he had submitted an application for investment? Corporations have the same right to confidentiality as individuals.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vaudreuil is well aware of the laws that govern the business community and of the fact that the disclosure of confidential information concerning the way a corporation operates may have detrimental effects.
I am sure that many businesses operating in Vaudreuil, especially along the Trans-Canada highway, would be reluctant to submit an application for investment, acquisition or some other type of transaction if they thought that the data they are submitting to FIR A could be made known to all
members of this House. How could FIRA be made to operate efficiently if, as a result of a motion such as this one, the government could disclose information provided under the seal of secrecy? Do you know of any investor who would be willing to make his plans, projects, Financial situation, and R & D programs known if there were any risk of having all this information made public because of a motion introduced in this House? Do you know of any corporation who would want to invest in Canada if it thought that any data submitted in support of its application could be disclosed?
Did the hon. member not express some concern that implementation of the law would have a negative effect on the inflow of foreign investment? This would certainly be the case if we were to change the rules of the game so that the information provided by the investors to the agency when making an application could be disclosed. In fact, there are people who maintain that the very existence of a review procedure, the fact that a company has to provide information and meet requirements, does act as a deterrent to foreign investors. These people consider this procedure bad economic management since they believe that we in Canada need all the foreign investors we can get, whatever access they might choose to get into this country. Therefore, if we want to go on promoting investment, the procedure used must reduce significantly the risk that the information which any company wants to keep confidential will be made public.
However, data obtained from many sources belie the contention of the hon. member and of those who believe that the agency discourages investment. Until now, and this is probably due to this same section 14, according to a recent report published in the United States entitled Survey of Current Business, American subsidiaries in Canada were planning on investing over $11 billion in 1981, and this figure is second only to the investment forecasts for the United States as such. The reviewing procedure in its present form does not discourage direct foreign investment. It simply ensures that such investments will bring significant benefits to Canada. I shall come back to this point later on.
However, when one analyses the direct foreign investment figures, it is important to remember that this type of investment represents only a very small portion of foreign investments in Canada. They are greatly exceeded by portfolio investments, which do not come under the Foreign Investment Review Act. Moreover, foreign investment, whether direct or by portfolio, represents a very small part of all capital invested in Canada. Thus, since 1961, direct foreign investment accounts on an average for less than 3 per cent of the total savings used by Canadians or Canadian businesses to finance capital build-up in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, to come back to the role of the agency and the reviewing procedure, it would be wrong to believe that it is limited to recommending granting or refusal of an investment application as it was originally submitted. Consequently, it
June 25, 1981

would be wrong also to think that the agency does not fulfill its role in posting authorization rates between 80 and 90 per cent. This is definitely missing the point. The agency and the review process were set up to ensure that direct foreign investments would bring significant benefits to Canada. The major part of the agency's assessment work is aimed at improving the quality of the proposed investments and negotiating other particular commitments. For example, according to a recent survey by the agency's research personnel, $5 billion has been invested and 70,000 jobs created as a result of foreign investments.
I am going to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, although 1 cannot reach the end of my notes which I would have liked to do. However, I should like to suggest to the hon. member that what he is now attempting to do, and I appreciate this, is not to destroy the agency, because he himself paid tribute to those who have been operating the agency over these last few years. According to the honourable member, his request is aimed at ensuring that the agency can receive an extra mandate, under which it could, once a favourable decision has been rendered, have the legal means either directly or through the government, to make recommendations in such cases where a company committed to "Canadianize" its operation or do research and development work would fail to live up to its commitments, then the agency or the government could move and even publicly accuse or blame the company for it. Certainly the reason behind the hon. member's request is quite valid, and I am happy to see that he has a few minutes left to conclude the debate and perhaps explain the extra means he is contemplating for the agency, and how certain confidential information that cannot now be made public under the act could be publicized.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. In the absence of any other hon. members' seeking the floor, I will recognize the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). He will have five minutes to conclude his remarks, and that will end debate on this motion.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, neighbour and good friend, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Laniel), stole a few of my notes in his closing remarks, but I will briefly summarize. My colleague says I raised this matter in 1979, but I raised it many years before that. In fact, I spoke in much the same vein in 1977. My bringing this subject to the floor of the House, as I said in the speech I made in this House on February 12 of this year, was stimulated originally by my interest in the subject of sugar, sugar imports and the promotion of the sugar trade with Caribbean countries.
I mentioned in my notes, in addition to the implications of the Foreign Investment Review agency, that in the case in
Foreign Investment Review Agency
question there was also the involvement of the Export Development Corporation and the Canadian International Development Agency. I said that I certainly liked this kind of co-operation. However, I am certainly not going to take issue with anything said by the parliamentary secretary concerning the review agency. Why should I? I was chairman of the committee that studied the Foreign Investment Review Act which led to the creation of the agency and tabled the report of that committee in this House. However, I took the opportunity in my remarks on February 12 to express some of my concerns, and if I can quote from a letter:
-you and other interested Canadians ... cannot become party of information which, if released, might put Canadian firms at a competitive disadvantage.
As I pointed out before, we should be a little careful here since there is often far more information released in the United States than here. We are probably going to have to look soon at the limitations we put on disclosure in Canada.
My main concern in connection with this case was that Tate & Lyle Holdings Ltd., the parent of Redpath Sugar, was to divest itself of its interest in Redpath as soon as the financial position of Tate and & Lyle recovers sufficiently. And I said on February 12:
-it means in effect we are waiting for a time when Canadians can be expected to pay more for those shares.
That is what bothers me. I also said:
There is no public accounting of how well companies have fared in meeting the undertakings to provide significant benefit, and the agency at one time estimated that approximately 20 per cent of the cases failed to meet the original undertakings.
At some point in time surely we are going to have to have some more public accounting of the manner in which these companies are allowed to skip off without meeting the original undertakings. As I also said on February 12:
-in the minds of members of the public there is some doubt as to whether there is any strength to the original agreement, and we are... concerned about enforcement.
I think I have made my point. The parliamentary secretary has replied and there is obviously no point in going any further with this issue. I have raised it now on at least three separate occasions. I understand the minister at some time in the near future is likely to be bringing to the House some position paper on the agency which may change the regulations somewhat to provide for a greater degree of disclosure. This is my small effort in trying to push the minister into coming forward a little earlier, I hope by the beginning of the next session, with some minor changes in the operation of the agency that will get rid of the degree of concern which the public has at the present time as to the way the larger companies may be getting around the agreement.
With that, Mr. Speaker, if I can have the agreement of the House, I would ask that the motion be withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the House agree to the request of the hon. member for Vaudreuil and give unanimous consent to the withdrawal of motion No. 33?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 25, 1981
Currency and Exchange Act
Motion withdrawn and order discharged.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 understand there may be a disposition to have the Chair call it six o'clock. Is that correct?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5.30 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blais that Bill C-68 to amend the Currency and Exchange Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before I recognize the hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais), I might mention that I have been informed by one of the Table officers that we would go down in history if the Chair itself were to call a quorum; but time is getting on.
When debate was interrupted at five o'clock, the hon. Minister of Supply and Services had the floor.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I had
nearly completed my remarks. I was just about to wind up. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is saying that I was just going to distribute samples; but I placed a condition that there would have to be more than 35 hon. members in the House at the time that we resumed debate. Unfortunately, we are missing about fifteen.
I would simply like to wind up my statement by stating that the program has been a very positive experience in the past three years. I am hopeful that it will receive very prompt passage by the House so as to remove the uncertainty in the marketplace in terms of the ongoing nature of the program. As Your Honour recognizes, initially this program was to be for three years. As of the first of January, 1981, there is no possibility for us to proceed with this program unless this amendment is accepted by the House.
One can imagine that in the marketplace where, in effect, gold coins are purchased for collection purposes, and indeed for speculation purposes, there is a great deal of interest in terms of whether or not the program is to be continued. We have managed in the recent past to take something like 30 per cent of the Krugerrand's market away from it. With the very aggressive marketing which has been conducted by the Mint and by officials of the Mint, I am sure that we would be able to take a larger portion of that particular market. Having said that-
[ Translation]
I suggest that in the very near future, the bill be passed in all stages, in order that we may remove the uncertainty which exists on the domestic and international market.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to be able to follow the hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais), who gave an excellent dissertation on the Canadian Maple Leaf coin program. He told us that this has been a very successful program, and I am inclined to believe him. In fact, we have every evidence to suggest that it has been a very successful program. The minister was kind enough to send over to me at short notice, the report that Price Waterhouse had made on this program. Of course I have not been able to read it in detail, but have just glanced over it. It would appear that the conclusion reached by that firm is that the program is operating as it should and there are no major faults with it. As the minister said, we have been successful in taking over about 30 per cent of the market for the Krugerrand-Maple Leaf type of coin.
This program has been in effect for three years, and it has benefited collectors and people who appreciate the Canadian Maple Leaf coin as a work of art. It has entered the speculative market and it has also provided a vehicle for people to maintain a store of value. With ever-increasing inflation under a succession of Liberal governments, it is no longer possible to store value in dollar bills or in bank deposits. Therefore, many people who have looked to the Krugerrand, and then, three years ago, to the Canadian Maple Leaf for this store of value, are not really speculators but they need such a vehicle because they have so little confidence in the Canadian dollar, with good reason.
I would certainly also like to extend my congratulations to the section of the Royal Canadian Mint which deals in numismatics. I have written that word down because it is sometimes hard to pronounce.
Perhaps the Minister of Supply and Services would be kind enough to confer with his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), because, as I understand it, some of the blanks for proof coins cannot be manufactured in Canada. Most of the gold is Canadian gold, or is said to be Canadian gold; but to obtain the very lustrous and very fine finish on some of the blanks, I understand that this work must be done in the United States. The gold is shipped out of the
June 25, 1981

country for a certain amount of processing and shipped back into Canada. I believe the actual stamping is done over in Hull.
It would appear that large profits have accrued to the Canadian Mint and to the Government of Canada as a result of the Maple Leaf program. Had these profits been made in the private sector, I am sure that our good friends to the left would have had a good deal to say about the matter; but since the profits which have been realized have been helping to defray general levels of taxation in Canada, that meets with everyone's approval. We on this side would certainly like to see the Canadian Maple Leaf program extended. We have certain objections to the bill as it stands before us, but that is not one of them. We want to see this program go ahead. We think it has been of benefit to Canada. We were pleased to be supporters of the project some three or four years ago, when it was first brought to the attention of the government by the Canadian mining industry and by coin dealers in this country. It is one of those areas where something was able to be done, with the support of all parties in the House, and has proven to be successful.
Our concern in this matter relates to the blanket authority which the Minister of Supply and Services is seeking forever and ever. If Your Honour will recall, when the amendments to the Currency and Exchange Act were made approximately three years ago with Bill C-37, it was done with a backdrop of the problems which had been experienced with the issue of Olympic coins. That program did not work out anywhere near as well as it should have, and certainly not as well as the Maple Leaf program has worked out. We have obviously learned from our mistakes. At that time, we on this side of the House had a concern. We did not want to give the government blanket authority forever and ever to issue gold coins in whatever denominations it wanted, or whatever purity, or whatever type or whatever specifications. That is why at that time we put the deadline at January 1, 1981 and I think we would like to keep it to that. It might be argued that the program has proved to be successful or that historically, the issue of coinage has often been a matter of royal prerogative. Apparently that has not necessarily been the case in the past in Canada, although in a lot of jurisdictions the right to issue coinage has remained with the Crown and outside the control of Parliament. In Canada, the practice has been to have a fair amount of parliamentary control over the issue of coinage.
Apart from that particular concern, which I shall return to later, Mr. Speaker, 1 have a similar but slightly different concern with Section 4(2) of the act as it stands at present and as it will become if amended by Bill C-68. It seems that we are specifying something in a schedule to an act of Parliament and then giving authority to the governor in council to change the act by means of an order in council. It would be my contention that if something can be changed by order in council rather than by an act of Parliament, then, in the first place, it should be left to regulations. Regulations can be changed by that mechanism. However, if it is important enough in the first
Currency and Exchange Act
instance to be put in an act of Parliament, then why should we give to the governor in council the authority to change it?
This particular case does not involve anything of great, overriding concern, but there have been cases in the past where Parliament has come a cropper by granting that type of authority. I might cite the Northern Pipelines Act, for instance. Certain conditions were laid down in that act-not in the regulations but in the act-and then the authority was given to the governor in council to change them. We might just as well have left them in the regulations in the first place. All we did was to give ourselves a sense of security that never really existed.
I believe that the minister and the Royal Canadian Mint would like to see the bill passed into law as quickly as possible.
I can understand that all ministers want their bills passed into law as quickly as possible, and always consider that their bill should have the highest priority. However, in this case I can well understand the concern of the gentlemen at the mint. Perhaps the minister has not been as diligent as he should have been about bringing this legislation forward so that we could give it the full examination it should have. Whereas we cannot accept the bill in its present form and would not give unanimous consent for it to be dealt with in committee as it stands, and then give it third reading today, if certain changes were made, then I think that might be possible.
If the government would accept an amendment to limit the time period and instead of substituting the words "from time to time" in Section 4(1) and (2) for "at any time before January 1, 1981", "at any time before January 1, 1985", that would buy an extra four years. It would put a four-year limit on the authority to be granted by Parliament to the Minister of Supply and Services. That approach would certainly meet with my approval.
Perhaps during the time that remains of my speech, some form of arrangement could be made along those lines. I hope it can because we on this side really do not want to jeopardize the Canadian Maple Leaf coin program.
I was looking forward to the opportunity to ask some questions on the Price Waterhouse report in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to which the bill was to have been referred. I had also hoped to have an opportunity to question officials of the Royal Canadian Mint. If that opportunity does not present itself because of an arrangement that may be reached in this House tonight, perhaps it will be possible at a future date. Many of us have a great deal of interest in this subject.
1 represent a gold mining area, Mr. Speaker. I am coming now to the part of my speech that the Minister of Supply and Services warned me not to go on about at length and that is to extol the virtues of the gold mining industry in my constituency. I shall be as brief as possible.
The gold mining industry is of great importance to the Northwest Territories. We produce about 200,000 ounces of gold per year. That brings about $100 million of new wealth into the Canadian economy. We are justifiably proud of that

June 25, 1981
Currency and Exchange Act
and I should like to think that some of our gold goes into the Maple Leaf coins and that a fair number of those coins come back to investors in the Northwest Territories. There is a program of capital expenditure of around $150 million in progress and on schedule, to develop another major Canadian gold mine.
Gold mining is of such importance to the Northwest Territories that on May 1, 1981, native gold was proclaimed the official mineral emblem of the Northwest Territories. If you would permit me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read that proclamation into the record. It is not very long and reads as follows:
WHEREAS Gold has long played a major role in the development and prosperity of the Northwest Territories;
AND WHEREAS Gold is emblematic of the enduring value of the wealth of the Northwest Territories;
AND WHEREAS Gold is a fitting symbol of the bright prospects and future of the Northwest Territories;
NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the power vested in me by the Northwest Territories Act of the Parliament of Canada
I hereby order and declare:
That gold be hereafter deemed and recognized to be the Mineral Emblem of the Northwest Territories.
Done at Yellowknife under the Seal of the Northwest Territories, this 1st day of May 1981.
John. H. Parker Commissioner
I just thought that somebody might be interested in that.
A part is played in the gold mining industry of Canada by the mint that many people are not aware of. Most Canadian mine production is refined at the Royal Canadian Mint. I should like to take a few minutes to say something about this as I have never heard it referred to in Parliament.
In particular, I should like to compliment Mr. Roger Parisi-en, the manager of the gold refinery at the Royal Canadian Mint. This is one of the few federal Crown corporations about which I have anything good to say. It never seems to make political headlines and we do not hear very much about it in the press. That indicates the good job the mint is doing. Their charges for refining are quite reasonable. They go out of the way to assist the smaller gold producers and the smaller dealers in scrap gold and scrap jewellery. I think the refiners who work there, and there are several of them, deserve the compliments of this House. I referred to the increasing necessity to refine scrap jewellery at the Mint. That is, of course, having some effect. This particular material is rather hard to deal with. Very often it has a low gold content and many impurities mixed therein. During the chlorination process, an abundance of fumes are given off. If possible, I would like the Minister of Supply and Services to go to the refinery at the Mint where they process some of this low-grade scrap jewellery so that he can see for himself the type of working conditions which the people have to endure while they process this material. Because of the fumes, the atmosphere cannot be that healthy. Much of their equipment is somewhat antiquated
and is not really designed to handle scrap jewellery. Perhaps the minister could keep that in mind.
I do not always agree with the over-all gold policies of the government. One aspect of the government's policies which I find most objectionable is that of selling Canada's gold reserves by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). I have to admit that the proposal to do this was made originally in the 1979 budget. The idea was to sell off about one million ounces of Canadian gold reserves. But amounts considerably in excess of that have been sold to generate money. Maybe because of high gold prices, that policy has realized a fair amount of profit to the Government of Canada. I may be faulted on that statement, but I would not like the Government of Canada to be engaged in speculative activity on the international gold market. The use of Canadian gold reserves from time to time to produce Maple Leaf coins, when the amount of gold coming in through normal commercial channels is not sufficient, might be okay if we can use our reserves to make up a fluctuating supply. But as a general idea, just to sell off reserves is not something we should do, in my opinion. Reserves in the order of 20 million ounces are about right for a country like Canada. If we take a look at European countries, such as France, we see they are very reluctant to let a draw-down occur in their gold reserves. They like to accumulate gold. I do not think that we in Canada should go overboard accumulating gold, but, by the same token, we should not let our reserves draw down too far.
The classic example of draw-downs on stockpiles of that nature happened in the United States under the Nixon administration. It was used as a technique for getting more money without imposing additional taxes. They allowed the sale of much of the GSA stockpile, strategic minerals for which there was a requirement. But that was done to get ready cash. I hope that we in Canada will not be following that procedure.
That is as far as I want to go on this subject. In general, we are in agreement with this act, with the one provision that I have mentioned. We would certainly like the Canadian Maple Leaf project to continue and grow from strength to strength. That being the case, I hope I have allowed sufficient time for some kind of accord to be arranged. I hope that this bill can receive as swift a passage as is possible.


Mr. Kelly:: Mr. Speaker, in a spirit of compromise 1 would like to ask with the consent of the House, that we proceed through all stages of the bill this evening.


Mr. Nielsen:: No, I do not think we can give that consent, Mr. Speaker. What is the compromise?


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, I am asking if there is agreement on the figure originally mentioned by the last speaker.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, if I might be helpful, there was discussion at the outset that an amendment might be forthcoming to provide for a ten-year period.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member mentioned four years.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I know that will show in the official record, but I had the impression at one time that there was an offer to proceed with the program for another ten-year period, which was acceptable.
We are very concerned about the marketing aspect. As the report indicates, the marketing aspect is one of the areas on which we have to concentrate, and the uncertainty of an additional short period, such as that contemplated in the initial trial period is detrimental to the marketing plans for the Maple Leaf coin. We would like to provide a sufficiently long period to give investors and development dealers in the international marketplace a certainty that the program will continue for a relatively substantial period of time. Anything less than ten years would not be substantial under the circumstances.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. If the bill were confined to the Maple Leaf program, that would be one matter and the compromise suggested would probably find acceptability. But the bill goes far beyond that. It goes into the unlimited minting of gold coins at any time that the governor in council should choose, for whatever program. Therefore, it is not confined to the Maple Leaf program.
I appreciate the problem with the Maple Leaf program, and ! want to facilitate that. Could the minister, on this point of order, answer two questions? First, since Parliament is in essence relinquishing its control over the minting of gold coins to the cabinet, would a five-year term affect the marketing concerns which the minister and the government have? Would it be too short? If so, perhaps an explanation could be forthcoming.
Second, if the bill went to committee, what effect would that have on the Maple Leaf program in terms of the marketing concerns expressed by the minister?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If the House is prepared to give its unanimous consent, the hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) might reply to those questions.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, first, the impact of the five years is that it would create uncertainty in the program. As the hon. gentleman knows, the Maple Leaf coin is minted on the basis of whatever demand there is in the marketplace. In effect, we deal with international dealers who receive certain allotments on the basis of the demand in the marketplace. Individuals will of course gear their own inventories based upon the certainty that there will be an available supply for the long term. That is the basis of our distribution system. That is why the five years is not satisfactory.
I would point out to the hon. member that we are not removing parliamentary control. There is a provision in the
Currency and Exchange Act
previous amendment to have a report tabled every six months on the administration of the program. That provides an opportunity for members of Parliament to review the administration of the program and to offer criticism. I have a responsibility of course to provide the ability to proceed with orderly marketing of the commodity. That is the system I am now advancing. There has been a trial period. A report has been prepared as a result of that. The report is positive. However, it does indicate that there have to be some additional aggressive measures taken in terms of marketing, and we are proceeding to do that. We cannot do that without having a period of time available to us which is sufficient for us to meet the requirements of the market place and our distributors.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the other part of the question which the minister overlooked answering, I presume because he forgot it, is whether it would in any material way affect the concerns of the minister with regard to marketing the Maple Leaf program if this measure did not go through all stages tonight, but went to a committee where members would have the opportunity of perhaps hearing from the domestic dealers and gaining some idea of the international implications of the marketing program. Would sending it to committee seriously prejudice the marketing of the Maple Leaf program?


Jean-Jacques Blais: I did not understand that question. I must have been discussing some other matter at the time it was being posed. Yes, it would create some difficulties. The hon. member has been here for a long period of time.


Erik Nielsen: Don't get personal.


Jean-Jacques Blais: He knows there is a great deal of uncertainty attached to House schedules, additional House scheduling, and that hopefully we will be out of this place some time before the end of July. What is going to happen in that regard is a matter of some future statement by the government.
The distributors are anxious to have a decision so that they can gear their demand for the Maple Leaf coin with the marketplace and market demand, not only in Canada but abroad. Unless this bill is passed as soon as practicable, we may be in a situation where our market efforts abroad will be seriously impaired by distributors who do not want to take our coin because they do not know when the program will go ahead or what form it will take after it gets through the committee. That is why I am concerned about it. I know the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Western Arctic are as well because of the importance of this gold coin program to the gold industry in Canada. Therefore, any co-operation I can obtain from hon. members to get this bill through this evening would indeed be appreciated.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, will the minister provide us with a copy of the amendment which he will be proposing to clause 1 of the bill? I presume it will be deleting the words "from time to time" in subsection (1) and (2) of section 4 of the Currency and Exchange Act and substituting therefor, the words "at any time before January 1, 1990". I presume that would be the amendment.

June 25, 1981
Currency and Exchange Act


Jean-Jacques Blais: 1991.


Erik Nielsen: If we could see the wording, we would be very happy to consider it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon comes pretty close to a suggestion I was going to make. Indeed, Your Honour must be wondering under what rule we are operating having these questions with Your Honour in the chair. I wonder if we could agree to give the bill second reading and take it into Committee of the Whole instead of sending it to a standing committee. These questions back and forth could be asked and answered and there could be an understanding that if there was not a satisfactory resolution, there would be no proceeding to third reading tonight.


Erik Nielsen: What rule would we operate under?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By unanimous consent we can go to Committee of the Whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I understand agreement is near. That is why with the unanimous consent of the House the Chair tolerated the question and answer period. I have the wording before me. It seems to reflect exactly what the hon. member for Yukon is suggesting. 1 sense that the Minister of Supply and Services will shortly produce that for everyone's consideration. I would suggest that the only way to proceed now is exactly as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that is that I seek unanimous consent to move to Committee of the Whole.


Erik Nielsen: You might have the wording before you, Mr. Speaker, but I do not. No one on this side does. I would like to see it. If we follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and go to the Committee of the Whole, we lose the possible option of going from second reading to the standing committee. I do not want to lose that option before seeing the wording of the amendment.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the wisdom of the hon. member for Yukon and his drafting ability knows, of course, no comparison. In his very astute impromptu amendment he captured the essence of what is sought to be achieved. Surely once he advances that, and I agree with him, on the terms of the formula of what I advanced, he ought not to be concerned that, in the event there is some comma missing in the drafting, I will not agree to the placing of that comma. In the event he is dissatisfied with the amendment on second reading, we could agree to send the bill to committee. I give him that undertaking.


Erik Nielsen: Like the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) I am from Missouri and I would like to see the wording. If the wording is going to affect those four words in those two subsections, I think that would find acceptance on this side. I see no reason why we cannot have that wording while we are in second reading stage. I see it is coming, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read it out.


Erik Nielsen: It is the minister's responsibility to do that, but I will read it out. 1 cannot extend the same compliment to the minister on his drafting. However, the minister suggests:
That clause 1 be amended by deleting in subclause (1) and (2) of clause 1 the words "from time to time" and substituting therefor the words "until January 1, 1991"
If the amendment were worded in that fashion, it would find acceptance here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is there unanimous consent to referring the bill to Committee of the Whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blaker in the Chair.
On Clause 1-
Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Chairman, I am ready to proceed with the adoption of clause 1. However, I notice the hon. member for Western Arctic is getting up in order to ask a question.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know why the minister proposes to change the manner of the wording as its exists in subclauses (1) and (2) at the present time. It says "at any time before January 1". He proposes to use the words "until January 1" in such and such a year. What is the reason for this change?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Chairman, I think the point is well taken. The hon. gentleman will know I have not put the amendment yet.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: The Chair is awaiting what I understand is an amendment to clause 1.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I would be pleased to propose that now, Mr. Chairman. The proposal is that Bill C-68 be amended as follows: That clause 1 be amended by deleting from paragraphs 4(1) and 4(2) the words "from time to time", and substituting therefor the words "at any time before January 1, 1991".


Denis Éthier: It is moved by Mr. MacEachen:
That Clause 1 be amended by deleting in paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Clause 1 the words "from time to time" and substituting therefor the words "at any time before January 1, 1991".
Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Denis Éthier: Shall Clause 1 as amended carry?
June 25, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 as amended agreed to.


Denis Éthier: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Denis Éthier: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: that Bill C-68, to amend the Currency and Exchange Act, as reported (with amendment) from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave now.


Jean-Jacques Blais: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres, that Bill C-58, to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday evening when we were discussing Bill C-58 to amend the elections act I was making a few brief remarks. For the information of many members who happen to have city ridings or ridings which are not as large as those some of us represent, I was trying to bring to the attention of the House that those of us who are incumbents in our constituencies have a profile, having served our constituencies for some time, and we can well appreciate that the 47 days compared to the 60 or 59 days would be of considerable advantage, an advantage not enjoyed by those who are seeking election for the first time within a constituency. While that may be desirable to those of us who are incumbents, I suggest the government is shortening the time because it has more incumbent members than my party or the NDP, and therefore this would be an unfair advantage over the two parties which sit opposite the government. It would be an advantage only to the incumbent members.
Canada Elections Act
I have heard members on the government side, specifically the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher), when speaking to this bill, state that there is money to be saved by shortening the time from 59 or 60 days to 47 days. It has been suggested that those of us representing the constituencies would be able under the present act to initiate savings in our areas as well. However, I would draw to the attention of that member that we will still have advertising for the 47 days, and many of us with larger constituencies will find it impossible to complete our campaign in that 47 days.
My own constituency is some 1,800 square miles and the largest centre of population is 6,000 people. That happens to be the Saskatchewan side of the border city of Lloydminster. My constituency flows along the Alberta border along the North and South Saskatchewan Rivers. Coming along the Alberta side, my constituency touches upon three other federal constituencies: the constituency of Vegreville, the constituency of Crowfoot and the constituency of Medicine Hat. My riding follows the North Saskatchewan River all the way around and back up through North Battleford, joining the North Saskatchewan River and back to within 35 miles north of Lloydminster.
When I first started campaigning after being nominated in
1977-	and this is for the information of members who do not have to travel great distances by road-I purchased a car and used it exclusively for political work. I bought that car in April
1978-	I hope the people from the Department of Revenue are listening-and put 54,000 miles on it by the time of the election of May 22, 1979. Even then I did not have enough time to canvass every community in my constituency. It may be an impossible goal for a member to canvass every dwelling in his constituency, but to do so in 60 days is certainly impossible. The people of Canada deserve the opportunity of meeting their prospective member of Parliament. They should not be denied that opportunity by decreasing the time by 13 days.
When considering the other problems associated with the present elections act I find it strange the government feels that by decreasing the election time by 13 days it will in some way solve some of those inadequacies. I find nothing in the decrease by 13 days that will help those who are shut in at election time. I Find nothing in the decrease by 13 days that will help those who feel it is undesirable to vote by proxy but would like to see mobile ballot boxes. This problem is not solved by decreasing the time by 13 days.
Let me draw to the attention of the House some of the problems that will not be solved by the 13-day reduction. The first relates to the provision of a list which is adequately kept up to date, and the second is the differential between the appointment of rural enumerators and urban enumerators used to provide the information for this list.
In regard to the urban enumerators, the party that obtained the greatest number of votes at the previous election would appoint one enumerator, and the party that obtained the second greatest number of votes would appoint the other enumerator in that constituency. However, with regard to

June 25, 1981
Canada Elections Act
rural ridings, I find that under this bill only one enumerator is to be appointed. I do not see how the incumbent member of Parliament can have any influence in the appointment of that enumerator, if that member happens to sit on the opposition side. Although some might say the government is using this as a form of patronage, 1 feel it is just an oversight on the part of the government. The government does not realize it has treated rural constituencies in a manner different from the manner in which it has treated urban constituencies.
Provincial constituencies are much smaller than federal constituencies. A federal election campaign in Canada lasts 59 or 60 days. A provincial election campaign in Newfoundland lasts 21 days; in Alberta, 29 days; in British Columbia, 38 days; in Manitoba, 35 days; in Ontario, 37 days; in Quebec, 32 days; in New Brunswick, 36 days; and in Prince Edward Island, 26 days. My constituency is larger than Prince Edward Island. There are more than 30 provincial members in the province of Prince Edward Island; I am the only member from my constituency; I feel I should have for an election campaign at least double the length of time allowed for a campaign in Prince Edward Island. A provincial campaign in the province of Saskatchewan lasts 28 days. There are approximately four and a half provincial constituencies within my constituency.
I do not suggest that I as one man campaigning or any one person assisted by party workers campaigning in my constituency should have four and a half times the number of days to meet the constituents there, but I suggest that the 60 days provided for should not be changed. Forty-seven days is less than double the amount of time a provincial member covering less than one-quarter of my constituency would have to cover his riding. That is one of the reasons we feel that this bill to shorten the period for election campaigns is not something which we would want to see passed without further study.
The hon. member for Mississauga North went to great pains when he was speaking in this debate to point out that several newspapers of our country have called for shorter election periods. He pointed out that the February 3, 1981 Saskatoon Star-Phoenix said the following:
Even a minimum of 47 days appears to be too long in this age of speed in communication with voters.
The Chronicle-Herald said the following:
The bill should be put through and made ready for the next election, and not allowed to be withdrawn for consideration until another session.
And while the MPs are at it, perhaps they might consider further reducing the time allotted for campaigning.
The hon. member for Mississauga North quoted the Winnipeg Free Press as follows:
This time, Canadians, by accident, had a campaign of more nearly European length with no ill effects.
It is a very debatable point that there are no ill effects, when we consider the outcome of the election. The article continued:
No one could seriously complain that, in the six weeks they gave themselves, the parties did not have an opportunity to get their messages across to the public. Indeed, the job could have been done quite adequately in a couple of weeks less.
The Toronto Star said the following:
Shorter, sharper election campaigns would benefit Canadian democracy by concentrating debate and focusing public attention on the issues and policies involved.
If the basis of this bill's having been brought forward is editorials or statements made by several newspapers in our country advocating a shorter election period, I suggest this government, by following that rule and not following some of the recommendations made in editorials which have been presented in the last six months condemning the government for other actions, is reversing its policy. The government should not justify shortening election campaign periods by 13 days with statements made by newspapers. Its justification should be the will of the people.
Some constituents have complained that election campaigns seem to be unduly long. Some people have been absolutely fed up with listening for 29 days to political advertisements on television, seeing them in the newspapers or hearing them on radio. However, this will not be affected by the change in this act. I think it is therefore an injustice to anyone seeking election to this House of Commons to shorten the time. The constituents I serve feel they are too far removed from their member of Parliament. I am 2,000 miles away. I am here for five days a week and home only for two. My constituents do not have an opportunity to discuss with me the issues they feel are important. By shortening the period of election campaigns I think we cause people to be further removed from their members of Parliament and further removed from the House of Commons. They are further removed from their representatives, and I do not feel that that leads to good democracy. I do not think that further removing constituents from their members of Parliament will add anything to the democratic process.
In my constituency and in others we have the benefit of fairly good main thoroughfares. However, some of us must follow railroad lines, some of them built 70 years ago. Many of the villages in Saskatchewan were established along such railroad lines anywhere from six to 12 miles apart. The rationale was that that was the distance a wagon of grain could be hauled by a good team. However, people still live in those small villages. There may only be 12 or 20 people. In the larger ones there may be 100. In some towns there may be 500 or 600 people. If we travel by road, we have to stop and get out. We have to go into cafes and elevators. We have to knock on a dozen doors per town. We have to have some time.
I think we would all like to find some way of avoiding extending election campaign periods, but when I was a candidate first seeking office I would have felt that by shortening the campaign, a disservice would have been done to me. If my opponent had been an incumbent, I would have been placed at a considerable disadvantage, especially if I were seeking election for the first time. I was fortunate that my constituency was a redistributed constituency. The member who held the majority of it prior to the May, 1979 election chose to run in a different part of the constituency. My opponent was a former member of Parliament who had been defeated in 1974. He was
June 25, 1981

known throughout most of the constituency. My other opponent enjoyed about the same recognition as I. However, if I had been running against an incumbent, I would have had much more difficulty.
As I said at the outset, I campaigned from October of 1977 until May 22, 1979, and I did not cover my constituency. I did not meet every member of the electorate, as I would have loved to do. By shortening the election campaign period, we are denying the electorate the opportunity to meet members, we are denying members the opportunity to meet their constituents and we are placing new office seekers running against incumbents at a disadvantage.
In closing, I would like to say that I cannot possibly speak in favour of this bill and support it when there are so many inadequacies within our election system. The inadequacies of which I speak are greater than and in addition to the difficulty in having to campaign for 60 days.
1 think everyone is aware this bill was originally drafted by our government, and the reason it was drafted then was that we were in a minority position, an election was imminent and we did not have the ability the present government has of waiting three or four years before having to go to the people. Right now, Mr. Speaker, we have three or four years before another election. We are now in the middle of the ten-year census started June 3, which will bring forth more information as to population distribution and redistribution of constituencies, and indeed, Mr. Speaker, as to whether there will be more seats added to this chamber after the census.
I could understand it if the government had brought forward legislation encompassing the whole of the election act so that we might better be able to conduct an election on the basis of the 1981 census. If that were done and the census information were included-although I do find difficulty in accepting the shortening of the campaign period-and if it were coupled with some moves that I felt were of advantage to the people of Canada, I could accept it. However, as I look at the act now and this shortening of the campaign time, I find it is of advantage only to incumbent members, therefore of greater advantage to the government members because they have more incumbents than we do. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would not be able to support this act.
I would also like to say, while we know that in speaking to this bill we are confined to general statements about the reduction of time, Mr. Speaker, there is again the need to establish a permanent voters' list. There is a need for mobile ballot boxes, and a need to ensure that those unable to vote at a particular time are still able to cast their ballot. 1 do not see that in this bill. I do not think it is anyone's intention either on this or on the government side to deny anyone the right to vote, but when we look at this bill and at the things I just mentioned, we do not see them. So what we would like to say, even though some of us are speaking against the bill as it is, is that we would very much welcome the government bringing
Canada Elections Act
about additional changes to the elections act so as to bring democracy closer to the people of Canada.
There is one thing that has always concerned people of urban and rural constituencies, and in looking at this bill I see it has not been changed. People in rural constituencies who are left off the election list can have a neighbour who is on the list vouch for them and affirm on the day of the issuance of the writ that they are residents. The urban voter does not have that right, I do not know why. I do not think it is because the government of the day felt that the people in urban Canada have no neighbours. I am sure they have them, as we do on the farm. So I think in terms of equality that provision should be in the bill.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this bill, and let me say again that if this bill had in it more changes to the act than merely the shortening of the campaign period, I could find myself supporting it.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express some very serious concerns, many of them along the same lines as those raised by the previous speaker. As an individual who has been active in the voluntary political process for more years than I care to remember, I find no redeeming social or political value to this bill whatsoever. The bill is described as follows:
The purpose of this Bill is to shorten the period required to hold a general election from approximately sixty days to forty-seven days. The proposed period would apply to both general elections and by-elections and would be obtained by replacing the requirement that preliminary lists of electors be printed and sent to electors with a requirement that preliminary lists be reproduced in reduced numbers by photographic or other means and that a notice of enumeration be sent to electors.
There is nothing in the bill that refers to any meaningful reform in the electoral process along the lines suggested by the previous speaker. I agree with some, disagree with others, but there is no mention of electoral reform here at all.
The major reason for my strong disagreement is that I believe the bill is wrong in principle and worse in practice. Elections and the political process are too important to be left to politicians alone. They are too important to be left to those who hold elective office, to the paid pros in the political business. They are too important to be left to those who benefit directly in the advertising industry, the professional public relations "flacks" and, if I may use the term-and I mean none of these terms in a derogatory sense at all-the few, the regulars, the party hacks-and I use that in the best sense of the term because I have the utmost respect for those people who continually give of themselves on a paid or unpaid basis in a profession or field which is singularly unappreciated, I think, by most Canadians. However, it is too important a business to be left to those who engage in it for reasons of livelihood or merely because they have a great deal of zeal for the game of politics itself. The political process and elections are too important. To me and to many others, it is important to have people involve themselves in political activity who, while they realize and understand that the business of government is important, usually have other things on their mind, such as earning a

June 25, 1981
Canada Elections Act
living, running a home, paying the grocery bill or trying to build their own business, whatever 1001 things ordinary people see as their priorities in day to day living. Politics is not the be-all and end-all for them, but if democracy is to be healthy, it is important they become involved at some point. You need time to generate activity during the course of an election campaign because ordinary Canadians, the average Joe and Jane who are not thinking about it day in and day out, are not really hit by the fact that they have a choice to make and should become involved when an election is called. For those relatively few in this society, and in most societies for that matter, but for those tragically few in Canadian society who take a serious interest in the business of government and in the business of politics on a continuing basis, to go out and find the people to tap whose interest must be shaken and awakened to get them to participate requires some lead time before you get into the active part of a political campaign.
It seems to me it is vital, and to many others with whom I associate, that we provide the lead time required after the calling of an election, especially in rural and widespread urban-rural constituencies. We must provide time for those ordinary Canadians who have an interest, but not an overriding continuous one, in political and public affairs to be located, activated and mobilized in the democratic participatory political process. Apart from any other differences which we might have in our background and ideologies, surely all of us have a commitment to the idea that more ordinary Canadians should be involved in this business.
Another aspect which was touched upon by the gentleman from Saskatchewan who spoke just before me was the fact that most of us realize that it is important to provide more time for personalized contact between those seeking public office and those who provide the support for candidates who succeed. Whether it be the time taken going house to house or farm to farm to visit with different organizations, whether they be unions or chambers of commerce, to provide personal contact which will make the business more relevant and more meaningful allows those people contacted the chance to feel involved. It will give them the feeling that someone out there really does give a damn.
Unfortunately, many of them out there do not think so, incorrectly, I would suggest. I think almost all of us do sincerely care, but there are a great many people out there who do not share that view. In a day and age when more people feel alienated from society in general, and from the political process in particular, I suggest that it would be absolutely wrong to create a bigger gap by allowing less time for that kind of meaningful personal contact between those seeking elected office and those whose responsibility it is to grant the honour and privilege of representation. By shortening the period of election campaigns, we would be allowing less time for individual contact, less time for the kind of effort which can be made at low dollar costs in terms of involving people and getting the message across in a personalized and direct way. I would suspect that not very long afterward the
push would be on to go to greater maximums of political expenditures so that we can make up for the other by again stressing the heavy capitalization of adverstising in the mass media. As was mentioned before, that is the kind of campaigning that I object to.
During the last two campaigns, and I am sure the hon. member was referring to the 1979 and 1980 campaigns, a height was reached in terms of the head bashing commercials which went on. It appeared that no one in the media was saying anything positive at all. Whether by cartoon, by card tricks or by pictures of shell games, however it was carried out, there was a sickening attitude felt by the body politic out there which I feel those who drew up those kinds of schedules really deserved. The fewer people we have personally and directly involved, the more of the same we will have. More emphasis will be placed on that kind of meaningless and hostile type of commercialization. It will not be an informative political campaign as witnessed in the last two election campaigns.
In a 47-day campaign how can you begin to organize in a constituency such as my own? I have 13 municipalities in my riding. The last election was a winter campaign and I hope that we will never get into one of those again. But if we do, how do you go about setting up all-candidate forums in 13 municipalities and a number of other rural communities in a widespread rural-urban constituency?


Mr. Jelinek:: It was an accident last time.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Yes, it was, and you were the accident, my friend.
How do you organize in 13 different communities and do the advertising necessary to allow people to come in and participate? What most people did in our area, and what I suspect they do in many other parts of the country, is to conduct an old-style political forum where people can be tested, where a battle, of wits can be witnessed. In these types of forums the candidates can be cross-examined and put through their paces. That is a healthy process and that is how it should be, if politics is to survive as a meaningful way of life on this continent over the next number of years.
The hon. member who spoke before me mentioned newspaper editorials and the fact that almost all of them called for shortened election campaigns. Quite apart from the fact that I feel they are misled, I feel that it is the media which has the most to gain by over-emphasizing paid commercialism in politics. Over the last number of years, we have become aware of the lucrative opportunity associated with election campaigns. Perhaps they rate next to Christmas, Father's Day, Mother's Day and Easter in lucrative opportunity. I see no redeeming social value to the shortening of campaigns, and certainly the enrichment of the media is not a very worthwhile one either.
As far as the mechanics of election campaigns are concerned, I have had enough to do with returning officers and deputy returning officers over the years to realize how difficult it is for them in many circumstances, even with a 60-day campaign, to find enumerators, deputy returning officers, poll
June 25, 1981

clerks and the hundreds of other people who must be drawn away from their jobs or homes to successfully provide manpower for a campaign at its present length. The same people are not always there to be called upon. In many cases we tend to rely on the same people year after year, so when a winter election is called, people who would normally participate just cannot manage. It is then that the returning officers in the constituencies must go out in a mad scramble, utilizing all parties, which is good, just to find people who are available and able to be trained in a short period of time. Quite apart from the printing time, it will be very difficult to find people to train, since a great many returning officers go more than a little grey, even with the 60-day provision.
The final point I would like to raise, which has been made before, has to do with the element of surprise being always in the hands of the government. Those within this country who are continually going forth on the binge of calling for fixed election dates often use it as an argument that too much power is in the hands of the government of the day, enabling it to call an election at any time it chooses. I think there are more advantages to the public weal of the current process than there would be in having fixed election dates, such as the process which exists south of the border. There would then be yearlong election campaigns, rather than 60-day ones, and the government would be largely inoperative.
However, to shorten the 60 day period even further would really stack the deck, not only in favour of the government of the day, but also in favour of all incumbents. While we who are here at this point may feel rather comfortable at the prospect, we may not always be here, and we certainly were not always here.
I suggest that it behooves us to take a look at what is to the benefit of society at large. One can go overboard. The union to which I once belonged went so much overboard in trying to ensure what it perceived to be the democratic process that at one point it printed its ballots in circles so that no one's name would be on top. That was based on the old western, radical, wobbly tradition. Perhaps that was a little excessive, and no one is suggesting that we ought to go to those lengths, but surely it is not too much to suggest that there should be some lead time provided in order that those persons who have been nominated and have full-time occupations, or those who have not yet been nominated, may have sufficient time. It is not always a matter of choice as to whether or not one thought ahead about one's nomination. Even if one has, and one's occupation is such that one must continually apply oneself to it, one is not that free to get out into the community to become known or to be able to compete on anything approaching an equitable basis until the actual election campaign is called, and that in itself involves sacrifices.
Therefore, I would submit that for all of those reasons there is no compelling argument for the shortening of elections. There is a feeling among the public that elections should be shorter. That is agreed. However, the period to which they are
Canada Elections Act
referring is that period which is now restricted, I believe, to approximately 30 days, which is the limited period in which we can now conduct commercial advertising. That is the part that the public finds offensive. If one wants to limit the period that the public finds offensive, let us cut it down by an extra week. Our purpose here is not to subsidize the advertising industry, after all. In any case, none of us seem to use that time all that constructively in terms of putting solid information or options before the Canadian people. The time is used much more on product identification and repetition than on anything of substance or value.
The other point which was mentioned briefly as well was that while the main and only thrust of the bill is, in fact, to shorten election periods, it might have some value if it dealt with some other reforms, or even opened the door by presenting a few. However, it seems overly limited and does not really provide, within its driving thrust, any option to add items which would involve serious electoral reform. As a British Columbian perhaps, because we have had this process in the province for many years, I think that the process of an absentee ballot would be worthwhile. It is subject to much less abuse than the proxy system. It requires much less bureaucracy and finagling than does the proxy system. It can be utilized well, provided that there is a period of some one to two weeks in a country of our size. Of course, it would have to be a little longer than the one week provided within the jurisdiction of a single province to allow for a delayed count for those absentee ballots. It would provide in this country immeasurable opportunities for a broader classification of people than the very limited numbers of those now eligible to use the proxy, and would be of benefit to those people on vacation or away from their residences for considerable periods of time. It would be a major opening.
However, I am not prepared to take seriously or to agree with the proposition that urban voters, as well as rural voters, should be able to swear in on election day. I have been involved in this business for many years. I have been active in downtown Vancouver and in Vancouver centre, right back to the late forties. I was pretty small then, but not small enough that I could not observe what was going on. From observing downtown Vancouver, Atlantic Canada, southern Ontario and northern Ontario over the years, I came to realize that there are reasons why people can swear in to vote on election day in rural polls where people know each other and are readily identified as being actual residents, and what can happen in a downtown area where no one knows anyone and very seldom knows the person living in the next apartment.
I may be an idealist in some sense, but 1 do not believe in throwing temptation at people and daring them to take up the challenge. There is very often too much at stake in the real business in which we are involved to put that kind of temptation out in front where it counts. There are many reasons for all the rules and regulations, which exist in the elections act which have been built up over the years. The political process is much more alive, democratic and accountable now than it was 20 or 30 years ago, and certainly more than it was 40

June 25, 1981
Canada Elections Act
years ago. It is much more open and honest. While I prefer to think the best of people, I would not want to throw out temptations to encourage them to do their worst.
I said at the beginning that I strongly believe that elections and politicians are too important to be left simply to the politicians. The major reason I oppose the shortening of election campaigns from 60 days down to 47 days, or shortening them by any time when it comes to the number of days from the call of the election to the day on which the ballots are actually cast, is the importance of elections to the people.
I am sure that many hon. members of this House-and certainly those who organize and work for them-realize how vitally important it is that we maximize the number of ordinary people-not the fanatics, not the zealots, and not just the paid hacks-who become involved and feel that they have a vested interest and a real stake in democratic society. For that reason, I do not know nor do I care what my other colleagues, either in this House or in my own party, think about this particular issue. I have been involved in it for much too long in an organizational sense and I have been too involved with digging out ordinary people who are affected by what happens in this place and in other chambers but who, in their day to day life, have other priorities also. It is important to get those people to take some part despite whatever reasons there may be for the shortening of campaigns.
If we limit the period of voluntary involvement, it will give rise to yet another surge of the kind of hyped up media campaigns which I think most members, and I know the Canadian public, find extremely distasteful. It turns them off not only the political process, but it turns many of them off the idea of democratic politicians.
I am opposed to the bill, and that is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) speaking and giving us a point of view which was I suppose, from what one would call a professional from within his party. There are many of us whose experience with elections goes back as far as his but who have gained it on the basis of running in elections themselves. I can assure Your Honour that I weighed what he had to say very carefully, because it seems that while this bill proposes to shorten the time of an election period to 47 days, it also has some very important and complicated consequential amendments. One thing that no one has referred to is the elimination of the different nomination dates, and the elimination of the schedule 3 constituencies. Now everyone is nominated on the same day.
What is the purpose of this bill, besides shortening the period of the election by 12 days? With 282 members in this House, I dare say that there are at least 250 divergent opinions on how the Canada Elections Act could best be devised for a particular individual.
I concede immediately that I, who have a tightly knit urban riding, have nothing in common with a rural riding in the Atlantic provinces, or perhaps one of the less populated constituencies in Newfoundland or, even closer to home, one of the large, entirely rural seats in the prairie provinces. The two constituencies just do not mix. One thing that we have in common is what we feel is the short attention quotient of the average voter. Now that the voter relies more and more on television, we know very well that the attention given to any program depends on the action. As soon as the advertising comes on or as soon as a public affairs program comes on, that is the time to go to the washroom, to put on a pot of coffee or do something else.
The same thing applies to political advertising. There is no point in individual candidates trying to develop a budget which will cover any amount of direct discussion on the issues, on television. The act is stupid in that it has not increased the amount allowed for expenses, yet the cost of printing and television time have escalated far more than the cost of living. Those things are therefore left to the national budgets and that is one of the chief difficulties. In the last election all major parties got their tails caught in a grinder over the nature of their programs. I would be the first to admit that ours was disastrous, as was that of the Liberals. Every time one went out, one had to face irate voters or constituents who had seen the latest episode of nonsensical advertising of the party.
The election campaign nowadays is used by the media to train their young reporters. They go out and listen to a party leader make a speech, then give us their deathless version of what was said, depending upon their own personal prejudice and "the public be damned". That is why there is such a distortion.
While the objective of this bill may be all right, we all suffer from frustration when we consider the inadequacies of the proposed changes. I listened to the intervention of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) on Monday or Tuesday when he said it was quite wrong to talk about matters that were not included in the bill. With the greatest deference to the hon. gentleman, it is at second reading that one speaks about those things which are not in the bill but which should be there to make it effective. As I understand the rules, one cannot speak about new matters on third reading and there is no more resolution stage, so these things have to be debated at second reading. That is the way to conduct a debate in this House. One must be able to talk about those things which are not included.
All I can say is that, regardless of some of the background noise that comes from individuals who stand behind the curtain and refuse to make a speech on the subject, we will carry on. I am glad to see that hon. members have raised particular points which could have been brought forward along with this bill so that they could be considered by committee. When this bill goes to committee, why can it not receive representation on a variety of subjects? Once the bill has been voted upon by the House, the committee will be limited to the consequences of shortening the time from 59 days to 47 days.
June 25, 1981

We could engage in speculation about whether a voter is better apprised of an election, where his polling place will be, what the hours of voting will be, if he gets the little card which is now to be the notice of enumeration, mailed by the deputy returning officer of the constituency, instead of getting a copy of the electoral list of the polls with the information of where the poll will be held and stating that the list is certified, and signed by the deputy returning officer. I do not know that the postmen will be any more faithful in delivering those notices to the enumerators than they were in delivering the voters' lists.
In the past, the voter who was reasonably au fait with what was happening during an election and his right to vote was aware that he was entitled to a copy of the list. He did not have to go down the street about three blocks to see it on a pole. Now there are new aluminum light poles to which a voters' list cannot be attached. In any event, the lists would only last about 24 hours because of the neighbourhood kids delight in tearing them down. It is part of the game. How does "John Q. Citizen" verify that he is on the voters' list? He can go to his party headquarters and ask whether he is on the voters' list. But the individual wonders how dumb people will think he is, not knowing whether he is on the voters' list. Yet he should know he is on the voters' list. That card comes late in the game. It is only determined after the twenty-fifth day before the election. That card will not get to the individual voter because, dear know-it-all parliamentary secretary, on the thirty-fifth day prior to an election, the deputy returning officer starts compiling his lists so they shall be ready no later than the thirtieth day. Then copies are made, some for distribution and some for availability. That is the time during which the list is compiled. Based upon those lists, cards have to be written up, addressed and sent to the individual voter at his or her address. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can devise something quicker than between the thirtieth and the twenty-fifth day. The twenty-fifth day is the day when the cards are sent out. It is also the time when the deputy returning officer will announce the totals of the preliminary lists upon which the candidate's expense account will be based. Those again are details which come later and later in the game in so far as the candidate is concerned. Incidentally, they apply across the line to all constituencies now, urban and rural. Class three is eliminated. All that will be required now, as I see it, is that nominations are to be held 14 days prior to elections for everyone concerned.
In some parts of the country where I think the greatest pressure comes for shortening the election campaign, nomination day is really when the election campaign starts. That is when the active campaigning takes place in many constituencies in the province of Quebec, constituencies which have been won by both major parties. Very little was done before, except for lining up. There was no door-to-door campaigning. Meetings were held. In these last 14 days, meetings were hot and heavy. People came to hear the issues discussed. But try today to get a meeting together to discuss the issues in any election
Canada Elections Act
outside of sponsored forums. But farming organizations in western Canada, undoubtedly in the province of Ontario and, perhaps across the country, perform a human service in arranging these forums so that candidates from all parties are before the people who want to hear them. That does not help my friend, the hon. member for the Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), however. He has a very difficult time getting around his territory because it is so extensive. Even by chartering aircraft or boats, there is no way that candidates in the western Arctic, the eastern Arctic or in some of the other ridings will see the people in their constituency other than perhaps during a swoop in an aircraft when they can wave and throw out some leaflets. Somebody suggested that he might throw out a few cases of beer too. That is quite wrong, but it has been known to happen. That is another aspect of the campaign.
But we should not pay so much attention to this shortening of time in isolation when there are a lot of changes that could be proposed to help put across a much more intelligent election campaign. For one thing, my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) has a private member's bill in which he proposes that the closing times for the polls be uniform as to the exact moment. In other words, if there are five time zones, there are five different times of closing. We would not have that silly consequence of people in Vancouver, living on Victoria Island or in any part of British Columbia, being four or five hours away from poll closing time, knowing the results from Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces. That is a mockery. This is precisely what we criticize in the U.S. election system, that you can always stampede the last voters by the trends. They like to feel they are part of the bandwagon and if there is a trend toward one party, this will encourage them to do so. That is totally wrong. It is particularly wrong here in Canada. In the last election, for instance, by the time our people were ready to vote two or three hours before poll closing time, and in the city ridings two or three hours before poll closing time is about the time that 70 per cent of the vote is cast, those people knew that what they were doing was not going to help at all. The election was already decided. That is wrong. That amendment, if included in this particular bill, would have been far more meaningful.
There is the question of indexing expenses. Election expenses have now been geared to the 1975 CPI. It has not been changed. It is total nonsense to have that sort of thing.
I find this bill so totally inadequate that I am almost compelled to agree with our colleague from British Columbia that we are not going to have this bill imposed on us piecemeal. This should be part of a meaningful change in the electoral act. There is plenty of time between now and the next election. That is what we should have had in 1979 if the government had thought fit to come forward with this part bill. That would have been fine 18 months ago when elections were imminent. Now it is not so. I would say that it would be far better if we voted against this bill now and told the authors to go back to the drawing boards and come forward with a decent bill.


Some hon. Members:: Question.

June 25, 1981
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
THE ECONOMY-(A) STATEMENTS MADE BY LEADER OF LIBERAL PARTY IN ONTARIO; (B) LOW INTEREST RATE PAID ON GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES
["Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.\nAt 10.28 the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Friday, June 26, 1981']
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 22, as recorded in Hansard at page 10838, I put some questions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). I used as a basis for my questions statements that had been made over the weekend by the leader of the Liberal party in Ontario to the effect that it was time to impose more taxes on the rich so that the government would have funds to provide more benefits to the poor. Pensioners and others were mentioned in the statement by the Liberal leader in the province of Ontario who had declared inflation to be a Robin Hood in reverse, robbing the poor and benefiting the rich.
Frankly, the purpose of my question was to get to one or two specifics where I felt money should be used for the benefit of those in need. The Minister of Finance said exactly what I thought he would say. He set about telling us that the government has an indexing plan under which all pensioners are thoroughly and completely protected. That is a myth which does not gain any more substance by the telling of it over and over again.
I went from that to one specific group for whom there has been no indexation since 1975. I refer to persons who are holders of Canadian government annuities. For many years the benefits paid under Canadian government annuities were based on interest rates of 3, 7>'h or 4 per cent, sometimes a little more. In 1975 that rate as a basis for a calculation was raised to 7 per cent. There it stands. It is still at 7 per cent.
Accordingly, those who are drawing benefits from Canadian government annuities today are getting pensions which are based on a calculation which assumes that their money is earning interest at the rate of 7 per cent. In fact, interest rates today are twice that or more, and I wanted to ask the minister to do something about it. In view of his claim that the government is prepared to protect pensions, why not do again what was done in 1975, namely, raise the rate of interest used in calculating government annuities?
The Minister of Finance, as he so often does in answering questions, wandered all over the lot and never even mentioned the subject. If one looks at the record in Hansard, he will find at the end I asked, "What about government annuities?" That was my reason for putting the question for a late show. I have already indicated to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) that that would be the thrust of my question. I did not come here tonight to argue about Stuart
Smith. I came here to try to get the answer to the question I was putting to the minister, is it not time to improve payments under Canadian government annuities?
Sometimes when we raise this matter we are told that they are different. Every time something is not done, it is different from the area where something is being done. We are told that this is a contract and that that contract cannot be upset. Canada Pension Plan benefits are a contract. Old age security is a contract, for if you live in this country and pay taxes, you get old age security. Pensions under various superannuation plans are all contracts, so there is no weight to that argument at all. Canada Savings Bonds are certainly contracts. They are bought at a certain rate of interest that is printed right there in the bond. Yet the government has now come to the realization that with inflation the way it is, it has to adjust these interest rates. Why are the holders of Canadian government annuities left out in the cold? I know that in 1975 we were told, "do not look for this every year, it is not permanent, it is just a one-shot effort." But the facts of the matter are that inflation has got much worse, and this is one group the government seems to have forgotten. I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary tonight, now that he knows this is the thrust of my question, whether the government is giving consideration to doing now in 1981, or certainly not later than 1982, what was done in 1975, namely to increase the benefits under the Canadian Government Annuities Act. I confess that I have a personal interest in that piece of legislation. As I have said a good many times, it was passed the day I was born. I do not like to see it stifled.


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre (Mr. Knowles) is essentially seeking, as we have all heard, an increase in the rate of interest paid on Government of Canada annuities. As the hon. member indicated, they are, indeed, long-term assets if the legislation was introduced on the day he was born.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Seventy-three years ago.


John Leslie Evans: Members will recall that the act provided, as the hon. member mentioned, for a change in those rates effective April 1, 1975. At that time annuities that were paying between 3 per cent and 514 per cent were raised to the level of 7 per cent.
Undoubtedly the hon. member is aware of Section 5(2) of the Government Annuities Improvement Act which reads:
The governor in council may, by regulation, amend the schedule in respect of any annuities or category of annuities.
Pursuant to this provision, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has been closely monitoring the appropriateness of the rate of interest payable on government annuities. In assessing whether this rate of interest should be increased, it is important to bear in mind a number of considerations which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has brought to our attention. Foremost
June 25, 1981

perhaps, is the contractual nature of annuities and the potential effects of a substantial change to the terms of these contracts on other financial instruments, both in the public and the private sector. Related to this is the fundamental issue of the equity of an increase in this rate vis-a-vis all those other Canadians who are also adversely affected by inflation and high interest rates, such as investors in other Government of Canada long-term instruments.
The government's present assessment of the situation, which includes a comparison with returns earned on similar instruments in the private sector as well as an appreciation of the over-all implications of a further positive adjustment, is that no such adjustment should be made at this time. In this connection, it is important to bear in mind that comparisons with rates of interest payable on short-term financial instruments, such as Canada Savings Bonds and guaranteed investment certificates, are misleading in that they overlook the fundamentally different nature of these instruments we are referring to here. This is particularly inappropriate in a situation characterized by high and volatile, short-term interest rates such as we now have.
The government continues to be of the view that the only viable solution to this difficult problem lies in the pursuit of monetary and fiscal policies which will serve to reduce inflation and thereby reduce interest rates for all Canadians. To the extent that narrowly targeted measures of relief lead to pressures for more broader-based measures, these are difficult to reconcile with the ultimate objective of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government is wrong again.
ENERGY-(A) REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN FEDERAL SHARE OF REVENUES; (B) ENERGY TAX REBATE PROGRAM


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of last year the price of gasoline at the gas pump in Ontario has increased by 60 cents per gallon. There have been 12 increases in the price of oil products since March, 1980, and all but three of these were increases in federal taxes; not an increase to producers, to refiners or dealers, but an increase to the federal Liberal government. The federal share of the increase in the price of gasoline at the pump is 36 cents per gallon, a 36-cent per gallon increase in federal taxes alone. That is twice as high as the 18-cent per gallon increase proposed by my party, the Progressive Conservative party, just over one year ago.
Our proposal of 18 cents would not only have gone toward the subsidization of offshore imports, it would have provided an energy tax rebate to low and middle-income families, an energy tax rebate for farmers, an energy tax rebate for fishermen and an energy tax rebate for urban transit. In other words, our national energy policy would have led Canada toward energy self-sufficiency during the next decade while at the same time protecting those who could afford increases the least. We had a pricing agreement with the producing provinces in principle, and the only agreement the Liberals have today is an agreement to purchase more oil from offshore. We
Adjournment Debate
have more dependence on offshore imports, and we all know the price differential. The cost of a barrel of oil from offshore averages $43. In Canada, the cost is $17.75 per barrel. But the Liberals prefer to pay higher prices for offshore oil and to ask all Canadians to subsidize the difference. The subsidization has reached staggering $5,158 billion this year alone. We pay for it, and that subsidization is growing.
What did the Liberals say before those increases took place? In the 1980 election campaign, for example, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) went from one side of the country to the other saying, "Vote Liberal, and energy prices will stay down". That is what the minister said last February. However, we do not have to go that far back. On May 27, 1980, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said: "Every rise of one dollar a barrel in oil and its equivalent in gas increases the rate of inflation by almost half a percentage point". I agree with that. We all agree with that, but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his government have increased the price of gasoline at the gas pump and the price of energy generally in Canada. It has not been to the producers or refiners, at least not to the tune of 36 cents per gallon. That is the information provided to us by the minister's department. It is no wonder we now have a record high inflation rate which leads to record high interest rates which lead to a record high cost of living and which leads back to record high inflation.
Then, believe it or not, the travelling Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-who is too busy to answer questions in the House because he is meeting with his new socialist friend, the President of France-said in this House on June 9, 1981, when speaking about energy revenues: "We would like the over-all result to be the federal government's sharing 23 per cent or 25 per cent of the take". That is my whole point. The Prime Minister would be satisfied if the federal government took in 23 per cent or 25 per cent of the take of energy revenues.
The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has provided us with the following information. In Ontario-and we must look at this one province at a time because prices differ in various provinces due to provincial taxes and other matters-the price of gasoline at the pump is $1.66. The federal take through such charges as sales taxes, excise taxes and the Canadian ownership charge so that Petro-Canada could nationalize Petrofina, is 56 cents, or 33.7 per cent. If the Prime Minister would stay in this country long enough I would like to ask him, if he would be satisfied with a 23 per cent or 25 per cent take of energy prices, why the government does not now lower energy taxes across the board to at least 25 per cent. If the government is not willing to do that, it should at least be compassionate enough to bring in an energy tax rebate to be taken from the excessive revenues it gets from energy resources. The government should be compassionate enough to bring in energy tax rebates along the lines of those the Progressive Conservative party proposed in the Crosbie budget.

June 25, 1981
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Simmons:: God help us.


Otto John Jelinek: Yes, energy tax rebates-I hear guffaws across the way-for low and middle-income families. The Liberals said: "Let us not increase the price by 18 cents." They have more than doubled the taxes. There is no energy tax rebate for low and middle-income families. Why no energy tax rebate for fishermen, farmers and urban transit? Those are the questions we and Canadians are asking, and those are the questions I want answered today.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is in such a state of confusion and so befuddled by his pseudo statistics that he clearly has no real understanding of the situation with regard to oil pricing in Canada today. The fact is that at the Toronto pump the price of a litre of gasoline is less today than it would have been under the Conservative formula.
Let us examine the situation in its true light. The fact is the recent increases are composed of a number of factors. For example, wellhead price increases under the Liberals between January 1, 1980 and January 1, 1981, amounted to $4. Under the Conservative budget, it would have amounted to $6.25.


Otto John Jelinek: Hogwash.


Roy MacLaren: The Syncrude levy, an important part of the total cost at the pump, was and would have been pursued by the Conservative government had it been able to hold on to office. That increase would have been automatic whatever government was in office. Also, the petroleum compensation charge to offset the higher cost of imported oil would, in the Conservative case, have had to be found from general revenues. It is imposed at the pump itself in our case. I do not think there can be any doubt which is the preferable way of imposing that levy. The compensation charge, that money does not go into the general revenues of the government; it is passed on to the refiners. For the hon. member to speak as if somehow that charge was to the benefit of government revenue is to simply misunderstand the situation in Canada today.
As for the special compensation charge to offset the cost of additional imported oil in light of the production cutbacks by government of Alberta, we have indicated that if Alberta restores production, that levy would be immediately removed.
Finally, the Canadian ownership charge brings real benefit to all Canadians through acquisition of assets for the national oil company, Petro-Canada; in this particular case the acquisition of Petrofina. So not only are prices lower in Toronto today than they would have been under the Conservative government, but the other benefits of the Liberal policy should now be evident to the hon. member opposite who is in such a state of confusion about the true state of affairs.


Otto John Jelinek: How can you say that with a straight face.



Maurice Brydon Foster: program at the Turkey Lake research facility, located some 50 kilometres north of Sault Ste. Marie, where last year some 15 person-years and some $800,000 from the Great Lakes Forestry Research Laboratory has been dedicated to learning more about this critical problem facing our nation.
I am hopeful that this action within our own country, the research imposing tighter limits and controls on our industry, and ensuring that new industry has adequate control combined with an effective new international agreement with the United States, will lead to a better position relating to this problem. I hope that the minister will be able to assure us that the actions of the United States will not have an adverse effect on those areas of Canada which suffer from these transborder pollutants.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), for raising this issue in the adjournment debate tonight. It is an issue which is coming in for a lot of discussion, and so it should. We welcome the opportunity to discuss it here again this evening.
I believe his concern is well founded. I hope I am wrong. For that reason, I hope he is wrong. However, we get some disconcerting signs from the United States. We saw the leaked cabinet document, in the last week or so on the subject of proposed revisions of the Clean Air Act in the U.S. We saw some of the appointments to positions of environmental authority in the United States. Frankly, they constitute fairly disconcerting signals.
Against that, we have a number of assurances which have been given to us by the U.S. administration, both by the former administration of Mr. Carter and by the present administration of Mr. Reagan, and assurances from the office of President, right on down to other positions of authority in this particular area.
First of all, let me just reflect for a moment on the memorandum of intent which was signed last August between the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) for Canada and the then secretary of state of the U.S., Mr. Muskie. First, that memorandum committed both countries to begin formal negotiations by June of this year, which is this very month.
Adjournment Debate
Second, it also provided for five joint working groups to do some work preparatory to the beginning of negotiations. Third, it committed both countries to taking certain interim control measures under existing legal authorities to reduce transboundary air pollution.
As I say, that memorandum was signed last August under the former administration of Mr. Carter. As Your Honour will know, Mr. Reagan was here in Ottawa some months ago in March. At that time, in meetings with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and with the Minister of the Environment, the U.S. President gave full commitment that the undertaking and the memorandum of intent of last August would be honoured, that it was the U.S. administration's intent to pursue the work of the five working groups that I mentioned earlier, and it was also its intent to begin negotiations with Canada in the month of June of this year.
Subsequent to that particular meeting, the Minister of the Environment went to Washington and met with the new secretary of the interior, Mr. Watt. At that time, we received similar assurances to that which we had received from the U.S. President earlier.
Two days ago, the negotiations actually began in Washington. They were somewhat clouded by the uncertainties over the Clean Air Act review in the United States. On that particular subject, the Canadian delegation recorded very strong concern that domestic regulation be adequate to deal effectively with transboundary air pollution.
Finally, let me say that as we see it, the battle is far from over. We in Canada cannot let up for a minute. There are strong lobbies in Washington which want to convince the U.S. administration that there is no problem. There is a lack of awareness among the American public. Our job is twofold. First, we want to raise that awareness. We are doing that through pamphlets which we are distributing in the U.S., through speech-making in the U.S., and we are also continuing to impress upon the U.S. administration the need to honour its commitment made last August, and subsequently.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.
At 10.28 the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, June 26, 1981