1981-03-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I wish to introduce a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas it would appear that the United States is now having second thoughts about the Alaska gas pipeline, I move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House require the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to make a statement on motions explaining his failure to obtain the so-called ironclad guarantees of pipeline construction from the new American administration.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the controversy which exists between France and Canada over the ownership of fishing and mineral rights on Canada's continental shelf between mainland France and the offshore islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon which are now classed as French provinces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass):
That the Canadian government communicate with the French government, emphatically informing that government that the so-called disputed waters, which cover part of the Hibernia and Ben Nevis oil Fields, are sovereign Canadian waters and resources.


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


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that both the Liberal and Conservative parties buried the oil industry price Fixing report for the past eight years, and that the protection money in the form of political contributions paid by the oil majors totalled close to half a million dollars between 1974 and 1977, over $190,000 to the Liberal Party and over $250,000 to the Tory party, rising to $192,504 to the Liberals in 1978 alone, with pay-offs increasing in recent years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this House can only draw one conclusion from the fact that the major oil companies have contributed over half a million dollars since 1974 to the Liberals and Conservatives; that the oil industry price fixing report was buried for eight years and was finally brought to light on Wednesday, March 4, 1981, and the conclusion is that while these political donations were initially sufficient to provide the necessary protection, clearly they did not keep up with inflation and the Liberal Party's rising business costs-in particular hyper inflation in the pork market-and expresses its regret at the embarrassment thus caused to the oil majors and their insurance agents, the Liberal and Conservative parties of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing necessity. In view of the tremendous discretionary powers available to ministers of the Crown, powers which could make multimillionaires of some Canadians and paupers of others, and given the recent startling allegations of profiteering and price fixing by major oil companies, in which certain ministers of the Crown, or their families, may hold

March 6, 1981
financial interests, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this House hereby directs all ministers of the Crown, including the Prime Minister, to make a full and complete public disclosure of all investments and financial holdings held by themselves or their immediate relatives, such disclosures to include all those holdings which have been placed in blind trust.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PETRO-CANADA REQUEST FOR LEADER OF OPPOSITION TO ADMIT ERROR OF PRIVATIZATION POLICY-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker,
I rise under Standing Order 43, and request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an urgent matter.
In view of the government inquiry which revealed unfair practices on the part of the big oil companies which are, by the way, 80 per cent foreign-owned, in an effort to gouge Canadians to the tune of some $12 billion between 1968 and 1973 which, in terms of current dollars, would represent about $90 billion, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Gingras):
That the half-leader of the official opposition make due apologies to this government and all Canadians here in the House through the information media by recognizing that he was once again terribly mistaken in wanting to disband Petro-Canada in order to clear the coast for his close friends, his financial backers, namely, the oil companies.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, it requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. A
Section 47 investigation under the Combines Investigation Act
is currently being conducted into the relationship between Bell Canada and Northern Telecom. The Restrictive Trade Practices Commission held almost four years of hearings, sat 224 days, travelled the entire country, heard 230 witnesses to date, generated 34,000 pages of evidence, and received some 2,000 exhibits. Despite the fact the hearings are vitally important to telephone subscribers and the Canadian electronics industry, there has been no visible public debate; indeed, very few Canadians are even aware of the inquiry.
In light of the statement of the director, Mr. Bertrand, that a Section 47 inquiry on price-fixing in the oil industry "will have a significant role in placing the importance of competition in the petroleum industry in the forefront of public debate", with which proposition the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) wholly concurs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House directs the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to make a statement on motions on the reasons for referring the director's report on oil industry price-fixing to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, which presumably has the function to make representations to change Canada's competition law, thereby delaying action for a number of years by the commission which exercises powers of holding hearings in secret.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter relating to the Canadian beef cattle industry. In view of the optimistic statement of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) last night to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association that we have no agricultural problems in Canada which we cannot solve ourselves, and in view of the very serious uncertainties and lack of long-term confidence in our Canadian beef cattle industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the Minister of Agriculture use his well-known high profile influence in cabinet-and with his House leader-to bring the meat import Bill C-46, which is his pride and joy, before the House to receive a quick second reading debate and referral to committee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 6, 1981

Oral Questions
STATUS OF WOMEN	ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


REDUCTION IN GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Miss Jewett), I move:
That this House regrets that the government's contribution to International Women's Week has been, once again, to put in jeopardy women's outreach programs and to cut in half the number of person-years in the Equal Opportunities for Women Office of the public service, and that this House therefore calls on the government to recognize the rights and needs of 51 per cent of our population by indicating its readiness to protect and support both of these important programs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Critical vacancy rates across Canada are making it very difficult for Canadians to find decent accommodation. By raising the issue of rent controls in speeches, the minister responsible for housing has made it evident that the Liberal Party favours the discontinuance of rent controls without providing a satisfactory alternative. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That this House condemn the suggestion by the Liberal Party that rent controls be ended and endorse the stand of the Ontario Progressive Conservative minister for housing who refuses to leave Canadian tenants unprotected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PIPELINES
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, not surprisingly I have a series of questions this morning for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In a CP wire story today it is reported that the new Reagan administration in the United States is having second thoughts about the Alaska gas pipeline. Apparently they want to study the whole question anew. They appear to want to make sure that public moneys will not be expended before they wholeheartedly support this project. Costs are now supposed to be in the region of about $25 billion. Can the minister confirm that he has been seeking reaffirmation of the American commitment, and tell us whether his ironclad guarantees of note still stand?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Dave Nickerson: I am pleased to see that the minister has been seeking reaffirmation. It shows that he is doing his job to a certain extent, since this does seem to be a very serious problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: But he does not get any answers.


EXPORT OF GAS THROUGH PRE-BUILD SECTION
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, the minister knows full well that the pre-build section of the pipeline going from James River Bridge south, designed mainly for the exportation of Canadian gas, was predicated on a firm commitment to build the entire line.
At the time of the debate on this issue, we on this side of the House-in this party-pointed out the dangers of allowing-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Dave Nickerson: -the export of Canadian gas through the pre-build unless Canada was to benefit from the timely completion of the entire project.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, here is my question. What position will the Canadian government take toward the export of gas through the already partially built pre-build section if, as now appears likely, the whole line is not to be completed?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in order to help the hon. member understand the present situation, I remind him that

March 6, 1981
Oral Questions
we have, indeed, communicated with the Secretary of Energy in the United States. On February 6 we received the kind of firm commitment to which the hon. member has referred. The letter, in part, reads as follows:
I would like to take this opportunity to state again that the United States government is firmly committed to the completion of ANGTS in conformity with agreements between our countries. We expect the United States sponsors and producers will soon reach an agreement on a tentative financing plan.
That is part of the letter sent by the Secretary of Energy, James B. Edwards.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, if one examines carefully the wording of that communique you will see that there are loopholes in it. They have left themselves a way out.
I am concerned about what appears to be deteriorating relations between Canada and the U.S. As we have seen from the communique, the minister's ironclad guarantees-you remember this term, "the ironclad guarantees"-now appear to be no more than a passing fancy. There is certainly no contractual guarantee capable of proper enforcement and to which the Americans can be legally held.
As a final question, can we have the personal, ironclad guarantee of the minister-whatever that might be worth- that when the President of the United States visits Canada next week, energy issues, and particularly this one relating to the Alaska gas pipeline, will be accorded top priority in the discussions between the Prime Minister and President Reagan?


An hon. Member:: Would you repeat the question?


Thomas Edward Siddon: You wouldn't understand it if it was repeated. You're thick over there.


Marc Lalonde: The energy issue will be on the agenda, and the question of the Alaska gas pipeline is going to be on the agenda, I am sure; but 1 would like to remind my hon. friend that the Secretary of Energy of the United States, on behalf of his government, has already given the firm commitment of that government in support of the construction of the Alaska gas pipeline. I am afraid that my hon. friend will have to eat crow before long if he continues along that line.


QUERY RESPECTING COMMITMENT TO COMPLETE PROJECT
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, there seems to be considerable doubt, in view of releases this morning, about the reassurances the minister is giving us. We were induced, when the debate was on last July-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I did not say "seduced", a term with which the NDP is quite familiar.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: We were induced last July to vote in favour of the pre-build on the basis of assurances given by the hon. "Ironside". This is what he said as reported at page 3061 of Hansard:
What was important to obtain from the American government was that firm commitment that they would see to it that the pipeline would be built. Whether they do it by financial commitment, legislation, or other means, that is for the American government to decide. What is important is that we have that commitment.
Does the minister have that kind of commitment now from the United States government and, if he does not, will it be a top priority on the agenda of the talks between President Reagan and the Prime Minister so that that same degree of commitment will be obtained with respect to the completion of the whole of the line?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I must answer, yes, and it is too bad that Secretary Edwards did not write to us in French also, because I would read it in French; but I will read it again in English. The Secretary states that he would like to take this opportunity to state again that the United States government is firmly committed to the completion of the Alaska gas pipeline in conformity with agreements between our two countries.


An hon. Member:: Give us a date.


Marc Lalonde: We cannot have it clearer and firmer than that. This is a statement by the new Secretary of Energy of the United States, on behalf of his government.
I fail to understand what more my friend can ask for, when it would seem to be pretty clear to anyone who can read.


Erik Nielsen: It seems to me that the minister's political life-speaking about eating crow-depends upon the degree of commitment he achieves after this meeting. The letter from which he quoted is a far cry from the letter which he read into the record of last July 17.


An hon. Member:: No, it isn't.


Erik Nielsen: Oh, yes, it is. I am quoting from a letter that was written by President Carter in his day:
In view of this progress, I can assure you that the U.S. government not only remains committed to the project; I-
That is the President speaking.
-am able to state with confidence that the U.S. government now is satisfied that the entire Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System will be completed. The United States' energy requirements-
And so on.
He assured the government of the day that it would be completed by the end of 1985. Will the minister get the kind of written statement from President Reagan that he got from President Carter?
March 6, 1981


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, these discussions will take place between the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States.


Erik Nielsen: Let's get it in writing.


Marc Lalonde: This is the proper way for it to take place. I am sure the issue will be raised in discussions with the President.


Mr. Wilson:: Don't you know?


Marc Lalonde: We have a clear statement by the Secretary of Energy in the United States on behalf of the United States government. I do not see why we would have any reason to question the right or authority of the Secretary of Energy to speak on behalf of the United States government.
I suggest to my hon. friend that he should take the words of the Secretary of Energy, on behalf of the government, on their face. They represent that firm commitment to which my hon. friend is referring.


Erik Nielsen: I would sooner have it from the President.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The oil industry, having gouged Canadian consumers of some $12 billion from 1958 to 1973, plus additional billions from 1973 to the present, not content with that some days ago added some six cents per gallon on top of government's announced increase in the price of gasoline. On Wednesday the minister said that he would investigate this. Has he had that additional six cents investigated and, if so, has he found it was warranted? If not, can he assure us that the government will take compensatory action so that the gouging of the Canadian consumer will not continue?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, the officials of my department are looking into the matter. I have not yet obtained a detailed report about this.


COMPENSATION FOR CONSUMERS
John Edward Broadbent: That is reasonable to this point. Will the minister do two things? First, will he give us a date by which we will have his report and, second, in connection with past rip-offs, whatever he finds merited or not merited about the six cents per gallon increase which came this week, will he assure the House and the people of Canada that they are going to be compensated in some way? Is he prepared
Oral Questions
now to outline the way in which that compensation will be implemented and, if not, will he at least say that he agrees in principle that compensation is due to the Canadian people?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the basic difference between the NDP and the government in this respect is that we do not want to anticipate the findings of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. We note, like that party, that this is a very serious matter, but before jumping to conclusions, we would rather wait for the report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.


ACTION ON INVESTIGATIVE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, let me tell the minister through you that the fundamental difference between the government and the Canadian people on this issue is that the Canadian people want their money back.
Let me put this to the minister as a final supplementary question. The minister need not wait. The report makes two specific recommendations. One is that the multinationals should divest themselves of their shares in pipelines, and the other is that Petro-Canada should become the sole importer of offshore oil. Is the minister prepared to give this House a commitment right now that he will act on those two recommendations?
[Translation)


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, those are two very important recommendations now being considered by the government.


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of John Boggs v. Regina, decided last month that Section 283(3) of the Criminal Code was ultra vires. That section deals with driving while disqualified. The court indicated that because the Code prohibition included suspensions arising for reasons as diverse as failing to keep fuel oil records, it could not be upheld as a valid exercise of the criminal law power. We can take it that it is important to enforce vigorously licence suspensions resulting from serious breaches of the law, for example, impaired driving or criminal negligence. Is the government moving to introduce an amendment which would be sufficiently narrow as to withstand constitutional challenge, but at the same time would operate to

March 6, 1981
Oral Questions
keep those drivers who have been proved dangerous off the road?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I think the question put by the hon. member is a very valid one. We are studying the drafting necessary in order to come up with an amendment to the Criminal Code to make sure that these offences can be dealt with by the courts. I hope when the amendment is ready we will have the collaboration of the opposition to close that gap as quickly as possible.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, will the minister ask the government House leader to give this matter priority attention? The matter, I am sure, will receive unanimous consent to pass quickly. It is a matter of serious importance to protect people against those drivers who have been disqualified for driving but who are driving on the roads at the present time.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very good suggestion, and as soon as I am ready I will be in touch with the government House leader.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I will try to get a straight answer from him.


An hon. Member:: Some hope.


John Horton McDermid: I am going to try.
As the minister knows, Renault of France has bought into the American Motors Corporation and the deal is now before the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Will the minister assure us, and assure the workers at the Canadian plants of American Motors, that any decision he makes will not jeopardize workers jobs because of an overly restrictive government decision?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, the decision will be made not by myself but by the governor in council as is provided for by the act. Also provided under the act the decision will be taken in the light of the necessity of indicating significant benefit to Canada. This particularly involves the interests of workers. Considerations with respect to the interests of the workers will be very important in our efforts.


John Horton McDermid: I find it interesting that all your press releases say you approve of these deals. The assurance that you have given-


An hon. Member:: Address the Chair.


Mr. Trudeau:: Order, Madam Speaker.


John Horton McDermid: My apologies, Madam Speaker. With respect to the assurance which the minister has given to the workers, is it as ironclad as the assurance he gave to the McDonnell Douglas workers, another 250 of whom have been laid off recently?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, with respect to the matter of American Motors and Renault, we have the leverage of the Foreign Investment Review Act passed by this Parliament. To the extent of the authority given to me by Parliament and the authority given to the governor in council by Parliament, we will operate in a way which serves, to the best of our ability, the best interest of the workers at Brampton and the entire Canadian economy.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware of the practices of the Farm Credit Corporation which are allowing entrepreneurs and individuals other than farmers to buy up farm credit loans at the low preferred interest rate, thus denying the bona fide farmer from having this opportunity?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, if I understood the hon. member's question, I am not aware of that at all. If he has evidence, I would like to see it so that I can bring it to the attention of the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation.


William C. Scott: Madam Speaker, I have evidence which I will be glad to supply to the Minister of Agriculture. I think this is a very unfair practice where farmers are denied the privilege of buying agricultural land which is slipping into the hands of entrepreneurs and profiteers. These people want to take over the mortgages at low interest rates and they will then probably redevelop and sell the land. In other words, they will take over the farmer's contract at the low interest rate.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I do know that there are farmers who have been able to take over mortgages at that rate of interest, which is an enviable one. Sometimes it is an old mortgage which they are liable to carry over. But I know of no non-farmer being able to take over a mortgage as was suggested. If that is being done, it is highly irregular.
March 6, 1981


DISASTERS
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: On February 24, Madam Speaker, I directed a question to the Minister of National Defence concerning the assistance program for flood victims. Since then, together with some of my colleagues, I have visited the stricken municipalities to meet with their mayors. On the basis of the information I have received, could the Minister of the Environment advise me, following the representations made by members from that area, whether the Canadian government intends to continue urging on the Quebec government the need and urgency to pursue the construction of embankments and dams along the Mille-Iles River and, if so, whether the Canadian government is ready to make additional funds available to carry out the work already started, in order to improve the flood conditions and compensate for the damage caused by the spring flooding?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, following the severe flooding in the province of Quebec in 1974 and 1976, the federal government put about $15 million into flood disaster payments in the province of Quebec to individuals who had been flood victims. In 1976, we signed a flood damage agreement. When it expires next March we will have contributed $5.2 million to construct flood control works in the Montreal area and for a feasibility study of increased storage in the upper Ottawa basin.
1 am pleased to indicate to the House that this week the federal government has approved an additional expenditure of $2.25 million to complete the flood control works and the study which I have just mentioned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATUS OF WOMEN
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Can he confirm that the new president of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women is to be Madam Lucie Pepin, the current vice-president, who believes the advisory council must "do things the way the government wants them done"?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have not heard this quote before. If the hon.
Oral Questions
member would be more explicit, I might be able to study the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Answer the question.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister whether he could confirm that Lucie Pepin is to be the new president. Obviously he declines to do that. May I then ask the Prime Minister this question; in view of the statement of the minister responsible for the status of women that he could not care less about what 1,000 plus women think, and since the minister made no contribution whatever to the charter in so far as women are concerned, does the Prime Minister not now agree that the minister responsible for the status of women is irresponsible, insensitive, and must be sacked?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Lashed as well. Perhaps 40 lashes.


An hon. Member:: He should be stripped.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am surprised to hear the hon. member make that statement because, when we introduced the amendments to the charter presently before the House, particularly the parts relating to the equality of the sexes, it was done on representations from the minister responsible for the status of women. At the time, the chairman of the council, Mrs. Anderson, said that they had her approval, and that is what the council wanted.


TELEVISION
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications.

The minister will know that in January in the city of Calgary the televising of the House of Commons and the constitutional committee disappeared from the screens of cable subscribers to be replaced by a recipe program. Could the minister tell us whether the city of Calgary was singled out, whether other provinces are involved, and whether or not the recipes are being screened as to their Canadian content?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. However, I would like to verify the matter with the CRTC so I can give the hon. member a comprehensive reply. We are interested, as is the hon. member, in ensuring that the constitutional debate is seen widely throughout the country because the more the constitutional debate is

March 6, 1981
Oral Questions
seen, the better the opportunity for Canadians to understand this government's position properly.


Erik Nielsen: Not any other position.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I would love to have the Canadian people understand the position of this government on the Constitution.


An hon. Member:: They already know it.


An hon. Member:: Give a recipe for it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Could the minister indicate whether or not he is prepared to take immediate action to see that cable subscribers in the city of Calgary have the opportunity to watch the debate which is presently taking place, without facing the additional cost of a converter? Can we have the House of Commons back to replace the recipes, and will the minister use his good offices to achieve that result quickly?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has completely changed the premise of his question from saying that the people of Calgary were denied coverage of the debate to saying that it is available on cable, but that you need a converter to receive it. Actually his premise is quite different. In any event, I will be pleased to ask the chairman of the CRTC to look into the matter and let me have a report so that I can inform the hon. member.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Within the near future it is anticipated that the federal government, through its agent Petro-Canada, will announce that the wheels have been set in motion for the drilling of oil in the Hibernia and Ben Nevis oil fields on the banks off the coast of Newfoundland. I wish to ask the minister, in light of the controversy which has existed for many years between Canada and France over fishing rights in the waters surrounding St. Pierre and Miquelon, whether a similar dispute exists over oil drilling rights and, if so, what steps are being taken to resolve this issue?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, negotiations between Canada and France are beginning with respect to the problems off St. Pierre and Miquelon. In due course I hope to have further information to report to the House.


POSSIBILITY OF OIL SPILLS-STEPS TO PROTECT EAST COAST FISHERIES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I will direct my supplementary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since uncontrolled oil wells and spills are not an uncommon occurrence in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea, what steps will be taken when drilling begins to protect the fishing resource in this area and, if a spill occurs, what machinery has been or is the government contemplating will be put in place to provide financial support to the fishermen affected, especially in Newfoundland and in my native province of Nova Scotia?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his expression of concern in this respect. It is of great concern to the government. There is now before the national resources committee Bill C-48, the Canada Lands Act, which has many provisions dealing with environmental issues and the protection of resources. I hope this bill will receive prompt consideration and support from opposition parties because it provides for some of the most strict requirements in terms of environment of any legislation in the world. We looked at legislation in other countries and tried to put in our legislation the most strict requirements compared to those in other countries. I hope those requirements will be effective in meeting the concerns expressed by the hon. member.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion as one of the ministers in chrrge of the herd maintenance program. It has to do with appeal board procedures. It was understood that the appeal board would make the final decision on eligibility criteria for applicants under the herd maintenance program. We are finding that producers with little or no crop can be thrown out because of an override by a secret rainfall map, thus making the whole appeal board process useless. Are administrative changes being made now since there is only a short time left for the program? Is the minister now prepared to provide the appeal board with the necessary powers to deal with each individual case on its own merits?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: With all due respect, Madam Speaker, the hon. member has not represented the facts correctly. The appeal board has no right to set the criteria. They have been set by cabinet and Treasury Board, and their role is to implement them.


An hon. Member:: Change them.
March 6, 1981


Pierre De Bané: No, I will not change them because they were drawn up very carefully after consulting a very wide spectrum of the farm organizations in the prairie provinces. There is no way 1 can transfer to the appeal board the powers that are invested under the administration act with the PFRA. They are there to advise the department and give their opinion, but there is no way I can renege on the responsibilities of PFRA to make the ultimate decision. I hope within the next month the whole situation will be cleared up, particularly in Saskatchewan where there is a problem.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Of the approximately 14,000 appeals to the board, approximately 1,000 were dealt with. The deadline for the funding is March 31. In light of the 13,000 appeals to be dealt with in less than four weeks, is consideration being given to extending the funding of the program to apply after March 31?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, 1 discussed the whole matter with the director of PFRA yesterday. He assures me there is every possibility of completing the program by the end of this month. Second, the number of appeals the hon. member mentioned is substantially higher than my information. Finally, we must not forget that over 24,000 farmers have already received payment.


MARINE TRANSPORT
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of a series of questions asked by the distinguished member for Halifax West and others in connection with the move by Dart containerlines in association with Canadian Pacific Steamships Limited from the port of Halifax to Montreal. Does the Minister of Transport consider it proper conduct by the president of Canadian National Railways not to have advised him some months ago when he became aware of this pending move? Does the minister consider that proper conduct with regard to Dr. Bandeen's responsibility to Parliament?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the president of Canadian National was aware of the move. I will find out when 1 see him on Monday. When I spoke to him the day the Dart move was announced, it was my impression that he had not been completely informed of what was happening. That would be normal. Because of the CN involvement with Cast, possibly the Dart people were not too keen to inform him.


J. Michael Forrestall: We welcome the initiative taken by Premier Buchanan and ministers of the government of Nova Scotia to meet with the minister early next week, I believe Tuesday, to discuss all the implications of this. 1 am sure the minister will want all factual data before him at that meeting. Dr. Bandeen
Oral Questions
has repeatedly assured the minister that both Dart and CP insist it is not because of excessive freight rates that the move is being made from Halifax to Montreal. Have either the president of CN or Dart officials indicated what is the reason? It takes between eight and ten days to move a container from Halifax to Montreal for further distribution. Did the president of CN indicate that the root cause is the delay in moving containers from our region to the central region for redistribution?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, answering that question would be an essay on competitive advantage. The port of Montreal has some advantages, as does the port of Halifax. There is no doubt that the possibility of ships coming to Montreal by river, with cheaper transportation costs, would be an advantage. The purpose of the meeting on Tuesday is to elicit all these factors and to bring about an awareness so that the public will be in a better position to judge what is at stake in these matters.
So it is a matter of freight rates, it is a matter of location, it is a matter of port charges, it is a matter of icebreaking, and so forth. On Tuesday we should give the public a good indication of the complexity of that situation.


CANADA DAY
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications. I have in my possession a copy of a letter which was sent to the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications by Mr. Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, chairman of Semaine du Canada. In the letter the chairman of the Canada Week committee asks when the minister will bring in legislation designating July 1 as Canada Day. Since this is a question which is of great interest to at least 99 per cent of Canadians, would the minister please tell this House whether such legislation will be introduced before July 1, 1981? The other 1 per cent are in the official opposition.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for his question, which I am sure is of great interest to many Canadians across the land. I remind the hon. member that the government introduced a bill proposing that July 1 henceforth be known as Canada Day. I believe that bill was introduced in the House last June. With the help and consent of the opposition parties we at that point introduced a bill giving Canada a national anthem. I hope our House leader is successful once again in obtaining that type of consent from the opposition parties so that this year July 1 can finally be known as Canada Day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 6, 1981
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice in his role as the Acting Solicitor General. 1 am sorry to see that the Solicitor General is absent from the House. I have been informed that the government plans to move the headquarters of "E" Division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police out of Victoria. This means the loss of 208 jobs. Would the minister tell us if the government really intends to go through with this ill-advised move and, if so, why?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of such a decision. I will bring the problem to the attention of the Solicitor General, and he will reply to the hon. member early next week.


PUBLIC WORKS
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. It is only two years since the government purchased the building the RCMP is now going to vacate in Victoria. It will make a nice companion piece to the empty CBC building in Victoria the government built two years ago and which has never been occupied. Can the Minister of Public Works explain what the government has against Victoria? Has the government any plans to utilize these two expensive buildings, or are they to serve only as monuments to Liberal incompetence?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to receive the hon. gentleman's question as notice. I must admit that I am surprised because I have had the opportunity to meet with ministers in the government of the province of British Columbia. As a matter of fact I met with three ministers in concert, and I received no representations from them.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. A short time ago he took a swing around western Canada, and while in the province of Alberta he made some comments about his proposal to bring in a bill similar to my Bill C-245 which would make use of some $9 million in the old prairie farm emergency fund, for research and development. Just after his trip he was reported on a program called "Call of the Land", on CHRB High
River, on February 9, to have said that this money, referring to the $9 million, "which has been sitting around gathering interest was collected years ago from the old farm emergency fund." I do not think the minister would like to leave any wrong impression in the minds of the people in the west. Would he confirm that this $9 million plus has been sitting in the prairie farm emergency fund since 1972 and has not drawn a cent of interest?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, all the hon. member has to do is check the record to see what I said when his private member's bill was before the House. I said it was a non-interest bearing fund and that it was not bearing interest. I have no knowledge of what was broadcast in High River. That station is generally fair and reports very well. However, 1 have checked my records, and I found nothing on the tapes I made when I was in that part of western Canada to the effect of what the hon. member says. It seems to me that the report referred to by the hon. member was prepared by someone and put on the air, but it was not in accordance with anything 1 have said or anything I have recorded.


AIRPORTS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The minister will know that there has long been an urgent need to reactivate the former military Boundary Bay air base in Delta, British Columbia. That plan has long been advocated by the minister's own officials in order to relieve the congestion at the Vancouver International Airport and in particular to provide an alternative for general aviation aircraft. The minister also realizes that the former Conservative minister of transport and the former minister of the environment approved the reactivation of Boundary Bay airfield over a year ago.
I want today to ask the minister why he is dragging his feet. Why have no further steps or initiatives been taken to get on with reactivating this very important airport in order to improve safety and expand air space in the immediate Vancouver area?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I agree with everything the hon. member has said and acknowledge the quality of the project devised by my predecessor. The British Columbia Development Corporation was going to use the offer made to privatize the airport in that fashion. The corporation explored that offer for a period of time, but recently said it could not proceed. My department is looking for another potential acquirer now.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, in view of the importance of this long overdue project to aviation enthusiasts, but more particularly to the aviation industry in British Columbia, I cannot understand why the minister has not called for innova-
March 6, 1981

tive proposals such as the previous plan, and why he has not called for proposals from various entrepreneurial groups in order to get on with the undertaking of this important project. Instead, he has chosen to negotiate in secret with the British Columbia Development Corporation. Now those negotiations have collapsed and the BCDC has withdrawn from this project.
When will the minister get on with negotiating in public with all those interested parties who would like to undertake an innovative plan for the reactivation of the Boundary Bay airport?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I was not aware that it was a secret affair. As a matter of fact I thought it was very much in the public domain. I remember going to British Columbia and referring to it with the press, so what the hon. member says is news, as far as I am concerned. As far as I am concerned it was a very public matter, and if nothing else has been done that is simply because there were high hopes that it would develop in the way it was intended, that is, through action by the British Columbia development group. This having failed, my department is now looking for other opportunities, in exactly the spirit indicated by the hon. member.


CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Representations have come from both sides of the House that the $20,000 limit under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation should be raised. The minister was kind enough to make known to all Members of Parliament the fact that this is being studied by the corporation, and he expected a report in the near future. Can the minister tell us whether that report will be made before June, or will we have to wait for the loan and trust companies legislation? Will we have that before the summer break?


Erik Nielsen: Yes or no.


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I will not be as laconic as the hon. member for Yukon wants me to be. Given the seriousness of the question put to me I would rather take this opportunity to clarify my thoughts and indicate to the hon. member that I did receive a report from the actuaries of the office of the Superintendent of Insurance and from the CDIC. I apologize but I cannot translate the acronym of the organization which makes recommendations, but I will submit them to my cabinet colleagues. As soon as I get their support I will be pleased to seek the co-operation of the President of the Privy Council and the House leaders with a view to introducing legislation. However, since the trust and loans companies bill remains for me a
Oral Questions
priority item I might be able, as I also intend to do, to introduce all those measures in one single package.


WESTERN ONTARIO CREDIT CORPORATION LTD. EFFECT OF STOP TRADING ORDER
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, as the minister knows, yesterday a stop trading order was issued by the Ontario Securities Commission against a company called Western Ontario Credit Corporation Ltd. I have learned that this company owns 34 per cent of the shares of the federally chartered trust company, Income Trust Company, which operates in Toronto and southwestern Ontario.
Can the minister give us the assurance that the stop trading order will have no effect on the business and the reputation of Income Trust Company, and can he tell us whether, when he brings in legislation with respect to trust companies, he might not consider the problems that are created by the fact that we have interdependence and interlinking between mortgage brokerage firms, which are regulated on the provincial level, and trust companies, many of which are chartered at the federal level, and that tremendous problems are created as a result?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, first I will comment briefly on the last part of the hon. member's question. I should like to point out to him that indeed I share his reservations about the interlinking between federally chartered trust companies which also operate under a provincial permit. This question will have to be answered in that legislation.
In addition, concerning the issuance of a stop trading order by the Ontario Securities Commission against Western Ontario Credit Corporation Limited, I might remind the hon. member that, as he knows, the corporation is regulated on the provincial level. Never did the Ontario Securities Commission order involve the Income Trust Company which falls under federal jurisdiction. According to the report I got today from the Superintendent of Insurance, the Income Trust Company is in a sound financial situation and as far as he knows the investigation being carried out by the Ontario Securities Commission does not in any way reflect upon the financial status or the management of the Income Trust Company.

March 6, 1981
Oral Questions


ASTRA TRUST
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, the reason this is of such concern is that we saw from the affairs involving the Astra Trust company that there was no communication and there was an interlinking which was very serious. With respect to the Astra Trust company situation, 1 should like to put a question to the minister directly. Yesterday, in the House of Commons, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said:
-the focus of a criminal trial will be on several narrowly defined legal issues and would largely overlook, if not entirely ignore, the major structural problems-
Then he called for a public inquiry in the case of the oil companies. I should like to ask the minister how he can continue to argue that a criminal trial alone will tell the public and the government all we really need to know about the reason that Astra Trust was given a licence in the first place and the way in which Astra Trust was allowed to operate over a period of time when money was passing back and forth between Astra Trust and provincially incorporated mortgage companies, and why a public inquiry is not justified in this case.


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the hon. member brings up the case of the oil companies and the public inquiry called by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to draw an analogy with the conclusions or the investigation procedure relating to the Re-Mor case. I like analogies. I could carry his analogy further, providing we compare objects of similar nature, for he knows very well that an analogy must be drawn between objects of similar nature. 1 still believe that common sense will dictate what has to be done to redress the situation in the case of Astra Trust and Re-Mor. In his previous question the hon. member himself gave an idea of the type of solution which is called for. He knows that legislation is forthcoming and that we will be able to take such corrective action. He also knows that what matters is that the people who were victims of fraud will be compensated; this will be done at the federal level by our corporation which will cover them for up to $20,000. Second, it is important that the criminals who made those people lose money be prosecuted. As he knows, criminal charges were laid earlier this week against eight individuals, therefore due process of law is under way.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure the minister is aware of the serious economic difficulties in which Canadian cattle producers are finding themselves. May I ask the minister whether he is actively considering taking any initiatives which may have the effect of alleviating the difficult circumstances, such as the amendment and early enactment of the meat import law, the institution of income averaging trust provisions for farmers, and any program to alleviate the impact of high interest rates, such as the extension of the small business bond program to unincorporated farms? Can he also tell us whether any action is being considered to review and examine the current stabilization program, because action on any one or all of these issues would serve to alleviate some of the difficulties cattlemen are now experiencing?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that I have great concern for all sectors of the agricultural community, no matter where they may be or what their production may be. We hope that the meat import act will be placed before Parliament, if not next week, then the following week. I have talked to some of the hon. member's colleagues, to his House leader and to our House leader, and it seems that this legislation will get speedy second reading and will be sent to the committee soon. We are looking at some of the other suggestions he has made. I met with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and I spoke to them yesterday evening. I outlined some of the hon. member's concerns in my presentation to them. If the hon. member wants to read it, he will see some of the measures we are considering.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the conduct of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. According to the provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act of 1977, section 10:
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development shall, within 60 days after the first day of January of every year including and occurring between the years 1978 and 1998, submit to the House of Commons a report on the implementation of the provisions of this act for the relevant period.
No reports were tabled in 1978 and 1979 and no report has been tabled this year. My point of order-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is not really raising a point of order. I am sure he is pursuing a valid
March 6, 1981

concern, but until now I can see no point of order in what he is saying.


Peter Ittinuar: Madam Speaker, my point of order is that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) should be called upon to live up to the requirements of an act which was passed by Parliament.


Madam Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


PRIVILEGE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege arising from the question period. The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis), in putting a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox), said that 99 per cent of Canadians were in favour of Canada Day. Then he looked over at our side of the House and, indicating us, said that the official opposition represent the other 1 per cent.
My question of privilege is that we on this side of the House feel that, while symbols are all right, they are not the sole preserve of the Liberal Party; they belong to everyone in Canada. The hon. member has misrepresented deliberately the position of both opposition parties which, I understand, are in favour of Canada Day. I say to the hon. member, through you, Madam Speaker, that he should not be misrepresenting our position. If he really wants to put some substance behind his symbols, we could celebrate 100 Canada Days-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It has just been drawn to my attention that the hon. member used the words "deliberately misrepresented"; I did not catch that. I think the hon. member must be more careful in his use of language. The expression "deliberately misrepresented" should not be used in Parliament, and I would ask him either to rephrase his question or withdraw the word "deliberately."


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I shall, Madam Speaker. I did not mean to use the word "deliberately." But 1 would ask the hon. member not to misrepresent our position on Canada Day.


Madam Speaker:: I am not sure whether the hon. member has a question of privilege. He has made a point about interjections across the floor. This occurs daily. Some are pleasant, some are unpleasant. It is not for me to determine whether they are or not, and certainly it is not a breach of privilege.
______________________________________7983
Order Paper Questions




[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Cullen.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table today on behalf of myself and the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) the report, in both official languages, of the Antidumping Tribunal respecting the Canadian footwear industry.


CRIMINAL CODE
Jesse Philip Flis: for leave to introduce Bill C-632, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I should like to take advantage of Standing Order 68(2) to give a succinct explanation of the provisions of this bill.
The purpose of this bill is to define the exception in the present law that allows an abortion where there is "danger to the health" of a pregnant woman should the pregnancy continue.
The bill is consistent with the intent of the present law as expressed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) when he introduced it in 1969. He left no doubt that the original intention of the legislation was that "therapeutic abortions" would be an exceptional procedure, invoked only after strict compliance with the law: the abortion was to be performed by a medical practitioner supported by a therapeutic abortion committee of medical practitioners in an approved hospital, and it was to be performed only where the health or life of the mother is in danger.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[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

March 6, 1981
Order Paper Questions
questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,849, 1,881, 1,903, 1,904 and 1,910.
[ Text]


Mr. Wenman: 1.	Has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs pursued the complaint under Section 7 of the Combines Investigation Act concerning the mini-land bridge rate in Vancouver and, if not, is it because of the difficulty in obtaining a conviction?
2.	Is there a policy regarding licensing of transportation firms in Canada so as to ensure fair competition and to safeguard Canadian interests?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Departments of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Transport as follows:
I.	Upon receipt of the six-resident application under Section 7 of the Combines Investigation Act for an inquiry into miniland bridge rates, the Director of Investigation and Research immediately commenced an inquiry into the matter. The director has very recently concluded that the matter being inquired into does not justify further inquiry and. pursuant toSection 14 of the Combines Investigation Act, advised the minister and the applicant of such a fact.
2.	The policy regarding licensing of transportation firms in Canada is contained in the various acts governing modes of transportation under federal jurisdiction: the Railway Act, the Aeronautics Act, the Transport Act (for marine) and the National Transportation Act (for solids pipelines). The general test that is employed to determine whether or not a licence should be issued is whether a proposed service is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity. No specific directions "to ensure fair competition" or "to safeguard Canadian interests" are included in legislation. However, the general nature of the public convenience and necessity test allows the Canadian Transport Commission to consider a wide variety of factors which it, the applicant or any intervenor may wish to bring to bear in connection with an application for a licence. National transportation policy (as enunciated in Section 3 of the National Transportation Act) calls for "an economic, efficient and adequate transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost." This general policy applies to modes of transport under federal jurisdiction.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence place a $43,270 order for spoons with Heritage Silversmiths Ltd. and, if so (a) how many were ordered (b) are they to be used in an officers' mess and, if not, where will they be used?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Department of National Defence and Supply and Services as follows: two contracts have been awarded by the Department of Supply and
Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence to Heritage Silversmiths Ltd. for spoons. The details are as follows:
(a)		Contract	
Quantity	Description	Value	Date of Award16,000 60,000	Silverplated Tea Spoon Stainless Steel Dessert	$25,120	October 31, 198076,000	Spoon	$18,150 $43,270	November 4, 1980
(b) The silverplated spoons were purchased for issue to officers' messes and to Canadian Forces Attaches' residences.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Did the deputy minister of Communications give a speech to the Harvard University Program on Information Resources Policy on November 11, 1980, in which he staled "The opening of satellite competition to the telephone companies in the United States would affect these arrangements. Should that large proportion of Canadian industry that is U.S.-owned be permitted to communicate with their head offices exclusively by U.S. satellites, this would have an important effect on the viability of the Canadian Telecommunications System, and this would have to be taken into account in the formulation of Canadian policies" and, if so, what projections, if any, does the government have of potential effects upon the Canadian Telecommunications System of competition from satellite telephone transmissions across the Canada-U.S. border?
2.	Has the issue been raised with the government of the United States and, if so, with what effect?
3.	What are the options being considered by the government as indicated by the deputy minister of communications?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: In so far as the
Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows: 1. Yes. Should the use of domestic satellite facilities for transborder telephone, data and video traffic be approved, the government is concerned that an imbalance favouring the use of U.S. satellites might develop if firms headquartered in the U.S., which would use U.S. systems for their U.S. domestic requirements, were to make use of these systems to serve their Canadian offices as well. This could adversely affect existing arrangements between the domestic common carriers on both sides of the border which ensure the equitable sharing of terrestrial traffic and revenues, as well as the provision of some Canadian traffic carried on Canadian facilities. Until the kinds of systems and services which eventually might be established are known with greater certainty, it would not be possible to develop accurate projections of the likely impact on existing systems.
2.	Yes. This question has been raised informally between senior Canadian and U.S. officials. Both sides recognize the need to meet our international obligations under the Intelsat Agreement and to proceed carefully in introducing any transborder satellite services; further discussions will take place at an appropriate time. At present an exchange of letters in 1972 permits such services to be established only under very limited circumstances.
3.	The government is studying the means by which such services might be introduced in an orderly manner, consistent
March 6, 1981

with the need to ensure an equitable share of the revenues and industrial benefits for Canadian carriers and the minimum disruption of the terrestrial transborder facilities and intercarrier arrangements that are already in existence.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth): What issues, projects and subject-matter is the Consumer Services Branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs currently considering either singly, or in co-operation with other departments and what is the status of each investigation under active consideration?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: The Consumer Services Branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada is currently involved in the following areas: 1. Mail Order Sales: Resolution of individual consumer complaints against Canadian Consumer Co. Ltd., Lanover Inc., the Mail Store and Jay Norris Ltd.; ad hoc actions relating to selling campaigns of individual companies; general monitoring of the marketplace; development of broad industry as a prelude to the making of policy proposals.
Co-operation: Working liaison with Quebec Ministere des Consommateurs, Co-operatives et Institutions Financieres; liaison with other provinces, the Post Office; the Daily Newspaper Publishers' Association; the office of the Inspector General of Banks; the Canadian Direct Mail Marketing Association; the Advertising Standards Council; the Better Business Bureau of Canada; and the Commercial Crime unit of the RCMP.
2.	Motor Vehicle Corrosion: Seeking input from all provinces to determine whether the present level of compliance, by the motor vehicle industry, with the Federal-Provincial AntiCorrosion Code for motor vehicles warrants further action. Co-operation: With all provinces. There is also liaison with auto manufacturers and importers.
3.	Support of consumer groups: A full review of policies and procedures relating to departmental support of consumer groups is under way. The branch is represented on a small interdepartmental committee examining proposals to encourage and support voluntary groups (including consumer groups) through the income tax system.
Co-operation: Environment, Secretary of State, Health and Welfare, Canadian International Development Agency.
4.	Consumer Representation: The branch is exploring the subject of cost awards to intervenors in federal regulatory processes to determine whether a more general use of cost awards would enhance the representation of consumer interests. The Department of Justice is now preparing a preliminary assessment of the laws which are applicable, upon receipt of which the Consumer Services Branch and the Consumer Research and Evaluation Branch will develop proposals for further action.
Co-operation: Consumer Bureau project.
Order Paper Questions
5.	Vehicle Problems: The branch is monitoring the progress of action in the United States which seeks to determine whether there is a widespread defect in certain General Motors' automatic transmissions which causes these transmissions to fail (in the owner's assessment) prematurely.
Co-operation: Liaison with Ministry of Transport regarding automobile recall programs.
6.	International Year of the Disabled: The branch is in the process of identifying programs and projects for implementation during 1981 through which tangible benefits would accrue to disabled consumers.
Co-operation: To be determined.
7.	Tax Rebate Discounting: The branch is responsible for the administration of the federal Tax Rebate Discounting Act. In some provinces, enforcement of the act is shared with, or primarily the responsibility of, provincial offices.
Co-operation: provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba.
8.	Summer Programs: Based on past experience with the dissemination of consumer information using students hired under federal employment creation programs, Consumer Services is determining whether its objectives can again be met in 1981-82 using a similar approach.
Co-operation: Consumer Bureau project.
9.	Gasoline: The branch is a member of an interdepartmental task force created to examine the matter of lead as a gasoline additive. Participation is on an as-required basis. This task force has met once.
Co-operation: Environment, Energy, Mines and Resources, Ministry of Transport.
10.	Market Intelligence: The branch is implementing steps to improve its knowledge of understanding of trends and developments affecting consumers in the marketplace, as a basis for the development and implementation of appropriate responses which protect and advance consumer interests. This project is about to commence implementation.
Co-operation: Consumer Bureau project.
11.	In addition to the above specific project areas, the Consumer Services subactivity (which includes both the Consumer Services Branch and staff in field offices across the country) is involved on an ongoing basis in the following areas: dealing with individual consumer complaints and inquiries (some 200,000 anticipated in 1980-81); developing and distributing consumer information on a wide range of subjects for dissemination through the media, presentations, displays and seminars; administration of on-going consumer information programs such as Food Basics, Food Talk, New Parents Kits (Product Safety); administration of the contributions and consumer help office programs; maintaining liaison with other groups in the consumer field such as provincial governments, consumer groups, industry groups and associations, and the media.

March 6, 1981
Order Paper Questions THOUSAND ISLANDS BRIDGE


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Canadian section of the Thousand Islands Bridge under the control of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority?
2.	Is there a lease between the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and the Thousand Islands Bridge Authority in the United States to operate the Canadian span on behalf of the government and, if so, what are the general terms of the lease including duration, renewability, financial arrangements, etc?
3.	Who is responsible for hiring the maintenance staff working on the Canadian section of the bridge?
4.	(a) What are the various categories of persons employed for maintenance duties on the Canadian section of the bridge and what is the wage in each case (b) to the knowledge of the government, how do such wages compare to those paid United States citizens working on the American part of the bridge (c) if the Americans are paid more money, who is responsible and for what reason (d) will Canadian wages be raised to a more comparable level and (i) if so, on what date (ii) if not, for what reason?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. The general terms of the lease are:
(a)	The Thousand Islands Bridge Authority shall manage, operate and maintain the Canadian property for the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority.
(b)	The bridge authority shall charge and collect tolls. No change in tolls shall be made except as mutually agreed between the U.S. and Canadian parties.
(c)	The parties shall share equally all revenues from tolls and all bridge operation maintenance expenses.
(d)	All expenses related to capital improvements to Canadian property shall be paid by the seaway authority.
(e)	General revenue related to the use of Canadian property, other than bridge tolls, shall belong to the seaway authority. Proprietary expenses in connection with this property shall be borne by the seaway authority.
(0 The term of the agreement is for ten years beginning on March 1, 1977, and terminating on February 28, 1987, which term shall automatically be renewed from year to year thereafter unless or until terminated on the last day of such term or any renewal year term by at least one year's written notice from one party to the other party.
(g)	The bridge authority shall be entitled to an annual management fee which shall be either (i) the sum of $60,000 U.S. or (ii) a sum equal to 30 per cent of the seaway authority's share of net toll revenues for the fiscal year, whichever is greater.
(h)	The bridge authority shall make all its books and records available to audit by the seaway authority.
(i)	The bridge authority shall enable persons acting on behalf of the seaway authority to inspect the condition of facilities of the Thousand Islands Bridge operation.
3.	The management of the Thousand Islands Bridge Authority.
4.	(a)	Beginning Rate
General Maintenance	$168 per week
Custodial Maintenance	$168 per week
These rates are subject to increase based on seniority. Canadian citizens are paid in Canadian dollars while U.S. citizens are paid in U.S. dollars.
(b)	See 4(a).
(c)	Not applicable.
(d)	Not applicable.


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


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Francis Fox: that Bill C-55, an act to amend the Canada Student Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
He said: First of all, Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my comments on this bill which is rather important for Canadian students by thanking the members of the opposition. I had discussions first of all with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), then with the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), after which my own House leader met with the other House leaders who agreed that this bill could go through all stages today, and those who will benefit most from this will be the students of this country.

Bill C-55 proposes amendments to the Canada Student Loans Act. This act, which is well-known to hon. members, enables full-time post-secondary students in financial need to obtain loans to assist them in meeting their educational costs, where they would be otherwise unable to pursue their personal educational goals.
The amount of loan assistance granted to any individual is determined by provincial authorities in accordance with minimum criteria agreed to by all participating provincial govern-
March 6, 1981

merits and, of course, the federal government. The loans are advanced by chartered banks or other designated lenders such as credit unions. The Canadian government pays the interest charges on the loans while the students are enrolled in universities or community colleges and for a six-month period thereafter and guarantees lenders against any loss under the program.
The act was introduced in 1964 and has been amended only once, in 1970, although changes in loan limits have been effected twice by means of appropriations items, the most recent in 1975.
[ Translation]
I could perhaps add at this time, Madam Speaker, that this program of course applies throughout Canada, but that the province of Quebec has opted out, which means that while this legislation does not apply to individual students in Quebec, the amounts will be transferred to the Quebec government to finance student assistance programs. This year, nearly $21 million will be transferred to the Quebec government under this program, and since this program was implemented in 1964, over $126 million have been transferred to the Quebec government to be made available to Canadian students who are residents of Quebec.

I should like to emphasize how much I appreciate the co-operation of all parties in the House which has allowed this bill to be brought forward for second reading at this time. Even though we are all preoccupied with the overwhelmingly important issue of constitutional reform, this bill is an essential piece of business since it will afford many young Canadians, approximately 6,000 per year, across Canada access to student loans to continue their education. In many cases they would otherwise be unable to do so.
One of the most important amendments proposed in this bill arises from the need to accommodate the increase in the number of courses less than the traditional 26 weeks in length which are available to young people as a result of the rapid growth in the number of community colleges and technical and vocational institutes at the post-secondary level. The main effect of this bill is to make students in community colleges qualify for aid under the Canada Student Loans Act.
At the other end of the spectrum the bill also provides for increased loans to students enrolled in courses longer than the traditional university academic year of 32 weeks, thus making it more practical for such students to continue their education without undue financial hardship.
The current legislation provides for a maximum loan of $1,800 in an academic year of at least 26 weeks' duration, as hon. members know. The bill before us proposes instead that loans be available to persons in periods of study of at least 12 weeks' duration. This amendment takes into consideration changes which have occurred in Canadian educational patterns since the initial bill was introduced.
Student Loans
The bill also proposes that the loan limit of $1,800 be expressed on a weekly basis, thus relating the maximum amount of loan aid a student may receive to the length of his or her course and, therefore, to the costs. The proposed weekly loan limit of $56.25 amounts to $1,800 for a 32-week course, the traditional university course length in which the majority of students are enrolled. Since the current legislation entitles students in 26 to 31-week courses and in semesters of 13 to 15 weeks, which form part of a longer course, to $1,800 and $900 respectively, we are providing in the bill that such students remain eligible for loans up to these limits rather than the lesser amounts which would result if the $56.25 weekly limit were to be applied. This is particularly important in certain cases, notably that of students at Memorial University in Newfoundland.
These two proposals will go some way toward meeting the financial needs of both those enrolled in colleges of applied arts and technology and similar institutions in courses between 12 and 26 weeks in length and those enrolled in courses longer than 32 weeks.
I might mention here that some provinces have suggested that the maximum loan limits should be raised substantially to provide more aid to needy students. However, at the same time, student groups generally have indicated strong opposition to any substantial increase in loan limits, insisting that loans should be replaced by non-repayable grants.
Of course, members of the House will be aware that a federal-provincial task force on student assistance was set up early in 1980 to examine the whole question of student assistance in Canada. The report of that task force was received by the Council of Ministers of Education and by myself at a meeting in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on January 27, 1981. The report includes a review of past studies in the area of student assistance, both in Canada and elsewhere. It also includes an analysis of existing student aid programs in Canada, the potential future trends which might bear on student aid in the 1980s, the principles and objectives which should govern student aid, and five program alternatives compatible with those principles and objectives.
The task force does not make specific recommendations, since it is intended to prompt public reaction. The Council and I, when releasing the report, invited comments on it from student groups, other interested groups and the general public by June 1 of this year. This input is expected to be considered by the Council of Ministers of Education and by myself in the fall with a view to considering what changes, if any, may be required in provincial and federal student assistance programs in Canada.
This bill, therefore, while important, does not propose sweeping changes to the program at the moment, but changes that we believe are essential to update the act in light of changing course patterns. Thus, it will not pre-empt any decisions which may flow from the work of the task force.
In addition to the important modification I have mentioned already, the bill proposes several amendments of a housekeeping nature. First, it proposes dropping the current requirement
7988

March 6, 1981
Student Loans
for a 12-month waiting period before applications may be accepted from those with permanent resident status. As members know, the Immigration Act of 1977 no longer permits a student to convert student visa status to permanent resident status while in Canada. Hence, the need for the waiting period is no longer relevant and it has been removed. I am sure this is a modification which will be welcomed by many students in this country who are here from other countries.
The bill also proposes inclusion of specific authority for the governor in council to make regulations respecting the denial of further assistance to those deliberately abusing the program. It also includes authorization for the governor in council to make regulations restricting payments to banks under the guarantee where a bank has failed, without cause, to submit claims for loss promptly, thus avoiding unnecessary accumulation of interest charges against the student borrower. The bill also provides for a change in the minister responsible, consequent upon the transfer of the program from the Department of Finance to the Department of the Secretary of State.
Finally, the bill includes the alteration of the loan year start date from July 1 to August 1 to coincide with the banking fiscal year, thereby facilitating interest payments to lenders.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that the amendments proposed are in some regards very important, particularly as they concern community college students and people in Canada who are here on a permanent resident basis. Many of the amendments are of a housekeeping nature, which are needed to update the legislation and are, of course, important in that respect to many students. I had occasion last spring to review with the National Union of Students the need for such changes as we are now proposing in this bill.
As I have also mentioned, the task force on student assistance has completed its report and interested groups are invited to comment upon it. When that process is complete, consideration will be given to the future direction of student assistance programs at both the provincial and federal levels of government. While some provincial authorities would prefer to see loan limits raised and while student groups oppose such a move, I believe both groups support the technical amendments proposed as a short-term measure.
Hon. members will appreciate that should this bill be acceded to it will be necessary to print and issue with dispatch new brochures to all concerned, together with the necessary modified application forms. The lead time for such printing will be some two months. And if the measures are to take effect for the 1981-82 school year, and I know all members are interested in seeing that it does come into effect as soon as possible, the necessary materials will have to be in the hands of students prior to the end of the current academic year in the spring of 1981. That is the main reason why I have asked members on all sides of the House for their co-operation in seeing that this bill be adopted as soon as possible.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to participate in this debate on Bill C-55, to amend the Canada Student Loans Act. I can assure the Secretary of
State (Mr. Fox) who so ably discussed the bill on second reading, that he does have our co-operation. But there are a few points that 1 would like to raise at this time. We understand the urgency to have this bill go through all readings today because of the 1981-1982 student year. No doubt these amendments are long overdue. In fact, some of them may not go far enough. However, we must deal with the bill as it is, and we propose to do so.
There are a few points I would like to make concerning student aid. When the program was set up in 1964, the principle of it was to help needy students obtain a post-secondary education. To a great extent I think this program has been successful and it has achieved that objective. As with most government programs, there are cases of abuse. I think that many of these cases could be eliminated if the income verification rate had to be, by law, higher than the present 5 per cent. I know that some provinces have a 100 per cent verification requirement applicable to parents' income and assets before consideration is given to loan applications. But that is not the case in all provinces. I think it is one area that we could possibly look at.
In view of the rumoured and much discussed possibility of the federal government's threatened cutbacks or elimination of federal funding to universities to the tune of approximately $1.5 billion, which has not as yet been denied by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) or the minister responsible for social development, I am sure that this act is only temporary. In fact, if that aid does not go to the provinces for post-secondary education, the burden of financing those programs will drop back on to the students and their parents, the provincial governments, or a combination of both. I imagine that we may be taking a long, hard look at this bill next year if that funding is changed with respect to the provincial governments. The fiscal agreement expires in March of 1982, which does not leave the government too much time to come up with a policy which will aid students if those cutbacks are carried out. If the cutbacks are carried out, I am sure we will be looking at a maximum loan of $9,800 in a lifetime. That figure would have to be reviewed, and reviewed rather quickly.
I am happy to see that the amendments will provide authority to relate the maximum repayment period to the size of the debt within the statutory maximum repayment period of ten years. It has been a little unrealistic to allow a student who may have borrowed $500 or $1,000 ten years to repay that loan. I am glad that has been amended within the act, because it has been an unnecessary expense to the government. I am also pleased to see the provisions to exclude students who default without just cause from further benefits, and I think that is a very important amendment.
A couple of areas that I would like to discuss may cause some controversy, but I think I would be negating my responsibility if I did not touch on them. The assessment process should, in my opinion, be universal. All provinces should adhere to the same criteria. Income and assets should be taken
March 6, 1981

into consideration, and I alluded to that earlier. This would probably eliminate some of the abuse of the program, although I must say I am very pleased to note that abuse of the program is not high. However, as a Member of Parliament 1 have, as 1 am sure most hon. members in the House have, had constituents tell me that there are some students getting loans within a community whose parents could well afford to help them out with their education. The fact that students are left with a deficit between need and aid reflects the necessity of reviewing the loan limits.
Another concern I have is the loans for offshore education. In 1978 and 1979, the figure reached approximately $4.25 million, primarily going into the United States, with $500,000 for the United Kingdom; $343,000 for Europe and about $150,000 for the rest of the world.
My concern is not the amount of money which is being loaned, but the monitoring of the standards of education from these offshore institutions. It is safe to say, I think, that most of the institutions have standards which compare favourably to Canadian institutions. However, a small percentage do not meet Canadian standards. The provinces, which submit the list of approved institutions to the student loans program, may have difficulty in monitoring standards and ensuring that students educated at offshore institutions will meet and match the requirements of the particular faculty of study in Canada. I think specifically of the medical profession, where students may study medicine at a university or medical school offshore, having used a loan from the program, only to find that they cannot pass the medical boards when they come back to Canada. This type of occurrence should be carefully looked at, either by the provinces under whose jurisdiction this falls, or if necessary, to save frustration and expense, by the federal program, which may have better or more able resources available through their consulates.
The eligible course length change is a long overdue measure. However, even the provision to include 12 week-courses is not, in my opinion, enough. This allows many community college and technical courses to be included, but it does not include apprenticeship programs.
I would like to talk for just a moment about recognized apprenticeship programs where there is block institutional training. In other words, an apprentice will work for a period of ten months, on-the-job training, and then will go to an institution for block training program. For those eight weeks, the student must apply for unemployment insurance. The first lesson we teach a young apprentice is how to apply for unemployment insurance. I think that is very regrettable, and I would ask the minister, in the review of the program, now that loan capabilities have been reduced on a weekly basis, which I think is excellent, to take a look at the apprenticeship program. I would much rather teach an apprentice how to borrow student funding and pay it back to the government than how to apply for unemployment insurance while he is continuing his education. An apprenticeship program is post-secondary education. It is just as important to this country as a university education or a community college education. Apprenticeship
Student Loans
programs are very important in this country today, particularly with the critical skills shortage we have here. Therefore, I would ask the minister to look carefully into this area when reviewing the report of the federal-provincial task force on student loans, because this particular act could pertain to apprenticeship programs which have been approved by the provinces, especially with the block institutional training.
Some of the apprenticeship institutional training is done four days on the job and one day in the school. That is a little easier. But in remote areas of northern Ontario, where you take the apprentice away from his job and put him into a college or a university some distance from his home for eight weeks, to put that person on unemployment insurance, to my way of thinking, is just completely unforgiveable in a country like ours. We should not be teaching our young people to claim unemployment insurance.
Having said all that, I would like to say that the Canada Student Loans program is actually one of the best student aid programs that you will find anywhere in the world. However, one of the problems which I have found with the program is that it is not sufficiently advertised. People at the secondary education level do not understand the loan program. Since the government is thinking of increasing its advertising budget by approximately $70 million, a few dollars might be taken from that to help educate those who may not be able to afford post-secondary education and therefore drop out of school. This information should be made available to students before they decide to enter the post-secondary education field.
The federal-provincial task force on student assistance has presented its preliminary report. This task force was put together by the Clark government, and I was pleased to read what is a very good report. My concern is that because this bill we are debating does not take into consideration any of the possible suggestions which may come from the task force, what may happen, as happened with its predecessor, the report and recommendations made by the federal-provincial task force on student aid in 1975-76, is that the recommendations will be shelved and nothing will be done to improve aid programs until a future task force makes the same recommendations, which would be a waste of time, effort and money. If changes are needed, we must make the changes now. I would encourage the minister to assure that, once various interest groups have commented on the report of the federal-provincial task force on student assistance, the necessary legislation and policy will be brought forward to the House as quickly as possible so we can update and make Canada's Student Loans program second to none in the world.


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. My party agrees that it is very important that the bill before us receive rapid acceptance so we can move on, and so its provisions can be available for those students who are interested in applying for the Canada Student Loans program in the forthcoming academic year 1981-82. As the minister said in his remarks, the bill is far from comprehensive. It is a kind of a patchwork, a bit of a housekeeping measure. He also remarked that since its incep-

March 6, 1981
Student Loans
tion in 1964 there have only been one or two amendments. I regret this, because it is obvious from the number of studies that have taken place and from the concern expressed by students that a great deal more needs to be done. I look forward with great hope, if not great faith, to the changes that may result from the task force report after all the suggestions and comments had been delivered to the minister. I may not be particularly hopeful but I certainly look forward to something more than is before us today.
Student aid really means providing accessibility. Through it we are trying to provide young students and those not so young who want an opportunity for retraining and for greater access to our institutions with the means to do so. A hundred years ago we were fighting for the same kind of accessibility in the elementary and secondary schools. Through full public education we achieved that; it is not without some imperfections but there has been a great deal of success.
1 look forward to the time when we can remove the financial obstacles that prevent eligible, capable, meritorious students from proceeding with their education. Then they can make the contribution to the country that many of them are presently prevented from making through lack of access to education. Anything that increases the access to university of capable young Canadians deserves the support of all parties in the House.
I have some mild disagreement with a couple of the remarks of the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDer-mid). 1 do not agree with a means test for parents. I feel it is quite an admirable thing to be an independent young person applying for a loan, and I hope that the hon. member did not mean to suggest that the parents of a young student should be subjected to a means test before a loan would be granted. Many young people are independent. I will use some of the terms that are commonly used by hon. members on that side: they are self-reliant, mature and want to get an education on their own. If I misrepresent what the hon. member said, I will be glad to withdraw it should he indicate that is the case. In any event, I do not agree with a means test for parents as a qualification for a student loan.
I also have difficulty with the suggestion that the payback period should be reduced for smaller loans. I was not at university when loans of this type were made. I can testify, however, that the period immediately following graduation, when I was a young man with a young family starting a career, was the most poverty-stricken time of my life.


An hon. Member:: Not now?


Mark Willson Rose: No, this is not the most poverty-stricken time I have ever gone through. Perhaps it is for the hon. member. 1 know he is a very successful entrepreneur. It may be tough for him but it is not tough for me. The tough time was just after graduation when I was trying to build a career for myself and look after my family. It would have been very difficult then to
pay back even an insignificant loan. I do not think we should make that provision.
On the other hand, I could agree with much of what the hon. member said about the apprenticeship program and the provision for student loans, rather than having an employer teach an apprentice about the great benefits and joys of unemployment insurance. I think he made an excellent point in this regard.
One of the reasons we can support the bill is the reduction in the course length required in order to qualify for loan assistance. This will be of benefit to people in vocational schools, community colleges and a number of technical schools. It is a positive move and deserves support.
The minister mentioned the National Union of Students and how influenced he was by that body. He should know that it has been pushing for a number of years to have provisions included in the Canada Student Loans Act for part-time students, those who may be parents or homemakers who want to take part-time courses, or those who are already working and want to take a night course. I am pleased that the students have finally penetrated the conscience of the government and won a reduction in the period of eligibility. I should like to emphasize, however, that the need of part-time students is very important and I regret that they have not been granted assistance.
All kinds of independent studies have examined this question and I shall list some of them. The Peitchinis report in 1971 entitled "Financing Post-Secondary Education in Canada" was issued by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and called for assistance to part-time students. In 1975 the federal-provincial working group on student assistance took the same stand. In 1978 the Alberta task force to review students' contribution to the cost of post-secondary education made a similar finding. Over 60 per cent of part-timers attending universities or post-secondary educational institutions are women. If the government is really serious about the retraining of women and increasing opportunities for them in this society, one of the best ways to achieve this would be to include a provision in the legislation for student loans for part-time students.
In his capacity as Minister of Communications, the minister is well aware of the possibilities or probabilities that the technological revolution resulting from Telidon, chip technology, computers, satellites, fibre optics, word processors, and all such interactive technology, will displace something like one billion women in the western world in the next ten years. Even if this is only partly true, it reinforces the case for including part-timers in the bill. The people displaced by this technology will be women and therefore they will need to be retrained.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: A very good point.


Mark Willson Rose: I agree with the House leader of the official opposition when he said that I made a very good point. I enthusiastically support that comment.


Jean-Luc Pepin: For acknowledging the obvious.
March 6, 1981


Mark Willson Rose: There is also the Anisef report commissioned by the Ontario government which pointed out the necessity for more part-time assistance and also dealt with the background of the people attending universities. Over the years we have boasted that we have provided opportunities for higher education to most Canadians. This report, however, establishes that six out of ten children from families of the richest quartile in society, the most affluent 25 per cent, attend universities or receive some post-secondary education, while only two out of ten children from the poorest quarter are afforded the same opportunity. There is a financial barrier there.


An hon. Member:: It is Liberal policy.


Mark Willson Rose: This is made even more difficult if the part-timers are excluded. If hon. members look at the demographics and see who go to universities and from what kinds of backgrounds, they will see that the situation is undemocratic. It is inequitable. We are saying this is the system and how it operates but let us not perpetuate that kind of inequitable operation. 1 bring that point forward as an extra one in an attempt to urge the minister to look at this matter of part-timers.
The gradual withdrawal by the federal government of student assistance programs somewhat concerns me and my party. The minister talked about $6,000 and changing from an annual maximum to a weekly maximum, and all the rest of it.


Francis Fox: There are 20 million more.


Mark Willson Rose: Since 1965, in terms of sharing, total loans and grants to the provinces have decreased. Compared to the provinces this share has decreased from 33 per cent to last year's share of about 18 per cent. I agree the global amount has been increased but the share has been reduced.


Francis Fox: What about post-secondary education? It is 57 per
cent.


Mark Willson Rose: Since the government moved to the established programs financing act two years ago, not only has the health care of the nation been messed up, but the government has allowed the universities and the provinces to escape the commitment they would have had to have on a dollar-to-dollar sharing basis. Members opposite cannot defend that. What they are doing is denying access. The government is withdrawing funds, as it is from many things.
The minister sounds like Lester Pearson. In 1963, Mr. Pearson promised 10,000 scholarships. But what did we get in 1964? We had the Canada Student Loans program. The government is providing no bursaries at all; it is providing a guaranteed loan. We applaud the government for that in some of our more tranquil moments. But I say to hon. members opposite, do not try to kid us about this. The proportional share to the provinces has declined, and I do not think hon. members opposite can escape that fact. The federal assistance is confined-
Student Loans


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) knows his statistics very well and he knows what the government's contribution is for post-secondary education. But the greatest part of our contribution to post-secondary education is not through the Canada Student Loans Act, although that is a substantial one and one that has been increased by $19.5 million this year. Our major contribution is through the established programs financing act where we pour something like $3 billion a year into post-secondary education in Canada. Over the life of the agreement, our share has risen to 57 per cent of the cost of post-secondary education in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Can you keep it there?


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, the support of the federal government of student loans in comparison to the total granting of student assistance funds has shrunk over the years from 33 per cent to about 18 per cent. The point I made about the established programs financing act has nothing to do with what the federal government is spending. The federal government is spending the money and it is not getting the credit for that. But because the federal government has allowed that, has permitted and encouraged that kind of block funding by this act, the federal government has allowed the provinces to escape their responsibilities. I am not blaming this particular minister. I am blaming the act which permits the siphoning off of federal funds intended for education into some other provincial project or priority. I think the minister is over-reacting.


Francis Fox: Unlike the hon. member.


Mark Willson Rose: This hon. member seldom over-reacts, even when provoked.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: Question.


An hon. Member:: Time is running out.


Mark Willson Rose: The minister's watch is fast. This is a good program. No one is suggesting it is not. But no one is suggesting that it is perfect either. We are just trying to increase the access to post-secondary education for members of low-income families, many of whom do not go to university because they do not want to get into debt for the next decade. Many can afford to go only part of the time. There are many other ways this legislation can be improved. It is good, but it is not perfect.
Let us consider next the task force. It is interesting that we heard about this task force on student aid, a wonderful move by the Clark government, but not one student was a member of the task force. I think it would have been nice to have had a student included. Maybe students were consulted, but students were very concerned there was no student represented on that task force. I think it is important that a student should have been included. Now that the minister has offered students access and suggestions, I hope that what comes out will be a result of their contributions and reflect much of their thinking.

March 6, 1981
Judges Act
There is a substantial amount now of student unemployment and youth unemployment, amounting to about 16 per cent across Canada. That is bound to have an effect on enrolment. Enrolment has probably peaked. We wonder why, when more students should be going to university, the proportion of the 18 to 24-year-olds attending university has declined. A number of things having to do with the economy has caused this decline. The cost of living, lack of student housing, lack of summer jobs and many other things contribute to a decline in the economy and bring about lack of opportunities for well-trained people. There are many people with university education who are performing jobs well below their skills because job opportunities have not opened up, mainly because of economic conditions.
Before I call it one o'clock, I might say to the minister that we are pleased we can participate and help him pass this bill so that this assistance will be available. We urge the minister to consider some of the remarks made by the various critics of the bill. When a full and comprehensive review of this legislation comes about, I hope the minister will seek advice from all political parties, all other sources, including employers, but above all from the beneficiaries of this legislation, who are the students themselves.


Walter David Baker: Question.
Motion, as amended, agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: At one o'clock the House had disposed of Bill C-55. As I understand it, hon. members may now be prepared to consider and put through final reading Bill C-34.


JUDGES ACT
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-34, to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me to speak at length this afternoon because, by its very nature, this piece of legislation should not be the subject of a protracted debate since, in that respect, it is our constitutional obligation here in the House-it is the only group of individuals, excepting hon. members of course, whose salaries are set by the House of Commons under the Constitution.
We already had a debate on second reading. We also had debates in committee and the bill is now back before the House with a few amendments because, in light of discussions in committee, the controversial aspect of the contributions of judges to their pension plan had to be reviewed. On behalf of the government, I committed myself before the members of the committee to appoint a review committee to re-examine the entire question of the pension of judges and the contribution they should make.

The judges have not had a salary increase for some time. The last one, in 1975, totalled 7.5 per cent. Therefore, this measure is long overdue. The members of the committee agreed that it is very important, if we are to attract good judges, that they should be able to do their job without any financial preoccupation. The committee recognized that the level of compensation for judges, compared to what used to be the level in relation to public servants and professionals, indicates they have lost a lot of ground since 1976. Therefore, this bill is long overdue.
The history of this bill is that the Dorfman committee studied this problem as well as a committee of the Canadian Bar Association, presided over by a member of the Quebec bar. A year ago last December my predecessor, Senator Flynn, made a commitment to proceed quickly, but it took some time before we could proceed. In any event, I think we now have a bill which is acceptable, and I recommend its adoption in this House.
I do not intend to elaborate; the bill speaks for itself. It is very important that we pass it and that the judges be accorded what they deserve for the good job all of them do for Canada. We are all proud of our judiciary. It is efficient, competent and completely independent from the executive and legislative bodies. I hope this bill will tell them that the Canadian people appreciate the work they are doing to maintain justice in our society.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to join in this debate at third reading on a day on which it appears that some items of legislation are moving through with some expedition. I do not propose to delay this process.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let's call the Constitution!
March 6, 1981


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My distinguished and learned friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), says we should bring the constitutional proposal forward today. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) were able to show the same flexibility and understanding and accept the suggestions of the opposition with respect to the Constitution that he has with respect to the judges bill, we might in fact attain the very objective to which the hon. member refers.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I accepted many of your propositions in the committee.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I accept the admonition of the minister that he has accepted many suggestions made in committee, but the fundamental changes we put forward have not been accepted. I suppose that is the reason we are engaged in a very important debate in that regard.
Of course, members of the NDP will applaud the fact that those fundamental changes have not been accepted because they are together with the Liberals on the Constitution. However, with respect to the Judges Act I suspect they will beat their chests and say they opposed the government, and that this is an example of a Tory-Liberal alliance. On more important issues the NDP supports the Liberals right down the line with no exceptions. I wanted to make that preliminary point of a non-controversial nature before I got on with this important bill relating to the salaries of judges.
The minister was prepared to make some amendments to this legislation and to allow other amendments. He instructed government supporters on the committee to accept amendments to the pension provisions of the bill. Very simply put, the bill presented by the minister and read the second time provided certain pension provisions. Pension contributions by judges were to be abolished, with the exception of nominal contributions for indexing purposes. At second reading I and other members of my party spoke in opposition to that proposal. We felt it was possibly inappropriate in terms of the precedent it might set and in view of demands and requests being made by other groups in society.
Second, it seemed to me that the salary increases proposed by the Minister of Justice in themselves sufficiently reflected a reasonable increase in the benefits to be paid to judges. The amounts proposed by the government were double those proposed by the minister's predecessor, Senator Flynn. Because of this we felt a pension contribution was appropriate.
The status quo will remain with respect to pension contributions, and the net position, quite frankly, will not be to the disadvantage of judges when we consider tax implications and the deductibility of contributions. The original proposal made by Senator Flynn when he was minister of justice was an increase of $6,500 over a period of two years. This bill provides for an increase of some $13,000 over a period of two years for, if I may use the term, the average judge. The increase will be somewhat more from chief justices and associate chief judges. However, essentially that is the increase under this legislation.
In his remarks at third reading the minister said that judges' salaries are a unique responsibility of Parliament. He made
Judges Act
reference to the fact that under Section 100 of the British North America Act the salaries, allowances and pensions of judges of the superior, district and county courts are fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada.
That leads me to make one observation made in the committee which I again bring to the attention of the minister. That is not absolutely true. A number of other public servants are affected. Their salaries are tied to judges' salaries. Some mention was made in the committee hearings that the Chief Electoral Officer, the Auditor General and other important senior officials who serve Parliament and the people of Canada have their salaries tied directly to judges' salaries. By virtue of the device of tying more and more public servants' salaries to judges' salaries, we may be getting away from the strict meaning of the BNA Act. I think each of these responsibilities should be judged on its own merits.
Perhaps it is now time for us to look at the concept put forward by my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), in terms of an executive remuneration tribunal. Such a tribunal could be established by the government. It could have the responsibility of looking at the adequacy of compensation paid to senior public officials of the type I have mentioned. Perhaps this could be done rather than continuing the present haphazard and casual way of dealing with these matters in terms of trying to find appropriate salary levels for various public officials.
I commend the minister for taking the step of providing for a review of judges' salaries by what I hope will be an effective and independent commission. One of the things we in Parliament can do is look at these matters and make assessments, but it is helpful to have people expert in the field who can spend the time to examine the requirements and adequacy of compensation, particularly for judges, to report to us and be subject to the scrutiny and cross-examination of members of Parliament through our committee system.
The minister has indicated that he would be receptive on two accounts to have the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs look at the report of these people who will be advising him regarding compensation. I remind the minister that during the course of the committee hearings he undertook to establish a committee to examine the whole question of the pension contributions of judges and to report to him. I am sure he will do that before too long. He also undertook to have that committee appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that Members of Parliament will have the opportunity to examine that committee's conclusions and the bases upon which it arrives at those conclusions.
I am not sure I heard the minister's remarks at third reading correctly, but 1 think he said judges received their last increase in 1975. If he checks the record, he will see that they received their last increase in 1977. His predecessor, the Hon. Ron Basford, brought forward legislation respecting salary increases. There has been one increase since 1975, and that was in 1977.

March 6, 1981
Judges Act
The position our party has taken with respect to this bill is that we question the salary increase. We were particularly concerned about the non-contributory pension aspect of it. As 1 pointed out-the minister also referred to this in his remarks-studies and recommendations have been made with respect to judicial compensation. The Casgrain report was completed and referred by the minister to the Canadian Bar Association, and the Dorfman report was prepared as an advisory report for the Minister of Justice and his department. In addition, there was a third report which was prepared for the judicial compensation committee of the Canadian judges' conference.
In each of these committees suggestions and recommendations were made with respect to increases in judges' salaries. The Casgrain report suggested increases of some $5,000 for each of the years 1979 and 1980. The Dorfman report suggested salary increases of $3,500 on April 1, 1979 and the same on April 1, 1980; and it seems to me that the judicial compensation committee of the Canadian judges' conference concurred in 1980 with the Casgrain recommendation.
What we have proposed in this bill is that an increase in excess of the amount recommended by any one of those committees be made in judges' salaries, so we are not shortchanging the judges by any means if this bill is passed. They are receiving substantially more than was recommended by any of these three committees. The second point, however, the non-contributory part of the pension, causes serious concern to members of our party and members of the NDP. Also, I am satisfied that this matter was of considerable concern to a substantial number of members on the government side. There was receptivity in the committee from all sides of the House to the conclusion to which the minister finally arrived. The minister said he would allow the provisions with respect to a non-contributory pension to be voted down and deleted from the bill, but he would have these provisions examined independently and brought back to Parliament once he had received the committee report and had a chance to analyse what might be the most appropriate course to follow.
I have made reference to the fact that my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West, has spoken from time to time about the whole process of determining compensation for judges. Unfortunately, he is not in the House today-he has important business in his constituency-but he has spoken to me about this matter and indicated that he continues to be interested in it. He wishes me to remind the minister that for many years now he has advocated the establishment of a remuneration review tribunal. He understands the restrictions and restraints imposed upon us by Section 100 of the British North America Act which give Parliament the mandate to set the salaries, benefits, pensions and allowances of judges, and so he understands that there are some difficulties with respect to having an independent review tribunal. On the other hand, he is still of the opinion that some method of investigation of an independent nature should be found. He will continue to put this view forward whenever the opportunity to do so arises again.
On second reading of the bill, I pointed out the importance which, I think, all of us understand must be placed on the role which an independent judiciary plays under the two systems of common law which exist in our country. As we continue debate on the Constitution and talk about a charter of rights, which will come sooner or later-one is not sure of the exact time when it will arrive in Canada-one realizes the important role which the judiciary will play.
The role of the judiciary will be very important in terms of the future of our country. It is important to have a judiciary which is representative of the people of our country and which will have the competence to deal, in an intelligent manner, with the interpretation of an entrenched bill of rights. Because it seems to me that when one looks at the experience of other jurisdictions where there is an entrenched bill of rights, one finds that the quality of the judges and their political outlook is very important in the interpretation of the rights of the people of those countries, just as it will be in the interpretation of the rights of Canadians in years to come. Again I say to the minister that the suggestions he has received with respect to the appointment of judges and to the whole process by which judges are appointed must be a consideration in terms of the policy and the practice which have taken place and will take place in our country.
Under our parliamentary system, the Minister of Justice and the government have responsibility for the appointment of judges, as periodically they have to face the voter and justify the kinds of appointments they make to the judiciary, along with other aspects of their policies, during their mandate. But in this instance, when we are moving now toward a system with an entrenched charter of rights, it becomes important for parliamentarians in particular and for the people in the country to know what the attitudes, opinions, and, quite frankly, the philosophy of the judges to be appointed will be, because the courts will be required to adjudicate upon the rights of the citizens of our country.
If we look south of the 49th parallel to see what has transpired in terms of the experience of the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the final court of appeal in that country, as we will have to look at our own Supreme Court, we see that there has been a transformation in the course of the last ten years from what was described as a Liberal Warren court to what is now described as a more Conservative, constructionist court of Chief Justice Berger. I am not commenting at all about the quality of judgments, which remains always high; but if one were to examine the decisions made with respect to the U.S. Bill of Rights and the rights available to U.S. citizens and examine what subtle transformations have taken place of certain of those fundamental rights, it would be important to understand that the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada will be a matter of interest and importance to us because of the fact that the court will have a substantial say in what the rights of the individual citizens are. What I say to the minister is that the quality and independence of the judiciary
March 6, 1981

is important, particularly now when we are moving forward toward an entrenched bill of rights.
Another aspect of this matter to which he may want to give serious consideration is finding a broader basis of consultation with respect to the appointment of judges. With regard to competence, 1 made some suggestions about the fact that the advice of the provincial law societies is not sufficiently taken into account. The minister has agreed to consider my suggestions, and I compliment him for this on behalf of members on this side.
Law societies are involved in the day-to-day administration of their membership in each province. It would be an important improvement in the consultative process of the minister and his officials with respect to judicial appointments if they relied more frequently on the recommendations of provincial bar associations and law societies. I am not in any way diminishing the importance of the role of the Canadian Bar Association. I am not suggesting for a moment that those people do not have great ability or are not of assistance to the minister.
The minister has often pointed out that he is a lawyer from Shawinigan, so he will understand that the Canadian Bar Association tends to represent the larger metropolitan areas of the country. Often rural lawyers are overlooked because they are not known to the lawyers in the bigger cities. I am not suggesting that there is any sort of conspiracy. The people who are involved in the day-to-day administration of the law societies know the competent lawyers within their provinces. They know better the abilities of rural practitioners or the people who are not involved in larger firms. I simply say to the minister, by way of constructive suggestion, that he should try to create a structure within his office and his consultative process whereby provincial bar associations will be consulted more frequently.
We have reservations with respect to the amount recommended in the bill in terms of total salary increases. We think they are quite adequate, if not more than adequate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are too high.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I tried to figure out the rationale. 1 made some calculations on the back of an envelope in an attempt to arrive at these figures. According to my calculations, if we take a 7 per cent increase and index it to the time of the last increase, we could arrive at the figures which are being presented. There is provision for indexing on the basis of the industrial composite which will keep the salaries of judges moving with inflationary pressures at the maximum rate of 7 per cent. But the government has taken the step, in view of the suggestion of the opposition, to remove the contributory pension part of it.
Notwithstanding our reservations as far as the amounts are concerned, it is appropriate for the bill to receive third reading at this point in time. I appreciate the minister's responding to my request and the requests of other members of the opposi-
Judges Act
tion in terms of the deletion of those provisions. Therefore, we will allow this bill to pass. 1 hope improvements will be possible and that more professionalism will be used respecting the calculation of the salaries of judges in the years ahead.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in third reading debate on this important bill, one which comes before Parliament very rarely. As the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Elnatyshyn) indicated, I believe it was in 1977 that the Judges Act last came before Parliament.
As other members have indicated, there are three major elements to the bill in its present form. There is an increase in the number of judges to be appointed; there is a substantial salary increase; and in the original bill there was provision for the elimination of contributory pensions by judges. 1 should like to deal briefly with each of those elements of the bill.
We support the first element, which is not controversial, that is, to respond to the concerns of provincial attorneys general and increase the number of judges in several Canadian provinces as well as in the two territories.
I spoke of my concerns in my second reading speech on December 1 and also in committee with respect to the appointment process of the federal judiciary, to which the hon. member for Saskatoon West alluded. It is particularly important to examine carefully how the federal judiciary is being appointed. There is no question that there have been substantial improvements in the appointments process in recent years. The blatantly political appointments have largely, but certainly not completely, come to an end.
For example, one need only look at recent appointments in the province of Saskatchewan to see that that day is not yet completely over. I am not suggesting for a moment that politicians should be excluded from access to the judiciary, but I am suggesting that there is a remarkable coincidence between the political stripe of lawyers and appointments to the bench. It is not as bad as it used to be, but the practice certainly still goes on.
One need only look at the recent appointments to the citizenship court of this country. The three most recent appointments were the wife of a former Liberal cabinet minister, the secretary of a former Liberal cabinet minister and a former Liberal cabinet minister. Unfortunately there are still practices of that nature in the federal bench; we want them to come to an end quickly.
We do not believe the present consultative process with the Canadian Bar Association, which in many ways is a big city, old boys' network, is adequate or satisfactory. I emphasize "old boys' network" because members of the House should know that there are no women on the Canadian Bar Association committee. The hon. member for Saskatoon West suggested that our judiciary should represent the people of the country. At the present time the committee of the Canadian Bar Association is comprised of men. There are 17 judges who are to be appointed. There are many qualified women who are lawyers in the country. There are many more qualified women

March 6, 1981
Judges Act
in recent years because the number of women graduates is far greater than it was a few years ago. 1 suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) that the next 17 appointments he makes pursuant to these provisions should be women. There are qualified women from coast to coast who should be taking these positions. I urge the minister to appoint women to all 17 positions. Also 1 urge the minister, as I have urged him before, to make his next appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada the first woman Supreme Court justice.
The hon. member for Saskatoon West talked of his concerns about the appointment process. We believe that this process should be opened up, not just to the law societies, as was suggested by the hon. member for Saskatoon West, but perhaps to an independent commission in each province with representatives from the community at large. I am referring to those people who are affected by the day-to-day decisions of the judiciary: representatives of the labour movement and representatives of the community at large, not just representatives of the legal profession. It could be similar to what is known as the Missouri plan in the United States. We must substantially improve the appointments process in this country.
As I said, we want to ensure that far more women are appointed. Historically a Conservative government has never in the history of this country appointed a woman to the federal court bench. We know that must change. We have concerns about the appointments process. I hope the minister will examine carefully these concerns in the months ahead.
The second provision in the original bill was one with respect to pensions. The Minister of Justice was president of the treasury board when the bill which required judges to contribute to their own pension plans was brought in. We know the former Conservative minister of justice wanted to eliminate this contributory pension plan provision. We are pleased to see the Minister of Justice accede to the very strong urgings of this party, of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others, who have urged the minister to reinstate the fundamental principle that the judiciary should contribute to their pensions just as all other Canadians do. We are pleased to see the minister drop those provisions of the bill in response to, as I say, our urgings and also the urgings of the Conservative Party, as well as a number of members of the Liberal caucus. The minister was responsive in that area and we appreciate that very much. We welcome the fact that the minister resisted a very powerful and yet invisible lobby of the judiciary in this country in doing that. As I say, we welcome the fact that those provisions have been dropped.
I say very frankly to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the suggestion that there should be yet another committee set up to study this question is simply a waste of the taxpayers' money. The Dorfman commission, the Canadian Bar Association and the Ministry of Justice have examined this question. We have all the evidence we need. 1 suggest that to appoint a high-priced lawyer to examine this question once again is a waste of the taxpayers' money. I say without any
equivocation whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, that there is no doubt that if this provision is brought back to this Parliament, we intend very vigorously to oppose it, as we do now.
The next major provision in the bill is a provision with respect to salary increases. This matter was touched upon by the hon. member for Saskatoon West. I believe that Canadians who are paying their taxes and who are paying these salaries should know just how rich these increases are. For example, a county court judge in Canada will have an increase in his or her salary from the present level of $47,000 a year to $65,000 a year, which is an increase of 38 per cent. A Court of Appeal judge or a Supreme Court judge at the federal level will have an increase in salary from $54,000 to $70,000-a very substantial increase. A Supreme Court of Canada justice will receive an increase in salary from the present level of $64,000 to $81,000. That increase will be effective to almost a year ago, to April 1, 1980. In just a few weeks there will be a further increase under the provisions of this bill. I will give only one example. The salaries of Supreme Court justices at the provincial level will go from $54,000 a year to $74,900 a year.
We believe that this package, in so far as it affects salaries, is excessively rich. We recognize that the judiciary must be adequately compensated. We recognize their important role in Canadian society. But we also say this: frankly, one of the arguments that is made, and perhaps the most persuasive argument, for these very substantial and excessive salary increases is that lawyers are paid very high salaries. We are told that lawyers are paid $80,000 or $90,000 a year, or $100,000 or $200,000 at the senior levels. We are told that we cannot get judges to accept a substantial cut in their pay. Very frankly, what I say the problem is, Mr. Speaker, is that lawyers in this country are overpaid. That is the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: I say that being a lawyer myself, Mr. Speaker. We have a problem here in that the judiciary wants to keep in step with the legal profession. Naturally, they do not want a cut in pay. But in a time when old age pensioners, for example, particularly in the case of elderly women, are living below the poverty line, single parents are struggling to survive, families on welfare are living below the poverty line and 20 per cent of the children of Canada live in conditions of poverty, I suggest that it is intolerable that we have such great disparities in wealth. I suggest that it is intolerable that in this day and age there is such affluence in the midst of such poverty.
While recognizing that our judiciary must be adequately compensated, these provisions are simply too rich. We recognize a salary increase should be provided, but we say that this particular increase is not only too rich but goes beyond the recommendations of the independent Dorfman inquiry. Mr. Dorfman is a very learned former president of the Canadian Bar Association.


Walter David Baker: How long ago?
March 6, 1981


Svend Johannes Robinson: 1 hear the House leader of the Conservative Party defending these salary increases.


Walter David Baker: How long ago?


Svend Johannes Robinson: He will have his opportunity to speak in this debate in due course and to defend these increases. We will listen with interest to his position.
The Dorfman commission recommended these increases, extending into the future, at a time when the commission was well aware of the economic conditions facing this country.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, we are pleased with the provisions with respect to pensions.
We have serious concerns about the appointments process in this country. As the hon. member for Saskatoon West pointed out, the role of our judiciary will be substantially enhanced as a result of an entrenched charter of rights. I must confess to some puzzlement at the position of the member for Saskatoon West, who indicated that people from all across Canada would be affected by this charter of rights. I assume that he has now adopted the position of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who has apparently seen the light and has recognized that it is ludicrous to suggest that a charter of rights should only apply in some provinces and that these rights do not belong to all Canadians. We suggest that a charter of rights must apply from coast to coast. There should be no opting out of a charter of rights. We welcome the apparent conversion of the hon. member for Provencher on that question. 1 hope that the hon. member for Saskatoon West is joining us in that point of view.
A charter of rights does significantly enhance the powers of our judiciary. We recognize that it is one of the reasons we must look very carefully at the appointments process. We must look very carefully, perhaps, at a role for Parliament in the appointments process to ensure that at least at the top levels of our judiciary, the Supreme Court level, there is some input at the parliamentary level.
We find the provisions for salary increases excessive. We are concerned with the fact that these salaries will be increased by 7 per cent each year. When you are at that high a salary level, that 7 per cent increase means $5,000 or $6,000 a year. This will simply increase the spread between the rich and the poor in this country. Again, we find that unacceptable.
I conclude by saying that we certainly recognize the fundamental role of the judiciary, one which must uphold the principle of the rule of law in this country. We recognize the role of a judiciary which must make decisions on such vital matters as the liberty of the subject, on how to sentence in very complex criminal matters, deciding such important questions in civil matters as who is to have custody of children and what is in the best interests of a child. We recognize the importance of our federal court looking at immigration, taxation and many other matters which directly affect the lives of the Canadian citizen. We recognize the role of the judiciary in determining guilt or innocence. We recognize its role with regard to charging a jury. We have been fortunate in Canada
Judges Act
to have a very fine judiciary, one that all Canadians can be proud of.
But, Mr. Speaker, we still have concerns with respect to sentencing policy, for example. I touched on that in my speech at second reading. We still have concerns with respect to the great disparities which exist in sentencing policies. We have concerns with respect to the failure of our prison system, in the hope that the judiciary might become more aware of that failure and be more innovative in their sentencing practices.
While there has been a significant improvement in this bill with respect to the restoration of the contributory element of the pension and the provisions with respect to salary increases, which are simply too rich, and while we recognize the importance of the judiciary, we will be opposing this bill at third reading.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some very brief remarks with respect to this legislation, since there was some distortion left on the record by the hon. member who just spoke. The first distortion had to do with the range of the application of this particular piece of legislation. It applies to federally-appointed judges, superior court judges, but it does not apply to citizenship court judges, which though they are honourable and estimable appointments within the community, are not within the classification of judges being dealt with by this bill. That is the first point.
The hon. member was correct; the bill deals with increases in the numbers of judges in various places. I am happy to note that he was not arguing that this is not necessary in certain areas. Because of changes in the organization of Canadian society and the fact that it is becoming more complex as government intervenes to a greater degree in the lives of individuals, the work of judicial tribunals is necessary and there is bound to be an increase. I make no comment on the workload of judges, except to say that it is increasing in certain areas and in some areas it is not. The federal government has no alternative but to look at the necessity of increasing the size of the bench from time to time.
I am glad to see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) agrees that we should remove the problem of pensions from the bill and have that dealt with in another manner. I think that is in keeping with the atmosphere that ought to prevail in the House when we are dealing with judges, who do not have the right to speak for themselves but depend upon Parliament and this system to speak for them. Therefore, it behooves Parliament and all parliamentarians on every side of the House to judge the issue on its merits and not on the basis of prejudice and possible preconceptions, which might be deemed to be right in the mind of the speaker but are woefully wrong in terms of the work of the legal profession.
That brings me to the question of salaries for judges. The hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), who has just spoken, said that the package is excessively rich. I do not know

March 6, 1981
Judges Act
whether it is excessively rich or not, but from my experience in government I do know that there is some difficulty in attracting the best to the bench. The difference between our lives and the life of a judge is that we in Parliament can take part in the community, can involve ourselves in many organizations, and indeed we seek to do so. We do not have to exercise the same care that a judge must when choosing his associates. We do not have to withdraw from many associations, and we do not lose the right, which other citizens have, to speak out on public matters. A judge loses all those rights. I hear my hon. friend from South Shore (Mr. Crouse) saying a judge even loses the right to vote, the most fundamental right enjoyed by any citizen.
When a person considers whether he will go to the bench, he considers many factors: whether he enjoys the study of law; whether he is prepared to endure the tedium of the law-there are tediums in all professions, but particularly with the bench. He also has to decide whether he is prepared to give up some rights that my friend and I take for granted. I think those are tremendous considerations for any person. He must also consider his family.
We must consider our duty to ensure that the judge, or whatever court we are dealing with, is adequately compensated so that with respect to the vicissitudes of life he will never put himself in a compromising position.


An hon. Member:: What about the poor?


Walter David Baker: Of course, that is important with respect to others as well. I am not arguing the case against the poor; but I am arguing the case in favour of judges. I think that is important.
I spoke briefly about this matter in second reading debate. I think we must remember the bottom line is that the bench must be independent, that it must be seen to be independent, and that there is nothing that should deter a judge from being anything else, regardless of what befalls him. That is why we deal rather generously in terms of pensions. Even if there were no pension plans in place we would deal with it in that manner, because no person appointed to the bench can assure himself that he will always have his health and his ability to work, that he will always be able to stay there for ten or 12 years, or whatever it is.
There are great opportunities, but he loses the right to participate in business and in ordinary daily life. If he goes to the bench and is dissatisfied, as some judges are dissatisfied-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not the ones I know.


Walter David Baker: -his recourse is to stay there and be a very bad judge because he is not happy with the life, or to leave. When he leaves, his practice is then restricted compared to what he formerly could do. That is why Parliament has the responsibility to deal with this matter honourably.
With respect to patronage, I do not fault the government for appointing known supporters of its own political party to the
bench. I would default the government if that were the only reason for appointments, and if the soundness of the lawyer appointed was overlooked. I would fault it if the appointments were poor. But I cannot fault a government for appointing those who happen to stumble along a political path that I do not follow if they are good, sound and impartial. 1 cannot fault that any more than 1 can fault the government which was in office before my government for appointing Mr. Gilbert of the New Democratic Party-


An hon. Member:: It was a sound appointment.


Walter David Baker: -a county court judge. It was a very sound appointment of a very good judge-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: -not necessarily because he was a New Democrat, but because he was a good man.


An hon. Member:: Lots of talent.


Walter David Baker: I am pleased that the Minister of Justice saw the talent in the Hon. Paul Martineau when the government appointed him to the Quebec Superior Court. As hon. members know, he was a minister in the Diefenbaker administration, a good lawyer and a sound man. He had a good sense of justice and judgment, as does Mr. Gilbert, a former member of the New Democratic Party.
I do not fault the Minister of Justice for having arranged the appointment of five women judges. I hope that with respect to appointments to the bench, people will not be appointed simply on the basis of sex, but rather because they are sound choices. Then we will be doing justice to women, because we will be appointing the best.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: In the last little while, women have suddenly found the legal profession. They are entering it in increasing numbers, as they are moving into medicine, pharmacy, dentistry and other professions that were thought to be male-dominated.
That is what this bill is all about: it is to provide a basis to ensure that judges are relatively happy in their profession and their future and that they are able to perform their duties with a certain peace of mind. That is not to say that those same rights ought not to be available to other Canadians. My hon. friends in the New Democratic Party and in my own party strive to argue here with the government to improve the lot of other Canadians. That does not end because we have decided today to deal with judges.
Having regard to appointments to the bench, I will not quibble over $1,000 or so one way or another. The government must be always vigilant to see that the best are called to the bench, and that no occupation, no political leaning, would deprive the best from being appointed. If that is done, our bench will be strengthened.
March 6, 1981

It has been the constant practice of governments generally, as the hon. member for Burnaby wants, to consult broadly others in the community, in the professions, and among organizations. There should be the broadest possible consultation, not just consultation with the Canadian Bar Association which is just one group. There should be consultation beyond the legal profession so that the best people may be appointed.
I did not intend to speak in this debate but I think it is important. I feel very strongly about our responsibility to a part of the public which cannot speak for itself and that is why I rose today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to make some brief comments on this bill. The hon. member was not saying otherwise but I should like to tell him that this party also believes the bench must be independent and must be composed of the best people available. That was the intent of the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). We are pleased that this bill is being debated today and we expect it will go through, but it is about time. We are happy that it has been changed in the pension provisions. Members of Parliament have to contribute toward their pensions and judges should as well.
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) was right when he said it is difficult to criticize judges because they cannot reply. They can reply through lawyers who are prominent members of the bar, however. If I say anything that judges object to, I am sure they can take that route as I think they will be listening to and reading this debate today.
In British Columbia, where I am a member of the bar, there have been some problems recently with judges getting into trouble with the law. I do not want to go into details but I think I should note that people who do not have the privileged position in society that lawyers and judges have, expect judges to be above running into problems with the law. I think judges in my province especially have noted that in the last year.
In the last Parliament I raised the question of the difficulties that arose following the resignation of the former chief justice of the court of appeal in British Columbia and I want to clarify that question. I did not raise the question to deal with that specific matter as, frankly, I think the judge in that case suffered enough. What I wanted to deal with was the discipline procedure for judges. I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) should look into that matter. The judge in question in British Columbia resigned, so no inquiry could be carried out in that case. That may or may not be proper but the public was never really satisfied that no wrongdoing went on. I do not think there was any wrongdoing but 1 do not know. I would suggest that a prominent lawyer could be appointed to look into the situation-not to deal with the activities of that particular man but to then be in a position to tell the public there was no wrongdoing. I think the public would have felt
Judges Act
better, and I know I would, if such a report had been brought forward. I leave that suggestion with the Minister of Justice.
Now 1 come to the matter of appointments and here I depart slightly from the position taken by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. We know that when the Liberals are in, a lot of Liberals are appointed to the bench, and when the Conservatives are in government, Conservatives are appointed to the bench. So far this party has not been in a position to make appointments! The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton put his finger on the problem, as did the hon. member for Burnaby, that political people should not be excluded from judicial life but politics should not be the first criteria for appointment. I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that future appointments be vetted by a special committee of the House of Commons so that qualifications could be examined and gross political appointments eliminated.
I think there is a need for reform in the manner of making appointments. As the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton said, women are ready to be appointed to the bench and the government should appoint them. There are other types of lawyers as well, who could be appointed. In the last 10 or 15 years lawyers who have gone into community law, administrative law, and the teaching profession would make fine judges and I think the minister should expand the base of appointment. It is important that we have judges from all walks of legal life.
I wanted to bring up something now that is not in the bill. I refer to conditions in the courts. At the present time we have a strange court system in Canada. A difference is made between county court judges and supreme court judges in the bill. I could never understand the rationale behind that distinction. I do not even understand why there is a federal court. I think a lot of money is wasted by having different courts. We should have one superior court and one supreme court in each province.
The hon. member for Burnaby alluded to reforms that need to be made in the legal system and to different kinds of law. Judges are only part of the system. I practised family and domestic law and know there needs to be reform in the courts in that area. I was pleased that with the co-operation of the federal government we were able to set up a model family court in British Columbia.
I was disappointed that the Minister of Justice did not include the right of counsel as a real right of counsel in the charter of human rights. That is not only the right to have a lawyer if you can pay but the right to have a lawyer if you cannot afford to pay; in other words, legal aid for people who cannot afford a lawyer and the right to that legal aid. I fought and lost a case on that very point in the court of appeal in British Columbia. I hope in the near future in this country we will have the real right to counsel; that means being provided with a lawyer if you cannot afford one. I think any judge would say that it is helpful when both parties are well represented by counsel.
I have made some criticisms of judges, Mr. Speaker, but we have had some great ones. I think of Mr. Justice Hall of

March 6, 1981
Judges Act
Saskatchewan; 1 think of Chief Justice Duff of British Columbia; 1 think of Justice Rand from the maritimes; of Justice Laskin from Ontario and I know there have been some excellent judges from Quebec.
I am a member of the bar of the Northwest Territories, Mr. Speaker. There we had perhaps one of the greatest judges of all, an authentic Canadian hero, Mr. Justice Sissons, the first judge of the north, whose area of jurisdiction reached the North Pole. He was succeeded by another great man, Mr. Justice Morrow who unfortunately died last year. I wish to pay tribute to him in the House today.
One of the things that Mr. Justice Sissons said, and this was taken up by Justice Morrow, was that justice should go to every man's house. When he said that, it meant taking justice to everyone in the north. It was a very difficult area to administer but he did it. I think if we carry that tradition on, this country will be well served.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, all hon. members who have spoken have pointed to the fact that judges will have to deal with the charter of human rights.
I want to conclude by quoting words, not from a Canadian judge, but from an American judge, William O. Douglas who used the words "a judge should have courage and humanity in his or her decisions." I say to judges in Canada who will be interpreting the charter of human rights that I hope, as I am sure other members of this House do, they will interpret that charter and deal with the fundamental problems of human rights in this country with courage and with humanity.


Mr. McGrath:: Thanks to you there will be no property rights.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is a subject which has concerned me for many years. I could speak at length on it, but I shall be very brief. I want to say at the outset that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said one thing with which I fully agree, namely, that we should approach this subject on its merits. The difficulty between my friend and me is that we are on different wave lengths.


Walter David Baker: But on the same street.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We live on the same street here in Ottawa, but on opposite sides of that street.
I suppose the thing which has bothered me all my life about our society is that those who have get more and those who do not have lose even what they have got. I just do not like it. Time and time again we find the money for massive increases to those in the upper economic reaches. But those who are down lower lose what they have through inflation, through taxes and through the increased prices they have to pay. I hope some day to see this situation turned around.
We have made some improvements over the years. I could make a speech in which I could almost boast of the improvements we have made in social legislation during the decades I have been in this Parliament, but we are still ready first to give more to those who have, and offer only sympathy and concern for those who have not. As my friend, the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) pointed out, this bill is going to push some judges who are now in the lower brackets into the $60,000 bracket. It will push some into the $70,000 bracket and it will push others into the $80,000 bracket. On top of that, there is an automatic 7 per cent annual increase. When you are talking about a salary of $70,000, a 7 per cent increase amounts to $4,900. If you are in the $80,000 bracket, a 7 per cent increase amounts to $5,600.
These figures are more, just by way of an increase, than the total amount which is available to a pensioner who draws both old age security and the full amount of the guaranteed income supplement. Most of our senior citizens, and this means most of the 2 million people over the age of 65, are struggling at or just below the poverty line. We have many others, particularly women, in the 55 to 65 age bracket, those unattached who would be well off if they could get up to the poverty line who are having a difficult time. Then there are the working poor and the unemployed. These are problems which face our society. If we want to call ourselves democratic, advanced and progressive, if we want to have a Canadian identity to be proud of, these are the areas in which we should be working.
I cannot bring myself to believe that it is the right thing in the face of these problems to keep on giving massive increases to those who are at the top. If some hon. members suspect that because I feel that way about the increases in this bill I may have even more to say about certain other increases if they are brought before this House-I need not mention them as every member knows what I am talking about, I can tell them they will hear from me when that time comes.
I agree with everything that has been said today about the importance of our judiciary. I agree with the things that have been said about the place they hold in society. I Still think that is worth something. I still think, if I may go back that far, that there was something to the idea in Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward", who said that those who had to do the dirtiest and the meanest jobs should get paid more than those who had the privilege of doing the delightful and the enjoyable jobs. That is why I say to the hon. member from Nepean-Carleton we are on different wavelengths and, although we live on the same street, we are on opposite sides of the street. I think this is important. While I do not want to spin out this debate, I do feel 1 should state again that I am opposed to the way we approach these things. I think the suggestion that we will do the other afterward is not enough because it never happens. I am more concerned for the others, and, with all of the respect I have for the judiciary, I am opposed to this bill. I shall be voting no.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This being third reading, is there unanimous consent for the Minister of Justice to be recognized at this point?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 6, 198


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. members for giving me the opportunity to speak. I want to congratulate the House leader of the opposition for the remark he made which set the right tone for the debate. There were remarks made by some members which were not accurate. I do not want to make a long speech, but as the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has said, we have tried to broaden the base for consultation. I would like to refer the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) to an article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun last week in which that subject was dealt with. A reporter from that paper interviewed Mr. Paul Maclnnis who was appointed by Senator Flynn to define qualities of judges. I was pleased to keep him on my staff even though he was selected by my predecessor.
As the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton said, belonging to a political party should be neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. 1 just want to mention that the previous administration appointed Mr. Justice Jerome who was a previous speaker of this House and of a different political affiliation. I appointed Mr. Martineau, a former member for Broadview.
Last week I was very pleased to name a prominent lawyer, Mr. Lome Clark, from Truro, Nova Scotia, who is not known to be a partisan of my party. He was a close friend of the former leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Stanfield. I accepted the recommendation of the attorney general in Toronto to appoint a most capable lawyer, Madam Justice Weilder. She was a public servant in the Ontario administration. In Saskatchewan, which has a New Democratic administration, I was pleased to name Mr. Justice Grotsky who worked for the attorney general's department in that province.
One of the first appointments, I had the pleasure to make in the province of Quebec was that of Justice Rene Hurtubise to the Superior Court of Quebec. He was the president of the Human Rights Society in Quebec and is not known to be political at all. Mr. Justice Laroche in Rouyn-Noranda has been well known for being more blue than red. I did name others and it so happened that they had supported my party, but I hope that is not a deterrent to becoming a judge. As the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton said, we have consultations. 1 am consulting as much as I can with the attorneys general of the different provinces. I gave them the list of people I am considering. They made their comments. In the final analysis, it was my responsibility and judgment that prevailed. I was glad to hear the attorney general of British Columbia say last week that he was happy with the system I followed. I do not want to boast about what I am doing. I was glad the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton made an intervention. It was a good intervention, illustrating that we are all concerned about ensuring that we have an excellent judiciary in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure to adopt the said motion?
CN Express


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed. [Translation]
Mr. Pinard:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After consultation all parties have agreed to seek unanimous consent to revert to motions with a view to debating the motion concerning the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Transport. The agreement is that we will hear one spokesman from each party before we dispose of the motion.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi) moved:: That the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, presented to the House on Tuesday, January 27, 1981, be concurred in.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the transport committee has tabled its fourth report and the chairman, the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), is now asking for concurrence.
I must commend the committee for doing an excellent job and I wish I had more time to elaborate on that but unfortunately I don't.
Among other subjects the committee studied the activities of the CN and two full days were devoted to questioning the president of this Crown corporation, Mr. Robert Bandeen. Most of the questions had to do with the decision of CN Express to close about half of its 70 offices located here and there throughout the country and, particularly, to close 10-

March 6, 1981
CN Express
we will see in a moment that this has been reduced to 8-out of a total of 15 in the maritime provinces.
Unhappy about that decision, the committee has recommended, and I quote:
That the government consider the advisability of requiring Canadian National Railways to continue the CN Express Service at the minimum of the 1979 level.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I reviewed the whole question with Mr. Bandeen and his officials. We examined the suggestion made in the recommendation and, as you are probably aware, Mr. Speaker, adjustments were made to the previous decisions, particularly as regards Charlottetown and Sydney.
That is what I now want to go over rapidly in seven or eight minutes in the hope that the House will agree that at least the spirit of the recommendation of the transport committee has been respected.

Let us look at the facts. First, why the reduction of terminals at CN Express? Notwithstanding CN's numerous efforts over the years at reorganizing, controlling costs and introducing new services, such as Rapidex, volume declined from 24 million shipments in the 1950s to seven million in 1980, a period of 30 years. Second, CN's share of this market decreased to 5 per cent of less than truckload shipments and 2 per cent of small parcels. That is not the massive service that some people talk about when referring to CN Express. Third, financial losses have grown accordingly; $53 million in 1980 and a total of $205 million over the last five years.
What were the options for CN Express? The first was to continue unchanged with the decreasing market share and increasing losses. That would have affected the viability of other operations of CN. However, with the prevailing philosophy with regard to commercial Crown corporations, CN might or would have been expected to turn to the government and ask for a compensating subsidy, as has done with CN Marine.
Having such a subsidy might have been justified in the "national" interest, in the interest of all of us as users of these services. 1 am not opposed philosophically to subsidies. There are instances when they can be justified.
CN did not think so in this case, and I agreed with them. 1 ask why? Simply because many of these services that CN is rendering are now performed by other carriers in a commercially viable fashion at reasonable rates. That is the basis of the decision 1 made.
In recent years we have had almost a cultural change in this sector of transportation. Because of the revolutionary development of highways and of the trucking industry, CN has suffered from fierce competition. In most of Canada, aggressive private trucking firms have taken over the market from CN Express to a substantial extent, and hence the decline to 5 per cent and 2 per cent referred to already.
There are, for example, ten such trucking firms in Amherst, 28 in Sydney and they specialize in certain types of operations. They do a good job. There is no hope that CN Express will ever come back to its past predominant position.
The other option, the one CN took, was to redefine its role in the express business; leave to private truckers what they can do better, that is handle small parcels, concentrate on what CN Express does best, the so-called less than truckload type of shipment, integrate CN operations with local trucking firms to ensure adequacy of service, and cut down the number of outlets or terminals. That is what I as Minister of Transport accepted.
My acceptance was not unconditional. It depended on three conditions being realized. The first was the protection to be given to employees. That has been done to a substantial extent. Acceptable terms have been negotiated with the union and an agreement was signed last November.
As we know, the workers have three choices: retraining, relocation and retirement. Between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the affected employees will enjoy these options. Most of the others are eligible for severance pay. In the present situation, there are about 5,000 employees of CN Express. About 1,000 will be affected by the policy of redefinition. The numbers change slightly every day as employees avail themselves of the choices offered. At this time 400 have made their intentions known. About 200, half the number, have found jobs elsewhere in CN, 100 have opted for early retirement and 100 have resigned, having found jobs elsewhere. In many cases they will benefit from the severance pay I referred to. Those who joined CN Express recently are not entitled to the same advantages as those who have been employed there five, 10, 15 or 25 years.
The second condition was that the communities would continue to receive express service. This is being done. As we see in their very interesting ads in the newspapers, CN Express takes the responsibility for a system. CN Express takes this responsibility by interlining and contracting with local truck companies. It does so by staying in a certain community when no one else can ensure service, for example in Churchill, Manitoba. In recent advertisements CN has stated: "CN will still be serving all its existing points." But it will be doing so in a way which makes more sense in today's market. CN takes the responsibility for providing service. It then signs contracts with trucking companies to ensure that that responsibility is carried out.
Following the review recommended by the committee two special cases were identified. I referred to them in the House on February 4. The first one is Charlottetown, where we decided to keep the terminal open because closing it would have left the province without any direct CN Express presence. The second exception was the Sydney office which was kept open simply because of the exceptionally poor employment situation in that area at this time. The promise CN Express has made-and for which I presume I am the guarantor-is to keep those two offices open until mid-1983 when the situation will be reviewed again. Instead of ten, only-and I know "only" is not the right expression-eight offices in the Atlantic provinces are closing.
March 6, 1981

The third condition which I imposed was that the rate structure which would result from the redefinition would be reasonable. Of course, in the future there will be increases, but already a first round of changes have taken place. By way of comment I can only refer to the point that the general picture will not be affected with respect to the express system as a whole. I can only comment on the analysis made by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation commission, a group charged with the protection of the interests of shippers, in which comparisons of 530 rates established that as a consequence of the new program 50 per cent of the rates stayed the same, 30 per cent increased and 20 per cent decreased. If I had more time, I would quote from this analysis at length because it includes some very important aspects.
So there it is. I have almost exhausted my ten minutes. I have tried to explain the circumstances as best I could in such a short period of time, especially as a former academic. I certainly understand the reservations of the committee, and I understand the importance of the recommendations it made to me. I hope I have come out of this in an honourable fashion. I hope also that the public at large and particularly the employees of CN Express will find that they are duly protected either as users of the services or as employees of CN Express. I hope my colleagues in the House will acknowledge that I have paid attention to the recommendations of the committee.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister was here in the House to put forward the position of the government.
This debate is taking place in this House because of a motion put by my colleague, the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), at the committee level. It is because of his concern about cutbacks in CN Express service that we have the opportunity to debate this today.
This is a very important matter. There is a fundamental policy question here. To listen to the minister, one might think that these cutbacks in express service are rational and a move in the right direction. The problem is that the cutbacks result from a fundamentally flawed policy of the government. I refer to a letter which a former minister of transport, Otto Lang, wrote on January 13, 1977, which laid out the government's attitude and policy with respect to the CNR. It quite simply says that the CNR is a commercial enterprise and must be run as a commercial enterprise, and that the real criteria for the operation of this service must be a balanced book and a profit margin. I fundamentally reject that approach. It is the belief of members of my party that the government has a responsibility for transportation services across the country. One of the reasons we have a public corporation such as the CNR is to serve the public and not simply to make a profit.
We should remember that the CNR was first formed from a collection of private companies which at that time were bankrupt. The public brought them together and made a viable enterprise of them in order to serve the people. Now that this corporation is operating efficiently and effectively, the government wants to separate the profit-making parts of it from
CN Express
those parts which require revenues and subsidies, so the government can either turn over the profit-making parts to the private sector or simply justify cutbacks in services. Behind this cutback in service, behind this loss of jobs and behind this loss of services to communities is a fundamentally flawed government policy. First and foremost the policy should emphasize service to the community and to the country rather than treating the CNR simply as a profit-making venture.
As he was speaking, the minister spoke about the losses faced by the CNR. We believe those losses are exaggerated and that the amount of money which is said to be lost by CN Express is far out of proportion. For example, the figure I have here indicates that the loss for 1980 was $51 million. I understand this includes $24.4 million charged to CN Express by other CN departments. It is my understanding that if there were no CN Express, CN would not save this full amount of $24 million. The amount charged to CN Express by the other departments is exaggerated because it includes overhead and other items which would have to be in place in any event.
Not only is the amount of money which supposedly would be saved, if we did not have this express service, exaggerated, but we suspect as well that prices can be raised deliberately and service levels withdrawn in order to discourage customers. For example, let us look at past experience in Saskatchewan. Before the removal of service, rates from Regina to Fort Qu'Appelle went up by some 94 per cent; rates from Regina to Kamsack went up by some 87 per cent; and rates from Regina to Prince Albert went up by some 52 per cent. Before these massive increases CN Express was charging the same as other companies. With these massive increases CN has overcharged and thereby reduced its own share of the market. CN did not take advantage of the full revenue potential for its service that existed. We feel the losses stated by CN for CN Express are exaggerated and out of line.
Another aspect of this matter which concerns us greatly is that of lay-offs. The minister referred to that. He is right when he says he has done something in this respect, and he deserves credit. He is keeping open the two terminals at Sydney and Charlottetown. He has done something to alleviate the situation regarding loss of jobs, but there still is a large employment loss. My understanding is that another 1,100 jobs will be lost. One quarter of those jobs will be lost in Atlantic Canada. That is a considerable loss of employment, particularly at a time when the economy is not creating new jobs rapidly, and that is to understate the matter. These lost jobs will hurt the communities where these jobs have existed until now. They will hurt the heads of households who have to support their families, pay for heating, food, children's clothing and other essentials. There is a human side to this which must not be overlooked.
In light of the fact that this cutback is not justified, it is hard to understand why the government is proceeding in this direction, other than that it chose to treat the CNR as if it

March 6, 1981
CN Express
were a private profit-making corporation rather than the public utility which it really is.
Another important aspect of this cutback in the CN Express service is that the railways made commitments with regard to the provision of their services. In other words, when they moved from a rail service to a trucking service they made certain commitments about maintaining service. I heard the minister echoing this once again when he spoke just now. He is saying that when we move from the CN Express trucking service to the private sector trucking service, somehow there will be no loss of service. I take these assurances with a grain of salt, particularly in light of the previous commitments by the railways. For example, on December 7, 1971, CP Rail undertook the following:
CP Rail undertakes through the CSC to provide a service equal or superior to the service presently being provided under the station agent system.
The commitment of CNR was as follows:
Right from the day a servocentre goes on stream the service provided to customers from it will be at least equal to that which is available through conventional facilities, and in many cases immediately superior to that now available.
These are commitments made by railways that their service would remain at the same level, and yet now we hear about further cutbacks. When they moved from rail to road, they assured the people that the service would stay at the same level. Now they are pulling back on express services and we are being assured that these will be provided by the private sector. It is difficult to take those assurances seriously.
Finally, I want to come back to the fact that the most important point about this cutback in the CNR Express service is that the government is following a fundamentally misguided policy of treating CNR as if it were a private commercial venture when, in fact, it is a public utility. These cutbacks in express services provided by a public utility are unjustified. They remind us of cutbacks in passenger services and in branch lines.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly on the matter before the House simply to reemphasize the comments I made when this matter came before the committee. We in Nova Scotia look upon the day of November 5, 1980, when all of us as representatives of that area received the notice from the Canadian Transport Commission, as black Wednesday because it was truly a shocker to all of us, especially to me as Member for Parliament for South Shore. We were informed at that time that the agency positions located at Rockingham, Windsor Junction, Upper Mus-quodoboit, Chester, Mahone Bay, Lunenburg, Liverpool, Lockeport, Shelburne, Barrington Passage and Yarmouth were to be closed. We were told as well that the station buildings located at Upper Musquodoboit, Chester, Mahone Bay, Lunenburg, Liverpool, Lockeport, Shelburne and Barrington Passage will be put up for sale. I would remind the minister that of that list which I just placed on the record, seven out of the eight places are in my constituency, and of the previous list, seven out of 11 are in my riding. The minister states that this was due to a decline in business. He states that
the business was picked up by private companies and that there was nothing he could do about it.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, this points out the obvious fact that somewhere along the line in CN we have faulty management. The management of those operations in that area have to be at fault because in recent years there has been a gradual improvement in economic conditions along the south shore of Nova Scotia. We have had, for example, in Chester, one of the areas where operations have been curtailed and closed down, a gradual improvement of business in the Hawboldt Industries Ltd., a gradual improvement in shipbuilding, and specifically in yacht building for American interests. If the CN express had been on their toes, surely they could have received some of that business.
The same situation applies to Mahone Bay where industrial shipping is building fibreglass pipe which is shipped all over the nation and to the United States. They must bring in much of the material required. Here again, when the original service was established in the area, there was less business available than there is today. In my own home town of Lunenburg, where we have the largest fish processing plant in North America, a plant which only recently added $3 million or more to its operations by expanding its fish processing facility, obviously new business opportunities exist.
Twelve miles farther on into the town of Bridgewater, you will find the Michelin Tire Company which located there some eight or ten years ago. It is a town which has grown from about 4,000 people to over 8,000 people, double the population. Yet here we find a closing down of CN Express. If we go on to Queens County, the towns of Liverpool as well as Brooklyn, we will find located Bowaters Mersey Paper Company Limited, a very progressive company which has been expanding its operations in recent years, adding to its payroll and adding to the volume of business it conducts. Here again you find the sale of the station and a cut down in CN Express.
You could go the whole length of the south shore and see a gradual improvement, such as the location of McCloud Fisheries at Port Houton, and a new company, Polar Bear Fisheries, at Port Hebert, along with the expansion of the marine ship repair industry in Shelburne.
Some day I hope the minister will find time to come to Nova Scotia. Although he is of one political persuasion and I of another, I would gladly make myself available, if he could find the time. I would take him, not on a Cook's tour, but on a Crouse tour of the south shore which, I think, he would find informative and helpful to understanding what is happening there and what he is doing to that area. It is all very well for him to say that some employees have taken early retirement and that CN has been a good employer of these people. No one questions that, Mr. Speaker, but what we are questioning are the actions being taken by this government. The closures to which the minister is agreeing in effect are a betrayal of the terms under which Nova Scotia entered Confederation. The only argument the minister has been able to present to the House this afternoon is that this action must be taken because CN is losing a few dollars in that area. This same government
March 6, 1981

can find millions of dollars to bail out automobile companies, it can find millions of dollars for firms which really have no binding commitment on the government, as has CN and the people in our area, and they expect the government to fulfil its obligations and commitment under the terms of Confederation. At the rate we are going, it seems to me that CN is entirely forgetting Nova Scotia.
Let us consider for a minute what is happening down there. In Halifax there is the pending sale of the Hotel Nova Scotian. There is the closing of express terminals in Amherst, Port Hawkesbury, Yarmouth and Bridgewater. There is a reduction by 50 per cent of the staff of the express terminal in Sydney, a move which is nothing but a minor reprieve from the previous planned closure of that outlet. There are drastic reductions in express service in Pictou County where it appears more than 30 jobs will be lost.
The current cutbacks are not the beginning of this regressive railway tale. During recent years railway lines have been abandoned and stations have been closed. This is causing tremendous concern throughout the entire length and breadth of our province, not just along the south shore. For example, recent warnings have come to my ears from the towns of Oxford and Falmouth. Perhaps I should call them the most recent victims of the policy being approved and accepted by the present minister. iThis applies to the management of the greenhouses located in Oxford and in the Annapolis Valley near Falmouth, both of which have used CN Express to ship their products to out-of-province markets. With the curtailment of CN Express, it would appear that there is no alternative method for these people to get their products to markets in Quebec, and I believe they ship as far away as Montreal. So, these people join the large number of fresh fish plant operators in my constituency who are concerned about the manner in which they will get their fresh fish to upper Canadian markets. They have used CN Express in the past.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Give me cases.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I repeat my offer to the minister to come down to my constituency and meet these people. If he does not have at his fingertips the cases to which 1 referred, that is a frightening admission that there is a lack of communication between the massive bureaucracy in his department and the minister at the top of that department. It really frightens me, especially when he says, "Give me cases."
I am also concerned when the minister says that the jobs are moving, that they are not being lost. He told us his department would look after the people who are being laid off, but in no way will that policy follow through to the vast number of citizens whose employment is being affected by this cut-off. In closing, I must say that if this massive, regressive, backward step being taken by CN is not stopped soon, then Canadian National Railways may just as well forget the maritime region altogether.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
National Energy Board Act


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, after consultations with the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we have agreed to deal with all stages of Bill C-60 this afternoon, with the hope that one representative from each party will not use more than 15 to 20 minutes and that private members' hour will start around 4.15 or 4.20 o'clock and will last 60 minutes.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable. In our desire to permit the government to get its program through, we are prepared to agree and to preserve private members' hour. I appreciate the intervention of the government House leader; that is the agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, yes, that is the agreement. We are prepared to confirm it. I have the following qualification to make. The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake is the member who has the resolution this afternoon. He will not be offended if we have something less than the full hour. In other words, when we start private members' hour, we might then renegotiate the matter. We do not need to stay here until six o'clock; we might get out at 5.15 or something like that.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-60, to amend the National Energy Board Act, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to thank the House for its co-operation in accepting the proposal to consider this bill in such an expeditious manner. I will try not to abuse the indulgence of the House, but 1 have a few comments concerning the nature of the bill. It has great significance, and it would be only fair to Canadians if I took this opportunity to put a summary on the record concerning the nature of this bill so that everyone will know exactly what it tries to do.
Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to move second reading of Bill C-60, to amend the National Energy Board Act, which received first reading by the House on February 10, 1981. The

March 6, 1981
National Energy Board Act
purpose of. this bill is to modernize the statutory procedures used by pipeline companies under federal jurisdiction to acquire lands for their pipelines.
The provisions of the bill will greatly expand the recognition of the rights of the affected land owners, not only in so far as the amount of compensation they receive is concerned, but also by providing them the right at a public hearing to inquire into the appropriateness of the route selected by the company. It is my belief that the bill I am presenting substantially incorporates all the major recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of Canada expressed in its 1975 working paper on the subject of the various expropriation powers conferred under federal statutes.
Before going any further, I wish to express my indebtedness to the Senate of Canada and to my colleague, the Hon. Senator Olson, for their invaluable work in the preparation of this bill.
Currently, the acquisition of land by pipeline companies is governed by the provisions of the Railway Act. This statute, which has not been significantly amended since 1919, has served its purpose, but no longer reflects the views of our society as to the balance that should be drawn between the public interest and the rights of the owners of private property. The Law Reform Commission has criticized the existing procedure, primarily on the ground that no opportunity is given to land owners to question the detailed route chosen by the pipeline company. It has also been criticized on the basis of a lack of codification of the types of damage which should be compensated for, a feature which is common to modern expropriation statutes, including the Expropriation Act of Canada. The present bill addresses those concerns to a degree which, I suggest, makes it one of the most fair and even-handed expropriation statutes in Canada.
I would now like to briefly describe the features of the bill. They can be divided into three main areas: first, the approval of the detailed route of the pipeline; second, the determination of the compensation payable to land owners; and third, the provision governing acquisition by the pipeline company of the right to proceed with construction where agreement has not been reached with the land owner.
Hon. members should note that all of the procedures contained in the bill will be available, not only to land owners whose property will actually be taken for the pipeline, but also to those owners of neighbouring land who will be adversely affected by the proximity of the pipeline. These owners will be notified of the intention of the company to apply to the National Energy Board for approval of its detailed route, and they will be entitled to file objections with the board. If an objection is received regarding any part of the route, the board is required to hold a hearing in that locality, at which time the land owners will have a right to be heard. The board can either alter the route of the pipeline or it can minimize the damage caused by imposing terms and conditions on the approval
which will regulate, among other things, the method and timing of acquiring the land and of constructing the pipeline.
To ensure that land owners receive fair compensation, the bill includes a list of types of damage which must be compensated for. Owners whose land will be taken will be given option as to whether they prefer to receive periodic payments, in the nature of a land rental, with the right to have the amount of these payments reviewed at five-year intervals. This option will eliminate the need which now exists to anticipate, in advance, all types of damage which may be caused to an owner by the construction of a pipeline.
As further protection, the bill ensures that every land owner will be advised of his rights under the statute before he enters into any binding contract with the company. As soon as the company identifies the land that it may need for its pipeline, it will be required to serve a notice on every owner advising not only the amount of compensation the company is offering but also explaining, in detail, the various procedures available under the act for his protection, including the right to dispute the route selected.
The procedure for determining disputes as to the amount of compensation will now be removed from the courts. Once the detailed route of the pipeline has been approved and the company is unable to reach agreement with the land owner, either party may apply to me to appoint a negotiator to assist in the bargaining. If the negotiation is unsuccessful, either party may apply to me to have the matter submitted to an arbitration committee for binding determination. Except in a case where the compensation demands of the land owner are unreasonable, the pipeline company will pay the costs of all of these proceedings, including the hearing before the National Energy Board for approval of the detailed route.
Finally, where the company is unable to conclude an agreement with the land owner, it may nevertheless acquire access to his land for construction purposes by applying to the National Energy Board. At least 30 days before this application, the company must advise the land owner of its intention to apply, and the land owner will be entitled to send written objections to the Board. In granting the company access to the land the Board can impose terms and conditions to minimize the damage caused.
Wherever a company receives such a right of entry the land owner becomes entitled to an advance payment on the compensation which will be payable to him. Any disagreement with respect to the amount or the payment of that advance can be submitted for arbitration.

Mr. Speaker, once enacted, this bill will apply to all oil and gas pipelines under federal jurisdiction whose detailed route has not been approved by the National Energy Board when the Act is implemented. Moreover, the procedure concerning the determination of the compensation will apply to land owners who have not entered into an agreement with a company and who have not yet been expropriated under the present provi-
March 6, 1981

sions. Thus, the bill will apply to the northern Foothills pipeline and the Quebec-Maritime gas pipeline extension. [English]
The Foothills Pipe Line company has indicated that if the bill should be passed into law at some point prior to the completion of the Alaska Highway Gas Project, it would be prepared to make adjustments which further reflect the new approach provided for under Bill C-60.

Consequently, quick passage of this bill will enable land owners affected by the construction of the northern pipeline to benefit from these new provisions. Finally, passage of Bill C-60 will certainly be an improvement and an undeniable advantage for land owners in Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia who will have to part with some of their lands for the construction of a gas pipeline that we have committed ourselves to complete as quickly as possible.

I trust that the House will agree with me that the bill represents a great step forward in the fair treatment of private parties affected by some of the major public interest projects on the horizon.
The implementation of these new procedures can be expected to produce certain effects on the construction of pipeline projects. First, it will produce some delay in the construction of these projects. Primarily, this will result from the requirement that hearings be held in order to approve the detailed route of a pipeline. The bill contains provisions which will ensure that these delays are no longer than is absolutely required. 1 would suggest that whatever delays are unavoidable constitute a very small price to pay for a significant improvement in the fairness of these procedures.
The bill will also produce some increase in the cost of pipeline projects. In almost all cases the companies will bear the cost of implementing these procedures. It is expected that there will be some increase in the average amount of compensation paid to each land owner. This will result from the measures taken to ensure that land owners are advised of their rights, and also from the provision for compensation for all sorts of damage, including damage suffered by land owners adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way. I know of many people in the prairies, in particular, who will be very interested in this improvement in our legislation.

I believe that we have to expect an increase in the number of arbitration cases to determine compensation in view of the relaxing of the arbitration procedure and the various provisions under which the company building a pipeline will pay the costs considered reasonable of all the proceedings started by an owner who disagrees with the amount of compensation offered.
The statistical data which I have received from the National Energy Board show that in previous cases of pipeline construction by major companies, very few compensation settlements
National Energy Board Act
were subjected to arbitration as they represent as little as 0.6 per cent of the owners involved. This figure might point to the generosity of the companies, but it also probably indicates the lack of understanding of owners concerning their rights or a reluctancy on their part to undertake costly appeal procedures about the amount of compensation granted. It seems to me that the provisions we are proposing here will help to restore the balance between the rights of the pipeline companies and those of the land owners, since the costs incurred in obtaining equitable compensation are no less of a burden for the owner than the damages he sustains.
This bill will also result in an increase in the operating cost of the pipeline once it has been built. That increase will stem from the fact that the companies will have to compensate the land owners for damages caused in the maintenance and operation of the pipeline. That aspect of the matter was somewhat overlooked in the old act, in the sense that negotiations were left entirely to the discretion of the companies and the land owners. No procedure was provided for settling claims by arbitration. I think I can say that the principles of justice and fairness demand that this type of damage not be treated any differently from those that are suffered when the pipeline is built.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore move second reading of the bill and thank all parties for their co-operation in passing this important bill in good time, for 1 feel sure it will benefit a large number of Canadians in the years to come.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention this afternoon to take up too much time of the House or delay the proceedings. We are very anxious and have been for a long time to ensure that this legislation passes. Farmers in western Canada who will be affected by it really want it.
There are two points I would like to bring to the attention of the minister and I assume he will agree with them. They concern the interpretation of the bill, and have been brought to our attention by the Canadian Confederation of Agriculture which represents the Unifarm in the province of Alberta which, in turn, represents the same constituency as I do. While 1 recognize there are other members involved, I do think that perhaps the constituents I represent will be more affected by this piece of legislation, because the substation where the division takes place is in my constituency and that is a fairly heavily populated part of the country. Further, it is a beef producing area, so there might be complications.
Nevertheless, I would like to bring to the attention of the minister, and I trust 1 am correct in assuming this on behalf of Unifarm and Canadian Confederation of Agriculture and the farmers in that area, that when we look at Clause 73(1) (a) (iii) we find that "the inspection, maintenance or repair of the pipeline" shall be considered for reimbursement. There is one word that has been left out. When we go back to the previous clause, it says:

March 6, 1981
National Energy Board Act
73(1) The provisions of this part that provide negotiation and arbitration procedures to determine compensation matters apply in respect of all damage caused by the pipeline of a company or anything carried by the pipeline but do not apply to
(a)	claims against a company arising out of activities of the company unless those activities are directly related to
(i)	the acquisition of lands for a pipeline,
(ii)	the construction of the pipeline, or
(iii)	the inspection, maintenance or repair of the pipeline;-
I think the word which has been omitted by oversight is the word "operations", because there could be something happening during operations which could cause problems-for instance, a leak or some other type of problem. I am sure I am correct in the assumption that the word "operations" should be incuded, because if we read Clause 74(1 )(d) it says:
(d) indemnification from all liabilities, damages, claims, suits and actions arising out of the operations of the company other than liabilities, damages, claims, suits and actions resulting from negligence or wilful misconduct of the owner of the lands;
"Operations" is included there, so I trust I am correct in the assumption that "operations" should have been included in Clause 73( l)(iii).
The other point 1 wanted to bring to the attention of the minister was with regard to the statement by the minister wherein he said that their payments will be reviewed every five years. The concern of the farmers and farm organizations relates to Clause 75.19(2) wherein it says:
(2) For the purpose of paragraph (!)(a), "market value" is the amount that would have been paid for the lands if, at the time of their taking, they had been sold in the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer.
The point is that the farmers do not want to be tied to that point, "market value", "at the time of their taking", because 1 trust we are correct in assuming that the market value will be considered every five years, as is provided in Clause 74(l)(b) wherein it says:
(b)	review of the amount of compensation payable for acquisition of lands every five years where annual or other periodic payments have been selected;
The point we make to the minister is that when the adjustment is made every five years, the value of the land also should be taken into consideration, because as everyone knows, in these times of inflation, land values have been escalating tremendously.
So with those two points included, and if the minister can give his approval today that my assumptions are correct, I am sure that we will satisfy the farmers and the farm organizations which represent them. I recognize that sometimes these issues have to be resolved in court, and the reason I want to bring them to the attention of the House today is so that during arbitration or a court hearing the debate which has taken place today will be taken into consideration; that there is an understanding that this is how this bill will be interpreted.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand as my party spokesman for Bill C-60, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act. This bill is like closing the door after the cattle have gotten out. In this party, we are basically satisfied with the content of the legislation,
but we are concerned that the government has waited so long to bring it in.
Last July the government forced us to accept the new pre-build of the pipeline which is going to carry natural gas to the United States. It seemed it could spare no time to get on with the job of giving our gas reserves to the Americans. At that time, Senator Olson was fully aware of the problems that could occur through the expropriation procedures. Senator Olson championed the committee through the Senate to try to bring about changes in the expropriation procedures. He introduced expropriation legislation to the Senate in the spring of 1979, after chairing the Senate pipeline committee.
In his often quoted speech introducing the legislation, the senator described the current provisions of the Railway Act as archaic, and wondered out loud about the untenable position of land owners facing expropriation under that act.
I myself am at a loss to understand how this government, knowing full well the implications of what it was doing, could go ahead with construction of the pipeline without first ensuring that the rights of small land owners in remote sections of this nation were protected. What was the urgency, Madam Speaker? Why could it not have said to us then that it needed one or two hours of House business to put through this simple protective measure? We are responsible people on this side of the House. We would have agreed. We would have agreed to take up two hours of our time to put through that important piece of legislation. The reality is that these Liberals were in such a rush to give away our gas they did not have even the slightest second thoughts about trampling on the civil liberties of a few land owners in southeastern British Columbia. What about the Tories? These Tories are really an incredible bunch. Just recently they have run ads in newspapers in my riding telling my constituents that I am against property rights and that they should all support the Conservatives if they want to keep their homes.
Let the record show who was fighting for the property rights of my constituents last fall when the Liberals sent in the riot squad police to take away the small property in my part of the riding. It certainly was not the Tories. I got up in the House and practically begged some of them to take part in the discussions but they were mysteriously quiet. I warned them that if the government got away with this on the B.C. section of the pipeline, it would not be long before it was expropriating land in Alberta. What was the response of the freedom fighters to my right? It was total, absolute silence. It seems they were more concerned with the property rights of Bob Blair and the Foothills Pipe Lines company than with the property rights of a couple of small land owners in British Columbia. Let them put that in their newspaper advertisements.
In any event, the deed was done. The government, which has absolutely no shame, allowed the police to occupy the lands of my constituents and then told them they had absolutely no legal remedies. This was taking place in November, at the
March 6, 1981

same time as the Liberals, in the constitutional committee, were trying to persuade us that they were the champions of civil liberties.
In the House I was forced to direct my questions to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) since there was no way I could question the real culprit, Senator Olson. With no disrespect intended to the minister, he clearly did not know anything about the situation and consistently provided me with contradictory, ill-informed answers. As for Senator Olson, he generally refused to answer my phone calls, preferring to have me deal with his assistants. I will never forget being told by one of the senator's assistants that there was no problem in my riding because even though the police had occupied the constituents' property, none of the local people had responded by shooting back! He was clearly proud that the government had managed to avoid getting itself into a military situation with my constituents.
By now the situation in Yahk has calmed down somewhat. The people are relieved that they are finally getting this bill, but are very frustrated and hurt since it is difficult for them to bargain effectively when their land has already been occupied and the pipeline is already in place.
There is, however, one specific concern we still have and I should like to relate it quickly. I believe there should be a provision in the bill which sets down very clearly the width of the right-of-way. It should be defined very clearly in the bill and not fought out through negotiation, mediation or arbitration. But there is nothing in the bill on this matter, and I am sorry about that.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to urge the House to give speedy passage to this bill. My only regret is that the government did not find the time to do this last July. That would have meant a great deal of needless suffering would not have taken place in Kootenay East-Revelstoke.
Finally, I should like to congratulate the four Yahk residents who fought the bulk of this battle. Against the forces of armed riot police, heartless bureaucrats and fancy corporate lawyers, these four men fought until they got what they deserved, Bill C-60. We should take off our hats to these residents of Yahk, British Columbia.
Before I close my remarks, on behalf of these four residents of Yahk, British Columbia, I should like to present the minister with a shirt from Yahk, British Columbia, so that he will longer remember the residents of Yahk.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take the time of the House to reply to some of the remarks of the last speaker because I think they are too contemptible. I should like to take this opportunity to ask the
National Energy Board Act
minister a couple of questions. When he swung from English into French I was not sure if I understood one aspect of the bill.
The minister said this bill would apply to routes that had not yet been approved. With the number of rights-of-way involved, the amount of negotiation that has been going on in the country, as well as the advance work on the drawing boards of the engineers which has been going on for some years now, I am a little confused. I wonder if I lost something in the interpretation from the French.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for their co-operation. I have noted the specific points that have been raised. With regard to the definition and whether or not this covers operations, 1 think it is always dangerous for a minister to give a legal interpretation while on his feet. I should like an opportunity to consider this in more detail and then I will be very happy to provide the hon. member with his answer. In order to have it on the record, I will make sure that when the bill is considered in the Senate, the spokesman for the government will clarify the points raised by my colleagues. In that way there will be no misunderstanding and no mistake about the correct interpretation given to the bill.
With reference to the last point raised, I think if the hon. member reads the text I put on the record he will find that it will apply to all pipelines proceeded with in the future for which land has not been expropriated. Even in the case of the prebuild we have a commitment from Foothills that it would be ready to apply some of the provisions of this bill to what has already been built. Even if engineers are working on this type of thing, if the expropriation has not taken place as yet under the old Railway Act, then the new bill will apply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier the House was willing for the private members' hour to last for 60 minutes from the time it started, but 1 did indicate we might settle for a little less time than that.
On hehalf of my colleagues, especially the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), may 1 say that since it is now 4.30 p.m. we will be willing to have private members' hour end at 5.10 p.m.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable to the government as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 4.30 the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motion, public bills, private bills.

March 6, 1981
Mortgages


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
Items Nos. 31, 32, 33 and 34 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act to provide that a taxpayer may, as an acceptable investment under the provisions relating to Registered Retirement Savings Plans, reduce the mortgage on the taxpayer's principal residence by paying a lump sum from a self-administered Registered Retirement Savings Plan.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that only a small percentage of Canadians take advantage of Registered Retirement Savings Plans, but if the government is going to continue with RRSPs, I would like the government to consider the resolution about which I will speak today. I ask hon. members not to talk it out but instead to allow the resolution to go through so that the government can consider the advisability of allowing homeowners to make a large payment annually toward their mortgages and have the payment credited toward a self-administered retirement savings plan.
I will not talk at length; I think the resolution is selfexplanatory. However, I want to mention the main advantages of the resolution in the event the government is willing to accept it.
First, there is immediate tax relief in the taxation year to families who are fortunate enough to own their own homes, just as has applied to RRSPs in the past. Second, people who have homes with mortgages held by banks or credit unions would own their homes and have clear title to those homes in a much shorter period of time. For example, if people took full advantage of such a program, they would be able to own their homes outright within about ten years as opposed to the usual 25-year amortization period. The third benefit applicable to this resolution, if it were to go through, is that people would be paying substantially less interest to mortgage companies, which in turn would allow a fourth benefit. This fourth benefit would allow people a larger discretionary income much sooner in their lives than otherwise. It would give them an increased discretionary income and, instead of paying toward a home, which is usually the largest investment the average Canadian makes, that money could be invested in the Canadian economy. That would be a step forward in helping Canadians gain more solid control of their own economy because home owners would be able to invest in Canada's economy after their largest single investment of a home is paid off.
I ask members not to talk out this resolution. I hope the government will seriously consider including individual's own
mortgages as part of the self-administered retirement savings plans.


John Leslie Evans: On the surface, this proposal might appear both uncomplicated and quite attractive. As the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) has indicated, it would allow a taxpayer to reduce the mortgage on his or her home by means of a lump sum payment out of self-administered registered retirement savings plan. In a period of high interest rates, such as we are experiencing now, this has a particular plausible and appealing look to it.
If we examine the idea more closely, however, it becomes apparent that the result would be to confer a very considerable financial benefit on a particular group of taxpayers, and, as 1 will show at the end of my comments, it would provide for a very substantial potential loophole in the tax system. In fact, to use the registered retirement savings plan in a fashion described by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake would tend to override the basic rationale of the RRSP system.
The purpose of a registered retirement savings plan system is to provide a tax deferral to allow people to save money to provide for their retirement years. Within quite generous ceilings, taxpayers can avoid current income taxation on these savings, in effect the RRSP permits a deferral of taxation until the time the savings are withdrawn from that plan at the time of retirement or at some earlier date. If this occurs during the taxpayer's retirement years, it is likely that his or her tax rate is lower than it was during the working years, and this benefit is added to the considerable advantage of the long-term tax deferral conferred by the RRSP.
This proposal would change the tax deferral notion of the registered retirement savings plan to a tax exemption.
1 will explain that briefly. For example, if an individual were to have a self-administered registered retirement savings plan of some considerable sum, he would be allowed, under this particular proposal, to purchase a house, put a mortgage on it and then withdraw the funds from the registered retirement savings plan, pay off the house and then subsequently sell it. Since there is no capital gains tax on a principal residence he would be able to avoid tax completely by that particular method. As a result, it would provide a rather substantial tax loophole, primarily to those people who have houses and who have during their life time made enough income to be able to accumulate a substantial registered retirement savings plan.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Try putting safeguards in to prevent that.


John Leslie Evans: These are not the people about whom the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake is really concerned. He would be opening up a tax loophole, and, as a member of the New Democratic Party, he would soon be wishing he could find some way to close it.
Registered retirement savings plans are of particular usefulness to self-employed Canadians who do not have the
March 6, 1981

benefit of an employer sponsored pension plan. They are also valuable to others who want to supplement an employer pension plan.
The financial attractiveness of RRSPs is obvious to anyone who has noticed the recent high-powered advertising campaigns of financial firms intended to attract RRSP investments before the March 2 deadline for 1980 contributions. Their value is also obvious in looking at recent Department of Finance studies of the value of federal tax expenditures. Tax expenditures are the various special incentives and benefits which our tax system provides. It is estimated that by 1980, the cumulative total, the total of all tax expenditures or savings which have been conferred through these plans since their inception to the current date in 1980, would be $22 billion in tax deferrals and reductions provided through the deductibility of payments into RRSPs and into registered pension plans. Most of this is accounted for by registered pension plans which would not be affected by the proposal put forward by the hon. member this afternoon, because these registered retirement savings plans are more widespread and have been in place for a longer period of time.
But it is estimated that $4.6 billion of the $22 billion total is attributable to tax deferrals under registered retirement savings plans. With such a valuable tax concession provided by RRSPs, it is only good sense to make sure that this benefit is not abused. One of the most essential safeguards is to ensure that these tax exempt or tax deferred savings do remain in the form of investments rather than being used for current consumption prior to retirement.
For example, consider what would happen under existing rules if a lump sum payment were made from a self-administered RRSP to reduce the taxpayer's home mortgage. If the RRSP did not acquire an interest in the mortgage or the property, the RRSP would be deregistered and the full amount of funds in the plan would be included in the taxpayer's income at that time. If the RRSP did, by some means, acquire an interest in the mortgage or property, the value of that interest would be included in the taxpayer's income at that time. Under both conditions with the existing rules, that would place the entire amount removed from the RRSP into current income. It would be fully taxable at that time at the marginal tax rate of the individual concerned.
These are strict rules, but they reflect the importance of protecting the treasury against abuse of the valuable tax advantage conferred by RRSPs.
Consider what the proposal in this motion would do. It would permit a taxpayer, in effect, to pay for part of the cost of his home and to deduct the amount from his income subject to tax. He could eventually pay off his mortgage and use tax exempt earnings to do it. I suggest this would be giving him a really inordinate advantage, and at the expense of the rest of Canadian taxpayers.
This motion would therefore confer a very preferred tax advantage on a particular group of taxpayers-those having a
Mortgages
home with a mortgage on it, and running a self-administered registered retirement savings plan.
We should remind ourselves that not every Canadian taxpayer has a large enough income that he has a surplus available for investment in an RRSP. Among those who do invest in RRSPs, not everyone has the financial ability-or can afford the expert advice-to administer his own RRSP. We have to remember that this proposal applies only to self-administered RRSPs and not those administered by a trust company or some other financial institution. Certainly not every Canadian owns his own home or indeed wishes to.
There does exist one tax measure by which a person can use tax exempt savings to purchase a home. This is the registered home ownership savings plan. It is designed to assist the home buying plans of people who do not now own their home and never have in the past. There is an annual limit of $1,000 in the amount of tax exempt savings that can be put into a RHOSP. The proposal before us today has no such limitation.
If we are asked to provide this proposed tax advantage for home owners we should look at the existing major tax advantages for home owners. Let me refer again to the finance department study of the value of tax expenditure provisions in the present tax laws. Tax deductibility of payments into registered home ownership savings plans was worth an estimated $95 million last year. When capital gains taxation was introduced with tax reform, an exception was made for capital gains on a taxpayer's principal residence. This would lead to the anomaly or tax loophole that I mentioned earlier in my remarks.
I do not dispute this decision, but we should be aware of the value of the exemption from tax on this sort of capital gain: the tax expenditure study estimates it at $3.5 billion for 1980 alone. The same study finds that the non-taxation of the imputed income from the equity of home owners in their own residences was worth an estimated $5 billion last year. It can be argued that this amounts to non-taxation of a hypothetical value.
It is a fact, however, that people who invest in their own home do so in the general recognition that there is a very real benefit in the fact that this particular investment is not subject to taxation. They know that, in contrast, they would have to pay for renting their home with after tax dollars. So it is beyond dispute that our existing tax system provides very strong support toward home ownership, much stronger support than is often realized.
It may be argued that people who owe on mortgages are having a difficult time during this period of high interest rates. But that is a problem which faces many others besides homeowners. Among home owners, it is a problem mainly for those who have to renew their mortgages at increased interest rates that currently prevail. I do not think we should seek a solution to the problem of high interest rates in a measure which benefits only home owners, including home owners who do not have to renew their mortgages under current conditions, but which does nothing for other Canadians in financial difficulties as the result of these interest rates.

March 6, 1981
Mortgages
The proposal in this motion would discriminate on another count as well. An RRSP is primarily intended to provide retirement income for those who are not covered by industrial pension plans or inadequately covered by such plans. Members of these other pension plans cannot use their plans to pay off their home mortgages, and it would be quite unfair to these people if we allowed RRSPs to be used to reduce mortgage debt and further restricted it to RRSPs that have to be self-administered.
The official opposition, when they formed the government attempted to legislate a tax credit plan to offset mortgage and property tax payments. This party opposed that measure as a highly discriminatory plan, and an economically unwise one as well. The December 1979 budget of the former minister of finance estimated its cost would have been over $1.2 billion for the coming 1981-82 fiscal year, rising to more than $2.8 billion in 1983-84.
The New Democratic Party at that time opposed the mortgage and property tax credit plan of the former Conservative government, primarily because of its discriminatory nature. 1 suggest to the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake that his proposal embodies the same kind of discrimination.
Finally, I have not attempted to estimate its cost in forgone revenues to the federal treasury, but 1 have no doubt it would be substantial. At a time when we are trying to work toward a steady reduction of the federal deficit, the proposal today can only be considered to be a serious mistake.
Mir. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau): Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to see how one can support this motion, either on grounds of equity or economics. On the face of it, the proposal has a nice ring to it-we let home owners retire their mortgages by using their RRSP savings. But if we look closely at how it is done, the approach discriminates, favouring only one segment of the population that would be in a position to take advantage of it. Besides that, we would be creating another new tax expenditure, one which could add substantially to the budgetary deficit without really accomplishing any economic purpose.
There is a certain atmosphere of deja vu in this discussion. The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) is proposing a tax advantage to home owners, though not as generous as the tax credit for mortgage interest and property taxes presented in 1979 by the former Conservative government. But it still discriminates, through its total exclusion of taxpayers who rent their homes. I am reminded of the declaration by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) in that 1979 debate:
We are not prepared to support a policy which gives to one group at the expense of another.
That is recorded in Hansard at page 1504 of November 20, 1979. Although today's proposal would not give quite as open-handedly, the principle is the same. I do not think my hon. colleague had the honour of being in this House at that time three weeks before "D-night", or defeat night, but this
gave him a chance to be elected on February 18 and to express his views. I congratulate him on that.
On the face of it, it might appear that permitting a taxpayer to make lump sum payments against his mortgage from a self-administered RRSP is simply allowing him to use his own savings in the way he wants. However, those savings have accumulated in the RRSP exempt from taxation when they were earned, and the investment income of the RRSP was equally tax exempt.
Huge amounts of income tax revenue which would otherwise have been paid to the treasury have in many cases been deferred for many years, until the taxpayer retires. This has been done to assist taxpayers to save for their retirement years. There would be no justification for the government's forgoing income tax on earnings which are then spent on current consumption, yet that is what is proposed by this motion.
The motion discriminates. As I have noted, in that it excludes Canadians who rent their homes. If a person owned his home clear of any mortgage, he could not benefit from this proposal. To take advantage of the motion he must first of all be able to save enough to buy a home, mortgage it and then he must be able to save enough additional money to make lump sum reductions in the capital amount owing on his mortgage. Unfortunately, not all Canadians are in that position. Finally, he must have the financial skills to set up a self-administered RRSP or, more likely, pay for the advice of a professional consultant to do it. I think we must conclude that this measure would not have a very wide application among Canadian taxpayers.
There is another way in which this measure would discriminate among Canadians. It would allow holders of self-administered RRSPs to use these retirement savings for mortgage reduction. But what of all the other Canadians who have chosen to save for retirement in other ways, through insurance company contracts, for example, or, more likely, through industrial pension plans where they work? These savings, like RRSPs, have benefited from deferral of income tax on earnings put into these retirement plans. They would not be allowed, under this motion, to withdraw their savings for the purpose of reducing mortgage debt.
We must admit that the Income Tax Act does contain provisions which give special, favourable tax treatment to particular groups or favour certain types of activities. That is one of the things which makes the tax law so complex. These special provisions are justified on the ground that they promote certain economic activities which are generally beneficial to society.
Are there similar economic justifications for the proposal before us? Does it, for example, encourage home ownership? I suggest not really, since in order to benefit the taxpayer would have to be a home owner already. We already have the registered home ownership savings plan which encourages taxpayers to buy their own homes. It cannot be said that this proposal promotes savings, since it would not apply until after the savings had already been accumulated under the incentive of the RRSP tax deferral.
March 6, 1981

To some extent this proposal would be helpful in this period of high interest rates for home owners who are refinancing their mortgages, but it would also benefit those who do not have to refinance mortgages and have the benefit of mortgage contracts at lower interest rates. It would amount to a subsidy for certain Canadians, and that is the important part of my argument, against the pressures of high interest rates, but it would do nothing for the majority of citizens and, of course, it would be treating only the symptom and not the cause of high interest rates. 1 do not think there is an economic justification for the discrimination this motion would create.
1 honestly think it would be a serious mistake to adopt a measure such as this, which would undermine the basic purpose of RRSP savings for retirement and create a huge loophole in that tax incentive system while achieving no lasting economic advantage for society.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to say just a few words. After all, there still are 15 minutes before this 40-minute hour comes to an end.
i have listened with interest to the criticisms put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) and by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) with respect to the resolution before us as moved by my colleague, the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish). I would be less than honest if I did not admit that some of their criticisms are valid and certainly have to be considered. 1 would have felt happier about their speeches, however, if they had found it possible to see that there might be something good in this resolution and if, instead of damning it completely, they had made suggestions as to how it might have been limited so as to achieve the purpose I believe my colleague has in mind. I have not discussed it with him and, if I speak for him and say what I should not, I trust he will correct me.
However, I think what he has in mind is that there are older people approaching retirement who have some money in RRSPs and feel it would improve their retirement situation if they could get rid of the mortgages on their family homes, even at the expense of having a little less pension income than that which they could have had from their RRSPs. I would like to see that part of it studied.
My hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, admits there is a parallel between RRSPs and RHOSPs. He points out that RHOSPs are mostly for young families seeking to purchase their first homes. They are of no help to people of 60 or 63 years of age or more who are approaching retirement but are still carrying mortgages. Even if it was narrowed to that area and even if restrictions were placed so that it could not be used for speculative purposes or for getting cheap money to invest somewhere else, I think my friend, the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, has a point, and I would like to see it looked at more favourably. I would like to see it looked at as something to study rather than something just to reject out of hand.
Mortgages


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope I will make the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) a little bit happy when I congratulate the hon. member who proposed this bill. Bill C-55.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Resolution.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: This resolution this afternoon. I think any member who looks for ways to reduce the interest burden on mortgages at this time when interest rates are indeed very high should be commended for the effort.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I have done a lot of head scratching and tried to think of some method by which we might be able to reduce that burden and yet be fair to all the taxpayers of Canada. I happen to be one of those who is saddled with a mortgage. 1 suppose I should not use the term "saddled" because no one forced me to take a mortgage either on my home in Ottawa or on my home in New Brunswick. 1 did so of my own free will. I mortgaged my future. I suppose that is what life is all about, so I am not complaining about it. But it does make it binding sometimes to have a large mortgage, particularly if you are paying high rates of interest.
In considering this motion today, one is reminded of another occasion on which a proposal was put to the House to provide a tax advantage to home owners. That was in 1979 when the former Conservative government attempted to legislate a personal income tax credit to help reduce the burden of mortgage payments and of local property taxes.
1 had a number of problems with the proposal. The first was that it provided the greatest advantage to people who could afford the largest mortgages. Second, 1 found it difficult to understand why the federal government should be called upon to subsidize the burden of property taxes. It seems to me if there is to be an alleviation of property taxes, many of the provincial governments in this country would want to take a look at what was done in New Brunswick in the mid-1960s with the program of equal opportunity when the property tax assessment was equalized across the province and the rate of property taxation was equalized as well. The rate was based upon the so-called actual market value of your property.
One rate was established for individual residences and another rate was established for business residences, income properties, and those rates were the same all across the province. The individual municipalities could add an additional levy to pay for municipal services, but that levy was paid also on the provincial assessment level applied to all residences and all business properties across the province. As a result, instead of residential property taxation increasing in New Brunswick in the last 15 years, in many cases it has actually decreased. That is particularly true for the provincial portion of residential property taxation. Out of that levy, the basic costs of

March 6, 1981
Mortgages
education, health care and justice is paid by the province so that there is a uniform system of these services.
One of the reasons property taxes are so high in some municipalities compared to others in other provinces of Canada is that the provincial governments in many cases have not taken the initiative to impose a fair system of assessment on properties and have not taken over the responsibility for basic educational, medical, and hospitalization costs and costs of the administration of justice across the province.
The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) was not a Member of Parliament when the Tories brought in their ill-fated mortgage deductibility scheme, but he should be aware that members of his own party at that time supported the Liberal party in opposing that bill because of the inequities in it. Both parties saw the bill as unfairly giving special treatment to home owners while ignoring tenants, and giving the largest tax breaks to those who needed them least.
It is a little surprising that the hon. member proposes this resolution which, at first glance at least, looks to be much the same. It suggests that somebody who has a self-administered Registered Retirement Savings Plan can take a lump sum out of it, apply it to his mortgage and still escape income tax on that money. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested that people approaching their retirement age who had a substantial amount of money in a Registered Retirement Savings Plan might find it to their advantage to put that money on their mortgage rather than to leave it in the Registered Retirement Savings Plan. This is not the reason Registered Retirement Savings Plans were established.
The number of self-administered registered savings plans is small, proportional to all Registered Retirement Savings Plans in the nation. Therefore, if this motion were adopted, we would be creating a piece of tax legislation which would be very, very discriminatory in its application. If we followed the logic of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we would have the anomaly where the elderly person who took money out of his plan to apply against his mortgage would find out a few years later when he retired that he must sell his house in order to have a retirement income. So, I cannot really see the benefit.
The registered retirement savings plan system is essentially a plan of tax deferral for people who now have sufficient earnings to put aside some money, without paying tax on the principal, in order to build up a retirement fund. It is not possible for everyone to do that. For many people, all their earnings must go to providing shelter, education for their families, clothing, medical care and the various things which are necessary to rear a family. Many people in family situations who pay taxes cannot afford retirement savings plans. Therefore, they would have to pay income tax to subsidize the people who have been granted tax exemptions on the money they have put into their registered retirement savings plans. If we agreed to this motion, they could take out their money, apply it to their mortgage and still receive the tax exemption. Then those who cannot afford retirement savings plans and perhaps are just making ends meet by paying their own mortgages are required to subsidize the people who are making lump sum payments on their mortgages. That is not a very equitable proposition.
It is clear that valuable tax advantages are provided through the RRSP system. In fact, it is estimated that in the relatively brief period this plan has been in existence, over $4.5 billion in tax deferrals have accumulated up to 1980. That is why the tax law is careful to ensure that if any withdrawals are made from these funds for purposes other than retirement the tax deferral is terminated immediately. I believe that is as it should be. If we give a tax deferral for a specific reason, then it should apply only to that reason. If we start making exemptions to the rule, where will it end? Next week there will be another motion so that it can apply, for example, to an educational fund or to the tuition fees of one's son or daughter. It would go on and on, until there was a pot-pourri over which there would be no control.
In my opinion, the motion goes against the very principle of RRSPs when it proposes that a taxpayer be allowed to reduce the mortgage on his home by these lump sum payments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
It being past five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 9, 1981