1981-06-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, in view of reports that the Liberals are funding the newly-formed Nationalist Party, headed by a former Liberal member of Parliament from Alberta, for the purpose of splitting the Progressive Conservative vote in western Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House deplores this type of underhanded politics and instructs the Liberals to come clean and not fund the Nationalist Party now or at any time in the future.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY PLANNING FOR ENLARGEMENT OF WELLAND CANAL-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given that the St. Lawrence Seaway system is a direct employer of up to 15,000 Canadians, that industries which depend upon the Seaway employ hundreds of thousands, and that an international task force on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system warned that the Welland Canal will be at capacity by 1985, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
That this House urge the Minister of Transport to begin immediately the necessary planning and design for a major enlargement of the Welland Canal and thereby avoid throwing thousands out of work.


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, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On April 23 the Progressive Conservative party called on the federal government to provide testing in all homes insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. On May 29 we again called on the government to carry out a full national testing program. The Ontario government has now moved to provide testing for all Ontario home owners who have homes insulated with UFFI. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the federal government live up to its responsibility in the UFFI fiasco and immediately implement a testing program for all homes insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation under CHIP.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the fact that so often the opposition dwells on negative economic indicators such as high interest rates and inflation and not on the positive facts that real growth of the GNP is now at 4 per cent annually, and that unemployment is the lowest in four years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith):
That this House commend the Minister of Finance for introducing economic policies which have helped the ordinary Canadian reap the benefits of high economic growth and low unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the co-operative movement first approached the government to become involved in oil and gas exploration and development around about the time of the possible privatization of Petro-Canada, and whereas money has been allocated to form a co-operative energy corporation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse):
That this House supports the initiative of the co-ops and urges the government to bring in as soon as possible the necessary legislation to get this corporation off the ground.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas bankruptcies and other business failures have increased by at least 30 per cent over the last year, and whereas the government has displayed a total lack of compassion and consideration for the small business sector, the agricultural community, and the Canadian home owner, in its economic and energy policies, and whereas record high interest rates place an incredible burden on all Canadians and are the result of government policy and not bank policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to quit looking for scapegoats to shoulder the responsibility for his economic mismanagement and direct him to introduce an emergency budget immediately to restore economic sanity to Canada and to alleviate the threat of bankruptcy which plagues so many hardworking Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: 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 Canada is annually exporting billions of dollars worth of raw and semi-processed mineral resources, and in view of the fact that this is being done in the absence of a meaningful national incentive policy promoting resource upgrading in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the national government, in consultation with the provinces, establish immediately a federal-provincial task force to evolve a comprehensive incentives policy for promoting mineral and natural resource upgrading in Canada as an integral part of a national economic strategy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MEASURE TO FACILITATE EXPORT OF NEWFOUNDLAND HYDRO POWER-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the bold announcement made yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans):
That this House commends the government for introducing a measure which will permit the export of Newfoundland hydro power to Canadian and U.S. markets.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the federal govern-
June 23, 1981

ment has decided to transfer to the Quebec government the Camp Bouchard site in Blainville, to be used as a toxic waste dump, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the federal government, together with its Quebec counterpart, carry out the necessary studies to make sure that the Quebec local populations are not exposed to contamination hazards.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of extreme urgency. News from the United States has revealed that the environmental protection agency of that nation proposes in a draft document a repeal of air pollution standards which restrict acid rain, and suggests that decisions regarding pollution control be left to individual states. In light of the fact that such a move would have disastrous consequences here in Canada and, if approved, would have to be considered a deliberate rejection of last year's bilateral memorandum of agreement concerning trans-boundary air pollution, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the government immediately contact the United States administration to protest strongly the proposed loosening of air pollution standards and declare its intention to take legal action, if necessary, to prevent such changes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move an important and urgent motion. In the last three months, five requests for DREE grants have been turned down in the riding of Berthier-
Oral Questions
Maskinonge-Lanaudiere, which I represent, under the ridiculous pretext that there are too many manufacturers in the fields concerned, when the releases on the grants authorized, which I receive from the department, prove that similar requests have been accepted in other parts of Quebec for the simple reason that they come from designated areas, regardless of overproduction on a provincial basis. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois):
That the Department of Regional Economic Expansion review the regulations suggested by technocrats in 1977, and consider the municipalities of Berthier and Lanaudiere as part of the designated area, which the third part of the riding, namely Maskinonge, already is.
If that injustice were corrected, Madam Speaker, it would allow that part of the riding to develop on natural lines instead of being at the mercy of the area-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Presentation of a motion of that type requires the unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the minister inform the House whether, prior to the raid on the Thomson group of newspapers, 21 newspapers, on July 24, 1978, there was a serious leak from the department that indicated to the Thomson group that the raid was to take place, enabling their officials to remove various documents from their offices across Canada? If he did have such knowledge, would he advise the House when he first became aware of it?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the allegation of the hon. member. However, I must tell him that this question is now before the courts and that I am not in a position to comment any further on the subject.


RCMP INVESTIGATION OF DEPARTMENT
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I refer to the investigation which took place under the Combines Investi-

June 23, 1981
Oral Questions
gation Act of 1978. I am surprised that the minister does not have knowledge of that particular investigation, seeing how the Combines Branch or the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is currently investigating the missing documents which were not in the Thomson offices at the time of the investigation of the raid on July 24, 1978, and the fact that the RCMP is currently conducting its own investigation, at the initiation of the attorney general, into the minister's department, concerning the alleged leak. I would like the minister to comment on that, please.


Mr. Crosbie:: Nothing to do with the courts.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I repeat what I said in answer to the first question of the hon. member. This case is now before the courts and I am not in a position to comment on it, whether or not it pleases hon. members opposite. I suggest that we must respect the discretion of the courts.


REMOVAL FROM OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF COMBINES INVESTIGATION
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, first we have the scandal of the oil rip-offs; second, we have the disgrace of the uranium cartel. Now we have strong evidence which indicates that there was a serious leak from within the minister's department, and possibly a subsequent cover-up, days after which Mr. Bertrand, the chief investigations officer of combines, was removed from his job by the government.
Surely the minister will inform the House of the real circumstances surrounding the removal of Mr. Bertrand from his job, and make a statement in the House now, which I am inviting him to do, revealing the exact truth of the entire matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, what is absolutely clear is that the opposition is using question period to make all kinds of false allegations before putting their questions.


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


André Ouellet: I think it is absolutely a disgrace to see members of Parliament abusing the rules of the House the way they are doing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for York-Peel.


Mr. Stevens:: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In truth, it is most amazing that a minister, in answering a question, first of all says that he has no knowledge but then says that the matter
is before the courts. How he can reconcile those two statements, I cannot understand.


QUERY RESPECTING POLICE INVESTIGATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Acting Attorney General in the absence of the Attorney General. Would the minister indicate if, in fact, the Attorney General's office has asked for an inquiry to be made with respect to the leak of information at the time the Thomson newspaper chain was under investigation through the combines branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs? Would he also indicate if, in fact, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have an active inquiry under way at the present time?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Obviously, Madam Speaker, on both those questions I will take notice of them, and draw the former to the attention of my colleague for a reply. As to the ongoing investigations of the RCMP, I do not, and deliberately do not, keep myself informed about investigations of a criminal nature that they are carrying on, but I will inquire.


TIMING OF REPORTED INVESTIGATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could go to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the minister indicate to the House if there is any relevance to the fact that the investigation we are now referring to and in which, to the best of our knowledge, no charges have yet been laid, was ordered immediately prior to Mr. Bertrand's removal as director of the combines investigations section and, if there is some relevance to that, would he indicate to the House the nature of it?
t
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that Mr. Bertrand was not asked to hand in his resignation. I think that question has already been discussed long enough in the House for the hon. member to be aware of that. When he asks a question to make such an allegation, he unconsciously or deliberately misleads the House. As to the inquiries made by the director of investigations, the law and the practice are quite formal in that respect. We are not expected to confirm or deny that an investigation is under way, and when it does become public knowledge, it is always extremely difficult to begin speculating. Madam Speaker, hon. members opposite would show a minimum of responsibility if they were to respect the confidentiality of such investigations. If we were to report to the House on all investigations which may be going on, it is obvious that the people responsible for making them will be particularly handicapped in the proper discharge of their duties.
June 23, 1981


POST OFFICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. The minister knows that as of Monday we could be faced with a postal strike which is desired neither by the inside postal workers nor by the people of Canada. One of the major issues in the dispute concerns paid maternity leave. Considering that the minister responsible for the status of women, at an international conference almost a year ago committed the Government of Canada to institute paid maternity leave, and considering that the chairman of the conciliation board in the postal dispute has recommended a fair formula, why does the government not live up to its commitment to women, on the one hand, and postal workers on the other, by accepting his recommendation?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party for the question, which is a very important one. The government has demonstrated in the past, particularly last year during negotiations with the clerks, that it was committed to the principle of maternity benefits. In fact during the course of those negotiations, as hon. members will recall, the benefit that existed was extended, namely, the 60 per cent of insurable earnings was extended to cover the two-week waiting period. It is a very important area and one that we believe has to be addressed. Whether or not it should be addressed during the course of these negotiations is another matter.


MEDIATOR'S RECOMMENDATION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, if I understood the minister up to his last Liberal line, he was saying that he thought the idea was fine in principle but was not to be implemented yet. Considering specifically that on this issue the chairman stated as follows:
-discrimination deriving from maternity is surely one of the most obvious ones but, at the same time, one of the easiest to abolish.
-and since that is a key issue in the dispute which could head off a postal dispute and strike, why does the minister not lay it on the line now and say that the government will accept the recommendations ?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I hope the parties will be back at the negotiating table forthwith. That is my attitude. I do not intend to negotiate these issues in public. I have indicated the government remains committed to the issue of maternity benefits. I think we have demonstrated that in the past. We have already, I believe, implemented a very generous package across the public service. This is a matter not only of concern, I suggest, to workers in a particular union, but surely it is a social issue of major importance and one, frankly, in which
Oral Questions
members of this party have already stated they believe, and are prepared to move forward with it in certain areas, as we have already done with respect to the unemployment insurance program and with respect to our own employees.


Mr. Knowles:: By the year 2000?


Donald James Johnston: I think we have demonstrated not only our concern but the thrust of our thinking and the thrust of our policies.


APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLE TO ALL DEPARTMENT'S
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the unemployment insurance benefit program for maternity leave is not, and I emphasize is not, what is meant by the international declaration that the government signed last year in Europe. It is an entirely different concept, and the minister knows that, Since the minister has just said that he agrees in principle with the program and that the government should be implementing it, presumably if it has any principles, why does the government not make the program available to all its employees in all departments now? In particular, why does the minister not give us a clear-cut commitment today for the inside postal workers so that they would know where the government stands and, therefore, head off the potential strike next week?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am interested in the hon. member's comments with respect to our obligations under the UN convention, and suggesting that what we have already put in place does not meet those requirements on the spirit of the convention. I would be interested in knowing what his interpretation of the terms of the convention actually are.


John Edward Broadbent: I would be delighted to tell you.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Until and if the constitutional negotiations define an aboriginal right, does the minister feel that the Restigouche Micmac Indian band is in fact practising a traditional fishing right? Given the minister's statement to reporters as follows:
The central government can flex its muscles if peaceful negotiation with Quebec fails and there is accumulating evidence we may have reasonable ground-
Could he state why he has not been able to convince the minister of fisheries that he should move in this direction?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, there is such a long

June 23, 1981
Oral Questions
list of misinterpretations in the hon. member's question that I will try to give him the type of answer that he really wants.
First, do I think that the Micmacs are exercising a traditional right as they perceive it in terms of fishing in the Restigou-che? Yes, I do. Second, they have always been successful in the past in negotiating an agreement. Perhaps I should qualify that by saying they have been relatively successful in the past in terms of negotiating the number of days they fish. There has never been this serious a problem before.
I think I should state quite clearly to the hon. member, despite what he may have read, that there is no difference between my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and myself.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes there is.


John Carr Munro: He has indicated to me, and confirmed it just a couple of minutes ago, that indeed there are reasons that warrant a review of the delegation of this authority under the fisheries act of the province of Quebec.
Perhaps on a more positive note I should indicate that I had advice, in the last few moments, that Mr. Lessard, the relevant minister in Quebec, is in the region now and that he is willing to meet with the chief and the band council to see if they can work out a solution to this matter. Our Quebec region is involved. It has urged the Quebec minister and the chief to meet. It is our hope that the meeting will take place some time this afternoon. Maybe as a result of that meeting we can find a resolution to this whole question. That is our hope, and I am sure it is the hon. member's also.


ASSURANCE SOUGHT RESPECTING TRADITIONAL RIGHT
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, is the minister stating that negotiations have gone on in the past regarding this traditional fishing right? Will he give an assurance that he will get involved in these negotiations, because this difficulty may occur in other regions of Canada as well? We need to know that the minister will give assurances to the Indian bands that they in fact have a traditional right and need not negotiate through a third party when he has responsibility for this.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should be aware that negotiations go on every year depending on the stock as the parties perceive it. Therefore this is not an unusual occurrence. As far as the involvement of myself and my officials is concerned, I have already indicated that talks with Mr. Lessard took place this morning with regard to the Quebec region. The minister is now desirous of sitting down and talking with the chief. Our regional officials will be involved to the maximum extent possible in so far as they can be helpful. I might indicate that from my own office Michel Bouliane is already on his way there at the request of the band. He will be present on the reserve for the remainder of the week.


REQUEST THAT NEGOTIATIONS BE RESUMED ON ABORIGINAL FISHING RIGHTS IN QUEBEC
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since the government of Canada has always wanted to negotiate in good faith with the native people, would the minister agree to negotiate federally the salmon fishing rights in the various rivers of Quebec? I know for instance that in the Escoumins and Moisie River areas this problem could arise. In order to avoid violence and the government overstep-ing its authority, would the minister agree to meet with representatives of the Quebec Indians in order to achieve some kind of consensus which would bring about a peaceful settlement and especially respect for the traditions and rights of those Indians, in view of course of the present situation, which forces more and more Indians to go salmon fishing for economic reasons? In view of the fact that fishing is an important economic activity for Indians, would the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be prepared to negotiate a federal settlement, which would involve not only the Quebec Minister of Tourism, Fish and Game, but also the Quebec Minister of Fisheries, and the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?


John Carr Munro: The short answer to that is yes, Madam Speaker. My colleague and I have agreed that there is some merit in the review of this delegation. Obviously that implies that there are problems elsewhere. If I may be presumptuous enough, perhaps wider spread discussions to iron out these problems from the point of view not only of my own department but of the Department of Fisheries, would be helpful.
(


ACTION TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Given the fact that the government of Quebec operates under authority delegated to it by the Fisheries Act and the Minister of Fisheries by virtue of the 1923 agreement, and given the reply to my colleague from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has the minister satisfied himself that the Quebec government has acted prudently in terms of the conservation measures it is now enforcing in Quebec? If not, what steps does the minister propose to take to exercise the authority which is his and which, in this particular case, he has delegated to another government?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, although I have been here a number of years I did not delegate the authority. It has been done by order in council since 1922. We have not tried consistently to second guess the authorities in the province of Quebec. I said so publicly, and I want to say it again. Generally the province of
June 23, 1981

Quebec has administered those fisheries with a considerable degree of wisdom and conservation. There are some areas, outside the salmon issue, where we found that Quebec tended to stretch the extent of its jurisdiction. In fact in some cases I had to indicate I did not find acceptable certain attitudes vis-a-vis licensing or implications for fishermen from other provinces.
The question of the salmon is an extremely difficult issue because it is a fairly short season. When there are incidents such as there are now, it is very often difficult to pacify the situation before the salmon run has either escaped those who are entitled to catch it or it has been hurt by over-fishing.
The province of Quebec has taken an attitude on the salmon fishing which has been slightly more harsh than the attitude I have taken. For example, it did not reopen the fishery to commercial fishermen. That was its right to decide under the present legislation. I did not wholly agree with that position. However, I cannot on one hand agree to the delegation of authority and, on the other hand, do the day-to-day management over somebody else's shoulder.
My colleague and I are re-examining the implications of the 1922 agreement as it is presently applied. We will review this. If we come to the conclusion that it should be changed or altered, then we will do so according to the tradition, that is, by order in council.


HOUSING
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Ontario government has announced plans to begin a testing program of all homes in the province in which urea formaldehyde foam insulation was installed. Ontario health minister Timbrell, and thousands of other Canadians, feel the federal government's plan to test only
2,000	homes across the country is insufficient. In light of the fact that the Ontario government considers examination of all homes using the product to be vital, will the minister reconsider the limited number of home testings under the federal program and expand the test to include all Canadian homes which used the product under the CHIP program?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I welcome this initiative by the Ontario government. We have already written to them indicating our willingness to co-operate and to support them in their endeavours. This measure is complementary to the initiative of the federal government. We do not intend at this time to change our program. We are very happy that Ontario, and possibly other provinces, are doing this.
Oral Questions


COMPENSATION TO HOME OWNERS
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is also to the same minister. Will the minister confirm to this House that should the federal government provide compensation to the many owners who, because of serious medical problems associated with the foam, will have to remove and replace that insulation, such compensation would be made retroactive to cover those people who cannot wait for a later decision, and because of health reasons, are going ahead on their own and having the insulation removed, in some cases at very exorbitant costs?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I cannot confirm this because no decision has been made in that regard. As I indicated in the House some time ago, the federal government took a first step with a series of initiatives. It would be premature to jump to conclusions. Therefore I cannot tell the hon. member that we will do this.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the conciliation report handed down yesterday in the Post Office dispute, I wish to follow up on comments the minister made regarding pregnant women, and also with regard to health and safety in the work place. The minister says he is not prepared to accept the fact that this is a responsibility of the government but that it must be negotiated. When will the negotiations take place? Will the minister assure the House that they will begin immediately so that these problems can be ironed out and we will not be faced with a postal dispute?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I believe I indicated quite clearly in my first answer that I hope to see the negotiators back at the table in the next several days. That is our purpose. Our intent is to bring this to a rapid conclusion with a fair settlement for both the postal workers and the taxpayers of Canada.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, the conciliation officer has indicated very clearly in his report that discrimination is there. In light of the fact that a strike vote is being taken and will probably be reported tomorrow and a strike could take place as early as Monday, will the President of the Treasury Board, the Postmaster General and the Minister of Labour make themselves immediately available to the postal workers to try to iron out this very serious dispute? We have had co-operation from all sides of the House to form a Crown corporation to try to bring some

June 23, 1981
Oral Questions
order into this Post Office and I urge the minister to carry out that request.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that we are anxious to bring this, what he calls dispute, to an amicable and fair settlement as soon as possible.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of reports coming out of Washington during the weekend that the United States Environmental Protection Agency intends to repeal its air pollution standards which restrict acid rain, I ask whether the minister was advised of this during his recent visit to Washington and, if so, what reaction did he express on behalf of the Canadian government to this startling statement, and what weight does the government now place on the solemn assurances given to the government by President Reagan when he visited this country a few months ago that the United States intended to support vigorously Canada in its fight against acid rain?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, to take the last part of the question first, the assurances which were given on negotiations for an international agreement with us on the transportation of air-borne pollutants have been met. These discussions and in the sense of formal negotiations began today. I must say to the hon. member that we are extremely concerned about reports coming out of Washington, leaking what appears to be a draft recommendation of the Environmental Protection Agency. If that draft is indeed confirmed and these are the proposals that are placed before Congress, we would consider this to be an extremely retrograde step.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER VISIT WASHINGTON
George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, does the minister plan to make a visit in the very near future to Washington to express in person the consternation of the Canadian government and the Canadian people at this change in attitude, completely unjustified, which has taken place, and to remind the American Congress and the American government of just what President Reagan said when he visited this country a few months ago and gave us a very solemn assurance that they would fight side by side with us in this battle against acid rain?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, we have indeed been making representations most
vigorously in a continuing way, as recently as last Friday. Those representations are continuing by every means possible. I do hope I will be able to renew my representations. I have been to Washington several times recently in order to do that, and I hope the hon. member opposite will make use of his contacts in Washington to make sure that our similar viewpoint is well known to people in Congress.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS EXCELLENCY MR. SAMARANCH, PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION
Madam Speaker:: It gives me great pleasure to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of His Excellency Mr. Juan Antonio Samaranch, President of the International Olympic Association.


INCOME TAX
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The minister has received a telegram from the minister of fisheries of Newfoundland which says that in excess of 1,400 fishermen have had their gross earnings attached at various fish plants in the province for in excess of 50 per cent of all their gross earnings, and that this is causing considerable hardship to them and their families.
I know of the case of one man whose gross pay was $150 and he was left with a take-home pay of $9 after 50 per cent of his gross was attached, UIC premiums taken out, along with union dues and cost of fuel supplied by the company. He was left with $9 for the week. He owes $918 to National Revenue. Is the minister checking into this and will he direct his officials not to attach more than a reasonable amount of these gross earnings? We know that the taxpayer who owes taxes has to pay them, but is the minister taking special steps to have this checked out? This was done by survey with the various fish plants, and this is what the report has been on the attachments at these fish plants of 1,400 fishermen.


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, with regard to telegrams from various ministers, I think my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans dealt with that yesterday. I might say to the hon. member that when I visited Newfoundland recently to meet with not only two ministers of fisheries from the Atlantic provinces but, indeed, with unions, I had my officials meet with them and we set in motion a plan to contact each fisherman who received a 50 per cent garnishee. Of those, we
June 23, 1981

have come to an accommodation with almost 50 per cent, and we are attempting to contact, either by letter or by phone, all fishermen to ensure that a reasonable and fair settlement is arrived at with them on an individual basis. If the hon. member has any details with regard to individual problems, I would be glad to look at them myself.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MR. ROONEY
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I notice that the Minister of National Revenue is prepared to look at these cases himself and there may be 1,400 of them who may be interested. The MP for Bonavista-Trinity-Concep-tion, and I quote from the St. John's evening Telegram of June 3, "has declared that he does not wish to associate himself with the insensitive and heavy handed methods being used by the minister's department to extract back taxes from Newfoundland fishermen." He is also reported to have said that in his own riding 250 fishermen have had over 50 per cent of the gross value of their catch, before expenses and shares to crewmen, seized. He does not like this. He does not want the department doing it and he does not want to associate himself with this.
Will the minister inform the House whether he has now satisfied that hon. member that the 250 attachments have been withdrawn so he can associate himself with the insensitive and heavy handed methods, or just what has the minister done about that public complaint by one of his own caucus?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman is a member himself and knows that the law must be applied whether it is a pleasant or an unpleasant law. It has to be applied, but it must be applied fairly and equitably. There were 1,457 fishermen in Newfoundland who received a 50 per cent garnishee. Of that number, in the case of at least 50 per cent we have contacted them and come to an acceptable arrangement with them. We are attempting to contact the others and we will approach each one on an individual basis, depending on their ability to pay.


MEASURE TO ENCOURAGE POWER DEVELOPMENT IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday the minister tabled in the House a discussion draft of the energy security act. In view of the loud and unfounded criticism of the minister by the Premier of Quebec and by certain members of the opposition, will the minister assure this House that he will pursue the amendments to the National Energy Board Act for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and for all Canadians, and that he will respond in detail to the Premier of Quebec?
Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to tell the hon. member that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who was worried that this draft bill would hurt the negotiations, was out of his depth again. This draft bill was tabled after discussion with my colleague, the minister for energy for Alberta, and he understood exactly how we were proceeding and why we were proceeding in this particular instance, and our negotiations are going to carry on as planned.

As for the statement made by the Quebec premier, Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that what we are now proposing to do is the same thing that we have been doing for many decades for the transmission of natural gas and oil in Canada. Quebecers in general have always gladly relied on Alberta gas and oil without any province being able to prevent that gas and oil from crossing its territory and reaching Quebec consumers. What we are proposing is that the same rule be applied to electricity as to natural gas and oil from which Quebec as a whole has benefited for a long time.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, I do not know where the minister was a few weeks ago because it is quite clear that under the Constitution he has the ability to do that now, and does not need this additional legislation, but that is not my question. It relates to a question I put last week on the impact of the NEP on the level of the Canadian dollar. Since then I have calculated the total impact over a 12 month period is somewhere between $8 billion and $10 billion-that is the Petrofina purchase, the lost production based on fields becoming uneconomic, the Alberta cutbacks, investment outflows by independent Canadian producers, rigs leaving the country, and a diversion of capital from this country.
Since this is having and will continue to have a significant downward impact on the level of the Canadian dollar, I ask the minister is the government considering any changes in the energy policy, either to alleviate this pressure or to spread it out over a longer period of time?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am very surprised that my hon. colleague would suggest the government should act because we have the constitutional power even if Parliament has not given the government the legislative right to act. We need the legislation to implement the powers that exist under the Canadian Constitution.
As for the second part of the question, I am surprised that in the hon. member's calculations he forgot to mention the great

June 23, 1981
Oral Questions
benefits which have resulted for the industrial and manufacturing sectors in this country over the last year-


An hon. Member:: Where are they?


Marc Lalonde: -by the fact the Canadian dollar was at a discount. This has meant that Canadian industry is able to export competitively to the rest of the world like never before, and has created thousands and thousands of jobs in this country. I am amazed he does not seem to recognize that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INCREASED CAPITALIZATION OF PETRO-CANADA
Michael Holcombe Wilson: I was looking for an answer to my question, Madam Speaker. But what the minister neglects to say in his response is that the negative impact on business as a result of the deadlock, as a result of rigs leaving the country and lost production, is much greater than anything he referred to in his answer. We are looking at $25 million a day leaving the country, jobs leaving the country, and it is a direct reflection of the high interest rates in this country.
Yesterday the minister introduced his energy security legislation which smuggled in a two and a half times increase in the capital of Petro-Canada, effectively removing about-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is really quite long in both his questions. I would ask him to be brief.


Mr. Nielsen:: So are the answers.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Is the minister proposing to direct Petro-Canada to spend that capital in ways that will not have a continuing downward impact on the level of the Canadian dollar, such as takeovers of foreign companies at exorbitant prices as in the case of the Petrofina acquisition?


Some hon. Members:: Yes or no?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is looking through very dark glasses these days. He should take the trouble to read the papers. Yesterday the president of Gulf Canada, an international company, announced plans to spend $675 million in the Beaufort Sea alone in exploration and drilling over the next few years. As far as Petro-Canada is concerned, it remains the objective of this government that it should become as large as any of the multinationals that have been operating in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: We intend to equip Petro-Canada with the means and powers to achieve this particular objective. As far as takeovers of foreign multinationals are concerned, that means the dividends and profits of those companies are going
to remain in Canada over the next few years rather than being shipped abroad. That is the policy of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SHARING OF PESTICIDE DATA BETWEEN CANADA AND UNITED STATES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Recent reports have revealed fraudulent or deficient testing of chemicals by about 25 U.S. laboratories in addition to Industrial Biotest, and I understand that at least another 31 are considered suspect. In the past, officials of the minister's department have been quoted as saying that the IBT affair was an isolated one and that they had no information at all on investigation of other labs. Yesterday in the House the minister said she expected to receive information on studies done by other labs by the end of this calender year and that she would make the information public, identifying the companies and products involved. By the way, Madam Speaker, I have asked reporter Peter von Stackleburg to send the minister the U.S. report so that we can speed up this process.
Would the minister care to tell us if Canada has a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. to share pesticide data, and if so, why the U.S. would not inform Canada of the problems associated with products which may be on the Canadian market?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I fear that the hon. member might once again be on a witch hunt. He must have read the reply I gave yesterday-and I gave an accurate answer, as I believe that we must all do in this House. I can today confirm that the reports of the United States Food and Drug Control Agency are on their way to our offices. However, the number of reports which would be invalid seems rather high according to the figures quoted by the hon. member. I can only repeat what I said yesterday. As soon as we have received our own copy of these reports which are now on their way, we shall identify the Canadian companies and the products used in Canada which may correspond to the invalid studies. This will take us until the end of the year as the missing tests for these products will have to be completed.


INCREASED TESTING CAPABILITY
Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. It is distressing for me to hear that she considers my attempts to make this information public-a witch hunt.
June 23, 1981

Yesterday four top officials of IBT, including the president, were indicted in Chicago for fraud in the testing of chemicals. Now we are told there are at least 24 other laboratories that have been doing faulty testing. Does the minister not feel that we need to increase our toxicological assessment capacity in Canada, and at the very least require labs to meet good laboratory practice standards before we accept their studies for registration purposes?


Monique Bégin: Yes, of course, Madam Speaker. This is our objective. Early in my mandate, many months ago, the hon. member asked me whether we would open in the very near future a toxicology centre in Canada. I had replied, quite rightly I believe, that as long as we could do so, we would work jointly with the United States and Great Britain in particular, because there is a tripartite committee for the exchange of scientific information, so as to avoid additional costs for Canadians. We are now considering various relatively vague proposals which could eventually lead to the establishment of a truly Canadian toxicology centre. The details still have to be finalized. We are trying to prevent a waste of public funds.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Some time ago he stated he would be appointing a fulltime minister of veterans affairs. My reason for raising the question at this time is that we have some very serious problems in the Department of Veterans Affairs, especially dealing with the length of time it takes to process pensioners' applications. The present minister has not been able to find a solution to the problem, so can the Prime Minister inform us when he will be appointing as a full-time minister someone who can deal with this very serious problem in the department?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The information I was able to gather in my inquiries, Madam Speaker, was that, on the contrary, the minister was doing a remarkably good job as minister of veterans affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Why didn't you jerk your thumb?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: However, that does not deter me from my general intention, Madam Speaker, of appointing a minister expressly for that portfolio. I have no intention of doing it at this time. I usually consider-


John Carnell Crosbie: The byelection is over.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for St. John's West has views on this as he has on most things, but as on most things they do not make much sense. Madam Speaker, a byelection has nothing to do with the appointment.


DECENTRALIZATION OF DEPARTMENT
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister or to the acting minister. I received a letter today from a veteran in British Columbia who has been waiting for his application to be processed since April, 1977. He feels that it will take up to another two years, which will mean that it took from five and a half to six years to process his application.
The chairman of the pension commission and the Auditor General have stated that the staffing problems involved in the move to Prince Edward Island are causing delays in the processing of claims. The Auditor General stated that only 20 per cent of headquarters staff are prepared to make the move and that many trained personnel are resigning or leaving to take jobs in other departments. Is the minister considering leaving the pension commission in Ottawa so as to rectify the one to five-year delay in processing the applications of veterans?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is raising a particular case of which he has not given the minister or myself notice. It would be our concern to settle the particular case. A particularly outstanding one such as this should be drawn to our attention. If the hon. member was really sincere in getting results, he would have perhaps tried that route before raising the question in the House.
In so far as our program of decentralizing federal services is concerned, including the services of the Department of Veterans Affairs, our policy is well known. I find it remarkable that hon. members opposite, who are always accusing us of trying to centralize the country, should object to a policy which on the contrary is meant to bring federal services to the various regions.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. While the subject of the alleged abuse of salmon fishing was well aired this afternoon and it was encouraging to hear the remarks of both ministers, I should like to receive assurances that an investigation is also taking place into the abuses in the raids carried out on women, children, and defenseless people in that particular reserve.

June 23, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
Are we concerning ourselves with civil liberties and the rights of Canadians in such a case where the heavily-armed and overly-armed police of a particular government used a heavy-handed approach to a matter which might have been investigated in a much more reasonable manner? These people were defenseless. Will we attempt to determine exactly who were the perpetrators and the wrongdoers in this particular case?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, photographs were handed to me depicting what happened on June 11. They showed a tremendous number of police personnel and a tremendous number of cruisers, buses, and other heavy equipment and armament in that general vicinity. These pictures are being sent to the Solicitor General.
I had an opportunity to talk with the Solicitor General respecting signed affidavits which were prepared on the reserve. They are being forwarded to me by the National Indian Brotherhood. The affidavits claimed that some very excessive force was applied to various Indian persons on the reserve. The Solicitor General indicated that he is waiting to receive that documentation and will be more than happy to look into the claims of excessive use of force. I think any further questions along this line would be more appropriately directed to my colleague, the Solicitor General.


Mr. Paproski:: Send in Marc Lalonde as a negotiator, Madam Speaker.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order respecting supplementary estimates (A) that were deemed to have been reported last evening and from which will arise an appropriations bill this Friday. I talked to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) about this particular period, and he agreed that this would be an appropriate time to raise the matter.
Supplementary estimates (A) are very simple in that they consist of a single item, namely the energy program of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The estimates contain two separate money items. The first is vote 20a, which is described as follows:
-Payments to refiners and other importers of crude oil and petroleum products for the purposes of Part IV of the Petroleum Administration Act- $2,143,300,000.
Then the second part is a statutory item entitled "Petroleum Compensation Revolving Fund" in a negative amount of $2,143,300,000, which is identical to the amount in vote 20a. Therefore the net budgetary expenditure is zero, because one has been netted against the other or has been subtracted.
Further in the estimates there is an explanation of the requirement which shows that increased oil compensation payments require the additional $2,143,300,000. Then there are increased revenues to the Petroleum Compensation Revolving Fund in that amount. Thus it is a negative amount of $2,143,-
300,000.	Then there is an explanation of the objects of expenditure in the amount of $2,143,300,000, less increased revenues of the same amount. The net expenditure is supposedly zero and the net requirement is supposedly zero.
I believe these estimates, particularly the item entitled "Statutory", the Petroleum Compensation Revolving Fund, are out of order and inappropriate for these estimates for three reasons. In fact, I believe the estimates as presented are false in terms of what they are supposed to be. They are misleading and out of order according to the precedents and standards required of estimates, as indicated by decisions of Your Honour's predecessors and as set out in Beauchesne's fifth edition.
I believe there are three separate reasons why the item is out of order. First, the statutory item is not an expenditure; it is a revenue item. In fact it is described further on in the estimates as increased revenues in the amount of $2 billion, as well as "Less: Increased Revenues" of $2 billion. On two occasions the item is described as a revenue item. The estimates are intended to present to Parliament the spending program of the government, not its revenue program.
The revenue program is handled in a different manner. It is handled through taxation and presented to the House in the form of a public account at the end of the year in terms of total revenue. However, during the course of the year we have other sources of information from the government as to its revenue intentions. The estimates are not intended to indicate revenues.
I should like to bring to the attention of the Chair Section 484 of Beauchesne's fifth edition, page 169, under the section entitled "Estimates", wherein the following is indicated:
The purpose of the estimates is to present to Parliament the budgetary and non-budgetary expenditure proposals of the government for the next fiscal year. These estimates include Votes, which Parliament is asked to approve through Appropriation Acts, as well as other items called statutory items, for which the required expenditures have already been approved through existing legislation and are included only for information purposes.
Very clearly, according to Beauchesne's fifth edition, the estimates are supposed to include only expenditure items-two types, votes requiring an appropriation act, and "statutory" where there is an existing legislative authority. They are not intended to include revenues for which some legislative authority might exist.
Section 487 on the same page of Beauchesne's fifth edition reads as follows:
(1) The Estimates are limited to setting out only the sums which it is calculated will be required in the current year,-
It is just a reinforcement of Section 484 in terms of the intention of the estimates. I maintain that, as a result of this being a revenue item and not a spending item, that statutory item should be ruled out of order.
June 23, 1981

My second and additional reason why this statutory item is out of order has to do with the purpose of the petroleum compensation revolving fund. The supplementary estimates do not contain a description of what the purpose of the fund is but the main estimates for 1981-82 do. I refer the Chair to page 7-32 of the main estimates. There the objective of the petroleum compensation revolving fund is defined in this way:
To provide incentives for the development of designated classes of high-cost domestic petroleum through the payment of compensation to first users of such petroleum-
In other words, the petroleum compensation revolving fund is for the purpose of subsidizing or making payments to users of high cost domestic petroleum-not imported petroleum but domestic. Further evidence is contained on page 7-34 of the main estimates and, indeed, may be found in Chapter 34 of the Adjustment Accounts Act as well as Chapter 72(4) of the Petroleum Administration Act.
It is very clear that the statutory authority for the petroleum compensation fund is to subsidize domestic high-cost petroleum. At present Syncrude is the only one to fall into that category, with oil produced from the tar sands in Northern Alberta. If you look at vote 20a, Madam Speaker, it clearly states that it is for the purpose of "payments to refiners and other importers of crude oil and petroleum products for the purposes of Part IV". My point is that this estimate nets off the petroleum compensation fund, which is a revenue item, from vote 20a, the moneys required to subsidize imports. It is an inappropriate mixing. Vote 20a deals with the subsidization of imports. The statutory item deals with the subsidization of Syncrude oil produced in Canada.
They are apples and oranges. It is inappropriate to suggest that on the one hand, since we require a dozen more apples, we can subtract the dozen surplus oranges we have and reach a net requirement of zero fruit. They are not the same thing; they are two different items. I submit that it would be equally inappropriate for the government to take corporate taxes and in the estimates subtract those from fiscal transfers to the provinces, for example, and therefore say that the net spending on fiscal transfers in this new figure. They are two different items; they do not belong on the same side of the ledger paper. Even if they did by some peculiar reasoning, you should not subtract the two anyway because they are different items.
My third reason for submitting that that statutory item is out of order has to do with the fact that the item is itself anticipatory. In fact, there is no legal authority for the amounts contained therein. I refer the Chair to Citation 484 of Beauchesne which states:
These estimates include Votes, which Parliament is asked to approve through Appropriation Acts, as well as other items called statutory items, for which the required expenditures have already been approved through existing legislation and are included only for information purposes.
Clearly, a statutory item must be backed up by existing legislation. Even if the statutory item was a true expenditure, as opposed to a revenue item, it would be out of order for inclusion because the necessary legislation allowing the gov-
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
ernment to raise these funds has not yet been passed. Indeed, the necessary amendments to the legislation have not even been introduced.
I refer the Chair to notice of ways and means motion from Votes and Proceedings of July 11, 1980, and also to notice of ways and means motion of June 2, 1981, which is a notice of ways and means motion to amend the Petroleum Administration Act in a way which would provide the authority for the government to collect those revenues which would go into the petroleum compensation fund, which is supposed to be used to subsidize synthetic crude oil. The ways and means motion has not been introduced or voted upon in this House. Nor have there been amendments to the Petroleum Administration Act.
Indeed, yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) tabled in the House a document entitled "Discussion Draft of the Energy Security Act 1981". Contained therein are those provisions which would give the statutory authority to collect the moneys which are indicated as being in the supplementary estimates as a negative expenditure, whatever that is. So there really is no legal authority yet for that measure.
You will recall, Madam Speaker, that when this issue was first raised on July 11, 1980, we on this side of the House raised a point of order having to do with the appropriateness of using a notice of ways and means motion for this particular device. It really is not a tax, it is a revolving type of fund. At that time Your Honour ruled that this was a legal question beyond the competence of the Chair and inappropriate for the Chair to decide upon. Subsequently we sought legal advice on this matter and were advised that, in fact, it was illegal. We were also advised that were we to pursue the matter we would be achieving a pyrrhic victory, since all that would be required would be for the government to pass retroactive legislation, which is what is being done in this energy security bill.
The language in that proposed legislation shows on page 22, I believe, that the provisions will become effective on July 10, 1980. This is an indication that some time in the future an act will come before us which will apply to a period about a year and a half ago, which will give statutory authority to an item which is placed into these estimates, subtracted from another item. So there is net spending even though they are apples and oranges and even though it is inappropriate to have revenue items in the estimates in the first place, since the estimates are supposed to talk about expenditures.
For all of the reasons I have set out, Madam Speaker, I humbly submit to you that it would be appropriate to request the government to strike out this item. It does not affect the government's appropriations. We will not have to sit here all summer while remedial action is brought in. The net effect will be to put the supplementary estimates in order, making the information contained therein accord with the rules as established by Beauchesne and Your Honour's predecessors. I believe this will contribute to a better understanding of what is being spent, what is being raised, and how many apples and oranges we have as opposed to the mismanagement that we see.

June 23, 1981
10888____________________________________
Point of Order-Mr. Andre


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, there seems to be some confusion in the mind of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) with respect to what is intended by supplementary estimates (A). Last night I commended the hon. member as a chemical engineer having turned his hand to law, but I will have to qualify that commendation this afternoon.
If you look at the vote in question, vote 20a, essentially it seeks additional spending authority under Energy, Mines and Resources, vote 20. Energy, Mines and Resources, vote 20, called for payments to refiners and other importers of crude oil and petroleum products for the purposes of Part IV of the Petroleum Administration Act of $3,015,400,000. The purpose of supplementary estimates (A) is simply to increase that amount in the amount indicated, namely, $2,143,300,000.
Madam Speaker, one does not vote statutory items. The statutory item which appears beneath that, the petroleum compensation revolving fund, is inserted for the information of hon. members, to show that if and when legislation is adopted, there will be a netting of these amounts. Because it is the intention, as indicated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), to create a fund which will be net. However, at the moment this is not the case, and no one is seeking that to be the case. We are simply seeking additional authority to extend the further amount for the same purposes, namely, payments to refiners and other importers of crude oil and petroleum products for the purposes of Part IV of the Petroleum Administration Act.
If one looks to the contribution at the bottom of page 2 of the estimates, one will see that increased payments to refiners and other importers of crude oil and petroleum products is expressed as a gross amount of $2,143,300,000. Therefore, I suggest to Your Honour that the hon. member for Calgary Centre has not understood the purpose of showing netting, which is done for information and factual presentation to hon. members of this House. It is done to provide additional information. Unfortunately, in this case it appears to have caused some confusion in the mind of the hon. member for Calgary Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: First of all, I thank the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair. I thank the hon. minister for his remarks. Obviously, this question is highly technical and I would like to take it under advisement.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth, seventh and eight reports of Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Clarke.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,098, 2,269, 2,281, 2,344, 2,346, 2,350, 2,428, 2,592, 2,593, 2,594.


Mr. McGrath: What is the jurisdiction of the proposed new gulf region in Atlantic Canada and where will the headquarters be located?


Roméo LeBlanc: The gulf region will encompass all of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, extending in the north to include the Strait of Belle Isle and in the south to a line extending from Cape North Nova Scotia to the Ramea area on the south-west coast of Newfoundland. It will include the whole of the 4R, 4S, 4T and 3Pn statistical areas of the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization. The land boundaries of the gulf region will include all of the provinces of Quebec and Prince Edward Island, and the headwater areas of all rivers in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland which flow into the Gulf of St. Lawrence as defined here.
The headquarters of the new region will probably be permanently established in the general area of Moncton, New Brunswick.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	(a) What is the mandate or term of reference of the Interdepartmental Duty Remission Committee of the tariff section of the Department of Finance (b) can interested parties make representations to the committee before decisions are rendered and, if so, by what means (c) is it necessary for a company to be in financial difficulties before an application for the remission of duties can be considered (d) are applications for remission of duties made public?
2.	For each member of the committee (a) what is his/her classification and salary (b) is he/she an employee of the Department of Finance (c) was he/she seconded from another department and, if so, which department?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: 1. (a)
The Interdepartmental Remission Committee is composed of representatives of the Departments of Finance, National Reve-
June 23, 1981

nue, and Industry, Trade and Commerce. Depending on the agenda, representatives of other departments may attend particular meetings (e.g., Department of Agriculture in the case of duty remission applications on agricultural products). The committee is chaired by Finance; National Revenue provides its secretary. The committee was established by senior trade policy officials to provide an interdepartmental forum for the review of requests for the introduction of orders in council, pursuant to Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act, to remit duty and/or sales tax on imported goods. The committee gives advice to ministers on the policy implications of remitting duties or taxes in particular cases. Its decisions and the general policy framework within which it operates are subject to review by senior officials of the noted departments.
(b)	Decisions and recommendations by the committee are made in response to representations from individuals, companies and other applicants. Requests are usually made in writing but applicants are free to make supplementary oral presentations to the committee if they so desire.
(c)	There are no pre-conditions to be met by an applicant before making a request for duty or sales tax remission. Each request is judged on its individual merits. The impact of the duty or tax on an applicant's financial position is usually taken into account in reaching a decision and may be a deciding factor in some cases.
(d)	As a rule, applications for remission are not made public although in some cases other interested parties are asked for their views on the substance of an application.
2. (a) Committee Member
Classification Salary Range
Chairperson (Finance) Secretary (Nat. Rev.) Finance


[Stage Direction]
Various but usually ES5
National Revenue	PM 5
Ind., Trade & Commerce CO 3 Other Departments	Various
$43,921-47,859 $27,540-31,056 Various but usually
[Stage Direction]
Various
(b)	As noted above, only the chairperson and representatives of the Department of Finance are employed by the department.
(c)	Members of the committee are not seconded from their departments. Rather, their membership is part of their regular departmental responsibilities.
Mr. Herbert: What percentage of (a) professional and technical (b) worker immigrants entering Canada were destined for Quebec in 1980?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Statistics collected on new immigrants to Canada
Order Paper Questions
destined to the labour market, do not distinguish between technical and professional workers.
The following table gives preliminary figures for persons admitted as permanent residents to Canada destined to Quebec, according to intended occupational group.
Admitted Destined to
to Canada Quebec Percentage
Entrepreneurs	264	55	20Managerial-Administration	3,050	406	13Natural Science, Engineering and Mathematics	4,997	719	14Social Science	497	86	17Religion	452	58	12Teaching	1,884	402	21Medicine and Health	2,667	294	11Artistic, Literary, Performing Arts	1,096	224	20Sports-Recreation	118	16	13Clerical	7,176	957	13Sales	2,463	417	16Service	4,596	905	19Farming-Horticultural-Animal Husbandry	2,446	295	12Fishing-Hunting-Trapping	256	14	5Forestry-Logging	39	3	7Mining-Quarrying Including Gas & Oil	74	5	6Processing	1,530	248	16Machining	2,849	401	14Product Fabrication-Assembly-Repair	10,295	1,634	15Construction	2,882	288	9Transport	1,189	161	13Material Handling	442	56	12Other Crafts and Equipment Operating	439	60	13Unknown	347	65	18Not Elsewhere Classified	11,471	2,096	18Total Immigrant Workers	63,519	9,865	15


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,000 which states in part, with regard to the taking of a census, that the office of the minister responsible for Statistics Canada provides Statistics Canada with the name of a contact for each federal electoral district, what are all the sources from which the office of the minister or the minister obtains the names of such contacts?
2.	Of the present contacts for each district, what number are Liberal members of Parliament and what number are presidents or officials of Liberal constituency associations?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports: 1. The names of contacts for each federal electoral district are obtained by the minister from government party M.Ps.
2. Of the present contacts, eight are Liberal members of the House of Commons and the Senate. Statistics Canada does not have information which would permit it to determine what number are presidents or officials of Liberal constituency associations.


Mr. Cossitt: 1. With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,001 which states in part, that candidates' names for census commissioner positions may be obtained from several sources, what is a description of the sources?

June 23, 1981
Order Paper Questions
2. For the 282 constituencies, what number of the sources are Liberal members of Parliament or presidents or executive members of Liberal constituency associations?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports: 1. The names of candidates for the position of Census Commissioner are obtained from local constituency contacts, through unsolicited direct application to Statistics Canada, through employment and immigration offices, from lists of persons having previous census experience.
2. See question 2,344, part 2 answered this day.


Mr. Flis: 1.	What was the estimated number of immigrants illegally in Canada for each year 1975 to 1980?
2.	What mechanism or method of control does the government employ to monitor the entrance and exit of visitors and immigrants to Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1. There is no way of estimating the number of persons illegally in Canada.
2. There are no exit controls for immigrants or visitors leaving Canada. All persons seeking entry to Canada are examined on the primary inspection line and those whose intent or purpose is judged questionable are referred to immigration for further consideration.
Those visiting for over three months are documented on the form IMM. 1097. Others visiting for under three months may also be documented on IMM. 1097 at the discretion of the examining officer. Those with approval to work here for a specified time in a pre-arranged job are documented on the form IMM. 1102 and overseas students intending to attend school here must complete a form IMM. 1208.
All immigrants are documented on their visa and landing records on form IMM. 1000, which is retained as a permanent record of their permanent residence status in Canada.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,591, for what reason do the heads of Crown corporations have the privilege of their dues being paid to private clubs when such privileges are not extended to cabinet ministers or deputy ministers of departments?


Donald James Johnston: The policy of the government with respect to the payment of membership fees by Crown corporations listed in Schedule B of the Financial Administration Act is to pay membership fees only when membership in a particular organization is in the direct interest of the government or when membership is a legal prerequisite for the individual employee to continue carrying out his or her duties.
Policies with respect to the payment of membership fees by individual Crown corporations listed in Schedules C and D of
the Financial Administration Act are established by the individual boards of directors of those corporations.
The Treasury Board directive does not permit payment of membership fees for a public servant of any rank if such membership is primarily in the interest of the individual or not directly related to the departmental program.
Treasury Board directives, such as payment of membership fees, do not apply to members of Parliament, including cabinet ministers, who come under the rules of the House of Commons.
CONTRACTS TO LEIGH INSTRUMENTS, PATLON AIRCRAFT & INDUSTRIES AND REXNORD CANADA LTD.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Labour purchase bearings from (a) Leigh Instruments valued at $10,167 (b) Patlon Aircraft and Industries valued at $17,270 (c) Rexnord Canada Ltd. valued at $11,868 and, if so, for what purpose will they be used?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: No. However, three contracts were awarded, on behalf of the Department of National Defence. The details are as follows:
(a)	Leigh Instrument valued at $10,167. The bearings are to be used in radar equipment installed in Canadian Forces ships.
(b)	Patlon Aircraft and Industries valued at $17,270. Two types of bearings were purchased, one to be used in the airframes of the Tracker Aircraft, the other for use in the rear fuselage controls of the T33 aircraft.
(c)	Rexnord Canada Limited valued at $11,868. The bearings purchased are to be used in the under carriage of the Cl30 aircraft.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Canadian International Development Agency purchase a baler valued at $13,421 from John Deere Ltd. and, if so, for what purpose will it be used?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The Department of Supply and Services, on behalf of the Canadian International Development Agency, awarded a contract to John Deere Ltd. for a baler, a mower and a rake plus a supply of spare parts. The total cost was $13,420.91. The equipment is to be supplied to Zambia as grant aid for a wheat development project.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Privy Council Office award a contract for $140,000 to ACF Communications, Ottawa, for media information services and, if so (a) what services were provided (b) what are the names of the principals of the Company?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: DSS awarded a contract, on behalf of the Privy Council, to ACF
June 23, 1981

Communications Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario, in the amount of $140,000. The contract was for the provision of daily summaries and analysis of major national electronic and print media news. The only principal officer of the company is Mr. A. Fraser, president.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 2,343 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 2,343 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 Census for each constituency?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blais that Bill S-10, to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Corporations and Labour Unions
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, when we rose last evening to vote on the very important Bill C-57,1 had just begun my remarks on Bill S-10.
I see the minister is in the House. So that he does not think that all we in the opposition do is criticize, I must congratulate the minister on two or three counts. First of all, the short title, which has come to be known as CALURA, has a kind of exotic and almost intoxicating ring to the name. I think that it is an interesting way to put together a bill so that one can come up with an acronym which makes it sound exciting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Credit for that goes to John Diefenbaker.


Charles James Mayer: However, when one looks at the bill, it is anything but intoxicating. It is a very long and very complicated piece of legislation, even though the pages are very short.
I would also like to congratulate the minister on a couple of matters in the bill. First of all, he raises the threshold under which corporations are required to report. I think that is a welcomed part of the bill. In addition to that, apparently it will be easier to consolidate statements, and therefore easier for corporations to comply with the regulations under that bill.
However, having said that, as might be expected I think there are a lot of concerns that we have relating to the bill. It bothers me that there is really no justification given as to why we need some of this information and regulation. What I think does concern all of us in this country, which is a very large country, is that the government should take into consideration collecting some of the information that it needs in conjunction with some of the provincial governments. I can give the minister an example which I hope he will take into consideration, and I hope we raise it at committee.
The province from which I come, Manitoba, is now in the process of revising, or has just revised, the Manitoba agricultural lands protection act. This is an act which is in place to protect the lands of Manitoba from being purchased by foreigners; at least, people who do not choose to reside and work on the land. The minister stated that one of the purposes in the bill, as reported at page 10707 of Hansard of June 17, is as follows:
-there is presently no system which can indicate the level of technological transfers from Canadian corporations to foreign interests or vice versa.
It seems to me that, in addition to talking about technological transfers, the minister is also interested in finding out how foreign corporations operate in this country in terms of ownership. One of the things which could assist the government, and which could also cut back on the amount of paperwork required by individual corporations at the same time, would be for the federal government to set an example and try to work with the provincial governments in areas where the provincial governments would be involved in gathering the same kind of data the federal government is interested in under this bill.


Mr. Blais:: They will be using this data. We have arrangements.

June 23, 1981
Corporations and Labour Unions


Charles James Mayer: The minister says they will be using this data. It seems to me that this is a suggestion which can be used by both the federal government and the provincial governments in the sense that everyone should be working together to see that when information is collected, it is collected for a purpose and in such a way which is the least painful and therefore the least expensive to the people from whom that information is being extracted.
I checked with the Manitoba government this morning to find out if there had been any co-operation or any indication that this bill was coming forward at the provincial level, so that when there are bills passed which will be collecting the same kind of information from the residents of Manitoba or, for that matter, any other province in Canada-after all, a citizen of Manitoba or a citizen of Prince Edward Island is also a citizen of Canada-that both levels of government do what they can to see that this information be collected in the most inexpensive and expeditious way possible.
It seems to me that this would do a couple of things. It would lessen the cost to the individual who is collecting this information. By the way, in some cases when this information is collected the responsibility of providing the information falls on some of the chartered accountants. I have had conversations with accountants who find it very difficult, in some cases, to comply with the requests which come from the Department of National Revenue. I suspect the same criticism would apply to whoever is collecting this information, in the sense that information is asked for and it has to be charged against the accountant's time. He really cannot bill it back to the individual client per se. Therefore, what results is that the over-all level of charge which the accountant must put on his customers has to be raised. That is something I would hope the minister would take into account. I am pleased to see that he is in the chamber this afternoon.
Very briefly, as I do not particularly want to take a long time, I have two or three concerns which I want to( raise. One of the concerns, which I think has been expressed previously, is that we are in the process of developing a very large system of paper burden in this country. As an example, I do not know whether I will get a hernia from lifting this bundle of paper I have in my hand, but this is the kind of regulation which is in front of this House. This is the number of bills which are in front of the House.
I think we have to be careful to see that the regulations and laws we pass do not become excessive. Some time ago I read that the first five-year plan in Russia weighed several tons! The small business community in this country is concerned that the information collected be relevant and useful.
Early in the session I had a letter from a constituent about the monthly ES-1A report, which reads in part as follows:
We have been sending this report for over a year and we have only twenty-one (21) employees.
Who is benefiting other than a few statisticians who can say they bamboozled the Government to allow a 100 per cent sample?
As a result of that letter I wrote to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe) expressing my constituent's concern, specifically asking him if he could give some reason for the information being collected. I received a reply which I appreciated but unfortunately it did not give me any specific reason except to say that in the public sector the information is used by such agencies as the Bank of Canada, the system of national accounts and the Department of Finance in the determination of fiscal and monetary policy. That is a very heady reason for collecting information from a firm that employs only 21 people. I think this example illustrates that the government should see to it that the paperwork for small business does not become burdensome.
Clause 4 of the bill deals with the return to be filed with the Chief Statistician of Canada by corporations and labour unions. It seems ridiculous to take one quarter of the 16 pages of the bill to set out the information that the government is asking for. Clause 19 provides that the governor in council may make additional regulations.
I hope that we can take these matters into consideration when the bill is considered in committee to make sure that the information gathered is used.
Through technology, methods are available that would allow us to collect weather information at one-foot intervals between Ottawa and Edmonton. The amount of this information would be horrendous, and simply because it is possible to collect it is no real reason for doing so. It seems to me that this is the kind of labyrinth of paperwork that could result from this bill, which devotes four pages to enumerating the information that will be required.
Then, in addition, another section sets out the kind of information that the governor in council may require. We really do not know the purpose for which the information is sought.
It was pointed out earlier that a lot of federal government agencies and provincial governments collect basically the same kind of information. If we need all this information, and I am not sure that we do, then surely we should see that it is collected in the least expensive way possible.
Those are the concerns that I have with the bill, Mr. Speaker. Last night, the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) suggested that the bill should be withdrawn and a more straightforward one brought forward. Perhaps some of the recommendations of the task force on government regulations that reported to the House last fall could be adopted. That all-party committee came up with some interesting and useful ideas about government regulations and information. The government should take its recommendations seriously and, if it does not withdraw this bill, should allow major amendments to the bill when it reaches committee.


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to express my concern about some parts of this bill which has been with the Senate since December, 1980 and now, within weeks of adjourning for the summer recess, for some reason it has acquired urgency. That is apt to make
June 23, 1981

members on this side a little more suspicious than they would ordinarily be.
My colleagues have spoken at length about some reasons why they find the bill more repugnant than it would appear at first glance. Their points have been well made and I should now like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, some points made by members of my constituency, businessmen who feel that they are overburdened by government regulation. They see this as another step in the regulation of the Canadian economy and do not think the information is very relevant to government.
I have with me three letters from businessmen in my constituency who have asked that I not use their names. They have a justifiable fear that the information the government is continuously seeking from private companies and information compiled on the daily lives of individuals may lead to some form of recrimination. I am not sure that such a thing would happen, but they think they have a justifiable concern and they express it by their wish to conceal their identity.
A corporation is asked to provide its name, address of head office, the manner in which the company is incorporated, the amount of authorized share capital, the number of shares, description of voting rights and the number issued. This information is already available to the government so there is no need to burden taxpayers and the corporations that contribute to the wealth of the federal government through taxes with more paperwork. As a matter of fact, I understood that this government was committed to lessening the burden of paper work on corporations, but I do not think that Bill S-10 will accomplish that. Indeed, the amount of information collected will be doubled and this will involve extra cost for corporations.
A question put to the minister by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), which is reported at page 10859 of Hansard, reads as follows:
Could the minister tell the House whether any evaluation was made during that study of what is the cost of complying under the act for business and for consumers throughout Canada? Is there some estimate as to what it is costing businessmen to comply with the act as it now exists, and can the minister give us any estimate as to what it will cost businessmen to comply with the new act if it is passed in its present form?
The minister replied:
I do not have with me any information in terms of the total cost to an individual company of completing a form on an annual basis. However, I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that it would not appear to be a concern of any of the companies with whom we have had exchanges.
The government has imposed an additional cost of doing business upon private corporations, yet the minister has no idea how much it will cost them. I think if he had concern for his portfolio and the corporations for which he is responsible, he could find out how much it could cost them to complete the forms he has requested. After all, he has the resources of a department at his disposal.
The bill also requires trade unions to furnish the name and address of each employer resident in Canada with which it has a collective agreement, and the number of male and female members in the local union. I do not understand what differ-
Corporations and Labour Unions ence it would make to the government whether a trade union member was male or female. I do not see that as information which this government would not be able to exist without. It requests the total number of employees covered by the collective agreement and the balance sheet, showing the assets and liabilities of the union. That information is already available. It is available to members of the unions and it is available in other forms to this government.
A statement of income and expenditures is also requested. In addition, a financial statement with respect to each special fund of the union is requested. If I were a union member, I would be very suspicious of the government, or of anyone else, who requested information which showed what I had in my strike fund and so be able to see how long the union would be able to last, how long I would be able to stay on strike and how long members would be able to be fed and clothed. I do not see any other reason for the government to be requesting this information unless it is to make judgments as to how long the government could expect work stoppages to continue and how flush the union strike funds are.
There is a clause in this bill asking international unions to make a statement containing amounts paid or credited to the union in the reporting period. I do not understand the necessity for this information. Again, information is requested about expenditures made by the union and recorded as being directly related to its operations in Canada. This information is available. It is not something which has been withheld from governments in the past. It is not something that any responsible union tries to withhold. The information is available. But now we have a bill, apparently very urgent, which the government wants to have passed asking the trade unions to comply in this manner.
On reading the speeches made in connection with this bill and the speech and interventions made by the minister, I find that he was the only speaker, to my knowledge, on that side of the chamber. He was not content to be the only speaker, but he continued to interject while other members were speaking. His interjections were on spurious points of order pertaining to who brought in the bill originally and why. I would think that if government members wish to partake, they could ask the minister responsible to share a little bit of time with them, giving members opposite the opportunity to discuss this bill in the House.
It has been said by other members that this bill does not seem to do anything productive. All it does is reward the bureaucracy with the ability to have another piece of paper in its hands, something that can be moved back and forth. The bill does not reward the individual. The bill does not add anything to productivity in Canada.
When companies and labour unions are filing returns, there should be some guarantee that these returns will be kept confidential.
This bill does not bring about any extra jobs. All it does is continue to fill the bureaucracy with paper. The bill will make
10894

Corporations and Labour Unions
more bookwork. In other words, more company time will be spent complying with this bill. If a company does not have its own accounting department, it will have to hire outside help and pay additional costs, costs which will be passed on to the consumer.
When 1 look at the bill, it goes against the grain of the government's proposal to do away with the paper burden. Overregulation has been called by a number of economists one of the greatest costs to Canadian business, at about $120 per Canadian. That figure may rise to $150, and next year it may be $200. This money comes out of consumers' pockets. I do not see how that information can be used in any constructive way by the government. It seems to me, and I do not fault the minister, that someone in his department has said that this information is needed and he has neglected to ask why. I think he is remiss in that. Financial statements that corporations will have to file should be made confidential and remain so.
While I know there are other things in this bill that I and members of the business community in my constituency find repugnant, I would be remiss if I did not say that increases in the value of assets which require to be reported is a move in the right direction. But while moving properly in one direction, I find the government has moved improperly in another. For that reason I look forward to discussing this bill when it goes to committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the minister, I should inform the House that if he speaks now, he will close the debate on second reading.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. I thank the hon. gentlemen who have spoken this afternoon for their contributions.
I am sure when the bill gets into committee they will help greatly. However, I want to bring precision to some of the comments that have been made in the spirit of attempting to clarify some issues, so that we will be knowledgeable as to what this bill is about when we are in committee.
Basically this bill is a statistical one. It was deemed necessary as early as 1962 because of Canada's particular position vis-a-vis the United States, the large number of subsidiary companies existing within Canada, the large amount of foreign investments and the great number of international unions in Canada. Because of these things Canada needs a system to collect information and therefore know exactly the extent of foreign investment and how many international unions are operating within the country.
This was not a bill initiated by a Liberal government. It was initiated in 1962 by Mr. Diefenbaker, who was prime minister at the time. I have been advised by those in the House during that period that it was basically a cornerstone of his policy on economic nationalism and it was strongly supported by the Tory members of the government at that time. I am very pleased that initiative was taken and brought forward.
What we are attempting to do is to remove some of the amendments which were made in 1965 by a Liberal government in order to simplify the process. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) indicated in his intervention that what we were proposing would create some disadvantage or some problem for international unions in terms of their reporting. Quite to the contrary, what we are attempting to do is to put more fairness in to the reporting system so that international unions will be able to report more of the expenditures they are making for the benefit of members of Canadian unions who belong to an international organization.
In effect, what has developed is a report which was filed in 1977. In that report we saw a $45.4 million deficit. In other words, more money was going to the United States than was coming back into Canada in terms of the exchanges between the locals of international unions which operated within Canada.
As we are now preparing the amendments and as we are proposing in this bill, we will be permitting international unions to show a much more realistic picture of the money flowing into the United States or to the international unions from Canadian locals and also how much money is being invested by international unions in services and benefits available to members of Canadian locals. I trust those comments will, in some way, permit the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood to review the provisions of this bill so that he can make his contribution in committee.
Yesterday we heard the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) make an issue of the colour of the various forms that were attached to the former legislation, or the legislation that I am seeking the consent of the House to amend. It is true that they are multicoloured. The argument he was making was very helpful to the case to be made by the government in the sense that, of the eight forms that he was mentioning, we are combining those eight forms into one basic form that will have to be filed by the corporations under the corporations returns portion of the bill.
In effect, the forms that he was referring to yesterday were not only Statistics Canada forms. There were also two forms that are required by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce which will no longer have to be filed with that department by the corporations. I am referring to questionnaires Nos. 3 and 4. The information that was sought by these questionnaires will be included within the major universal form that is contemplated under clause 4 of this bill.
The hon. member for York-Peel made a strong case about the quarterly surveys required of various types of corporations by Statistics Canada. Each of these surveys applies to a different sector of the economy. All corporations do not have to file all eight of the multi-coloured forms. Quite the contrary; each corporation belongs to an industrial sector and there is a special form for that sector.
What is to happen now is that one of the quarterly reports will be included within the consolidated form. Because these are quarterly surveys there will be an ongoing obligation on
June 23, 1981

the part of the corporation to file three other quarterly reports as previously required by Statistics Canada.
I would like to assure hon. members that this is not a regulatory bill. That is a misconception. There is nothing regulatory in this legislation. We are attempting to provide authorization to collect information, not to regulate it. It is quite clear that the purpose of the total information we require is not to regulate but to permit the Government of Canada, and indirectly the governments of the individual provinces, to adopt certain policies that are in the provincial or national interest.
So much for the forms. I will now deal with the question of technology transfers. I am surprised that members opposite did not comment more on that aspect of the bill because it is new. As I said in my opening remarks, there are no provisions at the provincial or federal levels where national statistics can be obtained in terms of technology transfers.
One of the major factors to be taken into consideration in terms of future economic development is access to technology. Every developing nation, middle nation and developed nation is very jealous about being able to obtain and guard its technology in order to foster its technological development. Canada has had the major advantage, as a result of having a large number of multinational subsidiaries within Canada, of having access to the technology being developed by the parent company. That is a major advantage.
There is also a requirement for our own national development and the future of international trade for Canadians that we in Canada know what sort of technology has been transferred to Canada and what sort of intentions there are in terms of developing technology within Canada so as to create a better and wider industrial and manufacturing capacity within this country. There is a recognition that, without our being able to seize upon and develop our own technology, we will not be able to develop an international capacity in trade. Basically what we will be doing is requiring companies in Canada to identify for us not the nature of the technology nor the substance of the technology that is being transferred, but the arrangements for the technology transfers that are made between companies outside and within Canada.
I wear different hats as Minister of Supply and Services. One of the major thrusts of my ministry in terms of minister of supply is to use every procurement dollar in order to improve Canada's capacity in the manufacturing sector. As the report that was tabled yesterday by the task force on the National Trading Corporation shows, in 1980 we had an $18 billion deficit in end products. That was $1 billion more than in 1979. I am led to believe that in the very near future it will be over $20 billion in end products. Therefore, we as Canadians have an obligation to reduce that deficit. We will only be able to do that if we create a better Canadian manufacturing capacity.
Within my ministry I am using every procurement dollar as best 1 can to encourage the Canadian private sector to develop additional Canadian capacity. Recently I announced the source development fund. It is there to try and create addition-
Corporations and Labour Unions al Canadian manufacturing capacity, the potential of which is identified as a result of the procurement process.
I have within my department what we call the unsolicited proposals fund, $20 million a year. It is not a large amount of money. I wish I could have $40 million or perhaps $50 million. The purpose of that unsolicited proposals fund is to encourage the development of Canadian technology, encourage the private sector, increase research and development efforts to create new technology and new marketable products, not only for the Canadian marketplace but the international marketplace. The secret behind everything I do is to try and identify technology.

A technology that we could develop and improve in Canada not only to meet Canadian requirements on the Canadian market but also those of the international market. That is why I support this bill and am very anxious to have it passed because we will then have some knowledge, which we do not have now, at the level of technology transfers from multiona-tionals and other sources to Canadian branches as well as from Canadian corporations to other foreign companies. It seems to me that it is actually a major need in our economy, and I am quite surprised that no member opposite has said that it is essential for Canadians to have such information and that indeed the only way to obtain them was to use Statistics Canada, a most efficient tool not only in Canada but throughout the world.

Statistics Canada is the agency that will be collecting all the information that is required under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.
With those very brief statements, I hope that this bill will now proceed to committee where we can have a very intelligent debate on the contents of it. I have indicated to members of the opposition that I am open and flexible in terms of amendments that they may wish to present so long as they fit within the bill and the intentions I would like to espouse. Having said that, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members for their attention.
[ Translation]
Mir. Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lambert:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
[Stage Direction]
June 23, 1981
Insurance Companies

Pierre Bussières: that Bill C-66, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs,
He said: Mr. Speaker, this short bill is primarily intended to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act so as to clarify the power conferred upon the Superintendent of Insurance to incur certain expenses in exercising control of a company for its rehabilitation or in carrying out its winding up under the provisions of the Winding-up Act.
The provisions of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act prescribe that when a company is experiencing financial difficulties the Minister of Finance may give the Attorney General of Canada the responsibility of seeking from a superior court an order authorizing the Superintendent of Insurance to take control of the company for its rehabilitation or winding-up pursuant, as I just said, to the Winding-up Act. Section 113 of the act, which will be clarified by the bill which we are studying now, provides that when the superintendent takes control of a company for its rehabilitation or winding-up, the expenses incurred in exercising that control must be paid by some or all of the insurance companies registered under this act or under the Foreign Insurance Companies Act.
The payments made by the industry to cover the expenses thus incurred by the superintendent in managing the operations of a company for its rehabilitation or winding up will ensure that the assets of the company which is experiencing financial difficulties will be used solely to settle the claims of its policyholders.
The federally chartered Strathcona General Company, which had to face outstanding claims of roughly $39 million, had financial difficulties earlier this year. It will be remembered that the Supreme Court of Ontario ordered the superintendent to assume control of the company for its financial rehabilitation, and a project aimed at enabling the company to meet its obligations was drafted by a consortium representing certain sectors of the insurance industry and other interested parties. In order to see this project through, the consortium agreed to underwrite a bank loan so that the company would have enough funds for its cash requirements and thus be in a position to pay off its claims while it would attempt to recoup the money it had loaned out. It was agreed that the interest on that loan would be an integral part of the expenses incurred by the Superintendent of Insurance in exercising control of the company for its rehabilitation.
Payment by the superintendent of the interest on the money borrowed by the company and the subsequent sharing of these costs by the industry seemed to go much further than the spirit
of the legislation, under which the superintendent is authorized to do all that is necessary to allow the company under its control to meet its commitments for rehabilitation purposes. At the present time, when winding up the company, the term all "the expenses incurred" is mentioned in the act. However, in spite of the intent of the law, the Department of Justice believes that the present wording of Section 113 is such that the payment of interest and other costs as well as the expenses shared by registered companies could be questioned.
The bill aims therefore at eliminating any doubt concerning the power of the Superintendent to pay, at the time of the rehabilitation or winding up of the company, the interests on loans obtained to meet the cash requirements of the company as well as the costs of terminating the leases or employment contracts or other similar expenses. The bill also amends Section 113 of the Act to establish clearly that when the expenses are incurred in respect of a company which transacted only the business of property and personal risk insurance, only premium income from this category of insurance shall be taken into account to be shared in by companies. Mr. Speaker, this is not a very thick bill. However, as you can see, it is of major importance. I have had discussions with representatives of both opposition parties, and it seems that we could refer the bill to the committee of the whole and then proceed to third reading. This is what I hope will happen, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister has suggested that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole-

To proceed to the Committee of the Whole would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed by unanimous consent that following second reading this bill will be referred to Committee of the Whole.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering when the changes were to be made to the wording of the Order Paper regarding this particular bill. I am glad the minister has made the proposal and the House has accepted the suggestion that we go from second reading to the Committee of the Whole.
One might ask how on earth it is that at this stage of the session such a bill can have such priority, not only within the cabinet pecking order but within the pecking order of the House. This is a housekeeping bill required to clear up some doubt in the Department of Justice about what you and I would consider to be proper expenses in the liquidation of an insurance company, including interest costs on money borrowed by a consortium. Such a change is necessary in somebody's mind regarding this aspect of the ordinary liquidation of the assets of a company in order to pay off some creditors.
June 23, 1981

Sometimes one has to wonder about the thinking of the Department of Justice. This is the sort of bill which always gives me cause for doubt, just as I have doubts when a minister of the Crown says he has been advised by the legal officers of the Crown that certain bills or certain proposed steps are quite in order. Then I say yes, but what about things like Bill C-66? Little wee doubts are expressed for what you and I, Mr. Speaker, would agree are perfectly legitimate purposes. On reading the act we are mystified as to why the proposals were brought forward. Well, if the Department of Justice is wrong on this particular little wee peanut bill, how can they be right on major issues? This is precisely the type of situation we face.
The ultimate purpose of this bill, of course, is perfectly reasonable. There is no doubt in my mind that if an insurance company should get into trouble the superintendent has the power to organize a syndicate to liquidate the affairs of the company in order to save the creditors from unnecessary losses. He has the power to pay certain expenses which ultimately, if there is a deficiency of assets, are chargeable against the industry. There will in no way be a charge against the public purse.
However, what is he entitled to include in those expenses which the industry will ultimately have to pay? Naturally one would have thought that interest costs on funds borrowed by the consortium in order to keep the company going for a time so that it can be liquidated in an orderly fashion would be an appropriate expense. However, somebody raised a doubt about it so this is why we are into this sector.
The insurance company in question was in this local area and that may be what has prompted the government to get on with this bill and put it into this timetable. The shareholders or participants in this company are no different from anyone else. They merit no more consideration than anyone else. As a matter of fact, I think they were gullible to the point of being negligent. They thought they had a free ride to profit.
This company which went into liquidation was frankly nothing but a reinsurance broker. When they got into trouble and efforts were made to get the industry to bail them out, the industry said: "These people came out with ridiculous rates on ridiculous terms, they undercut us, and now you ask us to bail them out. Have you got a hole in your head?" And quite rightly so. I am absolutely astounded at some of the major reinsurance brokers in this country-and I will be charitable beyond all reason by not using their names-who placed large amounts of insurance with this company simply because the rates were low. They should have known better. It was an open secret in the industry that all Strathcona was doing was engaging in some frantic reinsurance, laying off, and just skimming through the commissions. That is all they were living on, the reinsurance commissions.
Well, on a couple of rather major claims that did arise the reinsurance people abroad simply told them to take a flying jump and to take their chances on legal proceedings. In other
Insurance Companies
words, they simply said lump it. Of course, the game was over and that is all that has happened.
Now, that having been taken care of, the question is: which costs of cleaning up this mess can be properly charged against the assets? Ultimately the residual will be paid by the industry, and that is all we are dealing with this afternoon. There is not one cent of public money involved, otherwise I think we would have had a great deal more to say. However, I am in agreement that the public trustee should not be put in a position where he has to counter an opinion from the Department of Justice as to what expenses he can authorize in an orderly liquidation. It is not only a matter of interest costs, but it is the cost of liquidating any leases which might exist.
This points up one final factor. It may be that in this case, where not too many people are going to get hurt, certainly not the public, we and the superintendent should take a look at the requirements of those people filing a proposal for a licence as a federal insurance company. I think there has to be a tightening up here. We have to look at the industry. The insurance industry in this country is predominantly owned-even more so than some sectors of manufacturing or those involved in the exploitation of minerals-and operated by foreign interests. Canadian investors have been notorious in their reluctance to organize into responsible general insurance firms. There are over 300 companies involved in general insurance, a handful of which are Canadian. There is no way that the Government of Canada is going to say: look, we are going to institute statutory requirements that those people in the insurance business in Canada shall comply with, like the banks, newspapers and broadcasters; Canadianize by saying that no more than 25 per cent of any insurance company will be owned by foreign interests.
There is no market. No Canadians are willing to buy. That is the state of the market. There is no money around. I do not care what political party wants to espouse Canadianization, there is nothing in the law which will force investors to buy interests from foreign insurance companies under any circumstances.
The answer is not public ownership. God help us if we fall into that trap. There is no way that either the federal government or the provinces can become successfully involved in the general insurance business. Those attempts at becoming involved in the general insurance business are now a disaster as far as policyholders are concerned.


Mr. Rae:: Name one.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In Saskatchewan it was a disaster. In Manitoba it was a shocking performance. British Columbia has had to go to the rescue with public funds. It is a shocking area.
Are Canadians prepared to go into the general insurance field? Do they have the expertise? A lot of people seem to think that all one must do is start an insurance company and out of some sort of God-sent manna inspiration will descend so that it becomes successful. There are such things as the market

June 23, 1981
Insurance Companies
with regard to insurance. The insurance market of the world was built upon the degree of confidence in solvency in the industry as a whole.
For example, with a claim resulting from the loss of a major airline company, we could be talking in terms of $50 million to $60 million. The industry has been organized over the years. Its experience goes back over centuries, but we are just a peanut, skimming the surface. We must organize our affairs so that there will be confidence in the solvency of insurance companies. This will benefit the question of rates. A cut-rate operation operating in the free market always comes a cropper. Government insurance schemes operating on cut rates always come a cropper, or there are losses about which they do not talk that must be fed back into the hopper. Who pays for them?
I suppose the young driver of a really powerful car, who is the biggest risk on the market, thinks it is great to obtain cut-rate fees. He does not worry about the millions which must be fed into the deficits of insurance companies such as the Saskatchewan Insurance Corporation, the Manitoba insurance system and the British Columbia insurance system which have had the misfortune of becoming involved in public insurance. If the millions are not fed into these deficits, we have to absorb greater losses. There is no magical money tree in the whole business despite what some people think. Losses are always at the expense of someone else.
We have run into a situation where there is a mess. It is being tidied up. Someone has to take care of the expenses. The industry will take care of all the expenses, and we have to tidy up the legislation. I am quite prepared to see this bill go through expeditiously. Hopefully we will get it cleaned up with a minimum of further discussion.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I am somewhat surprised the government chose to take up time, as we are approaching the end of a session, to bring in this type of legislation. That is not to say that we are opposed to it in any way. It would be very difficult for us to be opposed to legislation as innocuous as this. Its purposes and intent have been well summarized by the minister and by the hon. member for Edmonton West.
As the minister pointed out, the main purpose of the bill is to remove any doubt about the ability of the superintendent to pay and assess against the industry, in the event of the rehabilitation or winding up of a company, interest costs incurred in borrowing to meet a company's requirement for liquid funds and costs involved in terminating employment contracts and property leases.
I cannot resist taking this opportunity to follow up on what was said by the hon. member for Edmonton West about the collapse and the difficulties of the Strathcona Insurance Company which prompted this bill-how it is that we allowed this to happen. Also I cannot resist pointing to another group of companies which are subject to the general supervision of the Superintendent of Insurance. I am not directing any personal
criticism at the superintendent himself; he is a public servant of distinction and perseverance. But I say simply to the minister that we need a clearer understanding of how it is that a company such as this was allowed to conduct its affairs in the manner described accurately by the hon. member for Edmonton West for such a period of time and was not dealt with by those responsible for the supervision of the act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They were.


Bob Rae: I hear the hon. member for Edmonton West. This is true, just as Astra Trust and Re-Mor eventually were. The key is when, how and how long does it take, and how many people must buy insurance from the Strathcona Insurance Company while its activities are being supervised by the government before those people finally receive protection? In the case of Re-Mor National Trust-the facts have emerged, yet they have really never been recognized by the minister. In the case of Astra Trust there was a lack of information, which in my view was caused by the fact that, although the Superintendent was carrying out his responsibilities as he saw them according to the act, there were activities which were being conducted with respect to the establishment of Re-Mor, for example, which went for over a year without the federal government even being aware of the existence of a provincially incorporated company whose activities were directly linked to the Astra Trust federally incorporated company.
I say to the minister that rather than seeing this kind of housekeeping measure, which is necessary to provide for a very minor clarification of the law with respect to this problem, I would much prefer to have seen a number of measures.
First, I would have liked to see a willingness on the part of the government to establish an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the granting of a licence, the operation and collapse of Astra Trust and the related company of Re-Mor. It simply is not good enough for the minister to say, as he has said on a number of occasions, that the opposition does not know what it is talking about, that we want to go on a fishing trip or that there are criminal charges which have been laid with respect to some of the principals in the company and, therefore, we have to let that criminal trial go ahead.
The reason that is not good enough is that I do not want to go on any kind of a fishing trip. I really believe that before we can effectively change either the insurance legislation or the legislation pertaining to trust companies, we must know what it is that went wrong in the supervision of Astra and Re-Mor so that we can make sure that kind of problem does not happen again. We hoped to have this legislation in this session, but we have not yet had it. Then we hoped to have it in the next session, but I am sure the minister will indicate today that we will have it manana.
In the case of this particular problem with respect to Strathcona, it would be very useful for us to know how this situation was allowed to happen and what the consequences have been for the policyholders, mainly in the province of
June 23, 1981

Quebec. I think there is a tremendous tendency, which is quite natural on the part of any group of individuals who are responsible for the administration of something which has gone wrong, to say, "We did all we could in the circumstances; there is nothing more we can do. We admit no responsibility for what has gone wrong."
In addition to the need for an inquiry into what happened, there is a need, in my view, for a clarification of exactly what the responsibility is of the Superintendent of Insurance and of the government. The superintendent is there as a representative of the public when something has gone wrong. Obviously this is a question which will be settled by the courts.
The minister of consumer and commercial relations indicated at Queen's Park yesterday that the activities of Re-Mor were directly and intricately linked with the activities of Astra, that Astra was serving as a front for Re-Mor and vice-versa. In those circumstances the question we must ask ourselves is: What is the meaning of the federal licence? What is the consequence of the granting of a federal licence and what is the responsibility of the government to those individuals who rely on the granting of a federal licence? The minister has consistently answered the question by saying that it is a provincial responsibility when it comes to Re-Mor. I do not accept that answer. I do not think the court will accept that answer either. Time alone will tell.
With respect to those investors who put more than $20,000 into Astra, that is a question which strikes directly at the heart of the federal obligation. It involves the question whether there is a responsibility on the part of the federal government, when it grants a licence and when it supervises the licence, to see that individuals are not taken in by the mere granting of a licence but that the licence itself has some meaning, in addition to the simple principle of an individual being insured up to $20,000.
Does this mean that, no matter what the government knows and no matter what information it has with respect to the conduct of those companies, it has no additional responsibilities and its only responsibility is the $20,000 liability? Or, in the instance of the insurance companies act, which is what we are dealing with, are we saying that the liability of either the industry or the government with respect to the activities of the Superintendent of Insurance is strictly limited to what is specifically set out in the statute? Or are we saying, is there not some additional obligation on the part of the federal government to inform investors, potential savers and policy holders, if there are some questions in their minds or if they have some information which has come to them with respect to the companies involved?
I say to the minister that were the members of the Liberal party from Ontario in this House as concerned as their counterparts in Queen's Park, we would have some answers to these questions. In the province of Ontario we really have a one party state. We have the natural governing party, the Tory party, and we have the same party federally, the Liberal party. It just goes by a different name. We are suffering.
Insurance Companies
I see the minister shaking his head. This is absolutely true. I have correspondence in my office from people all over southern Ontario in their seventies and eighties who have lost thousands of dollars, and in some cases tens of thousands of dollars, their life savings, because of what has happened to Re-Mor and Astra Trust. They have not received a single answer to any of their questions from either their federal or provincial government. If Liberal party members in this House from the province of Ontario were prepared to be as vigilant in this House as those in Queen's Park, we would have some answers, because the minister would have to provide those answers.
There are several questions. How is it that this company was allowed to get a licence when there were so many questions posed over five years about the characters, the abilities and the qualifications of the principals involved in that company? There was a pattern of political interference, both at the provincial and at the federal level, from both provincial and federal politicians, which was referred to in the report of the standing committee on justice in the provincial legislature when there was a minority government in Queen's Park. How is it that the questions about that have simply been brushed aside by the minister?
How is it that as soon as the company Astra Trust was incorporated, it was allowed to engage in investments which were contrary to the Trust Companies Act, which were contrary to the Ontario securities act, and which were known to the Superintendent of Insurance?
I wrote to the minister concerning the breaches of the Ontario securities act. When my letter was answered by the Superintendent of Insurance, I asked him, "When you knew there were breaches of the Ontario securities act, why did you not do anything about them?" He said, "We are not responsible for breaches of provincial legislation". I have that answer in a letter from the Superintendent of Insurance replying to a letter which I wrote to the minister. I am telling the minister that that answer is not satisfactory. In this realm of trust companies and in the whole financial field, there is something very wrong indeed if the answer of someone who is responsible for the administration of the federal government is simply, "It is in someone else's ballpark; we are not responsible for that".
One would like to know, and one would have to have an inquiry to know-and there needs to be an inquiry to know- what communication there was between the Superintendent of Insurance and the Ontario Securities Commission. When they wanted that information at Queen's Park, when they had the select committee on justice meeting, the minister said, "No, we are not going to allow the Superintendent of Insurance to even appear before that committee." There has been one meeting of the finance committee in which we had an opportunity to question the Superintendent of Insurance. That was not any kind of an investigation. Indeed, I am not particularly keen on the idea of having partisan politicians engaged in a crossexamination of the people who are involved in a search for evidence. I am not interested in that. However, I am interested

June 23, 1981
Insurance Companies
in knowing that a judge will be asking those questions and will be looking at those documents. He will be asking the question of the Superintendent of Insurance, "What were your contacts with the provincial authorities and with the Ontario Securities Commission?"
That is not a witch hunt and it is not looking for unfounded allegations. That is looking for some very specific answers to some very specific questions. I say to the minister that if there were, indeed, no contacts, and if, indeed, it was over a year before the Superintendent of Insurance was aware of the existence of Re-Mor, the provincially incorporated company, the question is, "What is wrong with our method of supervision that this was allowed to happen?" That is not a witch hunt question. That is a very specific question which has nothing to do with whether or not Mr. Carlo Montemurro was or was not a crook. Whether Mr. Montemurro was a crook, or whether the people associated with him were crooks, is a question which will be settled in the criminal courts of this country.
However, whether there was something wrong in the way in which the Government of Canada supervised the conduct of these companies is not a question of criminal activities on the part of people who are associated with the companies. That is a very separate question. Individuals who have been involved, who have invested, who have tried to save, and who have taken a risk have done so because they assumed there was a guarantee of some kind, even if they were not exactly sure what the nature of that guarantee was. The question of what is the responsibility of the governments of Canada and Ontario to these people is not, I would respectfully submit to the minister, a question of the individual taking the government to court, because that would be a very expensive, lengthy, protracted and difficult proposition for a number of people who do not have a lot of money. It is not a question of the private obligation between the Government of Canada and Mr. "X" or Mrs. "Y", whoever the investors happen to be. It is not a question of a purely private obligation. It is a question of the public obligation of the government with respect to the supervision of companies for which it has responsibility, for the bona fides of which it is making some kind of claim in the sense that it is granting them a licence and that licence has some kind of a meaning.
Because it is a question of public obligation, I am disturbed that the minister has gone back on the commitment he made to the committee that the government would publish and abide by the report of a group of lawyers who were trying to arbitrate this question of the responsibilities of the governments of Ontario and Canada with respect to investors in Re-Mor and Astra Trust. I say the minister has gone back because there was a very real difference between the answer which he gave me at the end of the hearing in the committee, which he will recall, and the answer which he gave me in the House some two weeks ago, when he simply went back to the old argument of the government instead of the strict legal argument which, in my view, will not eventually hold much water. The strict legal argument is, "It is not our responsibility; we are not responsible for Re-Mor; Re-Mor and Astra Trust are two separate companies, and we are not going to do anything for people other than the $20,000 responsibility which we paid and accepted because of the insurance provisions".
I say to the minister that the answer which he gave in the House is, in my view, going to prove wrong when it comes to the end of the day. However, more important than that, there is no reason why the people who have suffered as the result of the collapse of these companies should have to wait that long, should have to pay that much money in legal fees, and have to suffer that long before the government recognizes that it has some obligation to them.
I do not pretend to have all the answers to the questions I have raised. I have tried to make the questions, which I have raised at some length with the minister in letters to him, as specific as possible. Frankly, I am not concerned with any kind of witch hunt with respect to the activities of anyone who is responsible for the supervision of these companies. I am concerned with two very basic questions. How is it that a licence was granted and that the company was allowed to conduct itself for so long when the government knew that something was wrong? Second, why will the government not recognize that it has a responsibility to those people who have put their faith in the seal of approval, which is what a federal charter means? I say to the government that there are profound reasons in our political culture why these questions are not resolved. They have to do with the fact that we live in two one-party states in this province, the one-party state of Canada where we have perpetual government and a perpetual Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and the one-party state of Ontario where we have the same problem. That is the reason these questions are not raised.
Despite that, this amendment is a minor one. We want to know why Strathcona was allowed to operate in this instance, what actual damages have been suffered by some people and how they are being compensated. These are questions which will not be resolved by this housekeeping legislation.
Rather than seeing a bill like this one brought forward at the present time, I think it would make more sense for the government to say that something is wrong. This is the first time we have seen the collapse of a federally-incorporated trust company since the depression. Why did it happen? The criminal charges have been laid; but the question of how this could have been allowed to go on for so long, whether the government could have done something about it and whether the government will need extra power where it suspects such things are going on, are questions that will not be resolved by a criminal trial. They will not even be resolved by a civil trial between the government and individuals who seek compensation. Such questions can only be settled by a judicial inquiry. That is the only way we will find out how a licence came to be granted and what the relationship or communication was between the federal and provincial governments. I think the
June 23, 1981

public ought to know the answers to these questions and that the minister ought to know them as well. I say to the minister, with great respect, that answers have not been forthcoming about the collapse of this company, and in my view they should be.
I will have some specific questions for the minister when the bill is in Committee of the Whole about the activities of Strathcona and the activities of the superintendent with respect to Strathcona. This party is concerned about the principles of superintending and supervision, and about the principles of insurance as they relate to the liability of investors and policyholders who put faith in the idea that the government was supervising and superintending the matter. These more fundamental problems lie behind my remarks today and I hope the minister will take them in that context.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Proposal to construct production centre in Toronto; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Housing-(a) Measures to help home owners facing increased mortgage payments (b) Support for co-op projects (c) Banks' profits on property tax component of mortgage payments; the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Marine Transport-Withdrawal of Dart Containerline Service from Halifax-Date of announcement.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres that Bill C-66, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Insurance Companies
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, with unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon- Mr. Ethier in the chair.
On Clause 1-
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the minister that I had some questions for him with respect to the collapse of Strathcona. We had an account of why Strathcona was allowed to fall upon hard times. I wonder if the minister could indicate if he will be giving the House an explanation of how the company came to fail and what the consequences of the failure have been for policyholders. Could he also tell us whether claims are outstanding and have not been met as a result of the collapse of Strathcona, and how it is that the company was allowed to arrive at this state of affairs?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, I will answer the first question as to whether the people who were insured will sustain losses as a result of the decision made by the office of the Superintendent of Insurance to proceed with the financial rehabilitation of the Strathcona Insurance Company. With the assistance of a consortium, no individual, no group or no corporation that was insured will sustain losses on amounts owed to them for risks covered by Strathcona.
As to the background of corporate difficulties, which is a much broader question raised by the hon. member, may I say that in 1979 the auditors from the office of the Superintendent of Insurance became aware that the company was beginning to sail on rough seas. From that moment on and on a regular basis, the superintendent's office would dispatch its auditors to make sure that the company would be taking corrective action. Company management did make some commitments but, unfortunately, they were not respected. When those facts came to light in January, 1980, the superintendent submitted a report to the minister who decided to renew the company permit for a limited time, that is until March 31, 1980, advising company management that they had to meet the requirements set for them by the Department of Insurance.
In May, 1980, a new president of the company was appointed and several changes were made, but as the problems of the company were known on the market, it could not attract enough new customers to ensure more receipts and thus improve its financial position. In short, Mr. Speaker, that is what happened.
I think there are two major factors which were raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). First, there is a basic defect at the management level which must be directly related to the rate fixing policy of the company. Secondly, there is a blatant lack of will to restore quickly the financial position of the company. However, under the plan proposed by the superintendent to rehabilitate the corporation

State Immunity Act
with the assistance of a consortium, as I indicated in my first answer to the question, no policyholder will lose money as a result of the problems experienced by the company. I must also say that the reinsurance of the company with some foreign companies has also contributed to its financial problems. I have asked the Superintendent of Insurance to look fully into the manner in which insurance companies operating in Canada provide reinsurance and to suggest how the existing legislation might be improved so that insurance companies operating in Canada and dealing with foreign reinsurance companies would have firm guarantees with respect to the quality, solvency and soundness of these reinsurance companies.


Bob Rae: Could the minister tell the House when we may expect the report of the Superintendent of Insurance on this reinsurance issue and when we will know the government's intentions with respect to the possible introduction of further amendments to the Canadian and Foreign Insurance Companies Act?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I have the superintendent's formal recommendations, I shall submit them to my cabinet colleagues and then advise the House. Unfortunately, I cannot give the hon. member any specific time frame, but I certainly hope it will be as soon as possible.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, since the minister is in the House, could he also tell us when the government intends to introduce the bill on trust companies?


Pierre Bussières: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Progress reported, bill read the third time and passed.
Pierre Bussières: 
STATE IMMUNITY ACT
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development) moved: that Bill S-19, to provide for state immunity in Canadian courts, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill for the clarification of the law and the
better protection of Canadians and others who may find some	HH
day that they have a claim in Canada against a foreign	HH
government. The problems this bill is designed to resolve are	HH
that, at best, the present state of the law is quite uncertain concerning the legal responsibility of foreign states in Canadi- ^H an courts, and, at worst, the law may be too protective of foreign governments and cause injustice to people in this country who suffer injuries or loss at the hands of foreign HH states operating in Canada.
What has developed in Canada is a tradition going back	HH
almost to the divine right of kings. The monarch was too	HH
dignified to be sued. This followed into the state and the state	^H
in relation to other states. This has changed significantly.	^H
What has happened in Canada is that the provinces and the federal government have made themselves subject to court action, like the ordinary citizen. Second, governments are ^H deeply involved in commercial activity by their agents all around the world.
The growth and penetration of commercial activities carried on in Canada today by agencies of foreign governments makes it increasingly important that we have a law on this subject ^H which is clear and fair to all. What happened historically with ^H our important trading partners, for instance the United States, HH is that in 1952 the United States took this absolute immunity right and changed it by informal agreements in informal meetings. In 1974, the United States passed a foreign sover- ^H eign immunities act. In 1972, the Council of Europe adopted a ^H convention codifying restrictive immunity. In 1978, Great HH Britain, a signatory to that convention, followed suit by pass- ^H ing the state immunity act of 1978.	^H
Because we do not have any law, what has happened in	^H
Canada is that quite a bit of confusion exists in the minds of	^H
the public and in the minds of the courts. For example, in the	^H
Democratic Republic of Congo v. Venne, (1971) Supreme	^H
Court Reports, at page 997, the Supreme Court of Canada	^H
confirmed the absolute immunity of states. Then the appellate	^H
court of Quebec did not follow this ruling in Zodiak Interna-	HM
tional Products Inc. v. Poland. 81 Dominion Law Reports,	H|
Third Edition, at page 656.	^H
We would like to make it clear to the public, the average Canadian, who is dealing with a foreign country or its agents what to expect in the end regarding the collection of debts or the type of actions that can be pursued.
Bill S-19 was discussed in the other place. Witnesses were called, the provincial attorneys general were canvassed and their opinions were sought. I do not want to go into every clause of the bill but I would like to make some references.
In clause 2, "commercial activity" has led to some discussion. There is the English example which defines commercial activity in great detail. This has led to certain problems because of the large amount of detail. The English courts from our observations have tended almost to disregard their definition, which was too broad. The Americans, on the other hand, have a narrow definition of commercial activity, leaving it up
June 23, 1981

to their courts to decide what is and what is not commercial activity. We have adopted the American example in our proposed bill and will leave it up to the courts to decide what is commercial activity.
In general terms, there is to be no immunity of foreign states operating in Canada from any proceeding relating to any commercial activity of the foreign state, clause 5; any proceedings relating to death, personal injury, damage to or loss of property caused in Canada by a foreign state, clause 6; actions concerning ships or cargo involved in commercial activity, clause 7; actions concerning property received by a foreign state through succession, gift, etc.; clause 8; proceedings for injunctions, specific performance, etc.; against separate agencies, no matter whether the agency is engaged in commercial activity or not, clause 10(3); execution against a separate agency, clause 11(2); other than when military property is involved, clause 11(3).
A procedure for the service of documents is set out. It is hoped that we do not run into examples such as Corriveau v. Cuba which involved damage to the Cuban embassy. There was a landlord and tenant relationship; there was a default and judgment was obtained. Another example is Edwards v. U.S.S.R. which involved the seizure of a Soviet vessel. There was a great deal of confusion on the part of the litigants as to what rights did or did not exist.
In conclusion, I am sure my friends across the way will have a great deal to say about the merits of the bill. It is hoped that by following the example of European conventions, Great Britain and the United States, we in Canada will be able to codify basically protection for the average citizen when dealing with a foreign nation. In the 1980s we do not think that the theory of the divine right of kings or the presumption of infallibility of the state should be followed. What we have in Canada is a collection of individuals from abroad who are operating in this country in order to earn profit. They should have no greater or lesser rights than the citizens of Canada in their dealings.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this momentous bill in this full chamber with some trepidation-


Stanley Howard Knowles: After great study.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -after great study and consideration of the provisions of this bill. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will agree with me in this connection. This place astounds me and mystifies me at the same time.
Just a few days ago the government in full dirge went ahead with its motion of closure with respect to Bill C-57. One would have thought that the economic future of Canada depended upon moving on with economic bills, that if Bill C-57 with respect to excise tax did not pass, the economy would stop and the country would stop in its tracks. Therefore we had an emotional, heated debate at that time as to whether closure should be invoked. Some felt it was an important matter and that the economy should be discussed in this House in the last few days before the summer recess.
State Immunity Act
As soon as the closure motion passed, the first items of business the government brought forward were such outstanding bills as the so-called CALURA bill, the bill dealing with the Canadian and British Insurance Companies and now a bill dealing with diplomatic immunity. I wonder aloud as to where the great urgency was on the part of the government with respect to rushing through and curtailing debate on an important economic bill, one that affects the lives of virtually every Canadian. The government cleared the decks so that we can spend two or three days talking about the question of diplomatic immunity, as important as that is.
I appreciate very much the learned dissertation of the parliamentary secretary as to the content and purpose of the bill. However, people might get the impression from the comments made by the distinguished parliamentary secretary that somehow this bill is going to codify and advance the rights of litigants and citizens of Canada with respect to being able to enforce judgments against foreign powers and representatives of foreign countries in Canada.
While I have to admit I agree with the parliamentary secretary that the bill does go a long way in codifying the present law, there are still some very serious questions with respect to how the bill will be interpreted in the courts, and the extent to which the rights of Canadians to sue, receive judgment and realize on that judgment against foreign states or their agencies will be advanced by the provisions of this bill.
One might get the impression from the title of this bill that it extends the right of diplomatic immunity while operating in Canada. Quite the contrary; it is an attempt to codify and set forth in statutory form the provisions, rights and limitations on diplomatic immunity, the rights of foreign countries to carry on so-called commercial activities in our country and the extent to which they are going to be held responsible with respect to contracts, tort liability or damages to Canadian citizens in the course of carrying on their commercial activities. There is an attempt here to specify the limitations which are placed on foreign countries represented in Canada and their agents.
The parliamentary secretary made reference to a number of cases, some of which received a lot of attention in the press. Because Canadian citizens were pursuing their claims in the courts, there was some interest in how the courts would interpret the right of the litigant to bring the action and the right of the successful plaintiff to realize on the judgment received in the Canadian courts against the property of a foreign country.
I can understand the interest of the government to bring forward this kind of legislation. There is a manifestation around the world of a greater growth of so-called centrally controlled economies where the state is involved directly in trading and business opportunities not only within their own borders but in other countries.
The question arises by virtue of the fact that they are foreign governments and why should the immunity which is

June 23, 1981
State Immunity Act
afforded diplomatic representatives in Canada be extended to those people involved in commercial activities in this country. I think any rational person and people involved from other countries fully understand that if they are involved in commercial activities they should operate according to the rules of the place in which the business is carried on. That is understood in commercial terms and I think it is understood in diplomatic terms.
Having looked at this bill from that point of view, I think it deals with the whole question of establishing, codifying or declaring that Canadian citizens do have the right to bring an * action against foreign governments or their agencies carrying on commercial activity.
The next step, of course, will be to look at the question whether a judgment can be executed once a Canadian citizen plaintiff does obtain a judgment in Canada against a foreign state. The parliamentary secretary will understand that it is one thing to get a judgment but quite another altogether to collect as a result of that judgment against any litigant, let alone a foreign state.
There are other questions which arise regarding this particular bill. I do not propose to spend a lot of time discussing the bill itself at this stage, but it is our view that this bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for at least one sitting in order to obtain answers to some more or less legalistic questions that arise about things that have occurred, to me at least, and will occur I am sure to members of that committee, regarding its operation, even though the matter has been discussed before the Senate committee which has had the opportunity of doing quite a bit of work on it, obtaining some very excellent evidence by departmental officials, Mr. Strayer, and Professor Castel of Osgoode Hall of the University of Toronto.
In any event, I want to deal briefly with some aspects of the bill and raise a couple of questions which might be dealt with at the committee. I want to make absolutely certain that in passing this legislation we are getting ourselves in the best possible situation as far as Canadian citizens are concerned to realize on judgments, and that is the area I would like to have investigated by the committee.
Secondly, in passing this legislation I want to be satisfied that the whole matter of constitutional propriety is being observed and we are not getting ourselves into a hornet's nest with regard to jurisdictional questions when we ask the courts to set certain guidelines and rules in relation to the service process against foreign states. I will deal with those matters briefly in the course of my remarks in a few minutes.
In terms of this particular legislation, the principle underlying this bill is one of trade-off. Certainly Canadians want a right of action and also the ability to execute judgments against commercial activity carried on by foreign states. We all appreciate and fully understand and support the concept referred to by the parliamentary secretary, that is the pragmatic necessity, quite apart from the divine rule of kings and all those other historical considerations referred to in his introductory remarks, of foreign states having immunity for
diplomatic representatives carrying out their duties in a foreign country. I do not think there is any question about that. The question is whether these interests can be balanced in legislation.
As I understand it, the current situation is that where there is a dispute or a matter that may lead to litigation, our external affairs department very often steps in and uses that very good office to mediate or negotiate between a foreign state and the litigant in Canada. Officials spend a lot of time very effectively in settling a good number of cases between litigants and foreign states carrying on commercial activities. This is an ongoing process and I understand from the record they have done very well in this regard.
Now we are to have a stature that will attempt to state or clarify better the situation with regard to the rights of litigants in this country. Reference has been made by the parliamentary secretary to the fact that this is a codification of the present law. I think it fair to say that the courts in Canada, particularly in Quebec and Ontario, have been moving through the process of judicial precedent toward the application of the concept of limited immunity in commercial activities. They have in fact applied in their judgments the restrictive theory, granting immunity only to the degree necessary for the free conduct of international relations by a foreign state. The matter has not really come as such before the Supreme Court of Canada, except indirectly, so there has not been a specific judgment on the law as it now stands by this high court of the land. That court is probably preoccupied with other things these days. There are a couple of items before it which I am sure are occupying some time.
The fact of the matter is that in the case of Venne v. The Democratic Republic of Congo, Chief Justice Laskin in his judgment indicated approval of the concept of limited or restricted immunity. It becomes clear to me from that particular judgment that Chief Justice Laskin would be inclined to approve of the state of the law and the judgments which have been brought forward in the lower courts that in fact recognize restricted immunity.
The aim of the bill is to establish a statutory guide for the courts in relation to actions against foreign states brought before them. If one looks at the impact of this particular legislation, one could say that conceivably there will be an expansion of jurisdiction in the courts as the bill does in fact clearly state that there is declared henceforth, on the passage of the bill, a restriction on a foreign state's immunity.
As I mentioned before, one of the results of this bill will be that the rules of the courts of the provinces will have to be modified to reflect the procedural provisions of the act. I simply raise this point because I would like to get some clarification from departmental officials, the minister or his parliamentary secretary on that aspect.
There may be a constitutional problem involved regarding the provisions of the bill in relation to service, deemed service and so on, which heretofore have been matters regarding provincial rules of court across the country. I know the evidence is that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) did in fact
June 23, 1981

communicate with the attorneys general across Canada and received no particular objection to the legislation. On the other hand, he received no response from some provinces. It seems to me we should be clear in our own minds before passing this legislation that we are not going to get into a mixed up situation in provincial jurisdiction on the procedural side of the bill.
The other aspect I just want to canvass a little more thoroughly in committee deals with the definition of "commercial activity". I understand the evidence which was given and the reasons for the provisions of the bill relating to commercial activity and the definition of that term.
As the parliamentary secretary has pointed out, commercial activity is not defined in any particularized way in the legislation. Basically, as it says in the act, it is any transaction or act that by reason of its nature is commercial activity. In other words, commercial activity is commercial activity. So it is going to be left to the courts on a case by case consideration of the individual circumstances to develop the jurisprudence and a definition of commercial activity in that way.
The parliamentary secretary has made reference to the fact that this is based on the U.S. approach as opposed to that of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom statute is the State Immunity Act of 1978, statutes of the United Kingdom of 1978, chapter 33. There the British have tried to set out certain-


Ron Irwin: What chapter?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Chapter 33. I am surprised at the parliamentary secretary; he is usually prepared for these things. I was sure he had read that statute from cover to cover.


Ron Irwin: I notice you did not have the right page on that Supreme Court decision.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Well, it is just that out west we get it a little late and as a result the pages are different. In Sault Ste. Marie, where they have up to date law libraries, I know he would have the current volume.
In any event, the approach taken by the British is to set out certain examples of commercial conduct. The evidence given by Professor Castel, an acknowledged expert in this area, before the Senate committee was that he preferred this approach as far as possible to give some definition or guidance to the people concerned. It is in effect a codification. If we are going to codify the law relating to the rights of litigants in Canada, then I suppose we should try to give them something to hang their hats on so they will know whether or not they are going to court, or whether they are taking a flyer in having to establish a cause of action, and will look at this statute and wonder of what assistance it is to them because it really does not tell them whether they are in or out of court.
Again, I understand the rationale; it is the traditional common law approach to the courts. Probably the most appro-
State Immunity Act
priate way to deal with this question is to allow the courts to look at it on a case by case basis to establish the principle that there is a right to bring an action, but I would like to canvass that a little more with departmental officials to find out whether or not we can look at a definition which is of more assistance to the citizen than this now is.
Professor Castel also suggested, as I recall, that non-governmental activities might be included in the definition of commercial activity. Personally I am not sure I am totally in favour of that limited amendment to the present definition. I want to discuss it with the officials because I can see that a government such as we have in Ottawa today, which is so enthusiastic about bringing this bill forward and having it pass through all stages before Parliament adjourns, is itself moving more and more toward a centrally controlled economy. Its philosophical bent is now in accord with that kind of philosophy in other countries. So they are very interested in establishing a reasonable precedent in case other countries reciprocate.
I want now to turn to the question of execution, because this is the one area which causes me the most concern. There are some aspects of this bill which may well have some basis in pragmatic consideration, as I said, or legal justification as to why the bill contains certain exclusions with respect to its operation. However, as Professor Castel said in the course of his testimony, one of the most important things that can be done under this bill is to define how a Canadian citizen can go about getting paid. He said the bill should try to clarify the right of a citizen to relief, a right to which he is entitled. It is one thing, as I said at the outset, to specify that a citizen has a right to bring an action and obtain a judgment, but that is only part of the whole process. The really important question is: once you have judgment, can you collect? That is where I think the bill requires further consideration.
By way of example let me refer to the discussions about collecting rent for embassy premises. Ottawa landlords will all perk up their ears at that suggestion. There are only two people watching this particular debate right now; the representative of the embassy landlords association, and the Ottawa chief of police who is wondering whether there is anything in this bill which will allow him to collect all the parking tickets they have been unable to collect because of diplomatic immunity. The parliamentary secretary is watching too-I should not count him out.
In a situation where embassy premises are damaged, the question arises as to whether or not the Canadian landlord can collect. Certainly he has a cause of action, but under the provisions of clause 11 unless the property is used for commercial purposes, it is exempt from execution of judgment. As a result, we are really no further ahead.
There are other examples. Clause 10, I believe, specifically deals with the remedies one has against a foreign state. It does not include specific performance, injunctions or an order for the recovery of land unless the foreign state consents. What I would like to find out is the basis for those exemptions, even in so far as they apply to an agency clearly involved in a commercial activity in Canada. One of the interim items of

June 23, 1981
State Immunity Act
relief in a court of action often resorted to is an injunction to prevent the defendant from removing assets which are the subject of litigation out of the jurisdiction, or to prevent him from taking any steps with respect to the item under dispute. Apparently this relief will not be available. There may be a reason for it, but I would be interested in hearing departmental officials tell me why an interim injuction at least should not be available in the course of an action relating to property not otherwise available for execution of a judgment. As I say, these are legalistic and technical problems which cause me concern with respect to this legislation.
I have no particular objection to the idea of codifying the law if it makes it easier for average citizens to understand and pursue their rights, because I am in favour of the concept of restricted immunity and the enhancement of the rights of Canadians with respect to foreign commercial activities in Canada. What I want to ensure, however, is that we get the best possible bill because, to a certain extent, we are entering into unchartered waters with this legislation and we are speculating on its effect. As has been pointed out in the other place, it will be quite interesting to see whether this legislation will bring us any further ahead than we are now.
I raise these points because I know the departmental officials are listening to this debate and will be prepared to give me answers to the questions raised. The reason I raise them in the course of the second reading debate is to expedite proceedings in committee.
Clause 3(2) of the bill calls upon the court to give effect to the immunity conferred on a foreign state. In other words, it must established that the defendant in the action is in fact a foreign state. The bill does not specify who has the burden of proof, whether it is the state or the plaintiff. Possibly there might be some clarification with respect to who should bear the onus in that regard. It is possible to obtain a certificate from the Department of External Affairs which can be taken as proof of the fact that a defendant is a foreign state. It would be very simple to amend this particular provision to make clear how this matter will be established in any litigation.
These are some of my technical or legalistic considerations regarding this particular bill. Obviously the government considers it more important to get this bill through than to help Canadians who are facing usurious interest rates or to help pensioners or people on fixed incomes. It seems to me that the priorities of the government in this regard are badly placed. But I am glad for the opportunity to remind the government that it has a responsibility to govern the country, not to fool around with technical bills and codify existing laws, as important as they may be to a limited number of people. On the other hand, I assure the parliamentary secretary that I want him to deal with these specific legalistic questions. Elopefully we will get this matter through expeditiously.
I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is champing at the bit. He has worked on the bill from early morning until late at night in order to get himself
ready and psyched up for this debate. Now that I have laid the groundwork, I will return to my seat and let the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre carry on with the debate and bring the government to its knees for its entirely useless behaviour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have had some interesting introductions in my day, but that one deserves a prize or a medal of some kind. I have not quite decided what the nature of the medal will be.
As hon. members must realize, there are others in my party who are more versed in this subject. In fact the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is the one to whom we assigned consideration of this bill. He is the one who worked from early morning until late at night to be fully conversant with it. But apparently the meeting this afternoon of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has lasted longer than he thought it might. He informed me that he was busy in that committee trying to improve the government's freedom of information legislation and that unless he succeeded in that, he might not be able to get here this afternoon. Therefore it falls to me to speak on behalf of my party, and I do so without any dissension whatsoever.
Before starting my substantial remarks on the bill itself, I must say that I agreed with the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatsyhyn) when he said that the list of priorities around here is somewhat astonishing. We spent most of this session on a certain subject which does not need to be mentioned because everyone knows what it was. It was the reason we could not deal with economic measures. When that issue was finally sent to the Supreme Court of Canada and we had some time to deal with economic measures, lo and behold we had before us an excise tax bill, Bill C-57. It did not seem to do much for the economy, but we had it and it took up a fair amount of time. In fact it took up so much time that the government decided to use Standing Order 75c to close off the debate so that we could deal with matters of concern to the people of Canada.
Now that we have a bit of time, with an adjournment in mind, what do we get? We get a bill to straighten out CALURA. We had an interesting debate in that regard.
Not only do I have a long memory, but sometimes I like to go back and look at things which happened here years ago. I was not in the House when CALURA was brought in. It was during my four-year vacation. I was with the Canadian Labour Congress at the time, but I remember that when the Diefenbaker government brought in the CALURA bill we did not like it. I followed the debate with some interest. The Tories of that day said that the bill was important, that it was the centrepiece to the government's idea to establish Canadian identity. Along with it Mr. Diefenbaker was to bring home the Constitution. The whole purpose of CALURA was to get the facts about the economic situation in Canada. The Liberals of the day thought it was a piece of bureaucracy, interfering in other people's business, increasing the overburden of paperwork and all the rest of it. It was rather interesting to sit here this week and see the two sides completely reversed-the
June 23, 1981

Tories saying what the Liberals were saying 19 years ago, and vice versa.


Jean-Jacques Blais: But not the same players.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, not the same players. I believe they have all gone to their rewards, or whatever it is they have gone to.


Mr. Friesen:: Not all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, but certainly the Liberals of that day are all gone. There are a few old Tories still with us.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Young Tories.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I indulge in that just to underline what the hon. member for Saskatoon West said. When we had a bit of time, with all the issues facing the people out there, we got CALURA. Then we got the insurance bill, Bill C-66, with which we dealt this afternoon, to straighten out one or two situations affecting a company here and there. Now we have this interesting legalistic bill on state immunity.
1 would have thought that when there was time at least we could get some bills dealing with economic measures. If not, I would have thought by now I have persuaded the House that something needs to be done to correct the injustice which was done last summer to about 15,000 or 20,000 widows of disabled veterans. If we could have put through a bill correcting that injustice in an hour or two, I would have thought it would have been the type of legislation we might have had now.


Some hon. Members:: Right on!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am getting full support from my friends to the right.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You could have done it in 1963. It was government policy then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In 1963?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, some of these things take time. Last year we corrected something that was put on the books 50 years ago, and in correcting it we still left an injustice. That is something which could have been done. There is the whole question of the position of our pensioners who are slipping behind all the time. I asked a question yesterday about the holders of Canadian government annuities who are still receiving benefits based on a 7 per cent interest rate when interest rates are twice or three times that amount. These are things with which we could be dealing.
I do not know whether or not we will get to some of these issues before we rise for the summer. I hope we will get the bill respecting the widows of disabled veterans. If we do not, I can promise that the debate to adjourn the House without doing it will be a long one; I hope many of us will oppose it. I should not suggest that there is any need to make any threats. I believe the government is considering very carefully the cor-
State Immunity Act
recting of that mistake and it is just a matter of deciding when that bill will be brought before us. But in the meantime we have this bill before us and, of course, if we get it out of the way, we will go on to discussing the length of elections, whether they should last 62 or 63 days, as they have been all my life, or whether they should be shortened. I would like to see them shortened. Then there is bankruptcy-that is a good subject. We will take up some time on bankruptcy, whether it be bankruptcy of persons, governments, or what have you. We will deal again with two-price wheat, though that is just some small correction to the legislation. There is also an adult education training bill, which has some flaws, but the government would like to put it through fast. Then there are one or two other items. It does not sound like a government or a House of Commons which is coming to grips with a country in trouble, where people are unemployed, where people on fixed incomes are having such a difficult time, and where more than
2,000	wealthy Canadians get by without paying any income tax at all. These are issues-


David Michael Collenette: Speak to the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member suggests I speak to the bill. It surprises me that my friend has let me go this long without suggesting that. He probably does not know what is in the bill any more than I do.


David Michael Collenette: We let you go because of seniority.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is nice to see that something has some value around here.
At any rate, I was hoping that the hon. member for Burnaby might arrive and make his speech with respect to Bill S-19 on our behalf. So far as the bill itself is concerned, we feel that anything which seeks to clarify matters and make the position more clear is a good idea. We understand that this bill will be a case of Parliament making it more clear to the courts how they should practise the principle of state immunity. It is true that more commercial operations than used to be the case come under the aegis of a government. It hardly seems fair that because they are government agencies they should receive immunity in the courts and not be bodies to which Canadian individuals or companies can bring an action. To the extent that it straightens that matter out and puts the parties who are engaged in litigation in our courts on equal terms, it is good. We are prepared to give our support to Bill S-19.
I say on behalf of the hon. member for Burnaby that we agree with the position taken by the hon. member for Saskatoon West that this bill must go out to committee. There is no suggestion that it should not go to committee. There is no need for it to spend a week or two out there. It needs at least an hour or two so members such as the hon. member for Saskatoon West and the hon. member for Burnaby can ask the kind of questions which have been put here today.
There is also the very important position which has been taken by the hon. member for Saskatoon West that it is not

June 23, 1981
State Immunity Act
only desirable that Canadians appearing in court should be on an equal basis with a foreign company, even though it comes under the aegis of a government, but that means should be developed so that Canadians who win judgments in the courts can collect on them. In other words, this bill is like so many pieces of legislation around here: there is not much wrong with it except the matters which are not in it. We hope it is the beginning of legislation which will meet the various needs in this situation.
On that basis, and since it looks as though my friend from Burnaby is not going to arrive, he will just have to take what I have said on his behalf as being our position. We are prepared to give support to the second reading of this bill and for it to go to committee.
Had the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) not interrupted and called for me to be relevant, I could have kept going until six o'clock. But before I sit down there is a suggestion I should like to make. I believe it should come from some of us who come from other parts of Canada. Tomorrow, St. Jean Baptiste Day, is a rather important day to a great many members of this House. Many of our fellow and sister members from the province of Quebec like to get home to take part in that day's celebrations. It is wonderful what we have done with the rules here. If that holiday falls on a Tuesday, we shut down for both Monday and Tuesday. If it comes on a Thursday, we shut down for both Thursday and Friday. But when it falls on a Wednesday, we just close the House for the one day. Maybe what I have to say is not relevant to the second reading of Bill S-19, but after I sit down the question might be put. I wonder if the House would not be willing, out of respect for our colleagues from Frenchspeaking Canada, to adjourn at six o'clock, and come back on Thursday, allowing our members who want to honour St. Jean Baptiste to have the opportunity to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am doing three things, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken for the hon. member for Burnaby, I have stated our party's position on Bill S-19, and I have made the suggestion that just maybe we could call it the end of the day at six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Question!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, following the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I would like
to inform him that this evening we intend to sit, as has been arranged with House leaders. We plan to discuss Bill C-58 and Bill S-6. However, if we could dispose of those bills very quickly before six o'clock, I am sure we could probably take up the hon. member's eminent suggestion. I do not think there would be agreement from members opposite to deal with those two bills in the next two minutes. Therefore, unfortunately, because the opposition would like to speak to these two bills this evening, we will be here. Of course, we will not be sitting tomorrow. Since it is close to six o'clock, I hope we can now call it six o'clock and come back to the study at second reading of Bill C-58 at eight o'clock.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have two minutes left until six o'clock and I do not think I am in a position, without prior consultation, to say that we are prepared to pass those two bills. It is important to put on record that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is an eminently sensible one. In all fairness, many of the celebrations in the province of Quebec take place this evening. I am sorry the government has no interest in allowing members-


Monique Bégin: It is tomorrow.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is tomorrow, but many of the preliminary celebrations take place tonight.
For our part we would be glad to accommodate our friends from Quebec and our colleagues across the way to allow them to participate in the festivities. But if the parliamentary secretary insists on forcing us to come back to sit here until the bitter end, we will take our part seriously with respect to important legislation. I reiterate that I wish the priorities of the government were a little more clearly defined.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I made an offer. We have the ministers required. We could move the two motions, second reading of Bill C-58 and then proceed to Bill S-6 immediately. Perhaps then we could adjourn the House for the holiday. It is my understanding that members opposite want to put up speakers on these two bills this evening. I would not want it thought that it was the government that was keeping people here unduly. We have the ministers here. Let us move the motions-


Harvie Andre: You just want us to rubber-stamp them.


David Michael Collenette: We have had much debate on those two bills. The hon. member for Calgary Centre says we are asking for rubberstamping. We have dealt with Bill S-6 on three or four House days and we have spent three days on Bill C-58. So we cannot consider it to be rubberstamping. My offer still stands, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 5.59 p.m. the House took recess.
June 23, 1981



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, June 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres: that Bill C-58, to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is rather surprising to be here debating this particular bill this evening. One wonders what goes on in the minds of the government House leader and his cabinet colleagues at a time when the interest rates are in the stratosphere, bankruptcies are reaching new records, inflation rates are at unprecedented levels. Also, the estimates are out of order and remedial legislation is required to put them in order. Parliamentary reform was promised in the Throne Speech, but there has been no sign of it yet. There is a disaster in the energy sector. The government is bringing forward in the energy sector a draft energy security bill which is out of order in terms of its composition-I suppose there is no harm in warning the government now-and the government will have to examine it. With all those priorities and all those important questions of which the government should be seized if it is at all concerned about the country, what are we doing? We are debating Bill C-58 amending the Canada Elections Act to reduce the writ period from 60 days to 47 days. How momentous! One can hear the crowds roaring their approval!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Hurray for our government! It is doing this wonderful deed for us. Are we not getting full value for the money it is spending? Are we not getting full value for having these wonderful people guide our country and look after the priorities and after our problems and concerns? I am sure the people walking to receive their unemployment insurance cheques are very grateful that the government is going to reduce the election period from 60 days to 47 days! I am sure they are just ecstatic. I am sure the persons renewing their mortgages at the end of this month who are looking at interest rates of 17.5 per cent or 18 per cent, will be delighted beyond words that their government is seeking to reduce the election period from 60 days to 47 days. There is no question that the people of this country will be ecstatic over the recognition by this government of this vital and important issue of reducing the election period from 60 days to 47 days.
It has been hot and humid in Ottawa, as Your Honour is aware.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Absolutely.


Harvie Andre: It frequently is at this time of year. I know, coming from the drier part of the country, that it bothers me
Canada Elections Act
and it tends to make me go a little jagged. Occasionally, my wife thinks that perhaps I have gone a little crazy. Obviously the entire government has gone crazy, if this is its priority!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Obviously, the entire government has gone crazy.


An hon. Member:: It will not be the first time.


Harvie Andre: Is it the minister from Winnipeg who is saying, "He who lives in glass houses should not throw stones"?
The Elections Act is in need of reform; it is in need of amendment, there is no question about that. If one sat down and made a list of the things which needed changing in the Elections Act, one would have a very long list indeed. Somewhere near the bottom of that list, one would come up with an item on the necessity to re-examine the length of the writ period. It would be somewhere near the bottom of that list. The fact of the matter is that since the last amendment to the Elections Act in 1974, a committee, chaired by the Chief Electoral Officer, involving elected members from each of the parties in the House and involving representatives of the political organizations of each of the parties, has been meeting on a regular basis and discussing the Elections Act, examining it in detail and recommending changes to this act. I am aware of it because some four years ago I participated in that committee for about a year and a half. The committee produced a long list of desirable changes to the Elections Act. Any responsible government that felt that it might now be appropriate to reform, review, alter or update the Elections Act would start with the committee's recommendations. The committee worked on this matter for at least five years. It has gone over the list with a fine tooth comb, and has brought in an enormous list of recommendations. If these are not included in the proposed changes, then what was the purpose of the committee? When the government decided to change the Elections Act, why did it pursue this little change-the reduction of the campaign period to 47 days from 60 days?
I would like to see many kinds of changes to the Elections Act. For example, the act that we have been operating under since 1974 restricts election expenses. I think most people agree with that, but the levels established in the act are now, because of the uncontrolled inflation which the government will not address, no longer applicable.
Recently I examined some old election records, Mr. Speaker. In 1974 an election brochure, produced in sufficient quantities for my campaign, cost $1,000. A similar document was produced by my association recently at a cost of $3,500. Office space in downtown Calgary, which I represent, costs at least three times as much today as in 1974 when these figures were first produced. The cost of radio and television advertising for an election is now beyond the reach of a constituency campaign, given the umbrella figures that were appropriate in 1974.

June 23, 1981
Canada Elections Act
For the perspective of someone concerned about the adequacy and the proper ventilation of issues, attitudes, views and policies of candidates at election time, the election expenses limit is far more important than is the question of 47 or 60 days.
If the government were interested in electoral reform and wanted to improve the democratic process at the constituency level, it would look at that particular item ahead of the question of 47 versus 60 days.
The provision in the act that requires a $200 deposit for a person to become a registered candidate, is hopelessly obsolete. It was put in who knows how many decades ago-perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) knows.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have been paying it all my life.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member has been paying it all his life. When he started, $200 could look after a family of four for several months quite comfortably. Today, $200 will perhaps handle a supper if one is not too extravagant and the wine is not imported. To use my own riding as an example, the consequence of that kind of deposit becomes ridiculous. In the last election there were seven candidates, three representing parties which are truly national in scope and which could hope to be represented in this institution and have an influence on the national government, with the remaining four getting tremendous value in terms of advertising and exposure, for a paltry $200. They had a ball, but in the process they disrupted the election considerably. It was impossible to have the debate, for example, between the serious candidates because with seven people on the stage, nothing could happen, so no one scheduled debates. It was impossible to have the type of media program that would expose the candidates and their views and their attitudes because it was a hopeless task when seven people were involved.
All this severely restricted the exposure to the public of the candidates for whom they might have seriously considered voting. It did not serve democracy in the way that we know it. If we are seriously interested in the electoral process, and in the election at the constituency level, we certainly would have to examine that $200-limit well ahead of any change in the election period from 60 to 47 days.
The redistribution formula is something that must be changed, Mr. Speaker. It was put in place as a kind of compromise after the delay of the redistribution that was supposed to occur in 1973. At that time we had three rather senior members of the House, the late member for Prince Albert, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who all had reason to be concerned because in their respective provinces they would lose a seat. Being three very influential members of Parliament, they succeeded in having the redistribution delayed until after the 1974 election, at which time a new redistribution formula was introduced which catered to the Liberal party, in the sense of looking after the interests of the province from which the majority of its seats came.
There was great objection to that formula at the time, so there was a semi-compromise. It was allowed that after the first election when the formula was in place, there would be an opportunity to review the consequences of the redistribution formula and recommend change. Unfortunately, we then had a series of very quick elections and the committee reference to which the act refers fell between the cracks and nothing happened. That redistribution formula, however, after the census which is now taking place, would have the result of bringing an additional 30 or more members to this House. That is a change which will do nothing but damage this institution and damage the national government further in terms of its ability to represent the public. There is already such an incredible level of frustration in this institution, on both sides of the House because of the inability of the ordinary member to be heard, to ask questions or make speeches, that the addition of 30 new members will only compound the problem.
It would not be a bad thing for the executive, of course. If you are the king, it does not hurt to have a large Parliament. Any student of politics or sociology recognizes that it is much easier to control a large committee than a small committee and that a House of 300 members is easier for a government to manipulate than a House of 200. Of course, a House of 400 would be easier still to manipulate. It is easy to see the reasoning behind the desire for growth in the size of the institution.
If one is genuinely concerned about the people represented by the members of this House, or is generally interested in this House of Commons and wants to see it function as a real Parliament with real legislative ability and authority, then the last thing that one would be pursuing would be an increase in the number of members.
There are also inequities in that redistribution formula in the way seats are distributed as between provinces. I hate to impute motives to the draftsmen of that redistribution formula one of whom was the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). By coincidence the result is a redistribution formula which means the largest populated ridings in the country are Alberta and British Columbia which, by coincidence, are the two areas where there are no Liberal members. It is a coincidence I am sure, and if you believe that, you believe the world is flat. It is no coincidence at all.
If you also believed that there are serious questions in terms of western alienation, and if you also believed, as any sane Canadian must believe, that there are serious people in western Canada who are considering separation because they feel so detached from this institution in terms of its ability to represent them, then you would not allow that inequity to continue on the books. Any government that really believed, not in a rhetorical but a real sense, that national unity was important and that it is important for the regions of this country to feel a part of the whole, would be addressing that inequity of the redistribution formula. The government would

be addressing it now to ensure that there is not more fodder or more ammunition for West-Fed, western concepts, western Canada parties and the other groups springing into being daily to represent that frustration which exists out there.
There is a great need for change in the electoral system in this country through the Canada Elections Act. A committee has been meeting for years on a regular basis every two or three weeks with a long list of reforms on its agenda. In other words, the whole fence needs mending. But the government at this time of record inflation, record interest and mortgage rates and high unemployment brings in a bill to fix one fence post, a bill to reduce the election period from 60 days to 47 days. Why is the government doing that? Given this broad array of necessary reforms, why is the government bringing in this bill at this time? I think the answer is not that difficult to deduce. What the government wants is a quick campaign, the quicker the campaign the better. A quick campaign serves the interests of the incumbent.
In this country we have a system where the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) alone can decide the election date. He can decide when the House is to be dissolved and an election called. With the very sophisticated polling techniques that are available and primed daily with a minister for propaganda who sends out contracts on a weekly basis to keep the machinery in order, it is very easy for the Prime Minister to have very up-to-date assessments of public opinion. Therefore, he can have a very accurate assessment of how his party would do if an election were held immediately. Clearly if it were in his power to dissolve this House and have an election tomorrow it would be impossible to ever have a change of government. It would be impossible for any change to be made, given that ability to conduct polls to find out what the people are thinking. By calling an election immediately, that would be it.
Obviously, if an election were held six months after the Prime Minister called it, the election period would not make any difference because people's views change during that time. The shorter an election period, the greater the advantage to the incumbent. So it is very easy to see why we have this bill coming in from the government now. The government has no intention of making the other changes in the Canada Elections Act. The government has no intention of changing the redistribution formula. What we will get are pious speeches from the Prime Minister saying, "Now that I have the Constitution home, I will try to make the regions of the country feel that they are part of the whole", and all of that poppycock coming forth.
But we will not have any of those changes if the powers that be in the PMO and in the Liberal party are able to get this bill through. This bill gives them an advantage over what we have now. Who knows, there may be a change in leadership of the governing party before the next election. Would it not be great to have a leadership convention, with the accompanying deification of the winner, no matter who it is-some reporter digs up a former school teacher who says "I saw greatness when he was four years old" and all of that kind of nonsense-followed immediately by a very short election period, and you would
Canada Elections Act
never have to go through the nonsense of having perhaps some other party forming the government or winning a seat or two!


Erik Nielsen: He would like to do away with elections altogether; they are a nuisance.


Harvie Andre: I am sure the government would love to do away with elections altogether. We can hear members opposite say "That might be a little tough, but we will work at it gradually." I hear one of the sheep baaing. We know you can talk. If you can demonstrate you can think, you will really be accomplishing something.
We have a limitation in the Canada Elections Act. It concerns the advertising period which is limited to the last 29 days of the election campaign. To the public, the only real involvement with the election is the last 29 days. The ads interrupt the soap operas, and sometimes the free time political broadcasts cut out Laverne and Shirley and other such cultural programs. But whether an election campaign consists of 47 days, 60 days or 75 days does not affect the Canadian public-it affects us. We partisans are out there pounding on doors, handing out literature, shaking hands and doing all those kinds of things, but the voting public is not affected. They do not know an election is going on until the last 29 days when the formal advertising period occurs.
Reducing the time of an election campaign from 60 days to 47 days does not save the public the pain of an election period. It does not affect the public at all. Perhaps we ourselves save shoe leather. I am glad to admit that I am an incumbent. Frankly, the 47-day period appeals to me in that sense. I say make it two weeks or even a week, and I will never be defeated. I am an incumbent. The shorter the period, the better. If you are really looking at the democratic system, if you are really concerned and you really think the ability to change a member of Parliament from time to time and the ability to change governments from time to time is an important part of democracy, then you do not sit back so complacently and so easily and say "sure, you want a shorter election period, then we will give it to you" because we are all incumbents. It is very nice for us to cut off our opponents at the pass.
We desperately need to reform the way this country functions. Unfortunately, this institution and its members of Parliament do not reflect this country. The national government here is not a national government to far too many Canadians. Ottawa is almost an adversary, a corporate body which is not the people's in any real sense. People from my region do not look upon this government as being their first government. Their first government is in Edmonton. I think that is sad and it bothers me. But that cannot be changed through some powerplay via energy programs, nationalizing of the oil industry, putting in Crown corporations or forcing a Constitution through. The way to change it is to let the people really have some influence here in the national government.

June 23, 1981
Canada Elections Act
This bill is just another cute little game to give more advantage to the governing party. If the government is really interested in democracy and wants to make people feel they are Canadians, it should not be looking at these kinds of changes. I could suggest a lot of changes, but I know they would all be resisted by the PMO and the Prime Minister because human nature does not voluntarily give up power. Nobody does.
Since all the power rests with those opposite, we get into a Catch-22 situation. They have too much power for anyone to force them to give up any. No one voluntarily gives up power, so we are caught in a Catch-22 situation. We should seriously examine the possibility of fixed election dates in this country where an election is held four or five years after the previous election, unless a government is defeated by a vote of confidence.
That would be a tremendous change in the system and a tremendous reduction in prime ministerial power. It would not reduce the power of the House of Commons or the national government, only the power of one person in this country.
We need changes in the way this place operates. Canadians decry, and we do as well, the party system that requires its members to vote as a block. Many of us say privately, albeit not publicly, that we wish there was some way that members could vote according to their conscience without being mavericks. With the present voting system, the Speaker asks, "All those in favour". The Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition is the first to stand, followed by members of his party, row by row. The system is designed to focus attention on anyone who dares to be a maverick and take a position different from that of his leader. That is the deliberate effect. I think it should be changed.
Lately there have been a lot of editorials and columns by writers too lazy to look at the real problems of the day about the question of MPs salaries. About a year ago I saw a column in The Globe and Mail by Geoffrey Stevens who had an idea which I wonder why we cannot discuss some time. That is an examination of the differential in salaries between members and ministers. The Americans have a philosophy which says that in a democracy the most important people are the general public and the next most important are those elected by the general public. Their system states that no one shall be paid more than an elected official because he represents the people, and in a democracy no one is more important. Anybody who is appointed, therefore, must be of lesser importance in their government. If you believe in a democracy and in the people electing members, then the most important person should be the member, the person elected. Anybody appointed should be lesser.
Under the American system, no one who is appointed can get a higher salary than a congressman or senator. I wonder what would happen in our system if we had uniform salaries in this institution with cabinet ministers getting no more and no less than the other members of Parliament.
Mir. Nielsen: Gerry would be back in Nova Scotia.
Mir. Andre: A couple of things would happen. First, it would be much easier for the prime minister to change cabinets. He would not be penalizing someone he dropped from the cabinet or rewarding someone he left in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, the Chair is having some difficulty in relating what he is saying to the bill before us. The bill before us deals with the electoral period, not the pay of members. The Chair has some difficulty.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He almost got a standing ovation from the Liberals.


Harvie Andre: I was not talking about an absolute level for this figure, which would not be appropriate. Rather I was talking about how this place functions, the role of members as related to election periods, electoral reform and so on. I will take Your Honour's admonition and not go on with that subject. However, I still maintain that the subject has a lot to do with the way this place operates, and the way it operates is very important in terms of elections, electoral reform, the elections act and so on. Unless there are some changes in this situation, elections will become an exercise in futility.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: The sheep are baaing.


Erik Nielsen: The Nova Scotia sheep.


Harvie Andre: There is no rational reason for bringing forward this bill to reduce the election period from 60 to 47 days except for the desire to give the incumbent that little extra edge which comes from a shorter election period. There are many reforms needed, including changes to the elections act. The list which the Chief Electoral Officer has is enormous.
The danger in giving quick passage to this bill is that we will never see the other reforms. If the government House leader was sincere in his earlier statements and indications about electoral reform and if the government would like to see those changes, my party would be ready and willing to participate in any form of committee, task force, what have you, to see whether we could reach an accord on the appropriate changes to make from the enormous list which the Chief Electoral Officer has. We would be prepared to work together as members of Parliament, not as adversaries but as members interested in the electoral process. The government should assemble the appropriate legislation and bring it forward. It could be given very speedy passage through this House of Commons. We would have a better election act to guide us in terms of the next election, whenever it might come. In the meantime, we on this side feel that the problems of this country are not the fact that elections are run for 60 rather than 47 days. There is no great clamour from the public to reduce the election period. I have not received a single letter or phone call about it and I would be surprised if anyone in this House has.
June 23, 1981

Frankly, it is baffling and embarrassing to be here-representing my constituents who are wondering how they can afford the 18 per cent mortgage they have to renew-debating a bill which is absurd in terms of the needs of the nation and equally absurd in terms of the electoral process.
The priorities of this government are beyond belief. The opposition does not have any authority, and maybe we should look at reforms in this regard, to bring in legislative programs to deal with the problems of the day. Perhaps we should look at a reform to allow the opposition in a situation like this to address the priorities of the country where the government refuses to do so. Perhaps that is the kind of reform we need and should be examining.
We are forced to debate the government's agenda. This afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested we adjourn for this evening if the government had nothing to discuss so that the Quebec members could enjoy the celebrations on the eve of St. Jean Baptiste Day. That would be serving the country a lot better than sitting here discussing this bill which does not benefit the country one whit. It benefits our democratic process not one whit. It addresses the priorities, even on elections, not one whit. What does it do? It gives the incumbent some advantage, and therefore it is worth pursuing, at least in their priorities. I am sorry, it may be hot and humid in Ottawa; it may be getting to be the silly season, but it is not so silly that they are going to pull a fast one like that on this House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be either as long or as profound as the previous speaker. I must say that generally I find myself in agreement with the provisions of the bill we have before us. My objection to it would be that it does not contain those other things, some of which were referred to earlier by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), that should be included in a bill to make all manner of amendments to the Elections Act.
I am in favour of the reduction in the period of the writ from 60 days to 47 days, and the main reason is that this is what I feel is the wish of the people, at least in my constituency. We have in this day and age virtual saturation coverage in election campaigns on the radio, television and in the newspapers. People get heartily sick and tired of listening to all this. Every time they switch the television set on there is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or some candidate running for office.
Most members of the public have either made up their minds who or which party they intend to vote for before the writ is even issued, or they tend to wait until election day or a few days before to make up their minds. As long as you take it in reasonable terms, it does not really matter whether it is 30 days or 80 days. Many countries have an election period of only 30 days, and various provinces in Canada have only 30 days. So honestly I do not think it would have that big a bearing on the result of the election. I would support this
Canada Elections Act
measure because I feel this is what the public of Canada, particularly people in my constituency, would favour.
A number of people would argue that in large constituencies such as my own it is very difficult for members or candidates to travel to every community, but in the days of jet aircraft it is really not that difficult. It might be difficult to get to every little community with 20, 30 or 40 people, but it is not difficult to get to the vast majority of communities containing 85 per cent of the population.
It must be remembered that the situation is the same for every candidate. Every candidate has to figure out how he must use his time to what he considers his maximum advantage. No one person really has an advantage over the other. I guess the 60-day period goes back to the days of the horse and buggy, the days when it was necessary for the party leaders to travel from one end of Canada to the other and back perhaps several times by train. That does not happen anymore. We have instant communication with radio, TV and the wire services, so that a speech made in Halifax is reported the same day in Vancouver. There have been developments in printing technology that enable the Chief Electoral Officer to do his job fairly quickly. This also enables candidates to get their literature and posters printed fairly rapidly. I do not really think a reduction from the present 60 days to the proposed 47 days puts too much disadvantage in anyone's way.
It has been argued that a reduced writ period would favour the incumbents, both the incumbent member and the incumbent party which at present forms the government. If the period were reduced to a week, as suggested earlier this evening, that might indeed be the case. But with a writ period still in excess of that commonly used in most provinces and many other countries in the world, I do not think that is really the case. Any assistance it might give to an incumbent, either the individual or party, would be fairly marginal at best.
I can think of circumstances in which the very opposite might be the case. When a government chooses the time it wants to go back to the people, the advantage might be with a shorter election period. If we take as an example the opposite, as happened early in 1980, I think a longer election period would have worked to the advantage of the incumbent government. That election was the 18-cent election, and if the people had had more time to really look into the promises being made by what at that time was the opposition party, they would have realized what nonsense those promises were. They would have realized that the price of energy had to go up, so at that time a longer period would have worked to the advantage of the incumbent, which was the Conservative party. As long as changes are made within reason, any advantages or disadvantages are going to be pretty marginal. The public of Canada would be well served by not having to listen to and look at us and other candidates during election campaigns for the time they have to at present.
There are a number of areas in which the bill is remiss. There are a number of areas the bill does not cover. These were listed on several occasions during the earlier debate on

June 23, 1981
Canada Elections Act
this bill. I want to repeat one or two and maybe add a few, some of specific local interest.
One of the most important things not addressed by the bill is the ever-expanding membership of this House. The present number is 282, and I understand that if an election were to be held today, or within a short period of time, the number of members re-elected would be some 312. This number would escalate exponentially as the population of Canada increases. I do not think we should adopt the British system where they have 650 or so MPs. I always wonder what all those 650 people do.


Mr. Fraser:: We wonder what all these do.


Dave Nickerson: That is true too, especially those over there. I wonder what they do all the time and I have never yet been able to figure it out. I think probably we have too many members in this House now. Rather than an increase to 312 I would like to see a decrease to 250. Let us try that. The more members you have, the more the part played by an individual member is reduced. He finds himself relegated to being a number, to just standing up when a vote is called. If there was an equal allocation of the time of this House to members, and you took the number of minutes in a day that we sit on average and divide it by the number of members, it would come out to about one minute per day. Of course, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and front bench members on both sides have, together with the Speaker, a disproportionate amount of that time, and rightfully so, there is no objection to that, but it leaves the average member of this House with something much less than a minute, or five minutes a week. If you give one 20-minute speech a month, you have used up your time. I think by expanding the number of members, you take away from the individual member and you relegate him to the position of one small cog in the wheel. At the same time you are increasing the influence of the executive and increasing the power of the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues.
We on this side of the House, and many members on the other side, have said that we desire a system whereby the ordinary member of the House would play a much greater part. That, sir, is my speech from the back row. Ten years from now, when I am in the front row, I might change my mind slightly.
I guess one of the main problems we have to face if we are to maintain or, hopefully, reduce the number of members, is the fact that certain provinces where the population has not been expanding at all will find themselves in a position where they would lose members. If I understand it correctly, the reason the rapid expansion was adopted the last time around was that no province wanted to lose members. That problem has to be addressed, and I am sure it is within our capabilities to solve it.
I would like now to extend some compliments to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Jean-Marc Hamel. I was one of the members who took advantage of section 59(2) of the
elections act after the last election and sent him correspondence with a number of views on how the election had been run and what could be done to improve the procedures, particularly in my constituency. I was most pleased with his response, his attentiveness and the way in which he dealt with my letter. He obviously gave the matter the attention that I at least thought it deserved. Most of the points I brought to his attention were technical matters and I do not wish to go into them in any detail right now. He assured me that he already knew about a lot of these technical matters and they were on the way to being cleared up. However, I have one or two comments to make about ways in which the election process might be made a little more effective. These should be, but are not, in the bill before us tonight and I would hope to see some of these matters dealt with during the term of this Parliament.
The first one deals with the appointment of returning officers. The system we now have goes back many years. The job of returning officer is handed out by the party in power; it is a patronage position. I do not think that is right. I think the choice of returning officer in each riding should be left to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. The returning officer should be directly responsible and answerable to him, and the appointment should not be made with patronage in mind.
The system we now have is really a nineteenth century system and I would hope we have progressed in this respect as we have done with many other public officials. These positions should not be handed out on a platter with the idea of some political return; rather, they should be filled by people who are technically the most proficient and able to carry on the work.
If that were to happen, the number of complaints levied against returning officers and their deputies would be much reduced. Election personnel are nominated by the party in power, and the people not of that party always have the suspicion that something might possibly go wrong. There is always the suspicion that the election officer might in some small way be going out of his way to help the representative of the party that appointed him. I would hope that could be changed. Perhaps it is not even necessary to change the legislation, just the practice.
The second point I would like to bring to the attention of this House is rather a parochial one, but it deals with section 61.2(1) of the elections act. This section allows for special publication and broadcast rules for the territories, those areas of Canada which unfortunately are not yet provinces. The idea behind this is quite reasonable. In the days when there were no real radio or TV stations in the north, when it took a long time for newspapers to circulate, when in fact there were not really that many newspapers, it was perhaps necessary. The first day you are allowed to advertise in the press or over electronic media is the twenty-ninth day before the election, and that restriction does not apply to the Territories. I think we have progressed sufficiently in northern Canada that we are now not much different from the rest of the country. There is no real need for this provision any more. It is difficult because if you go to a newspaper or radio station prior to the twenty-ninth day to place an advertisement, they have all had a notice
June 23, 1981

circulated to them from the Chief Electoral Officer saying that this is prohibited. They are not aware of this little technicality in the bill which says that does not apply to the territories. If you do get something on the radio, somebody will pick it up down in Alberta and there will be all kinds of complaints because this guy is advertising before he should be. They are not aware of the exemption. There was so much difficulty with this provision in the last federal election in the Northwest Territories, that to the best of my knowledge none of the candidates took advantage of it. That, I think, is a good indication that the provision has outlived its usefulness.
My third point is with regard to aid to illiterate persons, and also persons who do not read the orthography used for printing in English or French; rather they use the syllabic method in which the Inuktitut language is commonly printed. This matter, at least the syllabic part of it, is of more interest to my colleague, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), who unfortunately is not here this evening.
There are many people in his constituency who do not read the normal orthography used in the rest of Canada; they use the syllabic system. Consequently, they are unable to read the names of the various candidates. It would be a fairly simple matter to allow, by some rule or regulation under the elections act, the names also to be printed in syllabics. It is no great difficulty at all, it is just a technicality. I hope that can be done.
My next point is on the use of photographs either on the ballot papers or on the walls of polling stations to aid people who are not able to read or write. There are many of these people in my constituency. This has been the subject of great local debate. I am referring not only to federal elections, but to territorial and municipal elections as well. That problem has been solved for all elections other than federal ones.
The various band councils first suggested the idea of putting the photographs of candidates on the ballot papers. It proved to be very successful, and the municipal ordinance was amended to allow that practice to be followed in municipal elections. It is quite a common practice in many communities in my constituency. There were some technical difficulties respecting the use of photographs on the actual ballot paper in territorial elections, but with the assistance of the Chief Electoral Officer acting as adviser to the territorial legislature, a system was adopted whereby the photographs of candidates could be displayed in polling stations with their names underneath. Thus people were able to memorize the name for the limited period of time it took them to go into the booths and mark the ballots.
There is great difficulty in this regard. People will come up to us on the street and say, "I would like to vote either for you or your opponent, but there is no way I can read the names. Could you tell me where your name appears on the ballot paper? Is it first, second or third?" If the candidate is number two, he or she is very lucky; it does not matter which way up they have the ballot paper because they will mark it in the
Canada Elections Act
right place. But, if the candidate is number one and they have the ballot paper upside down, he or she is out of luck. Certain exceptions to the general rule could be made for areas where there are large numbers of people who are unable to read or write. It has been demonstrated that it is possible. It is just a matter of putting our minds to it.
That is as far as I want to go. I could pursue this matter for a long time by repeating many of the arguments and by indicating the omissions of other speakers, but I do not really want to do that at this time. I have pointed out the most important general omissions and also some of the rather specific ones. In conclusion, I support the provisions of Bill C-58 which is before us, but I would certainly like to see it expanded to address some of the other unresolved problems.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on this bill, particularly with respect to the comments of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). It seems the growing tendency in the House is to talk out a bill basically because it does not go far enough. If we were acting co-operatively in the House, we would realize the difficulties facing governments in power. Unfortunately, perhaps for the opposition but not for the country, the Conservatives were not in power long enough to come to grips with the fact that we cannot have everything we want at any given stage. When we have a relatively simple bill which has a positive effect, I find it difficult to understand why it is being opposed, yet I see this happening all over.
The hon. members of the NDP opposed Bill C-48, the oil and gas bill, because for some reason or other it did not go far enough. But there is probably no combination of hon. members in the House who could bring in a better or tougher bill. They are opposing bills because they do not get exactly what they want, therefore we do not get anything and too much time is spent talking these things out.
This is a good bill which does a very small but positive thing. As I travelled around the country during election time, particularly in my constituency, there is no doubt people told me that elections were too long. Of course they used some other words to express themselves, but they just did not believe that elections needed to be so long. I think this is a positive bill. 1 would like to see it go further. I would like to see a permanent list. I would like to see us reduce the time to 30 days or 35 days, which would be an adequate amount of time to run an intelligent election in any country.
We must remember that any election starts years before it is actually called. We are in elections all the time. We are debating where we are going and where the next government will go. It is never sudden. Although the last election was very sudden in one respect, it was a continuation of the debate which had been ongoing in the House for several years.
Basically we have a decent and good Elections Act. It is better than it was years ago. It does many good things. As the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) just indicated, we still need some changes. I do not fault him on that. I

June 23, 1981
Canada Elections Act
think he made an honest effort to point out some of the things he wanted.
This is a good bill because it eliminates some of the abuses, for instance, in the province of Ontario where there is no limit on the amount of money a candidate can spend. With the kind of devices available to candidates and the money which can be spent on television and so on, it is almost possible to get anyone elected if there is no limit and one has enough money. One very positive provision of the act eliminated this by indicating that the amount of money a candidate could spend would be based upon the number of people in his or her constituency. I think it is a reasonable limit. For example, in my area the limit is approximately $26,000 per candidate. This provision makes a lot of sense.
Certainly there are other positive provisions in the act which tend to make elections a very orderly process, something that makes people believe there is a degree of honesty on the part of all concerned. But there is something seriously missing.
Before coming to the House, I spent 22 years as an educator, a high school principal and so on. I have seen young people growing up and spending ten years to 12 years on the average in school; of course a lot of them spend many more years than that. I remember on one occasion I went into a classroom to discuss a given subject with some young people. They spent some time trying to understand. There was a certain amount of teaching going on and there were questions back and forth. Certain information was being passed back and forth between teacher and pupil. Then I was put in an opposite situation when I became involved in the political scene, and I was confounded by the fact that I had to express myself in terms of the press and in terms of an election in 30-second jingles. There is no possible way that one can convey intelligent ideas in 30-second jingles. One reason most people say that the elections are too long is that they have heard the same jingles for 21, 26 or 28 days, as is the case in federal elections, and they have heard nothing else. There is no decent communication. Many of the candidates are chosen because of their ability to deal with the jingle. In many cases candidates are not chosen because they have good minds, or because they are thoughtful and have been looking at the situation for a long time. Very often there are other reasons why they have been chosen. Someone props them up and they run through an election.
I am told that one candidate in my area had six professional organizers working through an election campaign. They just walked around and told the candidate the right things to do. It was all managed. There is no way I can appear on television, unless I blow the whole $26,000 for 15 or 20 minutes, to take part in an intelligent debate where the issues are seriously dealt with.
Let us say that an election was held today and we had to deal with monetarism versus low interest rates. That is an important subject to Canadian people, yet it would be virtually impossible to discuss that issue in an election campaign
because we have never managed to take the matter seriously. We have let the media take the situation over. We have said to the Canadian public who have been in schools for ten to 15 years, who are used to communication, "You do not deserve that. All you are worth is a jingle."
If democracy is to survive in this country, we must do something better than what we are doing. We must make sure that candidates who run in elections are able to express themselves as intelligent human beings in terms of the issues which pertain to the election. People say that they do not know where we stand after an election. How can I convey serious notions about monetarism, interest rates or federal fiscal arrangements in a 30-second jingle? I cannot do it. It is not possible. It seems to me we should be putting our time and energy into finding out how it is possible to have decent debate, debate that will involve people.
I hate to say this after nine years as a politician, but I do not feel that the public sees me as being very important, as being very relevant. I am not just talking about myself but about politicians in general. They see us in some kind of dirty way. They think we need all these rules, otherwise we would cheat. I feel a great deal of this is caused by the way we present ourselves, with the electoral laws which we have which permit us to be sold by jingle, something which contains all kinds of words but no real substance. It is no wonder the public sees us as not being worth $30,000, or $32,000 a year, or whatever our take-home pay is.
Somewhere along the line before I leave this place I hope to establish an image for myself which is a cut above what I have just outlined. I would like to see all politicians being able to talk seriously to the public about issues. I do not want to do it in a 30-second or 60-second jingle.
I feel this bill is something worthwhile. I hope other members share my views on this matter. We should really get down to running elections seriously in an intelligent way so that the people of Canada can become involved in what is going on and can try to make sure that their candidates understand what is happening.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of following the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae). He rather cultivated my imagination when he said that he would like to create an image before he leaves this place. I would like to tell the hon. member, Sir, he has already created that image. I trust that he is speaking for himself when he says people do not know where politicians stand. I think it would have been better had he said that people do not know where Liberals stand. The public was promised there would be wages and price controls and they were promised that gas prices would not rise. We all know what happened.


David Michael Collenette: Speak to the bill.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the bill. The hon. member spoke about this, and surely members opposite will

give me the opportunity to retaliate. What kind of one-sided outfit is this becoming?
The government is trying to give the impression that it is doing something for the Canadian people through this bill, Bill C-58. Imagine cutting 13 days off the election time. What saving will that mean to the Canadian taxpayer? I would like one hon. member opposite to stand up and tell me what benefit there will be to the Canadian taxpayers as a result of cutting 13 days off the Canadian election. It riles me to think that this government lacks the imagination to take advantage of so many opportunities to do something for the Canadian people.
If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I will list several of those points. First and foremost is the bill which I presented in this House of Commons. I trust that it will be debated some time in the not too distant future. I hope that there will be a limitation on the membership of this House. I recognize that other members have already referred to this point; but if there is one thing we politicians must do, it is to realize that the taxpayer cannot continue to accept the excessive load which is being placed on their backs by the political system. My friend, the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) referred to the number of members in the House of Commons in Great Britain. I recognize that there are 635 members in that House. It must also be recognized that there are 60 million people living in Great Britain. We have provincial legislatures which also serve the 25 million people who live in Canada. We must not forget that. If the government wanted to bring in a worthwhile measure at this time, why does it not bring in a bill which will freeze the membership of the House of Commons until such time as it can be substantiated that there should be an increase in our membership?
I must ask what the priority of this government is. It brings before us a bill which will limit the election period by 13 days. There are so many opportunities which can be taken advantage of through the Elections Act. What about the swearing-in ceremonies for a great many of the people in our urban centres within that period of time?
The hon. member who had the floor before me mentioned that people get awfully tired of jingles. This bill will not change that at all. There will still be 28 days of advertising, which is another area with which I certainly do not agree. I do not think the government should be infringing on the rights of Canadians the way it is through the advertising which takes place through the campaigns. Editorial writers are frightened to comment because those comments may be construed as advertising. People are afraid to put anything on paper prior to that 28 days for fear of being charged. We recognize that there have been infringements of this regulation. I do not really see why that is so very important.
I would like to debate those kinds of issues rather than the matter of just cutting back the election period by 13 days. I know that people get tired of elections. People get tired of politicians. They get too much of it, simply because there has not been enough production from the system. We on this side
Canada Elections Act
of the House cannot do anything about it if the government does not provide the leadership and the imagination which is required. It is up to the government. Surely, the Canadian people must recognize the void which must exist in the minds of the government members in order for them to bring a bill like this forward at this time.
What about the people who are disenfranchised simply because there is no provision in some of the smaller rural centres for swearing in? Surely, those areas should be allowed to have that type of privilege which is granted to urban centres. What about those people who are disenfranchised because they are hospitalized? We are not doing anything about that, unless the government decides that it will change some of the regulations guiding the Chief Electoral Officer. Those are changes which would be of benefit to the Canadian people. Why are we not talking about that? The government does not say anything about that at all. No mention is made about that in the bill.
What about the handicapped? What is the government doing about making the polls accessible to those people too? What about the areas in large rural ridings where regulations make people drive 20, 30 or 40 miles to exercise their franchise? What are we doing about that?
What are we doing about the dictatorial attitude of the commissioners who set up the boundary lines? What consideration is given to that? None at all. There is nothing in this bill which would do something for that. What are we doing about the boundary lines coinciding with county lines within the rural areas? Nothing at all. What are we doing about the boundary lines coinciding with the social habits of people, their lines of communication and their travelling habits? Nothing at all.
There are so many areas in which we could be doing something for these people. Therefore, I have to severely criticize the government at this time for bringing in a bill which just limits the election period for 13 days. Does Your Honour know what will happen? The people who are involved in that election will start campaigning earlier, that is all. They will have their house in order, they will have their machinery geared up and ready to run, and that is all. It will not change anything. There is nothing in this bill which will change anything. There is nothing in this bill which will change the advertising regulations. Therefore, the people will still be subjected, whether it be good or bad, to 28 days of advertising.
One of the reasons this session of Parliament has been devoid of any constructive suggestion is that the government is apparently devoid of the ability to bring anything forward that is imaginative. Therefore members, especially those on the government side, should really take a look at these matters to see what we can do to improve the reputation of the House of Commons. Certainly I must emphasize this once again. Increasing the membership of the House of Commons is not the answer to our problem. I realize that is outside the purview of this bill, but we have to seize these opportunities when they

June 23, 1981
Canada Elections Act
present themselves so that we can present our case, because the more members there are in the House of Commons, the less effective is every individual member. It gives more power to the executive part of the system, which is the cabinet and, presumably, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). This is what is wrong with our system. We are not giving enough consideration to the Canadian people and what they require. Thank you very much for affording me the opportunity of presenting my views, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate, however briefly. I am somewhat surprised by the reaction of hon. members opposite who are complaining about the fact that the bill is not complicated. When we come up with a measure which contains many provisions, they feel justified to speak at length and they complain that we overload the circuit. When we are overly simple, they say that we are too brief and that we do not cover all the angles. In the end, any reason at all will do to filibuster at a simple stage of a bill.

I want to remind the hon. member who spoke before me that this bill was introduced by his own government a few months ago.


Mr. Crosby:: So?


Yvon Pinard: We are doing exactly the same thing now, in dealing with this measure at this time-


An hon. Member:: Shame, shame!


Yvon Pinard: -to demonstrate to our colleagues that it is not a partisan move but a change which is good for them, which is good for us and which is good for everyone. This does not mean that in the future we will not present this in a more elaborate form in due time, so far as the elections act is concerned; but at this time, we thought that this change that was required-


Howard Edward Crosby: Resign!


Yvon Pinard: -by their own government, this change which is required-


Howard Edward Crosby: Resign!


Yvon Pinard: I am sorry. I cannot speak with that hon. member being sick or showing that he does not feel well. He might just go out of the House. However, it is very difficult to speak while someone is roaring like this. It is not my style to-


Howard Edward Crosby: Quit! Quit!


Yvon Pinard: I think the hon. member is feeling better now, Mr. Speaker.


Charles James Mayer: I do not know why, if we are to look at you!


Yvon Pinard: Maybe the hon. member prefers to listen to me through his ear piece. In that case, I will speak in French. [Translation]
I was simply saying that it is a bill which was introduced by his own government and that we are doing the same thing because it is a provision with which all members were in agreement. It seems to me that members opposite do not appear to be very sincere today, as was the case on an earlier day as well as another one just before the Easter recess, when they go on speaking simply to delay the adoption of such a simple bill. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do, and we have already said so, is to cut the much too long 60-day electoral campaign down to 47 days. Once again, this bill had been endorsed by their government. We are presenting the bill at this time because certain members have yet to understand that we must clean up the bills which have accumulated as a result of two elections in less than a year. If it is so simple, if all parties agree and if it was good for their government, then why put up speakers during three days to delay the adoption of this bill on second reading and put off its reference to the appropriate committee?
At this time, I want to appeal to the common sense and intelligence of every member-including the one who is not feeling well-so that the study of this bill will not delay the debate on the next bill concerning the double price of wheat. This is a basic agricultural piece of legislation, and 1 cannot understand how opposition members can find all sorts of excuses to delay a very simple bill, just because they definitely do not want to talk about agriculture in the House and therefore do not want to debate Bill S-6-

-which is called the bill on two-price wheat. Therefore, I do not understand why the hon. member does not want to speak on agriculture in this House or why he is delaying the second reading of this very simple bill on elections. That is why I will not talk much longer.
This bill is good for hon. members opposite. It is good for everyone. It is good for all the people in this country. I ask hon. members on both sides to collaborate in referring this bill to the committee as soon as possible so that later on this evening we can deal with another bill which is related to agriculture and which is very important to the Liberal members in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles James Mayer: Good for Liberal members? Which ones? [Translation]


Yvon Pinard: In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to confirm the business of the House for Thursday-and I am doing it out of courtesy for hon. members opposite so that they can prepare themselves. We are going to consider Bill C-13, Bill C-65 and Bill C-68 in that order.
June 23, 1981



So I repeat to my hon. colleagues that the business for Thursday will be Bill C-13, Bill C-65 and Bill C-68, in that order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. minister permit a question? Is the minister telling us that that is the business, regardless of what happens to Bill C-58 tonight?


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, because I presume there is good faith on the part of all hon. members in this House.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader missed one significant point in his point of order. That was the fact that the situation a year or 18 months ago was much different. We are now in the process of a new redistribution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Just a moment, Mr. Speaker, please.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. These remarks could have been included in the hon. member's speech.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) on a point of order.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the point of order raised by the government House leader, I should like to point out that he mentioned that this bill was good for everybody.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I did not hear the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) rise on a point of order. He rose to speak on the bill before the House. I think the hon. member for Bow River has spoken on the bill, so he cannot have a second round at this time.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking on the bill; I am rising on a point of order. The government is very adept at bringing in closure. Now the President of the Privy Council is trying to tell us to stop talking because this bill is good for everybody. We have a right to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight).


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain to the President of the Privy Council that the reason Bill S-6 is so important to the government is that if it is left out, a considerable amount of money will be owing to the farmers of Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Order, please.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make some remarks on Bill C-58, to amend the Canada Elections Act. Before I commence my address, let me comment briefly on the remarks
Canada Elections Act
of the president of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and reiterate these remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers). He said in very clear terms, and I should like to underline and repeat it, that the bill of the Progressive Conservative government, was introduced under much different circumstances. There was a minority government and an election could have been called at any moment, so it was regarded as a step that ought to be taken. Today, however, we do not contemplate a general election any earlier than two or three years hence so there is a lot of time to consider election measures. There is no comparison between what was proposed by the Progressive Conservative government and what is now taking place in this House.
It is a disservice to this House and to all members for the President of the Privy Council to get up and annoy members on this side as he always seems to do. I want to say to the President of the Privy Council, because I do not always get an opportunity to say such things to him, that if he would deal with matters with a more even and mature hand, the progress of legislation through the House would be much more even. His precipitous statements and actions are a continual annoyance to all members.
We are prepared now, and at all times, to defend our position. In this particular case it is easily defended. The problem started with the Speech from the Throne more than one year ago, when the government of which the President of the Privy Council is a member, said that it would introduce electoral reform and promised a broad-based change in the electoral provisions that apply to this nation. Where are these reforms? One year and several months later, the only electoral reform we have is Bill C-58. This is a minor change but a very important one. Without all the other changes that ought to be made, it is totally meaningless as are most of the statements made by the President of the Privy Council, to my way of thinking.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not mean to annoy the hon. member. If he wants to cool down, I apologize if I offended him. I did not intend to. I just ask him to keep cool and speak to the bill and we will be very happy to listen to him.


Howard Edward Crosby: Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. The pomposity of the hon. member who, I might say, comes from that great province where they automatically elect Liberals to the Parliament of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: -without any question of what their qualities are. I can tell you that the qualities evidenced by the hon. member in this House would not get him elected in most constituencies in Canada. Let him stay in his seat. We have heard enough from him. He has disrupted this House on too many occasions.
Now I shall speak to the bill, Mr. Speaker. The main force and thrust of this bill is very simply a change in the period of time that will elapse between the call of the election and the

June 23, 1981
Canada Elections Act
election day. Specifically, the government proposes to reduce the period from 60 days to 47 days. When we consider the public interest, we can hardly argue with that change because the people of Canada are sick of elections. They are sick of hearing the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) make promise after promise and not keep any. They heard him speak against wage and price controls and then saw him introduce them in this House. They heard him talk about lowering the price of gasoline and keeping it at a proper level and then saw the price of a gallon of gasoline rise beyond any level that any government ever proposed. In that sense, the people of Canada are sick of elections and I can understand that. If they are sick of elections, we can all understand that they would want the period of the election reduced from 60 days to 47 days.
What is the point of the reduction, Mr. Speaker? There are other ways that we could foreclose and cut off the speeches by people like the Prime Minister who promise things that they do not intend to deliver. There are other ways of achieving that, which are different from cutting down the period from 60 days to 47 days. If the President of the Privy Council does not know that, when I am sure the hon. member for Red Deer would be pleased to take him aside and, with his mature wisdom, tell that young man from the province of Quebec that there are other ways to do these things. We do not need to cut down the period of time in which a citizen who aspires to become a member of the Parliament of Canada, may present himself to the public.
What the public is concerned with is the advertising on radio and television. All of that could be cut out without reducing the period that elapses between the call of the election and polling day. I am very disappointed that the President of the Privy Council does not know that.
He asks why this bill should not go through as it is non-partisan, and he points out that it was introduced by the Progressive Conservative government. He should know that it flowed from the bureaucracy. The Chief Electoral Officer sat down one day and decided that he did not like the 60 days and that he was going to write a report and recommend a shorter period. That is very nice for the Chief Electoral Officer but I do not think he wants to become a member of Parliament. There may be people in the country who do and they may need more than 47 days to campaign. It is nice that the Chief Electoral Officer has given some thought to the subject and made a report, but that does not mean that we have to accept his word on the subject.
If we in this Parliament feel that there are other points that ought to be taken into consideration, then that is what we ought to do. We ought not to blindly follow the views expressed by the Chief Electoral Officer, whether or not they are endorsed by the President of the Privy Council.
What is the point of reducing the length of a campaign? The change would really cut down on the campaign techniques and methods that may be used, but there are many other ways that this could be done.
I have reviewed the history of this proposed change and have already indicated that the suggestion came from the Chief
Electoral Officer who made a report in December, 1975. Interestingly enough, his major concern was the cost of printing the preliminary lists of electors which he said at that time would cost about $4 million. Now, in April, May and June of 1981, the Government of Canada is going to reduce the expenditures of the country by $4 million! Thanks a lot to all those taxpayers who have contributed $60 billion to the Government of Canada to spend on all of those programs which they think Canadians need. The government will reduce that by $4 million, so we will not spend $60 billion, we will spend only $59.9 billion and some odd million. I am sure the people of Canada will be duly grateful. What they may not be grateful for is the amount of time in which they have to consider which candidates and which party they ought to elect to the House of Commons. That is what they may not thank you for. Why would they not thank you for that? As those who run for office know, a certain amount of time is needed for candidates to introduce themselves to the electorate, to deal with the issues and to conduct their campaign. It does not mean that they have to be featured on TV. It does not mean they have to advertise in newspapers, periodicals and so on. All of that can be controlled. But why limit the period of time? That is the point of this bill.
The President of the Privy Council, that great man from the province of Quebec who comes here and tells us how to conduct elections, is the one who says we need this reduction in time. I have just one question. How does he know that we Canadians need this reduction in the period of time? Does he know what the situation is in Bow River? Does he know what the situation is in the Yukon? Does he know what the situation is in Prince Edward Island? What in heavens name does he know? Has he even travelled to those places? I have never seen him in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Have you seen him out west? No, but he knows. He is like all of those people over there. Some magical process tells them that they know. They have received a mandate from the people of Canada and they know what to do about all those situations. They know how to handle them. They know what to do. That is grand. But I do not have that kind of arrogance. I do not have that kind of pomposity which tells me I know what is good for the people of Canada.
I say if you have a provision in the statutes of the Parliament of Canada which affects all the people of Canadas, like the Canada Elections Act does, you have to be very careful about changing it. It is nice that the Chief Electoral Officer has looked at it and said, "We can save money by shortening the period." That is very good and that is a point in their favour.
How far has the government gone? Has the government consulted with the people? Has the government asked the people whether they want the period of elections shortened? I do not think the government has done anything like that. I think people have sat in the back rooms of government and made this decision for the people of Canada.

I am here to say without any trepidation that I reject that. If the government can tell me that the people of Canada want this change, I would be the first to join with the government to support this bill. The government has not done that. The government has not vetted this provision. The government has not asked the people of Canada, and the government does not know whether or not this change is desired across Canada. What is more important, the government has had all kinds of time to ask the people of Canada. The government can do it with the electoral reform commissions promised in the Speech from the Throne over a year ago. This promise has not been delivered. The government has all kinds of time and resources. The government can go across this country and ask the people of Canada what they want in the way of electoral reform. The simple question can be asked: do you want this period reduced or not? Why would the people of Canada want the period reduced? They want to see the candidates. They want to see the leaders. They want to hear the comments. They want to consider all of the factors that go into making up the vote in an election. Therefore, let us consult with the people. Let us take our time. Let us not get carried away with a bill that was introduced in the House of Commons a year or two ago by another government, recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer. Who the heck cares about the Chief Electoral Officer? Who is he? He is one man.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He was appointed.


Howard Edward Crosby: There is the word, he was appointed by this House. He is not appointed by the people of Canada. Anytime we have the opportunity to consult with the people of Canada on the issue, which is an issue which belongs to the people, that is their issue and, that is what we should do. We should never rely on one man, be he Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Speaker, or the President of the Privy Council, particularly with the attitude that man has who holds that office.
The government has promised electoral reform. No one asked the government for electoral reform. There was not a plebiscite; there was not a referendum. The government in the Speech from the Throne offered the people of Canada electoral reform. The government comes up with Bill C-58, which merely reduces the time that elapses between the issuance of the writ and the date of the election and makes the other mechanical actions, the preparation of the voters lists and so on, conform with that period of time.
Let me tell the government and the President of the Privy Council about some aspects of electoral reform. What about the number of seats following an election? What is the government going to do about that? Is that going to be put aside or put off to another day while we deal with this minor electoral reform? What about the financial provisions? Are the government and the people of Canada satisfied with that? Are they not concerned with the party that can produce the most money and win the most seats? Is this not a factor that should be vetted? What about swearing in urban voters? If you live in the city and are not on the voters list, you do not get the
Canada Elections Act
notice, and if you do not get the notice, you do not know that you are not on the voters list and you lose your right to vote. What are you going to do about urban voters and swearing them in during an election? Why would there be this discrimination and discrepancy between urban and rural voters? All of us in this Parliament support not the urban voters and not the rural voters, but the voters of Canada. We all think they should have equal rights. What is the government going to do about that? Let us see a bill dealing with that subject.
What about two enumerators in urban polls? How much would it cost? It is 282 times whatever it costs for an urban voter. The people of Canada spend that amount of money, but in rural areas they do not need to. They need only one enumerator. Who made that decision? I do not think the member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) had any part in that decision. I do not think most members in this House had any part in that decision. Surely that is a matter we should look at and reconsider. We should question whether it is right or proper to have two urban enumerators and one rural enumerator. Where is your bill on that, Mr. President of the Privy Council?
What about time of voting from east to west? What a ludicrous provision that is. You can turn on your radio in British Columbia and find out three hours before you vote what the result is in eastern Canada, Nova Scotia and now half an hour earlier in Newfoundland. We all know about that. What are you doing about that? Is that right? Should a person in British Columbia know in advance what the vote is? What about time? Are you going to do anything about that?


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry that I have to interrupt the hon. member because he seems to be quite wound up this evening. I was going to call for relevance but there is a point that I think is quite valid. There is a bill before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections dealing with the electoral clock. My understanding of the rules tells me that it is improper for an hon. member to talk about a matter which is currently before another forum of this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I am sure the parliamentary secretary is referring to the rule of relevancy. I am sure that members of his House appreciate and accept the fact that the rules have been stretched quite a bit, especially on this bill, by all members. The bill is very narrow in scope. At the beginning of the debate I invited members to keep their discussion to the shortening of the election period. However, there has been argument from both sides stretching parts of the bill. It is a matter of members criticizing the bill and saying that another bill should be before the House. I think that is what the hon. member was doing.


Howard Edward Crosby: The government members are hurting over a few remarks I made. I do not speak that often in this House. It is reassuring that I can get to them in that way. Obviously if I were just palavering and swarming over these provisions and

Canada Elections Act
wasting time, they would not get up. However, they are hurting. They do not want these reforms that I have listed. They do not want to deal with the time of voting, the official count, two enumerators, swearing in urban voters, financial positions and the number of seats in the House of Commons, so I will pass over that. I will not embarrass them further with that. Let me just say this in conclusion. This bill, as I said at the outset, reduces the election period, but it does it in a way that is discriminating between the voters of Canada. Why? Because it continues that difference between urban voters and rural voters.
That ought not to happen. Why? Because those members across the way who are so certain of their position in relation to the electorate of Canada, so sure that they are the guardians of the rights of the people of Canada, have guaranteed a right to the people of Canada, that is the right that every citizen has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons. They put that in the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms which they put through this House with all the power and authority of a majority government but without the consent and concurrence of the people of Canada.
The government says that everybody has the right to vote. Then what does it do? With the Canada Elections Act and this amendment the government says it is a little different, it is not exactly just the right to vote, but the right to vote in a certain way in an urban area and a right to vote in a certain way in a rural area. If you live in an urban area, you can only vote if you are registered and get on the list, but if you live in a rural area and can get on the list after. Therefore, the charter of rights that the government brought before the House of Commons and across Canada to make everybody equal is not going to make them equal just like that. It is going to be a little equal and different.
That is what the government is bringing before this House. It is going to perpetuate the difference that now exists even though the whole thrust and purpose of the constitutional resolution is to remove differences and to remove discrimination. There is no intention of removing discrimination, and the electoral law is one example. The government does not intend to remove discrimination for handicapped persons or with regard to regional disparities. It is all window dressing. The government in interested in fooling the people of Canada. It fooled them once on wage and price controls and it fooled them once on gasoline prices. It wants to fool them again on election provisions, but we are here to stop that.


Yvon Pinard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member will permit a question. I know he will because he is a very wise man. He does not like the shortening of the electoral period by 13 days from 60 days to 47 days. By how many days would he like to see the electoral period shortened?


Howard Edward Crosby: I am glad the President of the Privy Council has asked me that question. I have a summary here of all the election periods right across Canada. They go from 28 to 35 and beyond. What I want to say to the President of the Privy
Council is that it is the date that the people of Canada think is appropriate after they consider all the factors and a general electoral reform under the auspices of the kind of commission and committee that the government proposed in its Speech from the Throne. What I say very simply so that he can understand is: let him consult the people of Canada. They will tell him what period of time is appropriate. He does not need to ask us or anybody else.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I must first apologize to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) for the demotion I gave him when I referred to him as parliamentary secretary. I can understand the minister's rush to bring in Bill S-6 because it is legally binding upon the government to pay an additional $ 125 million to farmers in the Canadian Wheat Board area. As long as it sits there, the government is encumbered by that. Therefore, I can understand his concern that it be brought forward quickly.
I would like in the time allotted to me to address briefly members who do not have large rural ridings. Members from metro areas can go into an apartment block with a team and spend most of the afternoon there. My constituency measures
18,000	square miles. It is not the largest in Canada. Some members in the government benches and some of my colleagues have larger constituencies.


Erik Nielsen: You better believe it.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I hear some bemoaning the fact that theirs are larger. In a constituency structured like mine in rural Saskatchewan, there are no large centres. About every 12 miles there is a village of 40 to 50 people. Occasionally you come across a larger village of 500 people. Therefore, unlike the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), I cannot fly from point to point. There is no point in flying six or 12 miles. In that type of constituency it is necessary that members travel by road in order to communicate with the voters.
As an incumbent members of Parliament, I guess I should welcome this bill. In a constituency structured like mine, it offers a large advantage over someone wanting to become known. I will give just a little bit of history. I began campaigning in 1978 for the 1979 election. I had as opponents a member of Parliament who had been defeated in 1974, and a newly nominated candidate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.
June 23, 1981



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 15, 1981, when the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation appeared before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, I renewed my question concerning the CBC plans to build a production centre in Toronto. Mr. Johnson's reply was as follows:
That until there is an indication of a commitment of funds from the government for the construction of the Toronto broadcasting facility, which would be the equivalent of the one that was built in Montreal quite some time ago, we frankly have not been committing funds. There just is no money in the budget for Toronto consolidation and I am unable to predict to you when that money will be made available by government.
One week later, on Friday, May 22, 1981, I pursued the same subject with the government when I rose in the House to ask the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) what steps his department has taken, or plans to take, toward the construction of a Toronto production centre. The reply I received was that:
It is up to the CBC to make recommendations to cabinet.
Thus we unfortunately have the present situation where both the federal government and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are shunning the responsibility to each other on who is exactly responsible for the long overdue establishment of a production centre in Toronto similar to those already in operation in Montreal, Vancouver and the one soon to be established in Regina.
Before I pursue this matter again in the House I would like to add some facts of which I assume most Canadians are not aware.
During my recent tour of the 23 CBC buildings in Toronto at 19 different sites, I found the conditions and facilities to be absolutely appalling. To even think of the millions of dollars spent each and every year renovating these buildings with accoustics, lighting and other necessities is enough to give one indigestion. Can you just imagine the nightmare and waste of valuable manpower running from one building to another with tapes and scripts? It is a real struggle to co-ordinate the services of the CBC in Toronto with these facilities spread over such a large physical setting.
Further, it must be noted that the present situation, difficult as it is, is becoming much worse, especially when one considers that three-quarters of the space presently occupied by the CBC in Toronto is leased, and much of this rental accommodation is to come up for renewal. Given the present market
Adjournment Debate
conditions for rental space in downtown Toronto there is little doubt, if any, that the new rental leases will be sky high.
How is the CBC expected to develop or even maintain high quality programs when more and more of its budget is being eroded by rental expenses? Put simply, the CBC has become a victim of the marketplace where increases in budget are not keeping up with the increases in recent expenses, thus forcing many of the facilities into second and third-rate rental space, further away from each building.
I am not here to advocate a mere building to house all of the CBC's facilities in Toronto under one roof. Rather, I am here to urge the government and Canadians to develop the concept of establishing a world class broadcasting centre in Toronto on a 9.5 acre site adjacent to the CN Tower, presently owned by the CBC. This is a reality which would physically and symbolically meet the CBC's production needs as a world leader in radio and television broadcasting, as well as signal an international identity to the world in the fact that Canada celebrates its cultural wealth in architectural design, technology, production, craftsmanship, arts, innovation and imagination.
Toronto and Canada have many of the world's finest writers, producers and performers, and to deny Canadians this celebration is to deny them the cultivation of our human creative resources and culture.
It is here that I would like to drive home another concept, that is that, as Canadians we should not limit our options to traditional government capital expenditures of money. Rather, we should be exploring options and possibilities for the marriage of both public and private enterprises in bringing about this realization and celebration of the Canadian cultural dream.
Let me return to some of my earlier statements this evening. When I put the question in the House to the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications, "What is the government planning to do about such a facility?", the answer I received from him was that it is up to the CBC to decide whether or not it wants to build such a facility. When I asked that question of the CBC, it pawned off the responsibility to the government, and when I asked it of the government, it pawned off the responsibility to the CBC.
Therefore, I would like to know tonight once and for all just who is responsible for making that decision, when will it be made and what are the costs involved? If it is too costly to begin construction immediately, then surely we as Canadians should be putting so much aside each year so that two years, three years, or even five years down the line we will have the necessary elements and the necessary capital put together to build a CBC production centre in Toronto similar to the kind that Montreal, Vancouver and Regina boast.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has its main English language facilities located in some 22 different buildings scattered across Toronto, some of which are badly substandard. Over the years,

June 23, 1981
Adjournment Debate
the CBC has imaginatively overcome some of the compromises of this situation. However, the optimum solution has long been recognized as being a consolidation of facilities. In fact, the CBC purchased a prime site on Front Street in 1978 and developed plans for a consolidation.
As the minister has stated, estimates for the construction of a new CBC facility on this site range from $235 million to $250 million, which by any standard is a considerable sum of money. A capital outlay of this magnitude must be considered in relation to the total level of CBC's parliamentary appropriation, which includes some $60 million for capital projects. As hon. members know, the CBC is required by Parliament to serve all Canadians, which it does according to an independent evaluation, with a level of efficiency which exceeds that of most other state-operated broadcasting services in other countries.
With this in mind, one could ask whether the CBC could devote the entirety of its capital budget to a single major project, such as a consolidation of Toronto facilities, and still maintain the same level of excellent service across Canada. I think it is clear that CBC management is doing its utmost to balance its obligation to provide both a high level of regional programming as well as quality radio and television programming for national audiences.
To enhance the CBC's ability to "serve the special needs of geographic regions", as the Broadcasting Act directs, the government has recently approved a new CBC broadcast facility for Regina, Saskatchewan. This major facility, to be located in the Wascana Centre, will entail three television studios, nine radio studios, plus associated production and administrative areas. It is a project which will cost over $16 million and will significantly improve the corporation's English and French radio and TV service in that province. Similarly, in Newfoundland the government has approved the construction of a new broadcast facility for Grand Falls.
Meanwhile, as a fellow Torontonian I share the hon. member's concern for the difficult circumstances under which the CBC now operates in our city. Currently, the CBC must lease the majority of its Toronto accommodation. As the hon. member stated, the economic situation is different now from what it was a short time ago. The cost of rental accommodation in Toronto is going up and terms for lease agreements are becoming shorter. The CBC is naturally concerned about this situation and has been exploring possible solutions.
Therefore, the CBC recently approached the government with a proposal to lease new facilities in Toronto. The intent of this project is to consolidate under one roof some of the activities presently undertaken at separate locations in the city such as editing facilities, variety production, computing facilities, etc. I think it goes without saying that a higher degree of physical proximity will aid operational efficiency of those units involved. Secondly, it will enable the CBC to vacate some of its current premises which are substandard. Clearly, it is with these objectives in mind that the government has approved this new undertaking which, at least for the immediate future, will facilitate CBC's operations in Toronto which are so vital both
to the service it provides in southern Ontario and to much of the English language programming seen and heard nationally.


HOUSING-(A) MEASURES TO HELP HOME OWNERS FACING
[Stage Direction]
INCREASED MORTGAGE PAYMENTS; (B) SUPPORT FOR CO-OP PROJECTS; (C) BANKS' PROFITS ON PROPERTY TAX COMPONENT OF MORTGAGE PAYMENTS
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, you do not know how I have to fight off the temptation to give the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) some additional information about CBC that the departmental answer did not provide. However, I have to go on to the question that I have.
It concerns questions I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a week ago regarding social housing. June is the month when probably half the mortgages in Canada will be renewed, and CMHC estimates there will be 500,000 thousands mortgages renewed in Canada this year. That affects about two million people, Mr. Speaker, and I think it would be conservative to estimate that the mortgage payments will increase anywhere from 30 per cent to 45 per cent and more for those families.
This means the mortgage payments on their houses will increase by $300 to $400 per month, which is the equivalent of their grocery budgets. But their salaries have not increased to meet this, so the squeeze will be on them. I might add that this affects all families from the young ones to senior citizens.
I asked the Prime Minister about social housing or the development of co-operative housing. A developer told me not long ago that the best deal for low-income families today was co-operative housing. When a developer tells me this, I know there is a serious problem in the housing industry, particularly in the greater Vancouver area. The Prime Minister fluffed off that one too.
Just last week I talked with a person who was trying to negotiate a project which would provide housing for handicapped low and middle-income families in the south Surrey-White Rock area, but the minister had already declared that the greater Vancouver area would not get more housing units this year. Thus, there was no sense in even trying to negotiate a project which was vitally needed in the area. The Prime Minister did not want to intervene on that one either.
Finally I asked the Prime Minister about the policy of banks and large lending institutions in Canada whereby they collect the money for property taxes as part of the mortgage payments. I have no quarrel with that arrangement; I have done it for many years. It is a good arrangement for home owners- while they make their mortgage payments, they pay extra money each month to pay for their property taxes. The banks offer a good service to home owners which enables them to make the property tax payments.
Something which I had not noticed before came to my attention last week. The banks pay 3 per cent on the property
June 23, 1981

tax component of the mortgage payment. Property owners do not have to do it through the banks. They can set up their own trust accounts and do it on the side, but the banks do not advertise this very thoroughly and most of the time property owners assume that it is part of the procedure. Again I say it is a good service, I have no quarrel with it, except that the banks are paying 3 per cent. This is less than 20 per cent of the going rate. I think the parliamentary secretary will agree that one can now get 16 per cent to 17.5 per cent on a certificate, yet banks are paying only 3 per cent on the property tax component of mortgage payments.
If one million mortgages are being held by the banks on which they are collecting the property tax component, and if we cut in half the $1,000 or $2,000 they are collecting in property taxes to arrive at the average amount they are holding on behalf of property owners, we arrive at $500 million at 3 per cent. Therefore the banks are paying out to property owners $15 million per year. However, if they paid the going rate or even 15 per cent, which is below the going rate, they would be required to pay $75 million. This means that the banks made unearned profits of $60 million, which is a very low estimate, on the mortgages they are holding for property owners.
As I said the other day, it is unconscionable. The Prime Minister said that he would refer the matter to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and that the Minister of Finance would go to the banks and the lending institutions to make representations to them on that matter. I guess the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bockstael) will read the departmental answer tonight. Am I correct?


Mr. Bockstael:: Yes.


Benno Friesen: I wish to know two things, Mr. Speaker. First, did the Prime Minister refer that matter to the Minister of Finance and, in turn, did the Minister of Finance make a representation to the national banks? Second, what have the banks said, if in fact that has happened? What answer have those banks given to the Minister of Finance? Will they stop ripping off the property owners who are facing enough of a squeeze as a result of the escalation in mortgage payments? Will home owners receive some kind of return on the dollars invested which will be in some way relevant to the kind of payments being made on all other kinds of savings accounts, loans certificates etc? What does the parliamentary secretary have to say? Has that representation been made?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment further on the matters raised by the hon. member on June 17.
With respect to the home owners who face possible foreclosure because of increased mortgage payments due to high interest rates, I should like to point out that the lending industry has indicated to both the minister and his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), a willingness to bend over backward to help those experiencing serious difficul-
Adjournment Debate
ties in meeting their mortage payments on renewal. I believe such cases can and are being given sympathetic consideration by the lenders. It is, after all, in their interest to avoid foreclosure.
As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, last year the federal government extended assistance to home owners who received contributions when they bought their houses in 1975 under the Assisted Home Ownership Program, known as AHOP. In March of this year the government agreed to continue to apply the extended assistance to qualifying AHOP home owners. The maximum amount available to a home owner is $1,500 a year, up from last year's limit of $750.
In response to the hon. member's query and support for co-op projects, I agree that this form of housing has proven to be an effective way of providing adequate and affordable family housing. Last year the federal government allocated
5,000	social housing units for municipalities experiencing an acute shortage of rental accommodation. The minister is looking into the feasibility of increasing the unit allocation to such tight market locations this year.
The hon. member raised the question of profits made by banks on the property tax component of mortgage payments. 1 should like to point out that the mortgage form prescribed by the national housing loan regulations requires approved lenders under the National Housing Act to pay property taxes on behalf of borrowers. Officials of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation are presently reviewing the problem that current interest rates have created with respect to the interest allowable on tax deposits provided for in NHA mortgages, with a view to determining if this policy should be revised.


MARINE TRANSPORT-WITHDRAWAL OF DART CONTAINERLINE SERVICE FROM HALIFAX-DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, the matter I wish to raise this evening relates back to February and March of 1981. It concerns the decision of the Dart shipping group to move its container service from the Port of Halifax to the Port of Montreal in connection with a proposed liaison between the Dart shipping group and Canadian Pacific Limited.
In specific terms, on March 4, 1981, I questioned the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) with respect to the involvement of the Canadian National Railway Company in the operations of the Cast shipping group, which I considered, and which many in the Port of Halifax considered, to be interinvolved with the decision of the Dart shipping group to remove its operation to the Port of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, one of the problems which has occurred in the last few years in relation to the North Atlantic container traffic is the competition which has driven many of the marine transportation companies out of business. It is apparent that there has been a consolidation of the marine transport service amongst a few international operators. One of these international operators is the organization which is apparently headed

Adjournment Debate
by a Canadian citizen who lives abroad, and who operates the Cast shipping group.
The decision of the Canadian National Railway Company, endorsed by the Government of Canada, to invest over $60 million in the Cast shipping group, has given the impression to the international marine transport companies that the Cast shipping group has the backing of the Canadian government. It was only reasonable then that the Dart shipping group, as well as other international marine transport companies, would seek to protect themselves from this kind of special deal which was provided by the Government of Canada through its agency, the Canadian National Railway Company.
Therefore, with that motivation in mind, the province of Nova Scotia, and other persons who were interested in the port of Halifax, sought the assistance of the Minister of Transport in reviewing the decision which was made by the Dart group and the Canadian Pacific Railway whereby the container service was removed, as I have said, from the port of Halifax to the port of Montreal. In specific terms, what the premier of the province of Nova Scotia asked the Minister of Transport to do was to hold an inquiry at which all of the factors which were relevant to this kind of decision-making would be reviewed.
The Minister of Transport indicated in this House of Commons and elsewhere that the whole matter could be reviewed by the Canadian Transport Commission at a hearing which was required under the National Transportation Act, because Canadian Pacific Limited, being a transport company, sought to acquire an interest in Dart.
That hearing was held last week in the city of Halifax; but unfortunately, at the very outset of the hearing it was stated in categorical terms by the representative of the Canadian Pacific Limited, that nothing will stop Dart's move to the port of Montreal. Consequently, Nova Scotians, from the premier of Nova Scotia right across to those interested in the port of Halifax and all citizens, were very disappointed because there was no way that this whole decision could be reviewed.
We have repercussions because in the U.S. Congress and before a committee of the United States Congress objections have been raised to the operation of the Cast shipping group. It has been described as a James Bond company, robbing traffic from U.S. marine carriers and taking them to Canadian ports. On the face of it, there might seem to be some advantages for Canada; but after all, we are a very small country dealing with the United States goliath.
I can guarantee Your Honour and all hon. members of this House that if the United States retaliates against these predatory moves by the Cast shipping group, which are said to have the support of the Government of Canada, and are said in that congressional hearing to be a flag carrier of Canada, it will be a disaster for the Canadian marine industry. It will be a disaster because the United States has that kind of power, so much so that our Canadian embassy had to send a diplomatic note asking that a bill proposed by the Congress of the United States to enact these measures which would protect the U.S. marine industry be delayed and not passed by the Congress.
This is the kind of problem that arises from the government's involvement. Encouraging Dart to move from the port of Halifax to the port of Montreal not only affects the port of Halifax, it has international repercussions as well. If allegations have been made, they must be answered by the Minister of Transport. The only way they can be properly answered is at a full hearing. We can review the whole marine transportation industry in relation to container traffic and get the answers-not only the answers necessary to protect the port of Halifax from the predatory moves of the port of Montreal, but also the answers that will stave off the criticism now being vented in the United States and which could have very serious repercussions.
The Minister of Transport has a serious obligation in this area. I can understand how he would seek to protect the port of Montreal by writing off $230 million in debts and by providing millions of dollars worth of infrastructure for that port, but by doing so he is going to create an international controversy and wreak havoc in the marine industry in Canada.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, on March 4 the hon. member asked the minister what he would do to equalize the treatment of the ports of Halifax and Montreal. At that time, and on several subsequent occasions in the House, the minister tried to show that it is impossible to demonstrate that one port is favoured over another. For each example of an advantage for Montreal, one can easily cite an advantage for Halifax.
I can understand the hon. member's reasons for bringing this issue up again. He has just attended hearings by the Canadian Transport Commission into CP's acquisition of one third of Dart Containerline. Given that the CTC has not yet rendered a decision, it would not be appropriate to comment on the submissions.
But I think that, in his concern for the port of Halifax, he has lost sight of the fundamental commercial reality of the situation. Dart and CP arranged this deal so that they could begin using larger, more fuel-efficient container ships in their service to Europe. He claims that government policies caused the move from Halifax. I suggest that government policies were quite incidental to the move, and in any case, it cannot be proven that the port of Montreal is favoured.
The minister made it quite clear that interested parties had several opportunities to state their cases. In Halifax last week, the hon. member had one such opportunity. It will be up to the CTC to determine if his intervention was relevant.
In a previous answer, the minister stated that the Premier of Nova Scotia and all other interested parties would have three opportunities to bring the subject forward in the coming months. Under section 33 of the act they could have an inquiry into the acquisition by CP ships of part of the Dart Company, and under section 27 of the act they could intervene if the CN should decide to increase its ownership of CAST in the coming
June 23, 1981

months. There are two, and possibly three opportunities for members and the Premier of Nova Scotia to make an intervention on the subject of freight rates that he contends will be increased by the CNR.
Rather than painting a dark picture of his home town, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be promoting it. He should be describing the active marketing of the port by Halterm and Ceres. He should be noting the new transshipment arrangements in Halifax by a large Puerto Rican line, and he should
Adjournment Debate
be announcing that the Polish ocean line, a new caller at the port, intends to double its visits to Halifax, starting in 1982. That is the sort of news that will give Halifax the good name it deserves!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Thursday at 2 p.m.
At 10.29 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 25, 1981